Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland

Transcription

1 House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland First Report of Session Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 July 2013 HC 51 [Incorporating HC 922 i-iv, Session ] Published on 17 July 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited 20.00

2 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Northern Ireland Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel). Current membership Mr Laurence Robertson MP (Conservative, Tewkesbury) (Chair) Mr David Anderson MP (Labour, Blaydon) Mr Joe Benton MP (Labour, Bootle) Oliver Colvile MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) Mr Stephen Hepburn MP (Labour, Jarrow) Lady Hermon MP (Independent, North Down) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Naomi Long MP (Alliance, Belfast East) Jack Lopresti MP (Conservative, Filton and Bradley Stoke) Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP (SDLP, Belfast South) Nigel Mills MP (Conservative, Amber Valley) Ian Paisley MP (DUP, North Antrim) Andrew Percy MP (Conservative, Brigg and Goole) David Simpson MP (DUP, Upper Bann) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at Current Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mike Clark (Clerk), Duma Langton (Inquiry Manager), Edward Faulkner (Senior Committee Assistant), Ravi Abhayaratne (Committee Support Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is ; the Committee s address is northircom@parliament.uk.

3 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 The Armed Forces Covenant 5 Our inquiry 6 2 Implementation across the UK 7 Annual Report on the Covenant 7 3 Barriers to implementation in Northern Ireland? 9 Equality legislation 9 Political considerations 13 Personal security 15 4 The current situation in Northern Ireland 16 Assessment of disadvantage to the Armed Forces in NI 16 Armed Forces organisations in Northern Ireland 17 Measures put in place by Northern Ireland Departments 19 Healthcare, housing and education issues 21 Housing and homelessness 21 Healthcare 22 Education 24 The Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service 25 Engagement by HM Government 26 Comparisons with Scotland and Wales 27 5 Future progress 28 Improved engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive 28 Role of HM Government 29 Projects to support the Armed Forces Community 30 Drop-in centres 30 Provision of information 31 Veterans Treatment Courts 32 Insurance cover 32 Community Covenants 33 Debate on the Armed Forces Covenant 33 6 Conclusion 34 Conclusions and recommendations 35 Annex Meetings held in Washington DC, June Appendix Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act

4 2 Optional header Formal Minutes 47 Witnesses 48 List of printed written evidence 49 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 50

5 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 3 Summary The Armed Forces Covenant was published in May 2011, and set out the relationship between the people of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty s Government and the Armed Forces Community. The Covenant stressed the moral obligation the nation has to the Armed Forces Community, and stated that members of the Armed Forces Community should not be disadvantaged as a result of service and that, in certain cases, special consideration was appropriate. HM Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have published detailed reports outlining the support offered to the Armed Forces Community, and how the Covenant is being implemented in England, Scotland and Wales. As yet, no such report has been produced by the Northern Ireland Executive. As part of our inquiry we have looked at areas where progress has been made in Northern Ireland in relation to the Armed Forces Covenant, and areas where more needs to be done. Mechanisms which have been put in place which work well and are in keeping with the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant include: the Northern Ireland Department for Health, Social Security and Public Safety s protocol for ensuring equitable access to health and social care services for the Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces Liaison Forum that was set up to support it, and the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service, which delivers bespoke support services to veterans of these regiments and is highly valued by the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland. Due to devolution, there is variation across the regions of the UK in relation to the provision of health, housing and education. There are some specific benefits that exist in Great Britain but are not available in Northern Ireland, including improved access to IVF treatment, priority in accessing NHS healthcare, additional priority in accessing social housing, and certain educational entitlements. However, the evidence we received from Armed Forces charities and the Commander of 38 (Irish) Brigade indicated that local solutions could be found in most cases where the above differences affected members of the Armed Forces Community, and that there was no significant disadvantage to veterans who chose to settle in Northern Ireland. We were also told by Ministers from HM Government that they were working with various Northern Ireland departments to make progress on a number of the issues above. There are still a number of areas where improvements could be made. We have made recommendations which include the following: HM Government should respond to the identified needs of the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland, and report on how these will be met;

6 4 Optional header The MoD should approach individual Northern Ireland departments for contributions to future Annual Reports on the Armed Forces Covenant, so that the Secretary of State for Defence can report on progress in Northern Ireland, and on those areas where more needs to be done; and The NIO and MoD should work with the Northern Ireland Executive towards the appointment of a representative from the Executive to the Covenant Reference Group. In this report, conclusions are printed in bold and recommendations are printed in bold italics.

7 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 5 1 Introduction The Armed Forces Covenant 1. The Armed Forces Covenant was published in May 2011 and set out the relationship between the people of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty s Government and the Armed Forces Community. It stressed the moral obligation the nation had to the Armed Forces Community, made up of serving and former members of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families. Specifically, the Covenant stated: Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved. 1 (Emphasis supplied) The Covenant identified fifteen themes within its scope, which included: Healthcare, Education, Housing, Benefits and Tax, Commercial Products and Services, Transition and Support After-Service. Many of these services are provided by the UK s devolved administrations, thereby making delivery of the Covenant a matter equally for HM Government and the respective devolved administrations. 2. We unreservedly endorse the key principles of the Armed Forces Covenant: members of the Armed Forces Community should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens, and special consideration may be appropriate in some cases. 3. The Covenant is recognised in the Armed Forces Act 2011, which cites the principles laid out in the Covenant, and which created a statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to produce an Annual Report outlining progress on the Armed Forces Covenant. 2 The then Secretary of State for Defence, Rt Hon Liam Fox MP, described the thinking behind recognising the principles of the Covenant in law when he announced the Covenant in May 2011, stating: In deciding how best to recognise the covenant in law, the Government have had to maintain a careful balance. On the one hand, we do not want to see the chain of command undermined or the military permanently involved in human rights cases in the European courts. On the other, we must ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the wider service community, the armed forces charities and the British public for our armed forces are met. We believe that a sensible way forward one that will give the right kind of legal basis to the armed forces covenant for the first time in our history is to enshrine the 1 The Armed Forces Covenant, May The relevant section of the Armed Forces Act 2011 is included with this Report as an Appendix.

8 6 principles in law, provide a regular review of the policies that will make them a reality, ensure that Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that review through the annual report, and ensure that the report itself is widely informed, consultative and transparent. I believe that it is right for the Government to be held to account on delivering the principles underpinning the covenant by this House, and not by the European Courts. 3 Our inquiry 4. We announced our inquiry into The implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland on 13 December We agreed to take into account the progress made so far in implementing the Covenant in England, in Scotland and in Wales, and would examine progress in its implementation in Northern Ireland, including: links between the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland and Departments of the NI Executive; barriers to progress, statutory or otherwise, in implementing the Covenant; the level of co-ordination between the NI Executive, the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and other relevant HM Government Departments; and the absence of NI representation on the Covenant Reference Group. Our inquiry has focused particularly on veterans in Northern Ireland. 5. We have taken evidence from witnesses including Armed Forces charities, representatives of Service Personnel, organisations concerned with the equality framework in Northern Ireland, Ministers from the Northern Ireland departments responsible for health and social housing, and Ministers from the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office. A full list of the witnesses who gave evidence is included in this Report. We also held a number of meetings in Washington DC. 4 We are grateful to all those who contributed to our inquiry, whether by giving oral evidence, informal briefings or submitting written memoranda. 3 HC Deb 16 May 2011, c26 4 See the Annex for a note of meetings held in Washington DC relevant to this inquiry.

9 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 7 2 Implementation across the UK 6. Significant progress has been made in implementing the Armed Forces Covenant throughout Great Britain. Progress made on the implementation of the Covenant across the UK was outlined by HM Government in both the Interim Report and first Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant. The Scottish and the Welsh Governments have also published comprehensive reports of the support they provide to the Armed Forces Community, and have appointed Armed Forces Advocates to sit on the Covenant Reference Group, which contributes to the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant. 7. We have received mixed evidence, however, about the level of progress that has been made on implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mike Penning MP, who carries particular responsibility for its implementation in Northern Ireland, told us: around about 93% it is very difficult to be exactly precise, but about 93% of the Covenant is being delivered on a regular basis within the Province. 5 On the other hand, the written submission from the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee (NIVAPC), a statutory body established by HM Government to support veterans in Northern Ireland, took a less positive view of progress, stating: There is a perceived lack of movement with regards to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. Some Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly use Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act to veto any attempt to implement the AFC and some others use it as an excuse to do nothing, This should not mean that we should do nothing as this leaves the Service and Ex-Service Communities in Northern Ireland at a disadvantage to the rest of the United Kingdom. 6 The NIVAPC judged Northern Ireland not to have made the same progress as has been made in Great Britain in two areas in particular: failure to appoint an Armed Forces Advocate to represent Northern Ireland on the Covenant Reference Group, and not endorsing the principles outlined in the Covenant. Annual Report on the Covenant 8. As required by the Armed Forces Act 2011, the Ministry of Defence published the first statutory Report on the Armed Forces Covenant on 6 December The Report, compiled in consultation with the Covenant Reference Group (which brings together officials from across Government with Service charities and the Families Federations), considered the key principles of the Covenant and progress made towards its implementation across the United Kingdom. The Armed Forces Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State for Defence to seek the views of any relevant devolved administration 5 Q423 6 Ev 98 7 The Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2012, December 2012

10 8 when preparing the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant. 8 There is, however, no statutory obligation for the devolved administrations to contribute to the Annual Report. 9. The first Annual Report stated that the Welsh Government Package of Support for the Armed Forces Community in Wales had been launched in November 2011, and the Scottish Government had published a report, Scottish Government support for the Armed Forces Community in Scotland, on 5 September 2012, each of which had set out its respective Government s actions so far as well as its future commitments. As for Northern Ireland, the Report stated: For this year s annual report, the views of the Northern Ireland Executive have been sought but not obtained. Where services are provided by the MOD, these are provided consistently throughout the UK. There appeared to be a definite note of regret as the Report stated: In contrast to Scotland and Wales, it has not been possible to make the same progress in building support for and delivering the Armed Forces Covenant from within the Northern Ireland Executive. The suggestion that the Covenant could provide preferential access to cross-government services for serving and former members of the Armed Forces could be seen as running counter to their strict equalities legislation. We will continue to make the case for the Northern Ireland Executive to adopt the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant where it is possible to do so. 10. We welcome the work undertaken by the Scottish and the Welsh Governments on implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Scotland and in Wales, in particular the comprehensive reports they have published on Government support available to the Armed Forces Community. We regret, as it would appear does the Ministry of Defence, that the Northern Ireland Executive has not yet published a similar report. 8 Armed Forces Act 2011, Section 2, Para 4

11 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 9 3 Barriers to implementation in Northern Ireland? 11. We heard from a number of witnesses that the political and legal situation in Northern Ireland meant the Armed Forces Covenant had not been able to be implemented there in the same way as throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The two main issues raised by witnesses were the possibility that the equality framework in Northern Ireland was in conflict with giving special consideration to the Armed Forces Community, and that certain members of the Northern Ireland Executive were not necessarily sympathetic to the principles or implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. The Royal British Legion s written memorandum made the point that the historical and legislative backdrop in Northern Ireland created a different situation in relation to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant. 9 This position was supported by the MoD: The delivery of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland requires a different approach from the rest of the United Kingdom [...] It is important that the unique security, legislative and political context in Northern Ireland is considered and that appropriate governance mechanisms are in place to ensure that support is delivered effectively. The existing network in support of the Covenant in Northern Ireland is working well and, while there is always scope for further improvements, the ends articulated in the Covenant are being increasingly met We accept that the different political and legal situation in Northern Ireland, compared to Great Britain, makes issues relating to the Armed Forces delicate and potentially contentious. However, this should not mean that the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland should be disadvantaged either compared with other groups there, or when compared to that community elsewhere in the UK, beyond that variation which would be expected under normal devolution. Equality legislation 13. A number of witnesses raised concerns that certain equality legislation in Northern Ireland had been cited as a barrier to implementation of aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, 11 but the evidence we received both from equality organisations in Northern Ireland and HM Government was that this did not, in fact, represent a significant issue. 12 The principle that the Armed Forces Community should not be disadvantaged as a result of military service was particularly noted by many as entirely in keeping with the equality framework in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the first Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant did state in its introduction that in Northern Ireland the suggestion that the Covenant could provide preferential access to cross- 9 Ev Ev Ev Qq 105, 372, 393, 461

12 10 government services for serving and former members of the Armed Forces could be seen as running counter to their strict equalities legislation. 14. One particular piece of legislation cited by witnesses as being a potential barrier to implementation of the Covenant was section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which places statutory duties on public authorities in Northern Ireland as follows: (1) A public authority shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity (a) between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; (b) between men and women generally; (c) between persons with a disability and persons without; and (d) between persons with dependants and persons without In addition, without prejudice to this obligation, Public Authorities are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, and racial group Witnesses, such as the Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment, argued that section 75 needed to be amended to enable the full implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. 14 When questioned on whether it was necessary for section 75 to be amended, the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans said: The Government regards Section 75 as a key part of implementing the Good Friday Agreement. We are not intending to seek to amend that. However, in that it essentially argues for equality of treatment, it is worth remembering that the two key principles of the Armed Forces Covenant include firstly the principle of no discrimination against members of the armed forces family, and by that we mean serving members of the armed forces, their families and veterans. In that Section 75 is a piece of equalities legislation and that the first key principle of the Covenant is no discrimination, we do not necessarily see any opposition between those. 15 However, he did acknowledge that the situation was more complicated in relation to the second principle of the Covenant, which said that special consideration was appropriate in some cases. 16. The MoD said they had taken legal advice on the question of section 75 being in conflict with the Armed Forces Covenant, and that it did not create a barrier to the sorts of 13 Northern Ireland Act 1998, Section Q Q105

13 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 11 things the MoD is trying to do. 16 Furthermore, Mr Francois said that where there were practical difficulties because of section 75: We have sought to try to find practical ways of still delivering support to the armed forces family, via the Armed Forces Covenant at a working level that still assesses their needs and delivers the spirit of the Covenant. 17 The Northern Ireland Executive Minister, Edwin Poots MLA, explained that, if there was a desire to treat Army personnel better than other groups, it would pose a problem under section He took the view that no one is supposed to be treated better, and indeed, no one is supposed to be treated worse. Army personnel will not then be treated any worse than anybody else. However, Mr Poots did say that he was willing to take further advice on this issue We heard from Mr Poots that section 75 required public authorities to have regard to the need to promote equality between certain groups, but that it does not mean that you cannot do certain things. 20 This was a view supported by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission, which said that section 75 did not dictate, mandate or prohibit any particular policy provision or policy on the part of any public authority. 21 Mr Poots told us that, potentially, the strict definition that was being used to prevent any preferential treatment to the Armed Forces Community could be tested at some point to see if that was the right definition. 22 The Committee on the Administration of Justice also gave evidence that section 75 was mostly a policy appraisal tool, requiring public authorities to conduct impact assessments of policies Speaking about the possibility of conflict between the Armed Forces Covenant and the equality framework in Northern Ireland, Daniel Holder from the Committee on the Administration of Justice told us: We do not think there is any real major conflict between dealing appropriately with the welfare, housing and health needs of service personnel with the current equalities framework, including most of the types of measures that would be envisaged under applying this particular Covenant. 24 He went on to say that he would be concerned if there was a move away from making decisions about the provision of public services on some basis other than objective need. The possibility of having specific measures in place to support the needs of certain groups would not conflict with the legal framework, because this deals with objective needs, rather than giving preferential treatment. An example given was that of health trusts funding 16 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q369

14 12 women s groups because those groups had easily identified objective needs, and so there was no conflict with section Brian Gormally, Director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, also made the point that equality legislation in Northern Ireland was no stricter than in Great Britain We were also told that if there was a case of a policy giving preferential treatment to the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland, although it was possible this might be flagged up during a section 75 policy appraisal, it would be more likely to be challenged under general equalities legislation. 27 One point raised was that the Armed Forces Community was not a protected group under section 75 or under other equality legislation that applies in Northern Ireland The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland told us that there was no conflict between section 75 and the principle that those who have served in the Armed Forces and their families should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens. 29 Evelyn Collins, the Commission s Chief Executive, said that it is only when the potential for preferential treatment comes into play for members of the Armed Forces that an issue about indirect discrimination may arise. 30 She also explained that the Equality Commission had started discussion with Northern Ireland departments to explain that their view was that section 75 is not a barrier to the introduction or implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant In our session with the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, he told us that he had met with party leaderships in Northern Ireland to discuss section 75: To be fair, some of the political parties have come to me and said they were concerned about, for instance, Section 75, and whether that was causing problems. I have been able to discuss with both of those party leaderships that actually Section 75 is not causing problems, and they have accepted that now. 32 He went on to confirm that section 75 is not a hindrance for the Covenant, and that is very important. 33 He also confirmed that They [the Armed Forces Community] should not be better off, but they should not be worse off Serious concerns have been raised that the equality framework in Northern Ireland, particularly section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, is a barrier to the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. We have been reassured that the Northern Ireland equality framework does not create a greater barrier to implementation of the Covenant in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK. It is 25 Q Q Q Qq Q Q Qq Q Q Q462

15 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 13 important this is understood by those involved in the delivery of services to the Armed Forces Community. 23. We were encouraged to hear that the Equality Commission is in discussion with Northern Ireland departments on this matter. We believe that those bodies or groups that decline to implement any aspect of the Covenant on the basis of section 75 should consider carefully whether they are truly upholding the aims of equality legislation in potentially or actually causing disadvantage to the Armed Forces Community, including partners and children, compared to other groups in society. Political considerations 24. A number of witnesses said that views of certain political parties in Northern Ireland and the make-up of the Northern Ireland Executive meant that the Armed Forces Covenant could not be taken forward in Northern Ireland. This was acknowledged by the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, who said: There are obviously political situations in Northern Ireland that make the delivery sometimes more complicated than in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, he also spoke positively of discussions he had had with political leaders of the main parties in Northern Ireland on the subject of the Armed Forces Covenant. In particular, he told us: I have spoken to all the political leaders in Northern Ireland. I said to them that, for this to work and not to become a political hot potato, I needed them, if necessary publicly, to support that the armed forces are looked after when they leave the armed forces. I got that commitment from all of them, including Martin McGuinness The lack of any contribution from the Northern Ireland Executive to the first Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant in 2012 was claimed by a number of witnesses to have arisen because of the political situation in Northern Ireland. We were told that the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to invite contributions to the Annual Report, but no reply was received. 36 In relation to future Reports, the MoD Minister told us: If possible, we would like the Northern Ireland Executive to contribute to the annual report in 2013, so in the run-up to that report, again, we will invite them to make a contribution, but clearly we cannot compel them to do so The Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee said that local politicians have failed to put any input into the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant, and that this disadvantaged veterans in Northern Ireland. 38 They argued that 35 Q Q73 37 Q75 38 Q7

16 14 there should be a formal duty on the Northern Ireland Executive to contribute to future Annual Reports on the Armed Forces Covenant When the Minister of State for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 30 October 2012 on that Committee s inquiry into Support for Armed Forces Veterans in Wales, he was asked if he was aware of a different emphasis being put on different policy priorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. His reply was that: [...] We have a particular challenge in Northern Ireland because some of the Sinn Fein-run authorities have a particular view of the covenant and what it represents. So in Northern Ireland this area is particularly sensitive and difficult; if we are talking about a scorecard we have to take that into account. When asked about this point in oral evidence, the Minister told us: As I am already on the record as having given evidence to one Select Committee on this matter and been quoted, I am hardly likely to turn up this afternoon and change my testimony. In essence I have already given an opinion on that When we took oral evidence from Edwin Poots MLA, Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and Nelson McCausland MLA, Minister for Social Development, we asked whether the Armed Forces Covenant had been discussed by the Northern Ireland Executive, and were told it had not. Mr McCausland said: The difficulty is that in Northern Ireland we have a five-party mandatory coalition. [...]There are people within that Executive who would have a very, very different view from the one that I hold regarding the armed forces. They would have a very negative view about the British Army and therefore, for that particular reason, refuse almost to engage on these issues. 41 He went on to say: The way forward on this is much more through individual Departments delivering for ex-service personnel, rather than trying to resolve something that I do not think will be resolved, as those who hold a different view will not change that view. Therefore, the relevant Departments, whether in regard to housing or in regard to health, should move forward on that basis. It is regrettable that it has to be done on that basis, but in practical terms that is where we are. 29. We invited the First Minister and deputy First Minister to give evidence to us in relation to this inquiry but, despite repeated invitations, no representative of the OFMDFM was forthcoming. However, we did receive a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister in which they said they were unable to give evidence on the particular date proposed, but said: 39 Qq 10, Q Q132

17 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 15 We understand that Minister Poots and Minister McCausland attended a session on 24 April and gave evidence on our behalf. 42 (Emphasis supplied) We were also reassured by the evidence from Minister for Northern Ireland, who told us he had spoken to all of the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties, and had their support that the armed forces are looked after when they leave the armed forces We understand the sensitivities of this issue for some members of the Executive, but we were nonetheless very disappointed that the First Minister and deputy First Minister felt unable to give evidence to us as part of our inquiry. We particularly wanted to question them about the contribution of the Northern Ireland Executive to the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant, representation for Northern Ireland on the Covenant Reference Group, and relationships between the Executive and HM Government. We note, however, that their reply to our invitation said that Mr Poots and Mr McCausland gave evidence on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. 31. We were encouraged to hear that the Minister of State for Northern Ireland had met with the political leaders of the main parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the Armed Forces Covenant. We agree with him that the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland should not become a political hot potato. Personal security 32. A further issue raised with us was the matter of personal security for current and former members of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, particularly for those that had served in the UDR or RIR (Home Service). The Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment told us that those personnel had security needs when leaving the Service, which were not addressed, and that there were still threats to serving soldiers and veterans in Northern Ireland. 44 The Royal British Legion flagged security up as one issue that existed in Northern Ireland that would not necessarily be resolved by implementing the Covenant. 45 The MoD s written submission also acknowledged that the current security situation meant members of the Armed Forces Community will sometimes try and reduce their exposure to a higher level of security risk by concealing their links to the Armed Forces Ev Q Q Ev Ev 114

18 16 4 The current situation in Northern Ireland 33. Because of the nature of devolution and the different issues that arise throughout the UK, we were told that the Covenant has been implemented differently in the separate jurisdictions. 47 As noted previously, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland told us that the vast majority of the Armed Forces Covenant is being delivered in Northern Ireland, 48 but that HM Government was not complacent about addressing areas where more needed to be done. The Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, echoed this view, saying that overall our assessment is that provision in Northern Ireland is generally good. 49 This was confirmed by Brigadier Rob Thomson, Commander of 38 (Irish) Brigade, who said I have a genuinely strong sense that the outputs and the ends of the Covenant are being delivered, largely With an estimated 150,000 Armed Forces veterans resident in Northern Ireland, access by the Armed Forces Community to public services such as health and housing is a significant issue. Around 63,000 of the veterans resident in Northern Ireland served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment during Operation Banner, and so have particular needs in relation to their security and, sometimes, mental health care. We have heard about some bespoke support mechanisms being available in Northern Ireland, such as the Aftercare Service, but also of areas where benefits available to the Armed Forces Community elsewhere in the UK are not available in Northern Ireland, such as increased priority for social housing and access to certain health services. We explore these, and others matters, below. Assessment of disadvantage to the Armed Forces in NI 35. The Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans told us that, following a debate in the House on the Armed Forces Covenant in November 2012, the Prime Minister had taken a particular interest in the question of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, and had called a meeting in January 2013 where the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mike Penning MP, was present. This resulted in two policies: that HM Government should try to establish a clear understanding of where there might be any shortfall in Covenant provision for service personnel in Northern Ireland, and that options should then be developed to fill any gaps in provision that were identified. 51 As a result of this meeting, Mr Penning convened a meeting in February 2013 of representatives from a range of Armed Forces charities operating in Northern Ireland to 47 Q68 48 Q Q68 50 Q Q94

19 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 17 form the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum. He told us that the Forum allowed for ministerial guidance to be given to Armed Forces organisations operating in Northern Ireland, and that the Forum would be meeting regularly The work being taken forward to identify any shortfall in Covenant provision in Northern Ireland is similar to a suggestion from the Committee on the Administration of Justice, an independent human rights organisation based in Northern Ireland, which took the view that a full assessment of the health and housing needs of the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland might be a helpful way of understanding the situation and taking things forward, 53 an idea supported by SSAFA Forces Help. 54 Mr Francois told us that, in effect, that is what the Veterans Forum is attempting to do. 55 Following such an assessment, Mr Francois told us if we do find any genuine gaps, we need to come up with a mechanism to address them. 56 The Minister of State for Northern Ireland also confirmed that any gaps which were identified would be filled, saying: My attitude is that I will get that problem sorted out. It may not be me and my Department, but we will sort it out We heard from two ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, Edwin Poots MLA, Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and Nelson McCausland MLA, Minister for Social Development, that there had been engagement between their departments and HM Government in relation to the current assessment of the provision of services to the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland. Mr McCausland told us that he was fairly clear as to the issues that needed to be addressed, and confirmed that he would be happy to look at anything new that arose We welcome the work undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence, at the Prime Minister s direction, to assess any shortfall in Covenant provision in Northern Ireland. It is vital that any such shortfalls are addressed, whether this is by the Northern Ireland Executive or HM Government. We recommend that the MoD respond to any identified needs of the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland, and report on how these will be met. Armed Forces organisations in Northern Ireland 39. Throughout the course of our inquiry we heard that there was a good deal of care for veterans within Northern Ireland from various charities and organisations, 59 and that the services provided by the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland were often superior to those provided elsewhere in the UK. 60 Following a visit to Northern Ireland, the Minister for 52 Q AFC Q Q Q94 57 Q Q Q24 60 Q221

20 18 Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans also stated that the Armed Forces charities and third sector organisations in Northern Ireland deliver[ed] a good service in the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant. 61 We have heard that the various Armed Forces charities in Northern Ireland provide valuable support to the Armed Forces Community, including: independent inquest advice for bereaved families; financial support, in terms of short term crisis type grants; practical assistance and advice; signposting the appropriate organisations; 62 financial casework for individuals, 63 and treatment and support for mental health problems. We were also told that the work of the Armed Forces charities in Northern Ireland, and the problems their clients brought to them, were broadly similar to what their colleagues dealt with in other parts of the UK Colonel Richard Gordon of SSAFA Forces Help told us that he did not see huge disadvantages to the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland by not having the Covenant formally implemented. This view was echoed by Brian Maguire of the Royal British Legion: I cannot point to a single case, in all the cases we have dealt with in our time, where I can say for sure that the individual would have been better treated had they been living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. 65 Similar views were expressed by Colonel Paul Cummings of ABF, the Soldiers Charity, who said that in almost every respect the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland was treated the same as that community in GB The Royal British Legion and SSAFA Forces Help told us that there was a very close working relationship between a number of charities and other stakeholders operating in Northern Ireland, 67 but other witnesses believed that there was a lack of overarching coordination, co-operation and governance. 68 The Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee said that, although at a working level there was good co-operation between the various Armed Forces organisations in Northern Ireland, 69 it seemed every 61 Ev Q Q Q Q Q Q130, Ev Q24 69 Q39

21 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 19 organisation was doing their own thing, and that engagement was needed from Northern Ireland politicians to give their work impetus. 70 The establishment of the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum, outlined above, is intended to allow for ministerial guidance of the various Armed Forces organisations operating in Northern Ireland. 42. We were told that most of the Armed Forces charities in Northern Ireland neither receive, nor seek, financial support from the MoD, and are independently supported. 71 As an exception, Combat Stress receives remuneration from the MoD in respect of those in receipt of a war pension and those who the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) agrees need treatment. 72 We also heard that ABF, the Soldiers Charity, had historically received 25,000 from the Northern Ireland Office, but that they had not received a grant this year The Armed Forces charities operating in Northern Ireland are essential to the effective support of the Armed Forces Community, and we applaud the efforts of all those working in the Armed Forces voluntary sector. We welcome the establishment of the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum, which has brought together many of the key stakeholders. We would urge this forum to address concerns that we heard regarding a lack of over-arching co-ordination and co-operation between the many Armed Forces organisations operating in Northern Ireland. Measures put in place by Northern Ireland Departments 44. Although the Northern Ireland Executive has not formally endorsed the Armed Forces Covenant, individual Northern Ireland departments have taken measures to ensure that members of the Armed Forces Community do not face any disadvantage in accessing public services. 45. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) published a protocol in 2009 for ensuring equitable access to health and social care services for members of the Armed Forces. This set out a framework to ensure that serving members of the Armed Forces, their families and veterans suffered no disadvantage in accessing health and social care services. The protocol was supported by the Armed Forces Liaison Forum, which includes representatives from the Armed Forces, SSAFA, ABF, Royal British Legion, MoD, and Combat Stress However, the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee raised concerns that the Liaison Forum was not meeting frequently enough, as it was difficult to get everyone required together. They said the Forum was meant to meet two or three times 70 Q24 71 Q Q Q Q244

22 20 a year, but had actually been meeting only once a year. 75 Since being established in 2010, the Forum had met on only three occasions. It is due to meet again in October The Northern Ireland Minister for Social Development assured us that his department engaged with representative bodies of the Armed Forces Community, and also that he was keen to discuss replicating DHSSPS s model with his officials, telling us it does seem to be a very good model. 77 The Commander of 38 (Irish) Brigade also told us that they would like to see the arrangements made at the DHSSPS replicated in the housing sector We welcome the protocol for ensuring equitable access to health and social care services for the Armed Forces published by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in 2009, and also the Armed Forces Liaison Forum which was established to support this protocol. This has established an important mechanism enabling the Armed Forces Community to engage with a department of the Northern Ireland Executive on issues and policies affecting them. We believe that other departments might usefully consider establishing similar forums on areas of policy particularly relevant to the Armed Forces Community. 49. One possible area for improvement was the lack of any mechanism within the Northern Ireland Executive which would enable departments to liaise and share details of best practice in relation to work affecting the Armed Forces Community. The Northern Ireland Health Minister, Edwin Poots MLA, suggested that the establishment of a ministerial sub-group would be an option to improve dialogue between departments, something which the Northern Ireland Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland MLA, supported. 79 Mr Poots went on to say that, because various other departments were involved with services relevant to the Armed Forces Community, a ministerial sub-group would assist us in having a better co-ordinated response to the issues that come before us The MoD said that although liaison with the Northern Ireland Executive worked well at a grassroots level, they would welcome the Executive engaging with them at a more corporate level on the Armed Forces Covenant. 81 This could potentially be achieved through the establishment of a sub-ministerial group, which could then liaise with HM Government departments. 51. We welcome the suggestion by Mr Poots and Mr McCausland that a ministerial sub-group be established within the Northern Ireland Executive to improve coordination between Northern Ireland departments on policy affecting the Armed Forces. Clearly, this is a matter that is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland 75 Q18 76 Ev Q Q Q Q Q93

23 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 21 Executive but, nonetheless, we hope that such a group will be established without delay to further the work being done by Northern Ireland Departments. Healthcare, housing and education issues Housing and homelessness 52. There are differences across the UK in how social housing is provided. In Great Britain, many social housing providers have decided to award members of the Armed Forces Community increased priority in accessing social housing. However, in Northern Ireland the Housing Executive operates the Common Selection Scheme, which does not allow for that flexibility. 53. In practice, however, this does not appear to be a problem. Brigadier Rob Thomson told us that 38 (Irish) Brigade had connections with the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland so that particular issues could be addressed and people signposted to the most appropriate place. 82 Rear Admiral Williams, Defence Services Secretary with the MoD, told us: The normal places I would look for evidence of a real problem the service families federations and service charities do not seem to indicate the size of the problem you might expect When we questioned Armed Forces charities about difficulties members of the Armed Forces Community might face in accessing housing in Northern Ireland, we were told that there was not a huge disadvantage, and that the charities were set up to provide support to those needing, for instance, help with a deposit and rent in advance for private rented accommodation. 84 The representative from ABF, the Soldiers Charity, told us that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland was extremely responsive at enabling people, whether from the Armed Forces Community or not, to move into social housing, while in other areas of the UK veterans might be at the top of the waiting list but there was no housing available. 85 We also heard from 38 (Irish) Brigade that lack of capacity in social housing was the main issue, but that contacts with the Housing Executive enabled individuals to be signposted appropriately. 55. One area we questioned witnesses about was evidence of problems arising from homelessness and mental health in the Armed Forces Community. Most witnesses told us that they were not aware of homelessness being a particular problem for veterans in Northern Ireland, 86 but that no comprehensive assessment had been made. Brian Maguire of the Royal British Legion told us that although homelessness and alcoholism were issues for veterans, they were not a significant problem in Northern Ireland. 87 The Northern 82 Qq 70, Q70 84 Qq 130, Q Q37 87 Q139

24 22 Ireland minister responsible for housing told us that in the absence of accurate data, there was no evidence that homelessness was greater amongst veterans. 88 Work had been commissioned on this issue and it had been specifically tasked to look as the position of former soldiers Although the Northern Ireland Executive did not prioritise service leavers wishing to access social housing, the Northern Ireland Minister of Social Development, Nelson McCausland MLA, told us that his intention was that where service personnel and their families have to vacate military-provided housing, they are not placed at a disadvantage compared with other applicants. 90 Mr McCausland took the view that personnel returning to Northern Ireland after service should be treated on the same basis as any other local person. His written submission to the Committee also raised a number of interesting points, including: Homelessness the Department for Social Development, NI, take the view ex-service applicants who are at risk of homelessness or rough sleeping because of their institutional background are vulnerable persons and should be given priority status. Connection with Northern Ireland the Housing Selection Scheme could be interpreted so as to render applicants for social housing ineligible if they are ex-service personnel from elsewhere in the UK who have been based in Northern Ireland. The Minister has instructed the Housing Executive not to interpret the Scheme in a way which is disadvantageous to any ex-service applicant, and it will be amended at the next opportunity. Priority status the Department is exploring the possibility of giving some recognition to ex-service applicants in priority for social housing, but the different legal framework makes it unlikely that it would be able to fully reflect the position in Great Britain. 91 Healthcare 57. A number of healthcare disadvantages to veterans in Northern Ireland were identified, including: IVF treatment in England and Scotland, certain injured service personnel would get three cycles of IVF, in Wales two but in Northern Ireland they were only entitled to one, in line with the general population in Northern Ireland. 92 Priority NHS treatment in England, Scotland and Wales there was priority NHS treatment for veterans with Service-related injuries subject to the clinical needs of others, but in Northern Ireland there was no such priority Q Q Q Ev Ev 114

25 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 23 The MoD told us that they were working with the relevant Northern Ireland department to see if this disparity in IVF treatment could be addressed. 94 We were also told by a representative from SSAFA Forces Help that they would pay for IVF treatment for injured service personnel as well, on a country-wide basis, 95 and the Commander of 38 (Irish) Brigade said that he was confident a bespoke solution could be provided if someone needed IVF treatment. 96 Additionally, Mr Poots made it clear that, in relation to IVF treatments, ex-service personnel in Northern Ireland were not losing out in comparison to other residents of Northern Ireland, but simply did not have the same benefits as were provided to veterans in GB. 97 In relation to priority treatment under the NHS, the Northern Ireland minister responsible for health told us that the differences between NI and the rest of the UK were unlikely to make a considerable difference in practice The Minister of State for Northern Ireland specifically noted Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as one area where more needed to be done to ensure that treatment could be effectively delivered to veterans in Northern Ireland. 99 The MoD told us that there had been some problems with how service leavers were briefed on mental health issues in the past, but that work had been done to improve this and to offer more support. 100 Mr Poots told us that PTSD was a particular issue for veterans who had served in NI during the Troubles and those who had served in Iraq, with an anticipation that many returning from service in Afghanistan would also be affected. 101 The Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment told us that they relied very heavily on the Aftercare Service for members suffering from PTSD, although there were still some people who fell through the net We heard from Combat Stress that they had a centre in Belfast for providing advice and out-patient treatment, but those veterans who required in-patient treatment had to travel to a facility in Scotland. 103 When questioned on whether the DHSSPS could take a role in providing treatment for veterans suffering from mental health problems, Mr Poots said it was something the Armed Forces Liaison Forum could look at to assess the desirability and affordability of such measures. 104 He also told us that the amount of money that we spend on mental health as a proportion of the population that requires mental health treatment is not where I would like it to be, but that he was not in a position to increase this at present Ev Q69 95 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q272

26 We received evidence from the Northern Ireland Health Minister and others that some veterans may benefit from access to a psychiatrist. We strongly recommend that HM Government gives serious consideration to a more robust mental health support team for veterans in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of a dedicated psychiatrist. 61. The provision of advanced prosthetics to Armed Forces veterans was an area where HM Government had made 6.5 million available for service personnel wounded in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Mr Francois told us that he understood that, so as not to be seen to give the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland preferential treatment, the NI department for health wanted to try and make the advanced prosthetics available to all. 106 This was confirmed by Mr Poots, who told us we have taken the position that those who require prosthetics should all receive it at the top-end standard, and that his officials had been liaising closely with the MoD about this matter. 107 On the question of funding for advanced prosthetics, supplementary evidence we received from Mr Poots explained that his department was working with the MoD and NHS towards recognising the Regional Disablement Service, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, as Northern Ireland s Disability Services Centre of Excellence, so that funding from the MoD s advanced prosthetics provision would be available to Northern Ireland. 108 Education 62. A specific benefit available to members of the Armed Forces Community in England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland, is the Further and Higher Education Commitments Scheme, where eligible service leavers are provided with access to a first full Level 3 course. 109 The Ministry of Defence told us that they were moving closer to an agreement with the relevant Department in the Northern Ireland Executive to review that position in the hope of operating the same scheme in Northern Ireland, 110 and this work was looking promising There are a number of cases where the Armed Forces Community in NI does not receive the same level of benefits in relation to health, housing and education as that community in GB. However, we are encouraged that HM Government is working with the relevant Northern Ireland departments to resolve these disparities, where possible, and that in general there is no serious material disadvantage to the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland under current arrangements. 106 Q Q Ev This is is a GCE A-level or vocational equivalent, or a first higher education qualification, or first foundation degree, or first undergraduate degree or equivalent, free of tuition fees. 110 Q Q91

27 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 25 The Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service 64. One unique support mechanism that exists exclusively in Northern Ireland is the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service. Of the estimated 150,000 veterans in Northern Ireland, the Aftercare Service is open to the 63,000 who served in the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service Battalions or in the UDR. The MoD s evidence stated: The largest veteran community is that of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Ulster Defence Regiment. Recognising the enduring security situation, a bespoke Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service is in place, funded by the Ministry of Defence. It supports veterans in the delivery of psychiatry, physiotherapy and welfare casework and signposts them to other organisations, according to their needs. Rear Admiral Williams, from the MoD, explained that there was a benevolent element to it and there was some physiotherapy and psychotherapy associated with the service, and that the level of service it provided could be considered better than that which would be provided elsewhere. 112 The MoD told us that the Aftercare Service was a bespoke service that catered for the specific needs of veterans from the RIR and UDR., and that other veterans were supported in different ways by the MoD and SPVA. 113 Colonel Gordon of SSAFA Forces Help also argued against extending the Aftercare Service to the broader veterans community, saying that it was a bespoke service and extending it would involve public funds being extended into other areas where there is existing provision Colonel Cummings, Director of Welfare for ABF, the Soldiers Charity, took the view that the wider veterans community in Northern Ireland would very much like to see the Aftercare Service extended to them, saying: It is hugely valued. It is hugely valued by the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment, and also it is hugely valued by the veterans community in Ireland, which believes that this reflects a real commitment by Government to support individuals who have made a significant sacrifice over time. The veteran community, I have no doubt, would very much like to see the support that is given to the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Home Service, through the Aftercare Service, extended to them. 115 He said that the impediment to extending the service was the cost, as currently the service was being provided by the voluntary sector, as it is in GB. 116 He did not accept the argument that the service was too tailored to be applicable to the wider veterans community, saying with some minor adaptation it could meet the needs of the veteran 112 Qq Qq Q Q Q215

28 26 population as a whole, as the needs of the RIR Home Service and UDR were shared in many cases by other veterans in Northern Ireland The Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment supported the extension of the Aftercare service to all HM Forces Veterans living in Northern Ireland, alongside an expansion of the service to provide increased support. 118 Brigadier Rob Thomson, Commander of 38 (Irish) Brigade told us that he did not see the case for extending the Aftercare Service, as those veterans not from the UDR or RIR (Home Service) were having their needs met under other existing arrangements The Royal Irish Regiment raised concerns about future funding for the Aftercare Service in the future. They told us they understood the service to be funded until 2014, but had concerns about what would happen after that. 120 When we questioned the Minister of State for Northern Ireland on this point, he told us that funding for the Aftercare Service was in place until 2016, and that negotiations would start in 2014 or 2015 about funding going forward. 68. A number of witnesses have made the case that veterans in Northern Ireland could benefit from the expansion of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service. We appreciate the argument that this is a bespoke service tailored to the specific needs of units that were based and served in Northern Ireland, but feel there could be value in extending the services it offered more widely where, for example, there is best practice which would benefit other veterans. We recommend that the MoD assesses the benefits of extending the Aftercare Service to all veterans based in Northern Ireland, and report back to us. Engagement by HM Government 69. Although no representative of the devolved administration in Northern Ireland sits on the Covenant Reference Group, we did hear that the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mike Penning MP, sits on the Covenant Committee, a cross-government Committee, tasked with implementing the Armed Forces Covenant across various HM Government departments. 121 We were also told about the close working relationship between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence on issues relating to the Armed Forces Covenant, and the work of 38 (Irish) Brigade. 122 The Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans particularly praised the role of 38 (Irish) Brigade in engaging with the devolved administration. When we took evidence from Brigadier Rob Thomson, its Commander, he told us: I am responsible for delivering firm base, which is a phrase we use in the military to talk about support to families of soldiers and support to service personnel. I am 117 Q Q Q Q Q Q69

29 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 27 responsible for the security of all the garrison: the serving, regular and reserve within Northern Ireland. I include civil servants within my responsibility, who are currently serving our Department. Finally, my job is to represent the Army in Northern Ireland as a region of the United Kingdom. 123 Comparisons with Scotland and Wales 70. A number of support mechanisms that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have put in place for the Armed Forces Community in Scotland and Wales were highlighted throughout our inquiry. These included: Access and support for veterans through the All Wales Health and Wellbeing Service; 485,000 provided annually by the Welsh Government to the NHS directly aimed at mental health for veterans; 400,000 from the Scottish Government to facilitate 60 projects for the benefit of veterans, and 1.7 million from the Scottish Government to Combat Stress, which provided treatment for 721 veterans in Scotland. 124 In comparison, the NIVPAC told us that in Northern Ireland no direct or ring-fenced funding had been provided to the best of our knowledge Mr Francois told us that provision is not precisely the same in all three nations, partly because they are devolved, and his staff said that in the case of Scotland, as a comparison, the Scottish Executive has taken a much more proactive political role in trying to keep pace with developments in England and Wales. It is that kind of leadership that has made a significant difference for us there. 126 In relation to MoD spending in the devolved administrations, Mr Francois told us I do not think there is any disadvantage in terms of what we spend in Northern Ireland Q Q Q Q Q122

30 28 5 Future progress 72. Our inquiry has identified a number of areas where progress could be made on improving support for the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland, and also ways in which HM Government could better engage with the Northern Ireland Executive on the Armed Forces Covenant. We explore these below. Improved engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive 73. Although the Northern Ireland Executive had not discussed the Armed Forces Covenant collectively, the evidence we have received showed that a number of Northern Ireland Departments were engaged with both the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland and with HM Government. 74. In particular, the statements by Edwin Poots MLA, Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and Nelson McCausland MLA, Minister for Social Development, that they would be happy to respond to a request to contribute to future Annual Reports on the Armed Forces Covenant were extremely encouraging. 128 The Minister of State for Northern Ireland said he believed that engaging with individual ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive was the way to move forward on this issue, and that he was planning to write to individual ministers to gauge their willingness to contribute We are grateful to Mr Poots and to Mr McCausland for giving evidence to us on this inquiry, and particularly welcome their statements that they would be happy to contribute to future Annual Reports on the Armed Forces Covenant. We recommend that the Ministry of Defence approach individual Ministers of Northern Ireland departments when seeking responses from the devolved administrations for future Annual Reports. This would enable the Secretary of State for Defence to report on the at least some of the areas where progress had been made and also areas where more needed to be done. 76. We also questioned the Northern Ireland ministers on the possibility of appointing an Armed Forces Advocate, similar to that appointed by the Welsh and the Scottish Governments, who could take responsibility for policy affecting the Armed Forces Community, and also represent Northern Ireland on the Covenant Reference Group. Mr Poots said that it might be possible to appoint an armed forces advocate from a single Department, which other Departments could then use to support them in the work that they do The Minister of State for Northern Ireland told us that HM Government would very much like to see a Northern Ireland Executive representative on the Covenant Reference Group, and whether this was a particular person appointed as an advocate, or various individuals from different Northern Ireland departments, their contribution would be 128 Qq Q Q192

31 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 29 welcome. The MoD also said that having Armed Forces advocates appointed by the Scottish and the Welsh Governments made liaison on issues affecting the Armed Forces easier, but that ultimately such an appointment was a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive The possibility of a Northern Ireland department appointing an Armed Forces advocate is extremely welcome. The advocate could work with other Northern Ireland departments on policy affecting the Armed Forces Community, and engage with HM Government and the Covenant Reference Group to ensure the work of the Northern Ireland Executive in this area is promoted. We appreciate that the appointment of such an individual is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but we urge the NIO and the MoD to continue to work with the Executive towards such an appointment. Role of HM Government 79. The written evidence from the Royal British Legion made the case that in situations where a former member of the Armed Forces person was facing particular difficulty, it would be beneficial to have some means whereby they could raise their concerns. 132 The Minister of State for Northern Ireland told us that it would soon be possible to contact a senior official at the Northern Ireland Office regarding any concerns the Armed Forces Community had about the level of support available, and that this official would be responsible for following up on any problems that were raised In its written evidence, the Northern Ireland Office also set out areas of difference in how the Armed Forces Covenant had been applied in Northern Ireland compared to the rest of the United Kingdom, and further action HM Government planned to take, where appropriate. 134 These included: Provision of IVF treatment: NI currently provides only one round of IVF treatment, due to budgetary constraints. The NIO s memorandum stated: If the fewer number of cycles in NI proves to be an enduring problem, officials will explore if provision can be funded/provided elsewhere, for example private treatment funded by a charity or exceptionally, for a veteran, treatment at the MOD facility within the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham. 135 Priority for social housing: in England, Scotland and Wales many local authorities award priority to members of the Armed Forces applying for social housing. This was not the case in Northern Ireland. The NIO s memorandum stated that no further action on this was proposed, as homelessness of ex-servicemen/women is not considered an issue Q Ev Q Ev Ibid 136 Ibid

32 30 Further and Higher Education Scheme: this scheme paid the tuition fees of Service leavers living in England, Scotland and Wales when they study for a first full Level 3 qualification, a first undergraduate or foundation degree, or a first HNC or HND. No provision is made at present in Northern Ireland. The NIO s memorandum stated that they understood this matter to be under consideration by the Northern Ireland Minister for Employment and Learning. 137 Community Covenant Grants: as no local authorities in Northern Ireland had signed up to Community Covenant, they were not able to apply for grants under the Community Covenant Grant Scheme. The NIO s memorandum stated that an alternative system has been established under which applications can be submitted via 38 (Irish) Brigade We welcome the commitment which the Northern Ireland Office has shown to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, by establishing the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum, establishing a system whereby members for the Armed Forces Community may raise concerns, and setting out plans for addressing shortfalls in current provisions. We ask to be kept updated of progress on implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, so that we can pursue areas where more needs to be done. Projects to support the Armed Forces Community 82. A number of witnesses, and those we met with during our visit to Washington DC, also raised specific areas where projects could be put in place in Northern Ireland to support the Armed Forces Community. These included: Drop-in centres for ex-service personnel to give advice on benefits, job prospects and other matters; 139 Improved provision of information, and Veterans Treatment Courts. Drop-in centres 83. A number of witnesses suggested that having drop-in centres where veterans could access the full range of advice and support available to them at one location would be a significant benefit. There is currently a similar centre in Scotland, the Veterans First Point Centre in Edinburgh, which provides a one-stop shop for veterans and their families living in Lothian. 140 The scheme is funded by the Scottish Government and NHS Lothian, and has a budget of around 260,000 a year. 137 Ev Ibid 139 Q

33 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland When asked about the feasibility of a similar arrangement in Northern Ireland, Rear Admiral Williams told us that the Veterans First Point Centre is one of those things that we see as working particularly well and is certainly offered up as best practice and a model that one might wish to adopt. 141 However, Mr Francois made the point that the project in Edinburgh was funded by the Scottish Government in co-operation with NHS Lothian, and it was not directly funded by the MoD The Royal British Legion gave evidence that as part of their restructuring they would be opening 16 area offices across the UK, one of which would be in Belfast, which would be a local drop-in or pop-in type centre, a one-stop shop, if you like, where somebody can call in, get advice and get support There would clearly be a benefit in having a centre, or centres, where members of the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland could access the full range of support and advice available to them. We recommend that HM Government works with the Northern Ireland Executive and Armed Forces organisations operating in Northern Ireland to establish how this might best be done, and how such a scheme could be funded. Provision of information 87. We understand that the first output from the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum set up by the Minister of State for Northern Ireland will be a pamphlet which details the responsibilities of every charitable organisation and every Government agency, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and other such organisations, and which will be made widely available During our recent meeting in Washington DC with the Department of Veterans Affairs, we were told about a book of Federal Benefits for Veterans, Dependents and Survivors which is issued to all Service Personnel when they leave military service. The book outlines the full range of benefits and services veterans are entitled to in the US, and is updated on an annual basis. The Minister of State for Northern Ireland said that it would be really useful for the pamphlet the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum was producing to be used for a similar purpose We believe that there are significant benefits to improving the level of information provided to the Armed Forces Community about the support available to them. The pamphlet that is being produced by the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum is a good first step, and we recommend that this is distributed to all service-leavers establishing themselves in Northern Ireland. We also recommend that the MoD consider producing a comprehensive guide to benefits, in line with that issued to all service-leavers in the US. 141 Q Ibid 143 Q Q Q426

34 32 Veterans Treatment Courts 90. During our meetings in Washington DC, we met with Rob McDonald, a Criminal Justice Consultant working for a Veterans Treatment Court in Little Rock, Arkansas. These courts are part of the normal United States legal system, but deal exclusively with minor offences involving veterans. Those involved in the Veterans Treatment Courts have an understanding of the problems that veterans of the Armed Forces may be dealing with, and the courts also provide support in accessing benefits and treatment for problems such as mental health problems. When questioned on the possibility of a similar system being trialled in the UK, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland told us that did not see the need, but he would speak to colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about it We recommend that HM Government investigates the specific circumstances of veterans coming before the criminal justice system, and considers how their cases can be best dealt with. Insurance cover 92. In addition to the provision of public services, the Armed Forces Covenant also relates to commercial services and private organisations, and two aspects of this we took evidence on was difficulties the Armed Forces Community faced in accessing certain types of insurance, and also the possibility of reducing the cost of the MoD s Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. Christopher Jordan, Managing Director of Bureau Insurance, an insurance organisation that specialises in uncomfortable risks, told us that members of the Armed Forces found life insurance and personal accident insurance more difficult and more expensive to access. 147 When applying for these products, insurance companies will either exclude the war risk of serving soldiers, 148 or quote for it at a very high margin. 149 Mr Jordan told us about plans to establish a not-for-profit insurance company that would be able provide insurance products to members of the Armed Forces Community with reduced premiums. 93. We were also told about the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) (previously War Disablement Pension), the MoD scheme which provides cover for members of the Armed Forces who are injured, disabled or bereaved as a result of service. The scheme provides lump sum payments of up to 570,000 for pain and suffering in relation to injuries and illnesses, and also Guaranteed Income Payments for the most serious injuries and illnesses, which can provide an income stream of over 1 million over a lifetime. Mr Jordan said that the AFCS was a very good scheme, and very worthwhile to the Armed Forces, 150 but that given the maximum level of compensation was around 1.5 million, members of the Armed Forces might want to top that up through life insurance or personal accident insurance. He also said that there were possible cost savings if the AFCS was administered by the insurance industry on behalf of the MoD. This could bring the 146 Qq Q War risk being cover during deployment. 149 Q Q480

35 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 33 insurance industry s expertise to bear on administration, and [look] at lawyer-led claims and whether those are being inflated. 151 Community Covenants 94. In addition to the action taken by HM Government and the devolved administrations in implementing the Armed Forces Covenant, many local authorities across GB have also signed up to Community Covenants. These are intended to complement, at a local level, the Armed Forces Covenant. The aims of the Armed Forces Community covenant are to: encourage local communities to support the armed forces community in their areas nurture public understanding and awareness among the public of issues affecting the armed forces community; recognise and remember the sacrifices faced by the Armed Forces Community; encourage activities which help to integrate the Armed Forces Community into local life, and to encourage the Armed Forces Community to help and support the wider community, whether through participation in events and joint projects, or other forms of engagement. 152 As of June 2013, 291 local authorities in England had signed up to the Community Covenant, with 15 in Wales and all 32 of the local authorities in Scotland, but none in Northern Ireland. 95. The Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans told us that he would like to see local authorities in Northern Ireland, where they want to, adopting a Community Covenant, but that pressing for this from London was not the best way of achieving this. 153 However, there could be a case for the Northern Ireland Executive to engage with local authorities that could be interested in signing up to Community Covenants. Debate on the Armed Forces Covenant 96. A number of witnesses raised the point that the first Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant had not been debated on the floor of the House. 154 Peter Poole of Combat Stress in particular said that such a debate should be held, and he had some misgivings about the fact it had not been already. 97. There has not yet been a debate in the House on the first Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant. This may be an oversight, but we look forward to the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant being debated in the House at an early opportunity and, thereafter, on an annual basis. 151 Q Q Q182, Q188

36 34 6 Conclusion 98. When we embarked on this inquiry, we were keen to ascertain whether members of the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland were at a serious disadvantage when compared to those in Great Britain. There are undoubtedly areas where specific policies applied in Great Britain are not implemented in Northern Ireland and there are other areas where improvements should be possible. But we were encouraged by the advances made by departments of the Northern Ireland Executive and the commitment of the ministers we took evidence from; and are satisfied that, taken as a whole, the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged.

37 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 35 Conclusions and recommendations The Armed Forces Covenant 1. We unreservedly endorse the key principles of the Armed Forces Covenant: members of the Armed Forces Community should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens, and special consideration may be appropriate in some cases. (Paragraph 2) Implementation across the UK 2. We welcome the work undertaken by the Scottish and the Welsh Governments on implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Scotland and in Wales, in particular the comprehensive reports they have published on Government support available to the Armed Forces Community. We regret, as it would appear does the Ministry of Defence, that the Northern Ireland Executive has not yet published a similar report. (Paragraph 10) Barriers to implementation in Northern Ireland 3. We accept that the different political and legal situation in Northern Ireland, compared to Great Britain, makes issues relating to the Armed Forces delicate and potentially contentious. However, this should not mean that the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland should be disadvantaged either compared with other groups there, or when compared to that community elsewhere in the UK, beyond that variation which would be expected under normal devolution. (Paragraph 12) 4. Serious concerns have been raised that the equality framework in Northern Ireland, particularly section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, is a barrier to the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. We have been reassured that the Northern Ireland equality framework does not create a greater barrier to implementation of the Covenant in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK. It is important this is understood by those involved in the delivery of services to the Armed Forces Community. (Paragraph 22) 5. We were encouraged to hear that the Equality Commission is in discussion with Northern Ireland departments on this matter. We believe that those bodies or groups that decline to implement any aspect of the Covenant on the basis of section 75 should consider carefully whether they are truly upholding the aims of equality legislation in potentially or actually causing disadvantage to the Armed Forces Community, including partners and children, compared to other groups in society. (Paragraph 23) 6. We understand the sensitivities of this issue for some members of the Executive, but we were nonetheless very disappointed that the First Minister and deputy First Minister felt unable to give evidence to us as part of our inquiry. We particularly

38 36 wanted to question them about the contribution of the Northern Ireland Executive to the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant, representation for Northern Ireland on the Covenant Reference Group, and relationships between the Executive and HM Government. We note, however, that their reply to our invitation said that Mr Poots and Mr McCausland gave evidence on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. (Paragraph 30) 7. We were encouraged to hear that the Minister of State for Northern Ireland had met with the political leaders of the main parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the Armed Forces Covenant. We agree with him that the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland should not become a political hot potato. (Paragraph 31) The current situation in Northern Ireland 8. We welcome the work undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence, at the Prime Minister s direction, to assess any shortfall in Covenant provision in Northern Ireland. It is vital that any such shortfalls are addressed, whether this is by the Northern Ireland Executive or HM Government. We recommend that the MoD respond to any identified needs of the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland, and report on how these will be met. (Paragraph 38) 9. The Armed Forces charities operating in Northern Ireland are essential to the effective support of the Armed Forces Community, and we applaud the efforts of all those working in the Armed Forces voluntary sector. We welcome the establishment of the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum, which has brought together many of the key stakeholders. We would urge this forum to address concerns that we heard regarding a lack of over-arching co-ordination and co-operation between the many Armed Forces organisations operating in Northern Ireland. (Paragraph 43) 10. We welcome the protocol for ensuring equitable access to health and social care services for the Armed Forces published by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in 2009, and also the Armed Forces Liaison Forum which was established to support this protocol. This has established an important mechanism enabling the Armed Forces Community to engage with a department of the Northern Ireland Executive on issues and policies affecting them. We believe that other departments might usefully consider establishing similar forums on areas of policy particularly relevant to the Armed Forces Community. (Paragraph 48) 11. We welcome the suggestion by Mr Poots and Mr McCausland that a ministerial subgroup be established within the Northern Ireland Executive to improve coordination between Northern Ireland departments on policy affecting the Armed Forces. Clearly, this is a matter that is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive but, nonetheless, we hope that such a group will be established without delay to further the work being done by Northern Ireland Departments. (Paragraph 51)

39 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland We strongly recommend that HM Government gives serious consideration to a more robust mental health support team for veterans in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of a dedicated psychiatrist. (Paragraph 60) 13. There are a number of cases where the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland does not receive the same level of benefits in relation to health, housing and education as that community in Great Britain. However, we are encouraged that HM Government is working with the relevant Northern Ireland departments to resolve these disparities, where possible, and that in general there is no serious material disadvantage to the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland under current arrangements. (Paragraph 63) 14. A number of witnesses have made the case that veterans in Northern Ireland could benefit from the expansion of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service. We appreciate the argument that this is a bespoke service tailored to the specific needs of units that were based and served in Northern Ireland, but feel there could be value in extending the services it offered more widely where, for example, there is best practice which would benefit other veterans. We recommend that the MoD assesses the benefits of extending the Aftercare Service to all veterans based in Northern Ireland, and report back to us. (Paragraph 68) Future progress 15. We are grateful to Mr Edwin Poots and to Mr Nelson McCausland for giving evidence to us on this inquiry, and particularly welcome their statements that they would be happy to contribute to future Annual Reports on the Armed Forces Covenant. We recommend that the Ministry of Defence approach individual Ministers of Northern Ireland departments when seeking responses from the devolved administrations for future Annual Reports. This would enable the Secretary of State for Defence to report on the at least some of the areas where progress had been made and also areas where more needed to be done. (Paragraph 75) 16. The possibility of a Northern Ireland department appointing an Armed Forces advocate is extremely welcome. The advocate could work with other Northern Ireland departments on policy affecting the Armed Forces Community, and engage with HM Government and the Covenant Reference Group to ensure the work of the Northern Ireland Executive in this area is promoted. We appreciate that the appointment of such an individual is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but we urge the NIO and the MoD to continue to work with the Executive towards such an appointment. (Paragraph 78) 17. We welcome the commitment which the Northern Ireland Office has shown to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, by establishing the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum, establishing a system whereby members for the Armed Forces Community may raise concerns, and setting out plans for addressing shortfalls in current provisions. We ask to be kept updated of progress on implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, so that we can pursue areas where more needs to be done. (Paragraph 81)

40 There would clearly be a benefit in having a centre, or centres, where members of the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland could access the full range of support and advice available to them. We recommend that HM Government works with the Northern Ireland Executive and Armed Forces organisations operating in Northern Ireland to establish how this might best be done, and how such a scheme could be funded. (Paragraph 86) 19. We believe that there are significant benefits to improving the level of information provided to the Armed Forces Community about the support available to them. The pamphlet that is being produced by the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum is a good first step, and we recommend that this is distributed to all service-leavers establishing themselves in Northern Ireland. We also recommend that the MoD consider producing a comprehensive guide to benefits, in line with that issued to all service-leavers in the US. (Paragraph 89) 20. We recommend that HM Government investigates the specific circumstances of veterans coming before the criminal justice system, and considers how their cases can be best dealt with. (Paragraph 91) 21. There has not yet been a debate in the House on the first Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant. This may be an oversight, but we look forward to the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant being debated in the House at an early opportunity and, thereafter, on an annual basis. (Paragraph 97)

41 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 39 Annex Meetings held in Washington DC, June 2013 Below are details of those meetings relevant to the inquiry into Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland that members of the Committee 155 held during their visit to Washington DC. 156 Rob McDonald, Criminal Justice Consultant, presentation on Veterans Treatment Courts Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) were established in 2008, and followed the model of the United States Drug Courts, first introduced in 1994, whereby non-violent offenders received treatment, rather than a custodial sentence, to overcome their behaviour. Ever more veterans had been appearing before the courts and, if they did not receive treatment, would keep reoffending. Since 2008 some 300 veterans had been dealt with by the Courts and, significantly, none of them had reoffended. There were now 104 such Courts throughout the US. VTCs had been set up to deal with the number of veterans, both regular and reserve, who had become involved in crime and/or had mental health problems. There were certain requirements for an offender to meet if they wished to appear before a VTC; if these criteria could not be met, the veteran would be dealt with by a traditional court, and could end up in prison, or they would be sent for treatment for their mental health issues. Court staff would go through the records to see if anyone facing charges was a veteran and, if so, if they then met the criteria to go before a VTC. Although certain categories of violent offender were excluded from the VTC system, some of the courts would deal with people guilty of domestic abuse. Veterans did not have to approach a VTC themselves; a court official would make the first contact. The rationale behind the Courts was to get, and treat, an offender who had committed a misdemeanour before they could progress onto committing a felony. VTCs tried to change an offender s behaviour; such changes were not instantaneous but they did transform lives. When asked whether VTCs could be translated successfully to the UK, due to the different legal systems in the UK and in the US, it was pointed out that all individual US States had their own legal systems, yet all of them now had VTCs. VTCs helped members of the local community to become involved with veterans, as there could be a perception that veterans were treated more leniently than non-veterans. Veterans were not, of course, the only group of people who were dealt with outside the usual criminal justice system, and VTCs should be viewed in the same way as Drug Courts, Young Offenders Courts and Family Courts. However, there was generally a positive view of VTCs as they were effective in reducing reoffending. 155 Members taking part were Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr David Anderson, Mr Joe Benton, Oliver Colvile, Mr Stephen Hepburn, Jack Lopresti, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Nigel Mills, Ian Paisley and Andrew Percy. 156 During the visit, the Committee also held meetings with British Embassy, US Department of State, US Department of Energy, Northern Ireland Bureau, Embassy of Ireland, United Airlines and White House officials and individual Members of the US Congress.

42 40 Senator Bernard Sanders, Chairman, and staff of the Veterans Affairs Committee, US Senate The Veterans' Affairs Committee was created in 1970 and under the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Veterans Affairs Committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating veterans. Concerning the disparity of service provision between the federal and state Governments, we were told that: Veterans affairs is a national programme provided by the federal Government (covering healthcare, disablement benefit, etc.); Veterans affairs has a budget of $150 billion (second largest US budget), and States provide some additional benefits, but these are relatively minor. Historically, keeping track of veterans had not been good, but had improved in recent years. Service leavers were briefed on benefits and joining the Veterans Administration (VA), received advice on employment opportunities and also free healthcare. There were still issues around leaving the Department of Defence not automatically linking up with joining the VA, and also issues around sharing medical records between these two Departments. The US spent more on military per capita (4%) than any other nation. Some thought that this was too high, but there was generally a consensus that support for veterans was important. Compensation payments were by far the biggest part of the veterans budget, accounting for about 60% of the $150 billion. If service personnel were wounded in action, they would get healthcare through the VA and, if not wounded in action, there was an income assessment for the VA to provide healthcare. The VA also played a role in medical research, having led on work into PTSD, and developed treatment options; there had been large amounts of spending on PTSD and traumatic brain injuries in light of soldiers wounded in Iraq and in Afghanistan. More was also being done to support the families of service people, with programmes being developed for children and spouses, and programmes to focus on reintegration following service, and informing families of the effects of service. On education matters, the Post-9/11 GI Bill provided free state tuition, course books, and a stipend. This was a very lucrative benefit. The VA also provided training and education for older veterans to improve employment prospects. The VA also provided guarantees for home loans, allowing veterans to purchase a home without a deposit. Colonel Fred Hargreaves, British Embassy and Phil Burdette, Principal Director, Wounded Warrior Care and Transition Policy, US Department of Defence A joint UK/US Service Personnel, Veterans and Families Taskforce had been set up in May 2011, which had brought many tangible benefits for the armed forces, particularly in respect of medical issues. The United States leadership was very interested in how the

43 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 41 Covenant was being implemented in the UK, and would be particularly interested in hearing about the situation in Northern Ireland. Five Taskforce working groups had been set up 157 headed, on the UK side, by 3-Star Generals. The First Lady and the Second Lady were fully involved in the Families aspect of the Taskforce. Until 2007, and the Walter Reed revelations, the mental health problems experienced by veterans had not been appreciated, but since then there had been a substantial initiative; nowadays some 6000 people were responsible for looking after wounded warriors. There were, however, still some enormous challenges, especially for those personnel who had received severe inquiries. It was noticeable that the new generation of veterans were not joining the same organisations as their fathers and grandfathers did when they left the forces so, as soon as anyone left the armed forces, their details were passed onto the VA, who were proud of how they kept in touch with veterans by utilising modern technology, such as Smartphones. In contrast to Northern Ireland, where S. 75 could be seen as a possible barrier to the full implementation of the Covenant, there was no equivalent Federal/State conflict in the US; the Federal system was so strong that it tended to overwhelm any conflict with State legislation although the latter could provide an additional safety net. One particular area that was being tackled currently was the situation whereby certain veterans, who had served as pilots, medical staff or truck drivers, were unable to carry on this occupation in civilian life as the military standard of training did not meet the criteria needed to obtain a State License. Tax breaks were available for companies taking on veterans, and the private sector actively sought veterans to employ in their businesses. In the UK, the Community Partnership had been successful, but there was a different attitude in the US towards veterans, and the support US veterans received was mindboggling. Charities played a much bigger role in supporting UK veterans as in the US the Government took on a much greater role, although it was acknowledged that the UK had the NHS, so veterans in the UK did not have as many concerns about the provision of health and medical services as did their American counterparts. Karen Malebranche, Executive Director, Office of Interagency Health Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Rob Reynolds, Director, Benefits Assistance Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, and Anita Healy, Director, Memorial Programs, National Cemetery Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is a Federal Agency which provided an extensive range of services to veterans, such as payment of disability compensation to the veteran, education benefits to the veterans dependents, survivor pensions, health care to disabled veterans, insurance and home loan assistance, and burial/cemetery services. The VA was very proactive in outreach programs, especially designed to promote and protect the health of veterans, and to ensure that veterans were aware of their entitlements. Their mission statement is: 157 Transition to Civilian Life, Mental Health, Rehabilitation, Families Support and Deployed Medical Support.

44 42 To fulfill President Lincoln's promise To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan by serving and honoring the men and women who are America s veterans. Three administrations that form the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Veterans Benefits Administration; the Veterans Health Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) The VBA provided a number of benefits including: Disability compensation. $60 billion of the VA s budget is for 7.5 million veterans receiving disability compensation. This was for disabilities either incurred in or aggravated by military service. Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program, assisting Veterans with service-connected disabilities to prepare for, obtain, and maintain suitable employment. Home Loan Guaranty. This programme helped Veterans, Service members and eligible Reservists obtain, retain, adapt or refinance a home. Education. The VA s program could provide assistance for tuition, books, fees, housing and other costs under a number of different entitlements. The VA also produced a book, updated annually, outlining all federal VA benefits. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) There were 22 million veterans in the United States, and 8 million were enrolled with VA healthcare. Most veterans had other options to accessing healthcare through the VHA, through employment or private health insurance. The VHA s budget for 2013 was $55.4 billion, and had a staff of 277,000, of which 84,000 were veterans. The budget is divided into appropriations (federal money) and collections (from insurance providers). Healthcare under the VA was arranged into 21 geographical areas (Veterans Integrated Service Networks), and included: 152 medical centres (for in-patient care) 990 out-patient clinics 300 Vet Centres (for counselling services) 70 mobile Vet Centres 102 Domiciliary Residential Programs

45 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland Community Living Centres The VHA s new healthcare delivery model emphasised patient-led options, with comprehensive ends-based plans being developed. The VA also had links with specialist centres for specific needs the VA can t handle. National Cemetery Administration (NCA) The first national cemeteries were established in 1862; prior to that, soldiers had si,ply been buried where they fell on the battlefield. The NCA s mission was to honour veterans and their families with final resting places in national shrines and lasting tributes that commemorated their service and sacrifice to their nation. There were now 131 national cemeteries covering 20,000 acres, where 3.8 million Veterans, service members, Reservists and family members had been laid to rest. The NCA was responsible for providing burial space for Veterans and eligible family members, and for maintaining national cemeteries. The Administration also furnished headstones, markers and medallions for the graves of Veterans around the world, and administered a number of grants and certificate programs. The NCA had a staff of 1,700, over 74% of whom were veterans (the highest proportion in any federal agency). Veterans and eligible family members were entitled to a number of burial benefits, which included: Gravesite Opening and closing of the grave Perpetual care of the gravesite Headstone, marker or medallion US flag Presidential Memorial Certificate

46 44 Appendix Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act A Armed forces covenant report (1) The Secretary of State must in each calendar year (a) (b) prepare an armed forces covenant report; and lay a copy of the report before Parliament. (2) An armed forces covenant report is a report about effects of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces on service people, or particular descriptions of such people (a) (b) (c) in the fields of healthcare, education and housing; in the operation of inquests; and in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine. (3) In preparing an armed forces covenant report the Secretary of State must have regard in particular to (a) (b) (c) the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces; the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and the principle that special provision for service people may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces. (4) For the purposes of preparing an armed forces covenant report, the Secretary of State must obtain the views of any relevant government department, and seek the views of any relevant devolved administration, in relation to the effects to be covered by the report. (5) An armed forces covenant report must (a) (b) set out in full or summarise the views of a relevant government department or relevant devolved administration obtained pursuant to subsection (4); and where the views of a relevant devolved administration have been sought but not obtained, state that fact. (6) The Secretary of State may not include in an armed forces covenant report a summary under subsection (5)(a)unless the relevant government department or relevant devolved administration has approved the summary.

47 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 45 (7) An armed forces covenant report must state whether, in the Secretary of State s opinion, any effects covered by the report are such that service people or particular descriptions of service people are at a disadvantage as regards the field or fields in question, when compared with other persons or such descriptions of other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (8) Where the Secretary of State s opinion is that service people or particular descriptions of service people are at a disadvantage as mentioned in subsection (7), the report must set out the Secretary of State s response to that. (9) As regards effects covered by an armed forces covenant report (a) (b) the Secretary of State must consider whether the making of special provision for service people or particular descriptions of service people would be justified; and where the Secretary of State considers that such provision would be justified, the report must contain a reference to that fact. (10) In relation to any particular description of service people covered by a report, the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the fields of healthcare, education and housing is to such of those fields as the Secretary of State considers are ones in which people of that description are affected by membership or former membership of the armed forces. 343B Interpretation of Part (1) In section 343A service people means (a) (b) (c) (d) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces; members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law; former members of any of Her Majesty s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and relevant family members. (2) In section 343A relevant government department, in relation to an effect to be covered by an armed forces covenant report, means a department of the Government of the United Kingdom (apart from the Ministry of Defence) which the Secretary of State considers has functions relevant to that effect. (3) In section 343A relevant devolved administration, in relation to an effect to be covered by an armed forces covenant report, means whichever of the following the Secretary of State considers to have functions relevant to that effect (a) (b) (c) the Scottish Executive; the Northern Ireland departments; the Welsh Assembly Government.

48 46 (4) In this Part British overseas territory force means any of Her Majesty s forces that is raised under the law of a British overseas territory; membership or former membership of a force, in relation to a person, includes any service in that force that that person is undertaking, undertook or may be expected to be called on to undertake; relevant family members means such descriptions of persons connected with service members, or with persons who were service members, as the Secretary of State considers should be covered by a report or part of a report; service member means a person who falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1). (5) Any reference in this Part to membership or former membership of the armed forces is to be read, in relation to a person who is (a) (b) a service member, or a relevant family member by reason of connection with a person who is or was a service member, 99. as a reference to the service member s membership or former membership of a force mentioned in subsection (1).

49 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 47 Formal Minutes Wednesday 10 July 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson, in the Chair Mr Joe Benton Oliver Colvile Lady Hermon Kate Hoey Naomi Long Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills David Simpson Draft Report (Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read. Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 98 read and agreed to. Annex agreed to. A paper was ordered to be appended to the Report. Summary read and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House. Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House. Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, along with written evidence reported and ordered to be published on 27 February, 20 March and 17 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, and 26 and 27 June. [Adjourned till a date and time to be fixed by the Chair.

50 48 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland Witnesses Wednesday 30 January 2013 Page Chris Carson, Acting Chairman, and Iain Creswell, Local Authority Lead, Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee Ev 1 Wednesday 27 February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Minister of State for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE, Defence Services Secretary, and Gavin Barlow, Director General of Service Personnel Policy, Ministry of Defence Ev 12 Wednesday 17 April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL, Regional Rep for NI, SSAFA Forces Help, and Brian Maguire, Area Manager for Ireland, Royal British Legion Ev 26 Peter Poole, Director of Strategic Planning & Partnerships, Combat Stress, and Colonel Paul Cummings, Director of Welfare, ABF the Soldiers' Charity Ev 37 Wednesday 24 April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA, Minister of the Department for Social Development NI, and Edwin Poots MLA, Minister of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety NI Ev 44 Wednesday 15 May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Chairman, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker, Vice President, and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett, Secretary, Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment Ev 56 Brigadier Rob Thomson, Commander, 38 (Irish) Brigade Ev 64 Wednesday 5 June 2013 Brian Gormally, Director, and Daniel Holder, Deputy Director, Committee on the Administration of Justice Ev 72 Evelyn Collins CBE, Chief Executive, and Jacqueline McKee, Director of Advice and Compliance, Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Ev 78 Wednesday 26 June 2013 Mike Penning MP, Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office Ev 84 Thursday 27 June 2013 Christopher Jordan, Managing Director, Bureau Insurance Ev 94

51 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland 49 List of printed written evidence 1 Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee Ev 98, ev 98, ev Department for Social Development Northern Ireland Ev Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Ev Committee on the Administration of Justice Ev Regimental Association of The Royal Irish Regiment Ev Royal British Legion Ev Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Ev Ministry of Defence Ev 114, ev Combat Stress Ev Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Ev Army Families Federation Ev SSAFA Forces Help, Northern Ireland Branch Ev Help for Heroes Ev Commander of 38 (Irish) Brigade Ev Bureau Insurance Ev Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Northern Ireland Ev Northern Ireland Office Ev 136, ev Correspondence from OFMDFM Ev Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) Ev 139

52 50 Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament The reference number of the Government s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number. Session First Report Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland HC 51 Session First Report An air transport strategy for Northern Ireland HC 76 (HC 960) Second Report Draft Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill HC 1003 (CM 8621) Session First Report Corporation Tax in Northern Ireland HC 558 (HC 1767) Second Report Air Passenger Duty: Implications for Northern Ireland HC 1227 Third Report Fuel laundering and smuggling in Northern Ireland HC 1504 (HC 272, Session )

53 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence Taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on Wednesday 30 January 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr David Anderson Mr Joe Benton Oliver Colvile Lady Hermon Kate Hoey Jack Lopresti Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills Ian Paisley David Simpson Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Chris Carson, Acting Chairman, and Iain Creswell, Local Authority Lead, Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: Mr Carson, Mr Cresswell, you are very welcome indeed. Sorry to keep you waiting; there was some business we had to complete before seeing you. Thank you for joining us today to help us with this inquiry. Could I ask you to introduce yourselves, tell us a little bit about what you do, and make any opening statements you wish? Please be fairly brief, if you could. Thank you. Chris Carson: Thank you, Chairman. I am Chris Carson. I am the Acting Chairman of the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee. We have been taking an active role in trying to have the Armed Forces Covenant raised within Northern Ireland, in some shape or form. Iain Creswell: Good afternoon, Chair. I am Iain Creswell. I am the lead on local authority liaison within the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee, and I am here to support the Acting Chair. Chair: Thank you very much. These rooms are big, old and very lovely, but the acoustics are not great, so we might sometimes need to speak quite loudly, so everybody can hear. Q2 Mr Anderson: Can I ask you, please, how many veterans you actually represent? What is the number? Chris Carson: Within Northern Ireland it is estimated that we have over 100,000 ex-servicemen. The veterans community would be over 200,000. Q3 Mr Anderson: How do you operate in identifying them? How do you keep them up to date on matters affecting them? Do you have a database? Do people have to be signed up? Do they come to you, or do you go looking for them? Do you link up with Government agencies to identify them? How do you work? Chris Carson: In Northern Ireland we have no set-up source. We work on the applications for ex-service memberships and war pensions through the SPVA. We can get information for many war pensions those that are on war pensions and those that are on the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. We can get all that type of information. However, there is no set organisation within Northern Ireland to come up with the figures. Q4 Mr Anderson: So if there was a veteran who was not in receipt of war pension or any other benefit, you would not know that? Chris Carson: Probably not. Mr Anderson: There will obviously be quite a few of those. Chris Carson: Yes, there will be a vast number. Q5 Mr Anderson: How do you keep those you have knowledge of up to date in terms of legislation, or anything they need to know in terms of being looked after better than they are? Chris Carson: If they are on any form of army pension whatsoever, they are kept up to date via the SPVA. Otherwise, they are not kept up to date. Q6 Mr Anderson: Is this particular way you work any different from what would happen in England, Scotland or Wales? Chris Carson: No, all the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees are basically working in the same manner Q7 Oliver Colvile: Both the interim and the final report on the Armed Forces Covenant noted that there were problems in Northern Ireland. Would you like to give us an update on whereabouts you think that has now got to? Chris Carson: Our own local politicians have failed to put any input into the interim report and the 2012 report, so we have no input into that. We are not represented on the body that looks after that, and I believe that really disadvantages the ex-service community within Northern Ireland. Q8 Oliver Colvile: So what do you think should be put into it, if you had the opportunity to have a say? Chris Carson: Because we do not have any political set-up within Northern Ireland to look after veterans affairs, there is nothing that they could really put into it. Q9 Oliver Colvile: Do you think the system should be changed so that you do have a say? Chris Carson: Yes, very much so.

54 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Ev 2 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell Q10 Lady Hermon: Sorry, could I just ask something? Thank you, Mr Chairman; I know I am taking this question slightly out of the run of things. I do know that in fact in the Private Member s Bill, though it was not successful, there was an effort by a local politician from Northern Ireland to make it a duty of the Executive to take part and give some input. Presumably, and correct me if I am wrong, you would like there to be a duty on a particular Executive Minister to give an input into the review of the enforcement of the Armed Forces Covenant? Chris Carson: Yes. The simple answer, Lady Hermon, is yes, we would. The problem is that we have so many different organisations within Northern Ireland doing some fantastic work. They are working with individual politicians. There is no overarching umbrella with all these people to come together, and we cannot win this working as ex-service organisations, with one MLA here and one there. We need local government support, and it has to be total, or else it is not going to work. Q11 Lady Hermon: Regarding the junior Ministers and I do say and identify expressly the junior Ministers in the Executive who have a responsibility for equality and human rights, have you had any formal or indeed informal engagement with either of those individuals? Chris Carson: No, we have not, Lady Hermon. We have, as a committee, written to the First Minister on three separate occasions, only not to get any answer. Lady Hermon: You have had no reply from the First Minister on three occasions? Chris Carson: No reply on three separate occasions. The outgoing chairman of the committee had written on three separate occasions. Q12 Lady Hermon: How recently would that have been? Chris Carson: The last one would probably have been about eight months ago. Chair: Quite a while ago. Q13 Lady Hermon: How do you feel? Chris Carson: Well, it is disappointing. Q14 Ian Paisley: First of all, you are very, very welcome. It is good to see you here, and I know the good work that you do. I think we have exchanged correspondence with individuals in the past. It is great to see you here, and I hope we can maybe help. Could we go back to one of your earlier answers? You mentioned the actual numbers of ex-servicemen. Could you give us a wee bit of a clearer view on how many of those ex-servicemen would have been exclusive to serving in Ulster under Operation Banner? How many are ex-service from service both in Northern Ireland and abroad? Chris Carson: From one regiment, without naming it you will know it is estimated that 58,000 went through that regiment. Ian Paisley: 58,000 sorry? Chris Carson: About 58,000 service personnel went through that regiment. Ian Paisley: The Ulster Defence Regiment, yes. Chris Carson: That is not counting all the regular units that were involved with Operation Banner, including the Royal Navy and the Air Force. Iain Creswell: Could I maybe give you some more definitive figures? Ian Paisley: Thank you. Iain Creswell: Currently in Northern Ireland there are a total of 7,865 in receipt of either war pension, War Disablement Pension or indeed the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. Now, unfortunately the statistics that we get from the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency cannot break it down to what was specific to what regiment, or what branch of the armed forces, whether it be navy, air force or indeed home service regiments. We just do not have those figures to hand, and SPVA really tell us that it would be a mammoth task to try to do that. However, what I can tell you is there are almost 8,000 in receipt of either a pension or compensation in some shape, form or fashion. Q15 Ian Paisley: That is very useful. I think it is good for the Committee to have that on the record, so that we know the figures and levels of service as well. I think the other figure is also important. I want also to go back to the answer you gave about the very disappointing responses you have had from the Executive, and the fact that you have written on three occasions, I think you said? Chris Carson: Yes. Ian Paisley: And you have received no response. Would you be able to furnish us with a copy of the letters? Would you feel happy to? Chris Carson: I would be unsure of that, but I will ask the outgoing chairman whether he has kept them on file. If he has, I will get them to you. 1 Q16 Ian Paisley: Thank you very much. If we do get that, that will be very, very useful. Do you feel any progress is being made on the issue at all, with the Northern Ireland Executive, or is it just at a standstill? Chris Carson: There is no movement at all with the Northern Ireland Executive. Q17 Ian Paisley: Do you have any contacts with the other departments of Government in Northern Ireland? Chris Carson: No. Ian Paisley: None at all? Chris Carson: Except with the DHSS, where we have the Armed Forces Liaison Forum, which has taken care of the medical side of things. It is probably the only implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant that has been put into Northern Ireland under the radar and kept pretty quiet. Q18 Ian Paisley: Do you find that is working to your satisfaction? Chris Carson: Not to my satisfaction. I am a member of that forum. We are supposed to meet two to three times a year, and at the moment we are only meeting 1 A copy of the first letter and response has been published as supplementary written evidence from the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee. Copies of the last two letters could not be located.

55 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell once a year. That is because the members are extremely busy; it is difficult to get everybody together at the same time. These meetings need to be arranged 18 months or two years in advance, and set in stone. Q19 Ian Paisley: Who chairs that forum? Chris Carson: Off the top of my head, the chair has been changed. Unfortunately I was unable to get to the last meeting. Again, I will let you know who that is. 2 Q20 Ian Paisley: Is it a civil servant? Chris Carson: No, it is somebody in the medical profession. Q21 Ian Paisley: Without giving names, how many other people sit on the forum? Chris Carson: On that forum, there are 38 (Irish) Brigade representatives, the Royal British Legion, us, Combat Stress everybody who needs to be there is there. Q22 Ian Paisley: You feel if it was functioning faster or more efficiently, you would get more activity, more success. Chris Carson: I could not honestly say that, because I know that if we do have any medical problems with an individual, we can get movement on it fairly quickly. There is not really a problem with it. Q23 David Simpson: Chris and Iain, you are very, very welcome. It is good to see you again, especially Chris; he and I have engaged on a number of occasions through different events for Help for Heroes and different things we have done in the constituency. I think the Committee today, Chris, will certainly acknowledge the frustration. We are only into the Committee a very short time here, but I certainly acknowledge the frustration that you are putting across from the lack of progress on all of this. I think that is evident. Ian has asked about the engagement with the Executive; there has been virtually none at all, and therefore it is a disappointment that three letters have been written, and no response. I think that is unacceptable. In relation to the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament, is there a contact with them through the UK as a whole? If there is, what sort of contact is there? Chris Carson: I am unaware of whether there has been any contact between our own assembly and the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I have been in touch with my counterparts in the other VA& PCs within their regions, and they are working closely with their governments, almost on a daily basis. Both of them have committees dealing with armed forces and veterans matters. David Simpson: Within their assemblies? Chris Carson: Within their assemblies. Q24 Jack Lopresti: Welcome. The Minister of State for Northern Ireland said that he chaired a roundtable discussion last week with a number of armed forces 2 Note from witness: A new chairman has been appointed from the DHSSPS, the next meeting is due on 30 April charities to discuss how the Covenant is being implemented in Northern Ireland. Were you part of that roundtable discussion? Chris Carson: I am going to pass that on to my colleague Iain, because he represented me at that meeting. Jack Lopresti: How productive do you feel the meeting was, as far as establishing where you are and making progress in the future? Iain Creswell: As you will appreciate, it is very early days, and that meeting was only called for last week, by Mike Penning MP. The thrust of that meeting was to get interested parties together to find out where there was commonality. In fact it was discovered that there is a good deal of care for veterans within Northern Ireland from the various charities and organisations charged with responsibility, and indeed there is some overlap within that. However, what I feel is missing now is overarching co-ordination, co-operation and governance. Because there is no governance of it, it seems that every organisation and every charity is doing their own thing, as it were. Whilst they are doing sterling work for veterans, I feel that if it was more co-ordinated and if there was political impetus in it if the politicians were involved in that forum, and particularly the politicians from Northern Ireland then yes, we would have some cohesive force to at least make a statement to the veterans out there. We feel that the veterans in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged compared with those in the rest of the UK, and particularly those from other devolved governments. All we are looking for is equality. We believe that whilst the Welsh and Scottish Administrations have made statements and have given their support to it, nothing has happened in Northern Ireland. Therefore the Armed Forces Covenant de facto does not exist within Northern Ireland. Q25 Jack Lopresti: What you are saying is that it is not being implemented. Iain Creswell: That is what we feel needs to happen. Certainly, that meeting last week called for more cooperation between the organisations. I still feel that it is early days, but we shall have to wait and see if any governance and co-operation comes out of that. Q26 David Simpson: On that point then, you said that Reg Empey had called for a meeting. Iain Creswell: No, sorry: the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mike Penning. David Simpson: Sorry, I thought you said Reg Empey, and that is what the Chairman thought. Iain Creswell: It s my accent. Q27 David Simpson: That s all right. Now, can you just clarify the rationale for that meeting again? What was the reason for it? Iain Creswell: The subject for discussion was how well or how badly the Armed Forces Covenant was being applied in Northern Ireland to service personnel veterans and their families, and whether there were gaps in provision. However, I feel it stemmed from the debate here in Parliament on 22 November, when the issue was raised. In fact, from that this Committee has got together and had the impetus to hold this

56 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Ev 4 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell inquiry. I think that is partly because the Minister said that he was asked by the Prime Minister to go and set up this forum, and it is agreed that they will hold this forum twice a year. I think that was the rationale behind it. I would love to say that it has been the work of our committee that stimulated the debate and got things moving, and got things off the ground. Q28 David Simpson: You would take the credit for that? Iain Creswell: I would love to take the credit for that. Ian Paisley: You think it was our debate that did it? Iain Creswell: I don t know whether it is the debate that did it, or whether it was us, but something has happened anyway. Oliver Colvile: Mr Paisley wants the credit for it. Q29 Lady Hermon: He is trying to extract a compliment; he gets plenty of them. Could I just take you back to a couple of things? It is a real pleasure to have the two of you here, and giving us evidence so openly and frankly. We do benefit from that. Can I ask you to reflect on the reply that you have just given? In fact, I was very struck by the words you used, and I have taken them down. You said, The veterans in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged, and then there is a little bit, and then you said, All we want is equality. Chris Carson: Yes. Lady Hermon: Would you clarify and elaborate on how you feel veterans are disadvantaged by living in Northern Ireland or having served in Northern Ireland? Am I putting you on the spot? Either of you could reply. Chris Carson: That is right, because they do not have any political support. Within Wales and Scotland, local governments are paying out on various schemes to help and support veterans and their families, and service personnel and their families. Nothing like that, absolutely nothing like that, is happening in Northern Ireland. We have one scheme in Northern Ireland that benefits veterans it is only the veterans who are in receipt of war pension and that is the SmartPass travel pass. That is the only thing we have in Northern Ireland, and that happened I am trying to think back a good while ago now. Lady Hermon: Yes, it is. Chris Carson: It was a good number of years ago that that came into place. I think it was under Nigel Dodds. Was it Nigel? Ian Paisley: It was 2001 I think. Chris Carson: I cannot remember; it was so long ago. However, that is the only thing, and that again came in under the radar. In my other life I am a caseworker for the Royal British Legion; I am doing welfare work almost daily. I am seeing disabled ex-servicemen and women throughout Northern Ireland who are on war pensions and do not know about that scheme, so I always carry a few application forms in my pocket. Q30 Lady Hermon: It is for them to take the initiative and to apply? Chris Carson: Yes. We do all understand the problems that we have in Northern Ireland, and the attitude of keep your head below the parapet or somebody will take a shot at it. If the ex-service community does not know about whatever we are trying to put in place for them, then it is going to be of no benefit for them. Q31 Lady Hermon: Yes. Just for the benefit of the Committee, what additional schemes would be available to veterans? For example, you said there were many more in Scotland and Wales. Iain Creswell: I can add to that, Lady Hermon, but I certainly do not want to bore the Committee with the statistics. Lady Hermon: No, it is not boring. Iain Creswell: If we take Wales, we have a population of around 3 million people. There are 8,000 War Disablement Pensions, almost 1,500 war widows / widowers pensions, and 250 Armed Forces Compensation payments. The Welsh Government has decided to provide access and support for veterans through the All Wales Health and Wellbeing Service. Since 2010 the Welsh Government has provided 485,000 annually to the NHS directly aimed at mental health for veterans. Combat Stress, a charity, are currently providing treatment for 769 veterans within Wales. In Scotland, which has a population of 5.2 million, there are 4,105 War Disablement Pensions, 2,150 war widows /widowers pensions, 535 Armed Forces Compensation payments, and 400,000 has been given to facilitate 60 projects for the benefit of veterans. They have also donated 1.7 million to Combat Stress, and Combat Stress are currently providing treatment for 721 veterans. Q32 Lady Hermon: What is the comparison with Northern Ireland? Iain Creswell: Northern Ireland, as you are probably well aware, has a population of 1.8 million. There are 3,754 War Disablement Pensions, 665 war widows / widowers pensions, 70 Armed Forces Compensation payments, and Combat Stress are currently providing treatment for 776 veterans throughout Ireland. They cover both North and South. Lady Hermon: Yes, we would be interested to hear more about that. Iain Creswell: No direct or ring-fenced funding has been provided to the best of our knowledge. Lady Hermon: That is a very stark contrast. That is very helpful, thank you. Iain Creswell: It is a stark contrast. Lady Hermon: Yes, it is. Iain Creswell: If we even extrapolate a little bit further, the 776 veterans are the ones we know about. One of the problems we have found with veterans is that, because of the security situation in Northern Ireland, veterans are loth to go through the NHS route. They go directly to Combat Stress because they do not want to raise with their GP that they are a veteran, simply because of what may happen or their perceived risk. The risk may be there, or may not be there, but it is their perception, and it is their perception that really matters. That is why we in the VA&PC decided to go round every council in Northern Ireland and give them a presentation of the work that we did, and asked for a veterans advocate

57 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell from each council. We asked for that so that a veteran living in one particular council area could feel safe to go, and there was a point of contact within that council, so that they could get the services of a councillor. Q33 Lady Hermon: Did all councils in Northern Ireland co-operate? Iain Creswell: Most of them did. Again, back to these statistics, Lady Hermon. I hate to quote the statistics, but out of the 26 councils, two decided against appointment, 11 have appointed a veterans advocate, we are waiting for confirmation from six, and one presentation is pending. One presentation had to be abandoned, and five councils did not invite us to give a presentation. Q34 Lady Hermon: Did not invite you? Do you mean to say they refused to have you? Iain Creswell: They did not refuse. They just did not respond to us. Lady Hermon: Oh, did not respond. Iain Creswell: We asked them if they would invite us to give a presentation to the council meeting, and out of those, five did not respond. Q35 Lady Hermon: I don t want to put you on the spot, because I really don t want anybody exposed to either criticism or increased risk, but would you be able to identify the two councils at the very beginning who definitely do not appoint a representative? Iain Creswell: I would rather not identify those councils. Lady Hermon: That is absolutely fine. Iain Creswell: Because it was a voluntary thing, we decided to go to the councils and have them appoint someone. If the councils decided not to do it, then Lady Hermon: You respected that. Iain Creswell: That was their wish, and we would respect that for them. If we did have a representative there, well and good. If we did not, then we will pass on. I do not want to go down the route of RPA, but if we do go down the proposed route of RPA that seems to be on the table at the moment of 11 councils, we shall have representation on 10 of those. Lady Hermon: Right, that sounds like a casting vote in favour of reform. Iain Creswell: I think they can work it out between them, Lady Hermon. Q36 Ian Paisley: Just a last detail on that aspect of it: of the councils that did not see you for whatever reason, would you have a target audience in that council district of your veterans that you would be aware of? Iain Creswell: Two of them we would. Q37 Oliver Colvile: This has been an area in which I have taken quite a keen interest during the course of the last two and a half years. As you probably know, I represent a naval garrison city, so there are issues to do with veterans that I most certainly come across. Lady Hermon: Plymouth, in case you do not know. Oliver Colvile: Yes, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Devonport being the naval base. The issue, which is most certainly the case, is, if you do not look after veterans, some of them will end up taking to drink, some of them will end up homeless, some of them will end up having very big mental problems, as you may know. It could be 15 years after they have left an incident that people suddenly have mental health issues in quite a big way, and British Legion most certainly are picking up quite a bit of stuff from people who served in the Falklands. Has very much research been done within Northern Ireland on the number of people who are suffering from alcoholism who have a history of being in the services, and likewise the homeless? Has there been any research done into that kind of demographic profile at all? Chris Carson: No, not to our knowledge. Iain Creswell: Certainly there is a charity that has just started up in Northern Ireland. Soldiers Off the Streets originated in Wales, and they are a charity that goes around the homeless, trying to pick up these people off the streets. They tell me that there are a lot of people even sofa-surfing, which is a phrase that they use. They get discharged from the forces, and they have no fixed abode. They are staying in a friend s house, sleeping on the sofa, which is obviously where the term comes from. Then they are moving on to another friend. Now that itself compounds things; because they have no fixed abode, they cannot get benefits. Because they cannot get benefits, they are more or less out begging on the street. Certainly in Northern Ireland, as far as I know, to date there have been two people that Soldiers Off the Street have picked up on, and they have got them assistance. There are a lot more in Wales and Scotland, but certainly in Northern Ireland, that is it. The other aspect of it is the alcohol, which you have just alluded to. As far as I am aware, no research is being done, but I know there was a pilot project somewhere in the south of England. I cannot remember offhand where it was, but they tapped into the local constabulary, and they asked them to identify veterans who were coming through custody with them for one thing and other, to try to get them help and assistance. Now certainly, that is something that we may have a vision for further down the line, but the first thing we want to do is raise awareness, and get somebody with a focal point that they can go to, and somebody that has administrative and overarching responsibility for the veterans. Oliver Colvile: The irony behind all of this is that, if something is not done regarding these people, it is going to have a significant financial implication, not only for the local authorities but for the Executive as well. I would have thought we should most certainly seek to make sure some analysis is done, even if it is only going to be done by one of the universities it is the kind of thing that they most certainly would have a very good understanding about so it can be seen to be independent, rather than necessarily political. Thank you very much. Q38 Mr Benton: I want to ask you a question about the input of charitable organisations into the problem. However, before I do, there is something clouding my mind regarding the recent exchanges the questions and responses. There seems to be a lack of uniformity, hence the disparity in the Northern Ireland situation.

58 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Ev 6 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell How is it going to be resolved? I know you are trying to have exchanges and dealing with UK Government. I do appreciate all the different problems, after being involved in action and so on. I understand there are different categories, but is the funding formula that is applied correct? Is Northern Ireland getting treated differently in terms of funding? I would have thought that, after people have given sometimes their life and their service for the country, and it has had all these terrible effects, there would be a uniform approach right across the UK. I am having difficulty in trying to appreciate how Northern Ireland is being discriminated against. It is certainly wrong if they are being discriminated against in any way, because all ex-servicemen, in my view, should be treated equally and properly. This really is the key point for me. So I would like some clarification on how you view that. I do not know why, but I seem to sense that maybe the funding formula is not right. However, certainly if there is discretion for it to be applied in a different way in different parts of the UK, I cannot see any justification for that. This leads me on to the question about expectation from the UK Government. I can understand that it is necessary to take it to UK Government and say, Look, this is going on. Rectify it. What response would you expect from the UK Government? I think it is appalling that you have had letters ignored when raising this problem, but I think at the same time it is proper to ask what your expectation of a helpful response might be, and what you would like to see the UK Government do. If I may just come back to the question I was going to ask about the charitable sector, what role do they now play in terms of this deficiency? Chair: The answer might have to be slightly shorter than the question. Chris Carson: On the first part of the question, with regard to funding, as Iain has already explained, the Northern Ireland Executive have not funded any service or ex-service scheme within Northern Ireland since the Service Personnel Command Paper went before the session of 13 July 2008, which led to the Covenant. With regard to the charities, the charities will just roll on as they have always done: the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and SSAFA Forces Help. They will continue to put in the support that they can, and with the veterans on the ground that need their help. That will not change in any way, shape or form, and they will just keep on going. If we did not have the ex-service charities, the veterans in Northern Ireland would have no support whatsoever. Q39 Lady Hermon: Could I just add to that, Mr Carson? How regularly would you meet with representatives from Combat Stress, SSAFA and the Army Benevolent Fund all of those wonderful charities? Chris Carson: Our committee meets three times a year, and their people are all represented on our committee. However, through other bodies we would be represented with them. Although I am Acting Chair of this committee, I am also a caseworker for the Royal British Legion. I have been a past Northern Ireland Chairman of the Legion, so I am well involved with those running the Legion within Northern Ireland, and we talk to each other. I have direct input into SSAFA. If I go to somebody s home and think that in my personal opinion they may need some support mentally, then I will simply refer them directly to the Director of SSAFA in Northern Ireland, because he sits on this committee. Q40 Lady Hermon: Thank you, and that leads into the point that in fact I think you are very usefully making: there may be more co-operation between the Army charities if I can call them generally the exservices charities, but those who are serving as well in Northern Ireland as compared with perhaps other parts of the United Kingdom, given the size of Northern Ireland and the high regard that the armed services are held in by a very, very large section of the community. Would that be accurate? Chris Carson: Very much so. I don t know if you aware, Lady Hermon, that the Royal British Legion, SSAFA Forces Help and a number of the other charities actually all operate out of the same building in Belfast. So on the welfare side, they do meet on a regular basis I am sure they do. Q41 David Simpson: Chris, you said at the very beginning, I think in your opening comments or maybe in your answer to one of the questions, that there is no Northern Ireland representative within the Covenant reference group. What explanation has your organisation received for why there is no representation, and what has been done to try to fix that? What is the reason for that? Chris Carson: We have had no explanation. I e- mailed the Covenant group from an address that I got online it must have been around this time last year and again, I never got an answer. These two reports, Mr Chairman one for Scotland and one for Wales are their up-to-date Covenant reports, and they are available online. Both of them speak highly of their representation on that group. Q42 Nigel Mills: I think we talked earlier about the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive chose not to contribute to the first annual report on the Armed Forces Covenant. You were obviously not happy about that. Do you think we should change the law to say that not only should the Secretary of State have to consult with them, but they should be obliged to reply? Chris Carson: Yes. Nigel Mills: That seems suitably clear. Q43 Mr Anderson: Within your submission to us you talked about the issues around section 75. While we probably do not have the same legal principles in this part of the United Kingdom, I would be very, very clear that a civilised nation would want to live to most of the principles in section 75. It would appear to me that you believe that section 75 is being used to stop work happening, and you make the comment that Some use it to veto any progress, and others use it as an excuse not to do anything. Who do you believe uses it as a veto, and who is using it as an excuse not to do anything?

59 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell Chris Carson: Again, I should say, Chair, that we are not political animals, and those Northern Ireland MPs here will actually know who I am talking about. In some cases when you try to do something for the exservice community, some politicians within Northern Ireland would say, No, using section 75 as a legal document to say that we cannot treat people differently and that everybody has to be treated the same. We have other politicians who would say, Look, I am sorry but we cannot do that, because of section 75. We are saying that section 75 is not a barrier to implementing the vast majority, if not the whole, of the Armed Forces Covenant, because although we cannot go down the route of Scotland and Wales, with priority housing for ex-servicemen and that sort of stuff, there are still things that we can do within the Covenant that do not need section 75. No, it should not be used simply to stop everything, which we believe is happening at the moment. Q44 Mr Anderson: Have you been told this formally? Have you got it in writing? Chris Carson: No, you are never going to be told something like that formally I am sure you are not. It is when you have individual meetings with individual politicians, and they say, Look, we can try so-and-so. We can try this, but we re probably not going to be able to because of section 75. You never hear back, and there is no more information available. So you have got to believe that some of them will use it and some of them will not. Q45 Mr Anderson: However, there are clearly issues, and I will give you some examples, relating to section 75. Firemen retire earlier than bin men; policemen retire earlier than postmen; mental health nurses retire earlier than general nurses. I am trying to look at the service people. That was their job. We can call it a career. Their job was to go and serve the nation. They have come out, and they have got the right to be treated the same, whether it is this side of the Irish Sea or the other side of the Irish Sea. So can we be very clear that section 75 is not being flagged up to you formally? If you write and say, Why are we not being allowed to do x? you will not get a response that says, You can t do this because section 75 specifically prohibits that happening. Chris Carson: If we wrote a letter asking, Why can t ex-servicemen get priority housing when they retire from the services and come home to live?, we would get a letter back simply saying that they would have to go on the housing list, the same as everybody else, because everybody in Northern Ireland is treated the same as a result of that section. Now, don t get me wrong: the first thing I would say on that again is that there are many, many parts of the Armed Forces Covenant that we can implement that will not affect or touch section 75. There has been the odd mutation that section 75 should be amended. I would agree that one amendment to section 75 should also include that you should not be discriminated against because of what job you had in the past. However, that is not a barrier. Q46 Mr Anderson: That should be in section 75 anyway. Chris Carson: Yes. Mr Anderson: You should not be discriminated against because of what your job was, regardless. Chris Carson: Even that would not change the perception of everybody in Northern Ireland being treated the same. Servicemen and women from Northern Ireland leaving the armed forces after however many years are going to think long and hard about returning to Northern Ireland, because if they cannot get housing, if they have to sofa-surf, and if they cannot get the support of services that their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom are getting, then they are going to stay in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are then going to lose people who are valuable to the community, who have been well trained in management people who would spend money in our community. We are not going to get them back. That is why we are saying section 75 is not a reason to stop everything. There is no reason to stop simply because we cannot get an exservicemen or woman a priority house. That does not mean we should throw out the whole Covenant. Q47 Mr Anderson: Could you, for our benefit, and particularly those of us who do not live in Northern Ireland, give us in writing some of your ideas as to why section 75 is being used to prevent this, and some of your ideas as to why it would not be? Chair: Have you had that question answered Dave? Sorry. Mr Anderson: Are you okay to do that? Chris Carson: Yes. Q48 Lady Hermon: Just to follow on from Mr Anderson s question, in reply, Mr Carson, you actually said and I noted it that many parts of the Armed Forces Covenant in fact could be implemented. Could you just identify them? In fact, I think you actually implied that the vast majority of it could be applied without going near section 75, and that section 75 is not a barrier, and should not be used as a barrier. What could we do? What are the areas of the Armed Forces Covenant that could just be implemented? Chris Carson: There are pages and pages. Lady Hermon: Just a couple of examples. Chris Carson: A very simple one would be drop-in centres for ex-service personnel leaving the service. Those people that have left for many years can drop in to a one-stop shop where they can get advice on benefits, on job prospects, on a multitude of everyday things that people need, and that is just one thing. There is actually one centre like that outside of the political system, and that is being run by a charity in Northern Ireland at the moment. It is, I am told, very, very successful. Lady Hermon: Excellent. That is a very good example. Q49 Oliver Colvile: Just keeping on this theme, in your own submission you said that some would say that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act should be amended. What amendment would you like to see,

60 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Ev 8 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell and have you had any discussions at all with Bob Collins, whom I understand is the Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission? Have you had any discussions with the Equality Commission? What have they said? Chris Carson: We have not had discussions, but Iain has an answer to that question. Oliver Colvile: He has got a similar view to you, I suspect. Chris Carson: Yes. Iain Creswell: If I can take you back to 2009, 2010, when in Stormont a Private Member s Bill, an armed forces Bill, was attempted to be enacted. However, at the committee stage, the committee took advice on implementing this, and the Equality Commission said at the time that on the face of it, when they talked about priority treatment and I will come back to that, if I may, in a minute it looked as if it would breach section 75. However, on further scrutiny of the Bill, they found nothing in it that would contravene section 75. I said I would come back to priority treatment, because certainly in Scotland they talk about priority treatment in housing, and in Wales they talk about it as well. We are not talking about priority treatment. All we are looking for is equality. An example that I would give is a service leaver leaving the armed forces and applying for housing. When applying for social housing in Northern Ireland, you fill in a form, and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive operates a points system. Some will get points depending on the accommodation they are living in at the moment. Well, if someone is living in married quarters, then they do not get extra points because they are not living in good accommodation. People also get points for the number of years they have been on the housing waiting list, and, again, a serving member of the armed forces cannot get any of those years because they have spent those years serving in the armed forces. There is also provision in that for someone who is being intimidated; if they have been intimidated out of their house for one reason or another, they do automatically get extra points. So there is provision in that, which does not breach equality law, for someone to get, if we like, a special circumstance treated. That is all we are asking for some way, some mechanism. Certainly we would leave the mechanism itself to the politicians. However, all we are saying is that consideration should be given for situations like that, so that we do not have a service leaver coming out of married quarters one day and finding themselves living with relatives the next. Q50 Kate Hoey: Can I just come in on that? You have already mentioned some of the amendments that you would like to see, in the sense that you want to have people treated equally. I genuinely do not understand, because section 75 at the moment clearly does allow people with different housing needs to be treated differently. Clearly everybody in Northern Ireland is not treated equally, just as everybody in my constituency who wants housing is not treated equally. Somebody who has got particular special needs gets treated differently. I kind of feel that section 75 is being used by certain sections to almost say that this couldn t happen when, actually, I cannot see why it couldn t. Iain Creswell: You are absolutely right. My interpretation of section 75 is that there is nothing wrong it. Q51 Kate Hoey: Has somebody who thinks they are the top legal person in Northern Ireland said, We cannot possibly bring in this, because this would be going against section 75? Iain Creswell: I think it is a case of every organisation doing this. I would draw the analogy with health and safety at work. Having been involved with health and safety at work, I have heard so many times risk assessors saying, You can t do that because of health and safety, which I think is an absolute nonsense. You can do it, but because of health and safety, you have got to take extra precautions and you have got to take a measured approach. That is what I think people should be doing with section 75; rather than saying it is prohibited under Section 75 and using that as a blanket approach, they should be getting into the minutiae of it and saying, Look, what is there here? Is there a case to answer? Would it breach section 75? and look at the detail of it. Q52 Kate Hoey: So amendments are not really what you are pushing for? Iain Creswell: No, absolutely not. Chris Carson: No. Oliver Colvile: I just think I should correct something that I said, Mr Chairman: Bob Collins is actually the former commissioner, not the current one. I would hate for him to suddenly feel that he is responsible for this. Q53 Nigel Mills: I think we have kicked around this point of whether or not the Armed Forces Covenant seeks priority for veterans in certain situations. I guess I am no expert, but my feeling was that it did seek to give priority in some situations, and that was kind of the point. So I can see your argument that you want special circumstances taken into account, which is a subtle difference to priority being given. I am trying to balance that with what your written submission said that you are actually looking for parity with how veterans are treated elsewhere in the UK. My understanding was that we did now give some priority to veterans elsewhere in the UK, so if you had parity with that, you would effectively have some priority in Northern Ireland. I am just a little concerned that the word priority is effective here, and therefore does give you a problem. Iain Creswell: What I could suggest to you is, if we look at the situation of medical treatment and priority, any GP throughout the country, or any doctor throughout the country, will tell you they will always treat a patient on clinical need. If two people present with similar situations, they will always treat the one with the most clinical need first. So there, priority treatment in the medical sense is really a misnomer. If we take the likes of housing, again, all I am saying, and all we are saying, is that we should consider it. It may be that somebody has a greater need than

61 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell someone else, and it may be over a service leaver. Somebody who has been living in Northern Ireland for years may have as good and as great a need as the person leaving the forces. That is fine; I do not have an issue with that. However, what I do have an issue with is somebody going away, spending years serving their country, and somebody else staying at home, accumulating points to get housing, and the person who has been away in the forces not being able to accumulate those points. Q54 Nigel Mills: But you think the spirit of the Covenant can clearly be implemented without contravening section 75. Iain Creswell: Yes, absolutely Chris Carson: Yes. Q55 Jack Lopresti: When he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on its inquiry to support veterans in Wales, the Minister of State for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans said that the views of some of the Sinn Fein-run authorities of the Covenant have created a difficulty in Northern Ireland. Would you agree with that? Chris Carson: That is certainly the perception. I have to say, at this time we have not run up against it. As Iain explained earlier, our committee have been doing PowerPoint presentations at local councils up and down the country. I think we would suggest we had a rough time at only one of them, but at the rest of them we were treated with total respect. Now, not all of the councils had their Sinn Fein members attending at that time. At some they did attend, and at some they did not, and those that did made their speech, and that was it. We were treated with respect, and we were allowed to make our PowerPoint presentation. We were allowed to come and go; there was no hassle, no worries. So we have not come up against it directly, but of course it is always in the background. If I touch wood in the old-fashioned way the Northern Ireland Executive decided to do something about the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant within Northern Ireland at a political level, then I have absolutely no doubt there would be opposition to it from Sinn Fein. Q56 David Simpson: Gentlemen, Health, Social Services and Public Safety published a protocol some time ago to ensure equality in access to health and social services for the armed services. From your experience, do you believe that is being implemented, or that it is a step in the right direction? Or is what they are saying in their protocol actually actioned does it happen? Chris Carson: Yes, they have done. In Northern Ireland there has been some work done by them. They have sent letters to all the trusts within Northern Ireland asking for responses. I am unaware if they got responses, but through the Northern Ireland forum they had sent out letters to the I do not know what you call them these days directors or leaders of the trust or whatever. David Simpson: Chief executives. Chris Carson: Chief executives. They were asking for some input into that. I am unaware at this stage whether they got any replies or not. Q57 Oliver Colvile: You have answered very well all the issues to do with local authorities in Northern Ireland as to how they are served; I am not going to ask you about that. However, there are obviously a number of military, from not only the Army but the RAF, the Royal Marines and the Navy, who are living in Southern Ireland too. One of the concerns that I slightly have is that the British Government should see its responsibility of looking after all those members of the armed forces who may be retired, whether they happen to live within the British Isles as whole or, frankly, in Australia, South Africa or any other part of the world. I understand that your job is very much based on Northern Ireland, but how much connection have you got also with some of those veterans who are down in Southern Ireland? The Irish Government will not see the same kind of responsibility necessarily that the British Government does, so how can we make sure that those people are also looked after as far as some of those big issues like mental health are concerned? Chris Carson: Regarding mental health issues for those ex-members of the British armed forces living in the Republic of Ireland, they come under the auspices of Combat Stress within Northern Ireland. Their caseworkers travel up and down, visit them, and help get them into treatment if need be. So providing that the ex-serviceman or woman knows about them, help is available. Q58 Oliver Colvile: So what we don t do is leave them out to dry? Chris Carson: No, but there is no discussion that I am aware of involving the Government and the local ex-service organisations within Dublin. I know they do get on very well, in particular with the Royal British Legion, and the Irish Government get on very well with Combat Stress, for example, and are great supporters of the Royal British Legion in the Republic of Ireland. Q59 Oliver Colvile: Is it fair to say that the Combat Stress charity has good links into the British Government? Chris Carson: Yes. Oliver Colvile: So if they need a bit of Whitehall clout which may or may not be good news, I don t know they can go and talk to them. Chris Carson: They have two ways. They have the way through their own system, up through COBSEO; and they have a way through via the SPVA, and the head of the Veterans Welfare Service, to the Minister. Q60 Lady Hermon: First, just following on from my colleague s question, do you think it would be beneficial if our current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had a good chat with her counterpart and with the Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland? If there is such a good working relationship in Dublin and in the Republic of Ireland, that could be helpful

62 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Ev 10 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 30 January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell in contributing to an improvement in the situation for you in Northern Ireland. Chris Carson: That may well be the case, but that would need to be put to the chairman of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee in the Republic of Ireland. He would need to have a think about that, and decide what way to move on that. Q61 Mr Benton: My question was going to be about the comparability with the Republic, and I think you have covered it in previous answers. Do you think there would be any merit in this Committee meeting your counterparts in the Republic? Chris Carson: I would have to speak to Sean. I know Sean Murphy very well. He is the chairman of the VA&PC down there. He is also the chairman of the Royal British Legion down there. His President is The O Morchoe General David. He would be the one to talk to. Q62 Mr Benton: Do you think the Committee would learn anything further? Chris Carson: You probably would not learn anything further than what you have learned today. Q63 Dr McDonnell: Apologies, I was delayed at a meeting with a Minister elsewhere. I am intrigued because I think this hinges on equality versus priority, or equality versus bias and favouritism. One of the things you did mention earlier, just as I came in, was the question of a drop-in centre. What would it take to provide two or three centres that would be special liaison or lobbying agents for ex-servicemen and women? I feel that they could probably get 80% or 90% of what you are looking for. If an ex-serviceman or woman was disadvantaged, I am quite happy as an MP, and I am sure my Northern Ireland colleagues would be honoured, to ensure we do something, but even just for the sake of privacy and whatever sensitivities they might have it would help if there was somewhere that they could have an agency representing them beyond your own efforts. Has anybody made any effort to find out how much that would cost? Are we talking about 100,000, or 50,000? Chris Carson: Sadly, there has been no effort made to look into any schemes whatsoever for the ex-service community within Northern Ireland, in comparison with the local governments within Wales and Scotland, who have set up and fund many schemes. Until the Northern Ireland Executive first agrees the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant, and secondly, sets up someone or a committee with responsibility for the armed forces and the veterans in Northern Ireland, nothing will happen. Yes, we can go through our charities, and I have absolutely no doubt I can get a professional to do what you suggest and work out the funding cost for this type of thing. I could probably go to the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress and a few other charities, such as Help for Heroes, and say, Look, this is our proposal. These are our plans. I have no doubt that funding would come through for that sort of stuff, but that still does not negate the fact that our own local politicians are not getting involved. We feel that that is vitally important. Q64 Dr McDonnell: You know there is sensitivity around section 75. Chris Carson: Of course. Dr McDonnell: We have teased some of it out here today, and some people will engage and try to tease it out in debate or discussion, whereas others just back off and do not want to get involved. My personal view is that everything that can be done sure, without tangling with section 75 should be done. Then if you find section 75 is a barrier, look at that. However, I think the thing would be best dealt with in two phases, and that you deal with what is available first of all. I have a medical background, and all I can tell you is that, in my experience, any of the medical people I know would have always given a degree of priority not massive priority, but somebody who had a military injury would always have got a little bit of extra attention. So what I am looking at is how that could be formalised. Chris Carson: This is something that our local Executive has to work on and sort out. This is what I said earlier: they must be seen by the ex-service community to be involved in, for want of a better word, the aftercare of the community, and indeed the service community. The Northern Ireland service community have their direct line through Government anyway, through the Minister of Defence. The exservice community do not. They have no one that they can go to directly, politically, for help, support and guidance. Dr McDonnell: I am fully conscious of that, because I do a lot of work with former civil servants who are in a similar position. The day they walk out of a civil service job, they are abandoned, and lot of their pension problems and so on, nobody wants to know about them. Nobody will deal with them, and a lot of them have used me I will not say abused me and I have certainly done whatever I could to help them. I would be very sympathetic to some sort of formalised structure that would protect the interests of ex-servicemen and women, because I am acutely conscious of a number of issues, particularly mental health issues, stress issues and all the rest. Q65 Lady Hermon: What in an ideal world would you like this Committee to be saying in its report? Chris Carson: I would like the Committee to be saying that the Northern Ireland Executive has to recognise the Armed Forces Covenant, and agree the principles. I would like the Committee to agree that Northern Ireland needs to be represented on the Armed Forces Covenant working group, and that either a Minister or a committee within the Northern Ireland Executive needs to be set up to look after the interests of the service and ex-service community within Northern Ireland. Chair: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Mr Benton: Just for clarification, it is not for the witnesses, but I think a germane issue is the uniformity aspect as disclosed by Government. Just a flashback in history going over wars and various

63 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o001_Mark_Transcript 1 - NIC Corrected (DRAFT).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev January 2013 Chris Carson and Iain Creswell conflicts I am just staggered to think that there is no mandatory national Government policy. Q66 Chair: We can bring these points out when we look at the report. Is there anything else you would like to tell the Committee, anything we have not covered? Chris Carson: No thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much indeed. We very much appreciate the opportunity to put our side directly to you. Lady Hermon: We very much appreciate it. Chair: Thank you very much. Chris Carson: If any member of the Committee would like any clarification or an answer to any other questions, if they let me know through the committee secretary, we will certainly answer the questions for you. Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you for coming.

64 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 12 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Wednesday 27 February 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr David Anderson Mr Joe Benton Oliver Colvile Lady Hermon Kate Hoey Naomi Long Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills Ian Paisley David Simpson Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Minister of State for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, Rear- Admiral Simon Williams OBE, Defence Services Secretary, and Gavin Barlow, Director General of Service Personnel Policy, Ministry of Defence, gave evidence. Q67 Chair: Welcome, Minister, to the Select Committee. As you know, we are looking at the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. You are very welcome; thank you very much for joining us. Could I ask you to introduce your team and invite you to make a very brief opening statement? Mr Francois: If I may, I will introduce my team. On my right is Rear-Admiral Simon Williams, assistant chief of the defence staff for personnel, and on my left is Gavin Barlow, director of service personnel policy. We are at your disposal. Chair: In that case, I will hand over to Ian to ask the first question. Q68 Ian Paisley: Minister, first, you are very welcome. I am delighted that you are here. The fact that you have brought with you such a strong team also reflects your consistent interest in this matter, which we greatly appreciate in Northern Ireland. It is appropriate that I put on the record that we appreciate your consistent interest in this subject; in making sure that all armed forces personnel, no matter where they live in the UK, are fairly and properly treated. We really do appreciate that. We are being told by the armed forces community in Northern Ireland that sometimes they are disadvantaged compared with other members of the community elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Your memorandum reflects that you have greater confidence that progress is being made in equality of treatment. Would you like to reflect on some of that and set out your vision for the treatment of armed forces personnel across Ulster? Mr Francois: Thank you for your kind comments, Mr Paisley, which are appreciated not just by me but by the Department. The Covenant is a process of working across the United Kingdom to address disadvantage to members of the service community. Different issues sometimes arise in different parts of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, sometimes we seek to address them in different ways. Generally, provision in Northern Ireland is good. There is good access to health care and housing. There are some bespoke support mechanisms for Northern Ireland, such as the Aftercare Service, which looks after former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Home Service Regiment, and charities that support members of the armed forces community are generally able to get on with their work unhindered. As part of the process, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we continue to seek to identify where any disadvantage exists in Northern Ireland and what steps are needed to address it, but overall our assessment is that provision in Northern Ireland is generally good. Q69 David Simpson: Minister, you are very, very welcome indeed with your colleagues. I echo the sentiments of Mr Paisley in relation to that excellent support. Do you believe there are areas of the Covenant where the armed forces community in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged? Is there any area that you believe is not in line with the rest of the United Kingdom? Mr Francois: I would not want to appear complacent and give you a Panglossian view. There are some areas where we need to do more work, but we have work in progress to identify where gaps still exist and where perhaps we might be able to fill them. We work very closely with the Northern Ireland Office. I should pay tribute to my fellow Minister of State, Mike Penning, who has served and whose heart is in exactly the right place with regard to all of this. As a Department we also work with individual Departments within the Northern Ireland Executive to do what we can to fill those sorts of gaps. To provide some examples, if you look at the Further and Higher Education Commitments Scheme, eligible service leavers are provided with access to a first full Level 3, that is a GCE A-level or vocational equivalent, or a first higher education qualification, or first foundation degree, or first undergraduate degree or equivalent, free of tuition fees. At present, the scheme provides funding for service leavers who choose to settle in England, Scotland and Wales but not in Northern Ireland. That said, I gather we are moving closer to an agreement with the relevant Department in the Northern Ireland Executive to review that position with a view hopefully to operating the same scheme in Northern Ireland. That is a concrete example of where it is not the same, and we are trying to address it. Another example is the provision of IVF treatment for personnel who have serious genital injuries. This, Chair, is clearly a sensitive matter. In England, in most

65 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow circumstances, service personnel would get three cycles of IVF. On the other hand, in Northern Ireland, currently they would be entitled only to one. Once again, I am keen to see whether we can work with the relevant Department in the Northern Ireland Executive to see if we can address that issue as well. The net of that is that we are not attempting to be Panglossian about it and, where we look to see if there are areas where we can do better, we try to address them as best we can. Lady Hermon: I echo the opening remarks and welcome you. I apologise to all three of you for keeping you a little late. It is also delightful to see a gentleman in uniform and those who are not in uniform, but it is delightful to see you all here. Mr Francois: Can we minute delightful, please? Q70 Lady Hermon: That was a compliment. Moving on swiftly, Minister, there is only one aspect of this that I want you to explain a little more to the Committee. You said there was good access to health and housing. My ears pricked up immediately, because this Committee has taken evidence that there is not good access to housing and it is one of the areas about which ex-service personnel feel very aggrieved. Because of the way the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and its points system are constructed they do not benefit from good access to housing. Perhaps you could elaborate on what evidence you have in the Ministry of Defence to show that there is good access? Mr Francois: I will answer that in two parts. First, as the Committee will know, there is a difference in operation between Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain, in that in GB many local authorities who provide housing sometimes directly and sometimes in connection with registered social landlords give priority to armed forces families in the allocation of housing. For instance, in England, the Department for Communities and Local Government has issued guidance encouraging local authorities to do that anyway. In Northern Ireland they do not automatically do that. One of the reasons they have done that in the rest of GB is that, because serving families move around a lot, it is sometimes difficult to prove a local connection, and under housing legislation it can be a disadvantage if you cannot. However, in Northern Ireland, partly because of an issue of scale, often many serving personnel who settle there do have a local connection of one type or another, either because they come from there or they return to settle there after service. Therefore, because in many cases there is a local connection, that helps to get round the problem. Further, 38 Brigade liaise with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to try to make sure that our people are fairly treated. I am going to call in the man in uniform here to see if he wants to add anything to that. Rear-Admiral Williams: Every year between 150 and 200 or so leave the armed forces in Northern Ireland, so the numbers are not huge. The feedback from 38 Brigade and the normal places I would look for evidence of a real problem the service families federations and service charities do not seem to indicate the size of the problem you might expect, simply looking at the fact that we do not qualify for the points system and that there are differences. I cannot honestly come to you today and say I believe I have evidence of the problem you have had represented to you. I just do not have that evidence. The other evidence provided to me by Brigadier Rob Thomson of 38 Brigade is that many of the people leaving Northern Ireland have local connections and family. It does not seem to him to be as much of a problem as one might have expected. Q71 Oliver Colvile: First, thank you all, gentlemen, for coming, and thank you, Minister, for coming, too. Two things: do you get the impression that there is a difference between how the Armed Forces Covenant is being exercised in England, Wales and Scotland and what happens in Northern Ireland? If you do, can you tell us how you think we might overcome that? Mr Francois: We all accept that there are some practical challenges to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. That said, we would like to see the Armed Forces Covenant operating effectively in Northern Ireland. We would like to see local authorities in Northern Ireland, where they want to, adopting a community covenant, but we do not feel that pressing for that from the centre in London would necessarily be the best way of persuading people to sign up. In terms of community covenant specifically, this is an example of localism in action. Local authorities around the country have been signing up to these Covenants because they think they are a positive thing. While we can provide encouragement from the centre, to push harder than that might be counter-productive. However, if asked whether we would we like local authorities in Northern Ireland to consider signing community covenants, we would, just as we would like them to consider signing community covenants in other parts of the United Kingdom. Q72 Oliver Colvile: I am delighted to say that my constituency, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, has been able to sign up to the Armed Forces Covenant. In Plymouth, we launched our own new version on National Armed Forces Day last year. In your memorandum you say that, Veterans and the exservice community are clear net contributors to the community of Northern Ireland in its broadest sense. Can you explain to us what you meant by that? Mr Francois: Armed forces personnel in general tend to be pretty capable people. The Queen has invested time and money in making them good at what they do. When they leave the service and become veterans they are often very employable. Over 90% of people who leave the services and go through what we call the Career Transition Partnership, which gives them training and settlement advice, get a job within about six months. Those figures are broadly reflected in Northern Ireland as well. Therefore, you have a very employable and capable group of people, and whenever they leave the services and settle, they tend to be an asset to the local community. A number of people who are not necessarily from Northern Ireland but settle there subsequently, having served there, also provide a valuable asset to the community in Northern

66 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 14 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow Ireland, in much the same way as they would do wherever they settle in the UK. I do not know whether you want to add anything to that. Rear-Admiral Williams: You have covered all the main points. Our experience is that that is exactly right. The investment that the armed forces put into their people means that they are good net contributors to society when they go back into it. Oliver Colvile: I agree. Q73 Naomi Long: Thank you for coming and for giving us evidence today. The Armed Forces Covenant annual report in 2012 said that the views of the Northern Ireland Executive have been sought but not obtained. Could you tell us what discussions there were between the MOD and the Northern Ireland Executive in the preparation of that report? Mr Francois: We sought comments from all the devolved Administrations around the United Kingdom in preparing the first formal Armed Forces Covenant annual report. Specifically with regard to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 19 June 2012 to invite contributions to the annual report. A Ministry of Defence official wrote to officials in the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 17 December to inform them of the report s publication. Unfortunately, we have not received a reply to either of these letters. There has not been further communication between the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Executive about the 2012 report per se, although 38 Brigade staff do engage routinely with individual Departments in the Northern Ireland Executive in the course of normal business. I hope that is a reasonably full reply. Q74 Naomi Long: So, no responses were received to either letter to confirm there would not be a submission, or was there no response at all? Mr Francois: As far as I am genuinely aware, no, we have not had a response. I did not go down to the post room this morning and double-check but as far as I know we have not. Q75 Naomi Long: In terms of future annual reports, have there been any discussions subsequent to the publication of the 2012 report as to whether the Executive may or may not be in a position to submit evidence to future reports? Mr Francois: We tried for the 2012 annual report along the lines I have described. Under the Armed Forces Act 2011, the Secretary of State now has a statutory duty to report to Parliament every year, effectively on the state of the Covenant. There will be an annual Armed Forces Covenant report in 2013, and so on. If possible, we would like the Northern Ireland Executive to contribute to the annual report in 2013, so in the run-up to that report, again, we will invite them to make a contribution, but clearly we cannot compel them to do so. Q76 Naomi Long: Have there been any discussions with them about how such a contribution may be able to be obtained, for example whether it needs to come from the corporate Executive or it can come from individual Ministers in the Executive reporting to the Secretary of State? Mr Francois: If the Northern Ireland Executive wished to contribute to the report, exactly how they wished to contribute which Minister, as it were, were to write would be a matter for them. We have good working relationships with a number of Departments in the Northern Ireland Executive at working level and between 38 Brigade and those Departments. Therefore, we are able to address a lot of these issues day to day because of those good relationships, and we value that. In terms of the actual annual report, it would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how they might want to reply or which Minister, as it were, might furnish a letter, if that was what they wanted to do. Q77 Naomi Long: In terms of the good relationships to which you have referred, one of our concerns is the lack of a representative of the Northern Ireland Executive on the Covenant Reference Group. Has any progress been made or have any discussions progressed with the Executive about trying to redress that? Mr Francois: You have mentioned the Covenant Reference Group, and I will come back to that. We have the Armed Forces Covenant Committee, which is a cross-government Committee, to try to implement the Armed Forces Covenant across the Departments of Government. The Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Mike Penning, sits on that Covenant Committee, so the NIO are well represented at that level. The last time we met a few weeks ago, Mike Penning was there and made an active contribution to the meeting. With regard to the Covenant Reference Group, as I understand it the NIO are not actively represented on it, but that is something we would encourage if they wanted to do that. Is there anything you want to add, Admiral? Rear-Admiral Williams: The door is very firmly open, but this is something we would look to communities across the country to voluntarily commit to; we cannot compel. Gavin Barlow: The NIO itself attends the Covenant Reference Group. It is the Executive that we would like to see there. There would be a place for them at the table. Oliver Colvile: I am sorry to press you a bit on this. Mr Francois: I am told that is how this sort of thing works. Q78 Oliver Colvile: Have you had any conversation with the Northern Ireland Executive as to why they have not submitted anything at all? Do you get the feeling there is any kind of blockage internally in the Executive? I am just trying to tease out from you any ideas as to why they may not have wanted to participate. Mr Francois: The literal answer to your direct question as to whether I have had discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter is no. Q79 Oliver Colvile: Have the Department? Mr Francois: We have ongoing discussions with the NIE at their departmental level with the MOD; we do

67 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow that all the time, primarily through 38 Brigade. With regard to corporate discussions with the NIE on this, that has been done mainly by the Northern Ireland Office rather than by us per se. Q80 Ian Paisley: For the record, I think it is a scandal that you have not had a reply. I do not think there is anything else that can be said. Mr Francois: I am responsible for a number of things, but I am not responsible for the correspondence of others. Ian Paisley: No, absolutely. It is a scandal. Q81 Dr McDonnell: Thank you for your evidence so far. In your written evidence, the MOD highlighted the work of the UDR and Royal Irish Regiment Aftercare Service. Which of the areas covered by the Covenant does that Aftercare Service not address? Can you tell us if there are any similar services for other specific regiments elsewhere in the UK? Mr Francois: Because of the nature of conditions in Northern Ireland, the Aftercare Service is a bespoke service that currently covers about 63,000 veterans from the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment. It has been designed with the situation in Northern Ireland specifically in mind, so in some respects it is rather unique. Perhaps I can ask the Admiral to say a bit more about how it works in practice. Rear-Admiral Williams: In practice, as the Minister said, it was set up for a specific need. There is a benevolence element to it and there is some physiotherapy and psychotherapy associated with it. None of that would be outside the community support one might expect from the Covenant, but equally the Covenant is rather broader in terms of what it invites the community to do in supporting our people. We see it very much as a proper response to the needs of the people who use it but not necessarily something that we would roll out right the way across the country. There is what you might call a tolerable variation of what we put in place across the country to deal with the needs of our servicemen. Q82 Dr McDonnell: If I may paraphrase, you are saying that the Aftercare Service which is there is on a par with, or within a degree of latitude nearly as good as, the Covenant. Rear-Admiral Williams: My word. I am sorry; I am probably misleading. I am saying that in doing what it does it is probably providing some bits that are not provided elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and therefore could be considered better than that which would be provided elsewhere in the community. Q83 Dr McDonnell: You have given us the number 63,000. The largest veteran community in Northern Ireland is that of the Royal Irish and the UDR. Do you have an estimate of how much of the ex-service or armed forces community in Northern Ireland is served by that? Is it 70% or 80%? What I am trying to get at is who is left out of that service. Mr Francois: Generally, across the UK, around one in 10 adults is a veteran. If you go right back to the second world war and work through to Korea, the Cold War and operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, around one in 10 adults will have served in either the regular or reserve forces. Q84 Dr McDonnell: Is that male or all adults? Mr Francois: My understanding is that that is all adults. We believe that that proportion is broadly similar in Northern Ireland. We do not literally have a precise record, but we think it is broadly about one in 10 across the population, so one in 10 of the population of Northern Ireland is likely to be a veteran. Within that, we have a hard number of about 63,000 for those who served in the Royal Irish Regiment or the UDR. Q85 Dr McDonnell: Are you telling me that the veteran community might be 100,000? Mr Francois: It could even be a bit bigger than that. Dr McDonnell: So there is a significant section left out. Rear-Admiral Williams: Service charities have estimated it at 150,000 people. That would be quite reasonable for the number of people in Northern Ireland, and that community has access to the wider support that we have for those communities. I have got veteran welfare officers in Northern Ireland dealing with those at about the ratio you would see elsewhere. Q86 Dr McDonnell: What would prevent the Aftercare Service from being opened up to the rest of those people? Mr Francois: At the moment, the Ministry of Defence has the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, and that caters for all veterans from the armed forces wherever they may be in the United Kingdom. That will look after veterans in Northern Ireland just as it will look after veterans living in England or elsewhere. It would not be right to say there is no support for those people; they are still under, as it were, the aegis of the SPVA from the MOD viewpoint, and they can also receive support from service charities and other third-sector groups. It would not be right to say that if you are a veteran in Northern Ireland and you are not covered by the Aftercare Service you have no support. That would be inaccurate, because the SPVA helps to cover you anyway, and in certain circumstances so do the charities as well. Q87 Dr McDonnell: I accept and am fully aware that it might be inaccurate to say they are not covered, but how badly are they not covered, or what are they missing out on? The previous question was: could the special Aftercare Service be extended? They are missing out on something. We got very positive evidence from Colonel Johnny Rollins. He was certainly very positive, proactive and informative, and I have been turning it over since. What struck me as being ideal was to take the service that is working for the UDR and RIR and extend it. Mr Francois: The Admiral will want to comment, but the Northern Ireland Aftercare Service is very much a bespoke one for those who served in the Royal Irish Regiment and UDR, based on the fact that, as the

68 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 16 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow Committee will understand, some of those people do not want outwardly to identify themselves as veterans, partly depending on which community they are living in in Northern Ireland. We all understand the practical reality of it. We have a very bespoke service that attempts to cater for that. I am not sure that all veterans living in Northern Ireland will necessarily have the same sensitivities. If you had served in world war two in Northern Ireland, you might not be so concerned about declaring yourself as a veteran as you perhaps would be if you had served in the UDR. We have a very specific bespoke service that tries to take account of that. That said, it is the MOD that funds the Aftercare Service. We are very proud of that service. As the Admiral says, it is there for a very specific purpose, but it is very good at what it does. We are proud of that bit of it, but we also think that other veterans get a pretty good service from other bits of the MOD and other bits of the third sector as well. Rear-Admiral Williams: To answer your question fully, it is probably worth going into it in a little more depth. The general welfare support that the service provides is provided for others in different ways. Part of the 150,000 will be second world war and Korean war veterans. They are back in society and getting welfare support in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as any other civilian. They do not need the value-add and the extra. They have got a veterans welfare service and the support of the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, but they are getting support in other ways. If we go to the benevolence part of this, it is pretty much a regimental piece. They would not want to take the benevolence part as part of the UDR and Royal Irish Home Service part; they would do it as part of their own host or home regiment. That is pretty much the way they would do it. If I run my finger down all the things that could be provided if we put this more broadly across veterans in Northern Ireland and indeed nationally, we are covering it in other ways. Why keep this service for that particular section of the veterans in Northern Ireland? That comes back to the Minister s first point. We designed this specifically for their needs. Given the particular nature and numbers of people involved at a particular stage, they need something like this as somewhere to go that provides a helpful and welcoming ear, which knows what they did in their particular type of service, which would be very different from many types of service of the other veterans in Northern Ireland. Mr Francois: At the risk of betraying advice to Ministers, when people have come to look at value for money that the Aftercare Service has provided, Ministers have always been robust in saying that it provides very good value for money. Q88 Dr McDonnell: That is exactly the point I am trying to get at. Because of security implications and other things, I would rather use the wheel we have than try to reinvent the wheel, because a system that fits here may not fit very well there. My view would be that perhaps that Aftercare Service should be expanded. Mr Francois: I see the point you are making, Dr McDonnell. We would argue that at the moment that Aftercare Service is focused, as it were, where the need is greatest. As the Admiral has said, we have tried to design something which is bespoke and provides important support to a particular group of veterans. That is how it sits at the moment, but we are proud of it. Others may think that we should do more, and if that is their belief they will probably let us know. Oliver Colvile: Minister, I am a Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Armed Forces. Mr Francois: I am aware of that. Q89 Oliver Colvile: I have special responsibility for the Royal Marines, so I am always interested in making sure we look after not only the senior service, if I might say so, in all of this. There are two questions I suppose I want to ask you. There are veterans living in Southern Ireland and not Northern Ireland. Are you saying that, as a Department, you have no relationship with those veterans who have served in our armed services? The second question, which I am keenly interested in, is how we can help those veterans through mental health problems, which is a very big issue, if they are not living within the confines of the United Kingdom. Mr Francois: I will ask the Admiral to come in specifically on mental health. SPVA does cater for veterans living in Southern Ireland; they can still contact the SPVA and get assistance as veterans who served in the United Kingdom armed forces. With regard specifically to mental health, this is something we take quite seriously. To give you one example, a few years ago we had a lacuna where reservists coming back from service in Afghanistan did not get the same mental health briefings, as it were, during decompression as regular soldiers. We have changed that so they get the same kind of decompression package and mental health briefings when coming back from theatre that regular soldiers would get. I have been to King s College London, my old alma mater where I did my masters, which has a specialist unit at the Centre for Military Health Research led now by Professor Sir Simon Wessely. They have done a great deal of research into mental health and posttraumatic stress disorder. They help to advise us and the Ministry of Defence on how to address these issues. A further example we have been rolling out with the Veterans Welfare Service is that we now contact people at a particular point after they have left the services to check that they are all right, offer them support and see if they feel they need any further health care advice, including on mental health. We have begun to roll that out recently, and we are looking possibly to extend that and contact people on a more frequent basis if the initial feedback from that is positive, which I think it has been. Rear-Admiral Williams: We are trying to use any lever we can to get to people. The web is one opportunity. I do not know whether you are aware of the Big White Wall, which we have contributed to. People feel well disposed towards using it, and I can quite easily see why that is.

69 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow Mr Francois: Do you want to explain what that is? Rear-Admiral Williams: It is a website you can access and express your views on. By making the right kind of clicks you get support and advice. People seem to use it as a sort of safety valve. We have contributed to it, working with our charitable partners and Combat Stress, who have put a massive amount of work into this. We have a formal partnership with Combat Stress looking at ex-servicemen and trying to work with Simon Wessely, among others, to get underneath what it is we can do. In terms of our global coverage, I suspect that the web is as good an opportunity as anything to join people together and have a shared understanding of where they have been. Mr Francois: The great thing about the Big White Wall is that you can, if you want to, go on it anonymously. You can say, I served in a unit in Afghanistan a few years ago and I am now having some issues and am struggling with it a bit. Can anybody give me some advice? You do not have to declare your identity in doing that. Some people are much more comfortable talking about it anonymously on the wall, and they get a lot of support. Other people can come up and say, I ve had a similar experience, or whatever. The take-up of that has quite positive, hasn t it? Rear-Admiral Williams: Yes, it has. Q90 Kate Hoey: Can I add my support to Mr Paisley s point? For the record, there is no excuse for bad manners. I am amazed that your Department did not chase this up when it got no response from the Executive. It is quite, quite shocking. It is bad enough when we do not get responses from Ministers, but when Departments write to Governments in other parts of the United Kingdom, it is pretty shocking. If I may probe the relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive a little further, you seem to say that there were fairly good relations between parts of the armed forces and the Executive s Departments, but from our evidence, the only Department with which there seems to be any kind of liaison and work is the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Do you understand what measures the Departments are putting in place to prevent disadvantage to members of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland across public services, even if they are not formally engaged in discussions? Mr Francois: With regard to health care, 38 Brigade has had quite good links with the devolved health care service in Northern Ireland for a number of years. There are protocols in place that make sure that, for instance, our service personnel have good access to secondary health care in Northern Ireland. At a practical level that works quite well. On issues such as prosthetics, for instance, you may be aware that recently the Government announced 6.5 million from the special reserve to provide the most advanced generation of prosthetics for service personnel wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have had a bit to do with that and I feel quite passionate about that, if I may say so. Where those personnel are still in service, they will be fitted with that new generation of advanced prosthetics. I am proud to say that the first should take place in the next few weeks. They will be fitted at Headley Court. Where personnel have left the service about 40 have left the service and are now officially veterans and live in England, they will be fitted through a number of Murrison centres, as they are called, following the report of my colleague Dr Andy Murrison. We will use the skills at Headley Court to help grow that capability in those Murrison centres in England. The Scottish and Welsh devolved Administrations are looking at how they can come up with a similar capability in their nations. I believe that in Northern Ireland similar work is underway to try to find a way to do this there, possibly at Musgrave Park Hospital. The Admiral can give you the most up-todate information on this because he was at a meeting on this precise point very recently. Rear-Admiral Williams: Only yesterday, there was a Northern Ireland representative at the partnership board between the NHS trusts in England and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolved Administrations to be properly represented on our policy board, effectively looking at how servicemen s health issues relate to society. Q91 Kate Hoey: With respect, we know there is co-operation on health, but what about all the other areas? Rear-Admiral Williams: In 38 Brigade the children s education support officer has a regular link with the education library boards. On the social development side, garrison support units talk regularly with the Department for Social Development. What you see is a network of 38 Brigade, which is the firm base, linking to all parts of Government, as is required at a low level. If the question is about the Covenant working at a grassroots brigade commander and soldier level, it does appear to be working pretty well. The information I have is that, at local level on all these individual lines, it seems to be working pretty well. Mr Francois: I am sorry to delay you, Miss Hoey, but Gavin wants to add a bit to the education piece. Gavin Barlow: Although the contacts are primarily between 38 Brigade and Departments, there are also contacts at official level with Departments in the Executive, and there are things that Departments in the Executive have already done, which are fully in support of the Covenant. For example, the pupil premium for children of service parents is higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That is a discretionary measure and was a decision taken by the relevant Department in Northern Ireland. The Minister has already mentioned that we have been holding discussions with the Education Department in Northern Ireland about replication of the arrangements for support for further and higher education. They look promising at the moment, so there are other things going on. Equally, when it comes to work on the new armed forces independence payment, for example, we will be making arrangements with the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland to ensure we can pass legislation to replicate the provisions of that legislation in Northern Ireland. At a practical level, there is a good deal of work and many provisions of the Covenant are being implemented.

70 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 18 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow Q92 Kate Hoey: Would I be right in saying that part of your reason, Minister, when you talk about optimism and things being pretty good is because, even though for certain political reasons certain politicians and Ministers are not prepared to say that they would even dream of talking about the Covenant, what is going on is happening despite or perhaps because of their common sense? Mr Francois: I am visiting Northern Ireland next month and I will be discussing this personally with the Commander of 38 Brigade. I am going out there to see some of these things for myself. Kate Hoey: I think you say over. Mr Francois: Forgive me. I will be going over to see some of these things for myself. I also hope to visit some of our units in Northern Ireland while I am there. You characterised it as whether it works day to day at working level. I believe that it does, and that is very much the advice we get from 38 Brigade. We have these good working relationships not just in health care but in other Departments, as I hope we have explained to you, and we have managed to address at a practical level a number of these issues day to day. We believe those relationships are good. We are not complacent. Is there more we could do? There probably is, but are we doing reasonably well? We probably are. That is not to be complacent in any way, but that is partly because our people in Northern Ireland have worked hard at this, and it would be right to commend them for the effort they have made. The Admiral might want to add something to that. Rear-Admiral Williams: I think you have accurately reflected what we are doing there. Q93 Lady Hermon: Admiral, I think you will get an opportunity to respond to my question. Both the Minister and the Admiral have referred the Committee to the very good grassroots work being done to honour our ex-services personnel in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I could have a response from both of you to my question. You do not have to be unanimous. Following on from the question from my colleague Kate Hoey, the honourable Member for Vauxhall, we acknowledge the good work that is being done at grassroots level, but is it an adequate and acceptable substitute for engagement by the Northern Ireland Executive? For an Executive in a devolved Administration within the United Kingdom, is it an acceptable alternative? Mr Francois: If the Northern Ireland Executive at a more corporate level wish to engage with us more closely on some of these issues, we would welcome that. In terms of day-to-day relations on behalf of the UK Government with the Northern Ireland Executive, of course the Northern Ireland Office is the lead, but if they wanted to engage with us more closely at the corporate level, we would welcome that. In lieu of that, we have concentrated on establishing good working relationships at an NIE departmental level, as it were, and we believe that works quite well. Q94 Lady Hermon: May I address my supplementary to the Admiral? In the useful evidence provided to the Committee in the written memorandum from the MOD it says, It is important that gaps in provision are closed, but it is equally important to ensure that the work does not become counter-productive. Could that be translated for the benefit of the Committee? In what sense do you mean counter-productive? Rear-Admiral Williams: Wherever we look for the Armed Forces Covenant to be upheld as a serviceman I have seen a massive change in the way our country generally appreciates the work that has been done we are looking for a pragmatic local manifestation of that which we seek in the Covenant. We can see in Northern Ireland the very obvious sensitivities given the historical background. We can see that certain things which would be easy to say publicly here in the United Kingdom may be less easy in certain areas in Northern Ireland. I am not after everything; I am just looking for proper and even treatment of service personnel. What I am getting back at the grassroots level, therefore, is not worrying me about the way our servicemen are being treated in Northern Ireland. In all sorts of ways they are treated extremely well; they get an awful lot of local respect. Equally, I cannot take a Westminster-centric view of the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland; I am after a pragmatic roll-out. What I see is the positive message that we have given you this afternoon. Mr Francois: I made the point that we are not seeking to be complacent, and that applies to our colleagues in the NIO as well. Perhaps I can amplify that. There was an Opposition Day debate on the Armed Forces Covenant in November 2012, which highlighted some of these issues. The Prime Minister has taken an interest in this. He had a meeting at No. 10 in January, at which Mike Penning from the NIO was also present, to look at some of these issues. That meeting resulted in two actions: first, that we should try to establish a clear understanding of where there may be any shortfall in Covenant provision for service personnel in Northern Ireland, i.e. not being complacent; and, second, the option should then be developed to fill any gaps in provision that are identified. Work to understand any gaps that might exist in Northern Ireland was initially taken forward through a meeting hosted by the Minister of State for Northern Ireland at Stormont on 22 January. This brought together representatives from a range of service charities that operate in Northern Ireland. From memory, we did reference that meeting in our written evidence to the Committee. As a result of that meeting, it was decided that commander 38 Brigade would establish a working level forum to identify what support is provided, where there may be any gaps in provision and whether there are any possible overlaps in provision as well. The first such meeting of the Northern Ireland Veterans Forum took place on 5 February I do not think that was referred to in the memorandum and brought together a wide range of representatives from service charities operating in Northern Ireland. One of the first agreed actions from that meeting was to produce written information about the different kinds of support that organisations provide in order to build common understanding. In other words, following meetings from No. 10 downwards, we are trying now formally to map out exactly what provision there is

71 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow we already have a good idea and then see if there are any gaps. If we do find any genuine gaps, we need to come up with a mechanism to address them. I hope none of that smacks of complacency. Lady Hermon: No; it is very reassuring. Thank you for that detail. Q95 Mr Benton: Welcome, Minister. I am sorry if it appears that I am going over old ground again, but I would like to make a few observations. As a UK citizen, I cannot work out logically how any form of veteran or ex-serviceman can be treated in differential terms. Based on the evidence we have received so far, this is the case. Veterans from Northern Ireland in particular seem to be penalised. That is based on the evidence we have received. The thrust of my concerns, which I believe is the broad concern of the Committee in general, is the inequity of this for veterans from Northern Ireland. I do understand some of the responses you have made about being sensitive to devolved powers and so on, but I want to pose a number of questions. As a UK citizen, I regard myself as being under the UK Government, shall we say. Perhaps a question is to be answered as to why this particular problem comes under devolved powers when clearly there should be uniform treatment across the whole of the UK. I do understand the sensitivities about devolved power, but I want to point out to the Government or the defence Department the pressure they can bring to bear perhaps highlight is the wrong word on the Northern Ireland Executive and say, Look, you have got to find solutions to this and bring it about. Following that line of reasoning, it is incumbent then on the UK Government to suggest that there are certain things they can learn from the devolved powers in Wales and Scotland to try to arrive at uniform treatment. That is my concern, which is shared generally by this Committee. For the life of me, devolved powers or not, I cannot see any justification for people who have fought for their country and who have made huge sacrifices and their families no matter what the reason, being the subject of differential treatment across any part of the UK. Mr Francois: I can understand your sentiment. Devolved power is a fact of life in the United Kingdom now. We have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a Northern Ireland Assembly; it does not look as if any of that is likely to change. There are some things that the Ministry of Defence does across the United Kingdom. We are the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence; we are responsible for the defence of the realm across the UK, including Northern Ireland, which is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom. To take one example, we have a new thing called the armed forces independence payment AFIP which is a special variant of PIP for severely wounded servicemen. We will administer that via the DWP across the United Kingdom in a sense, that is not devolved. But there are services, such as healthcare, which are devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Housing is devolved in different ways at different tiers in those countries. Those sorts of provisions for ex-service personnel and veterans have to be a matter for those devolved Administrations and, in some cases, for local government depending on which country. They all do it slightly differently. Some of the services to support servicemen and veterans are provided at local ground level. You would not expect the Ministry of Defence to run those things directly, so there will be an element of local discretion, and that is partly what devolution is about. Q96 Mr Benton: I am sorry if I failed to outline it correctly. I appreciate what you have just said, but, coming back to the conclusion of my series of questions, I put it to you again. You mentioned dialogue with the Northern Ireland Executive. As the Minister of State for Defence Personnel, is there anything you can recognise in terms of the devolved powers in Scotland and Wales that could be helpful contributors to bring about a more positive reaction from the Northern Ireland Executive? I share the consternation of my colleagues that there has been a failure to respond to your request. From the experience of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish devolved powers, are there any areas you could usefully glean? Mr Francois: I see what you are driving at. It is not for me to dictate to the Northern Ireland Executive. I am not trying to hide behind anything, but day to day they have most interaction with the Northern Ireland Office, for obvious reasons. I hope we have established to your satisfaction this afternoon that there are good working relationships with individual Departments in the Northern Ireland Executive. Kate Hoey: For health we definitely have. Mr Francois: We have tried to give you some other examples beyond simply health care. You asked me to draw a parallel with the other devolved Administrations. I can give you one example. With those other two devolved Administrations, there is someone appointed specifically to have responsibility for veterans affairs. In the Scottish Government, it is Keith Brown MSP, an ex-marine; in the Welsh Government, it is Carl Sargeant. I have met Mr Brown and I am due to meet Carl Sargeant very shortly. At the moment, there is no equivalent from the Northern Ireland Executive; there is no one person who is given responsibility for those issues. It is up to them to decide whether they want to appoint someone to that post, but the other devolved Administrations have decided to do so and, from the MoD point of view, that makes liaison slightly easier, but again that would be a matter for the Executive. Q97 Chair: On the co-ordination of all of this, Oliver Letwin has some responsibilities in that respect. Could you very briefly outline what those would be? There are so many aspects to this in terms of health, education and housing but, added to that, there are devolved Administrations which it make it even more complicated. What role would Mr Letwin play? Mr Francois: I mentioned earlier the Armed Forces Covenant Committee which is cross-government from a UK Government perspective. A number of Departments are represented on that Committee, and

72 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 20 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow Oliver Letwin as the Minister for Government Policy chairs it and reports directly to the Prime Minister. Q98 Naomi Long: Did you say APIP, which is like the personal independence payment? Mr Francois: It is AFIP: armed forces independence payment. Q99 Naomi Long: You said that DWP would be administering that direct from the UK, but DWP does not administer the benefits system in Northern Ireland; it is administered by the Department for Social Development. In theory, it is a devolved issue, in that the Executive and Assembly could, if they chose, break parity and do their own thing. They could not afford to and the financial reality is that they do not but they could. In this case, will this be administered differently, or will it still be subject to Assembly scrutiny, for example, in terms of how it is distributed, the levels at which it is distributed and so on? I am trying to explore that, because obviously with other benefits, the Welfare Reform Bill and so on that went through here then had to be passed separately in the Assemblies as a piece of legislation before it could be implemented there, even though in reality the finances were going to dictate that it had to be. Mr Francois: My understanding is that AFIP will apply equally across the United Kingdom, but if there are any nuances there I will take advice. Gavin Barlow: AFIP itself, while it is being administered in mainland UK by the DWP is being implemented through our own MoD legislation, linked to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. Effectively, we will deliver the same approach in Northern Ireland through primary and secondary legislation, which will apply through the Northern Ireland system. My understanding is that it would not be subject to scrutiny. Q100 Naomi Long: It would not be subject to scrutiny at the Assembly? Gavin Barlow: I do not think it would be, no. Naomi Long: It would not be, okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Q101 Mr Anderson: Yes. A lot of the debate that has been going on has been about the bureaucracy of how the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland report mechanisms are different. Are any practical things being done in Scotland and Wales that could be done equally as well and possibly even better in Northern Ireland? For example, because of their reporting mechanisms, Scotland and Wales are getting this particular programme, but we are not getting this from Northern Ireland, that we could say why do you not try doing x? Mark Francois: As I say, I think with the Aftercare Service in Northern Ireland, you have something in Northern Ireland that they do not have in Scotland and they do not have in Wales. So, at the risk of being slightly cheeky, Mr Anderson Mr Anderson: As if. Mark Francois: Yes, how very unlike me. You could almost reverse the question. Provision is not precisely the same in all three nations, partly because they are devolved. I am going to ask Mr Barlow if he could give some examples of where there are lessons in Scotland or Wales that might be transferable to Northern Ireland. Gavin Barlow: Sorry Minister, in terms of lessons of? Mark Francois: In other words, the things that they do in Scotland or Wales that we do not currently do in Northern Ireland. Gavin Barlow: We have some areas of difficulty in Scotland and Wales where the provision is not the same. In general, though, the Scottish Executive has taken a much more proactive political role in trying to keep pace with developments in England and Wales. It is that kind of leadership that has made a significant difference for us there. I cannot think of an obvious parallel where I could think of the detailed administrative level I would want to do something specific in Northern Ireland, taking account of the Scottish experience. Q102 Nigel Mills: I guess we are where we are with the Executive, but we have had a few suggestions of the things that may help take things forward in a slightly different way. Perhaps I could just put some of them to you and see what your reaction is. The first one was establishing an ex-services forum to improve coordination between the various regimental associations and the charities. I think you mentioned some kind of forum a few questions back, I am not totally sure. Mark Francois: There is now a Northern Ireland Veterans Forum and their meeting took place on 5 February. Q103 Nigel Mills: So that now exists. There has been some suggestion that perhaps the MoD doing a full assessment of the health and housing needs of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland might be a helpful way of understanding the situation and taking things forward. Mark Francois: In effect, that is what the Veterans Forum is attempting to do. As I say, the intention in principle is to map out precisely what provision is currently available, taking input and opinions from the service charities as well, and then following on from that mapping process to see if there are any genuine gaps in provision. If all parties can reasonably agree that there is a genuine gap in provision somewhere, we need to come up with a strategy for how to address it. In fairness, what the Committee is suggesting is already underway. Q104 Nigel Mills: I think there was some suggestion that the Veterans First Point service in Edinburgh had been quite successful and whether that could be replicated in Northern Ireland? Mark Francois: I think the answer to that is possibly. Admiral? Rear-Admiral Williams: Interestingly, a similar question came up when we talked to the Welsh Affairs Committee. To speak also to Mr Anderson s point of how we can share best practice, that is one of those things that we see as working particularly well and is

73 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow certainly offered up as best practice and a model that one might wish to adopt. Up and down the country, various authorities are looking at that and seeing whether it is applicable to them. What we are saying is that we can be a community of best practice but we are not really in a position certainly with the devolved authorities to mandate, You will do this and you will do that. That would be quite odd given what we are trying to do in the devolved authorities. So yes, certainly it would be something which would be worth looking at. It works very well in Edinburgh and we are looking at it in other parts of the country. Mark Francois: It is important to point out that the funding for establishing and sustaining that was provided by the Scottish Government in co-operation with NHS Lothian. That is not something that is directly funded by the MoD in the way that we fund the Aftercare Service, but it is something that I think we feel has been successful up in Scotland when they tried it. It may be something that others around the UK want to look at. Q105 Kate Hoey: We have had some interesting evidence on Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. The Government is taking the position that the Belfast Agreement never ever should be interfered with; are you quite confident that Section 75 still staying there is not a barrier to any of the things that we want to see, particularly the fact that all armed forces personnel wherever they are living in the United Kingdom should be treated equally? Mark Francois: The Government regards Section 75 as a key part of implementing the Good Friday Agreement. We are not intending to seek to amend that. However, in that it essentially argues for equality of treatment, it is worth remembering that the two key principles of the Armed Forces Covenant include firstly the principle of no discrimination against members of the armed forces family, and by that we mean serving members of the armed forces, their families and veterans. In that Section 75 is a piece of equalities legislation and that the first key principle of the Covenant is no discrimination, we do not necessarily see any opposition between those. Where it gets slightly more complicated is with regard to the second key principle of the Armed Forces Covenant, which is the principle of special treatment where appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. That does therefore call for special treatment, but where it is appropriate. For instance, we were talking earlier about the provision of prosthetics in Northern Ireland for those people who have been wounded in the service of their country and how we are seeking to take that forward. I am sorry to give another health care example, Miss Hoey, but I do believe it is pertinent in this case. We have come up with funding to provide advanced prosthetics for veterans, which I think most people would welcome, but I also understand in Northern Ireland that the devolved Administration wants to try and provide advanced prosthetics for members of the civilian population as well. We believe there that our veterans are going to get the most modern prosthetics, but it may also be that members of the public will get access to those too. You can then have a debate about whether that constitutes special treatment or not, but I do not think Section 75 and the Armed Forces Covenant are necessarily directly at variance, not least because in the second key principle there is the point about special treatment where appropriate. Q106 Kate Hoey: But surely the underlying basic principle should be that the Military Covenant should apply right across the United Kingdom and therefore anything that prevents it from being fully implemented has to be looked at by this Parliament? Mark Francois: This Parliament is looking at it right now via this Committee. Q107 Kate Hoey: How would you feel if we came up with something that said we thought that Section 75 should be changed? Mark Francois: It is not for me to mandate to this Committee what to write in any report that they may produce, but I would make plain that I do not think the Government is proposing to repeal or amend Section 75 because it is a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement in legislative terms. However, where there are, shall we say, practical difficulties because of that, we have sought to try to find practical ways of still delivering support to the armed forces community via the Armed Forces Covenant, at a working level that still assesses their needs and delivers the spirit of the Covenant. These relationships that we have been talking about this afternoon help us to do that. Coming right back to my opening comments, in terms of delivering the Covenant at ground level, is this working quite well? Yes, I believe it is, so I believe in practical terms we are still managing to achieve the objective if you like, despite the presence of Section 75. However, as I say, I will be going across or going over next month in order to try to see the operation of some of this for myself. I am not just reading from any briefing I may have had; I am going to go and see it and touch it. Q108 Kate Hoey: Will you be meeting the veterans? Mark Francois: I have not yet formalised the programme. Kate Hoey: I think you should. Mark Francois: I need to finalise that; we will have to see if it is possible to do that as well. Q109 Mr Anderson: Have you taken any specific legal advice on whether Section 75 is a barrier to implementing the Covenant? Gavin Barlow: Yes, we have. Without going into detail, what the legal advice essentially says is that for most of the Covenant provisions which, as the Minister says, do talk about dealing with disadvantage it is essentially in exactly the same space as the Covenant and it does not create a barrier to the sorts of things that we are trying to do. That has been demonstrated by a number of measures that have already been taken in Northern Ireland. When it comes to special treatment, it is possible for there to be barriers through interpretation of Section 75, but it is not necessarily going to be the case. It will come

74 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 22 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow down to the specifics of what the measure that you want to implement actually is and the judgement of the Department in the Northern Ireland Executive looking at the implications for Section 75. Under that piece of legislation, they are obliged to make those judgements, just as they would be for other aspects of Government s activity in Northern Ireland. It is clearly an area that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, as we are doing with the relevant Departments in Northern Ireland, but the legal advice we have does not suggest that it is an absolute barrier to the Covenant in any way. Q110 Mr Anderson: Can we access that legal advice? Gavin Barlow: No would be the short answer to that, because legal advice is privileged. Q111 Mr Anderson: Does the Northern Ireland Executive have access to this legal advice? Gavin Barlow: I am sure they have their own legal advice. They will not have mine. Q112 Mr Anderson: It is just that we know that people are saying, We cannot do this because of Section 75, yet if you look at things like correct me if I am wrong here we allow policemen, fire fighters, mental health nurses and other workers in Northern Ireland to retire differently from other people over there; the same as we do in this part of the world because it recognises the jobs they have done. This is in no way being disrespectful to what the forces are doing, but, in some ways, we are asking for the Covenant to apply because of the job they have done. I just think if we can do anything that removes the potential for people to say, We would like to do this but we cannot because of Section 75, it is certainly going to give us, and the people there who want to do this, some support. Mark Francois: Within the MoD we understand the spirit of what you are getting at, but I think we have in fairness this afternoon given you a whole range of practical examples of where we are delivering support to the armed forces community in Northern Ireland along with what one might call the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant every day. It would not be right to say that Section 75 is stopping us implementing the Armed Forces Covenant because we have given you a whole range of examples. Q113 Mr Anderson: Except some people are saying that, Minister. Some people have come here and told us that. Mark Francois: Can it be a complicating factor? Yes, in certain circumstances I think it can be. Is it, however, stopping us doing these things that are working at a practical level day to day? By and large it is not. In fairness, Mr Chairman, we have given the Committee a whole range of examples this afternoon where we are actually honouring the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland by working these issues through at a practical working level. Q114 Naomi Long: Would it be fair to summarise what you have said as effectively that where there is a will there is a way? That if people are willing, in their Departments, to make the Armed Forces Covenant work, it is possible to do it with Section 75 in place? If they are not willing, then Section 75 may be a good excuse not to; is that a reasonable summary? Mark Francois: I saw the Admiral nodding actively at that point. Q115 Naomi Long: I will take that as a coded yes. In your evidence you also referred to Section 75. You said there was, a perception by some that the legislation is acting as a barrier to the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland being implemented on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom, however it also ensures that the Armed Forces Community is not disadvantaged when it comes to the provision of public services. Section 75 does not actually make any reference to people s employment, either current or prior, or military service. Therefore, in what way do you believe it protects the armed forces community in relation to the provision of public services? Mark Francois: I would say in simple terms, because the first key principle of the Armed Forces Covenant is the principle of no disadvantage as a result of having served in the armed forces. Because part of the spirit of Section 75, as I understand it, is of not having disadvantage between one community or another in Northern Ireland, then in a sense it is somewhat in tune with the first key principle of the Armed Forces Covenant. They do not seem really to be at variance in any way and as that first key principle is an important part of the Covenant, in a sense you could argue that to some degree Section 75 complements it rather than being in conflict with it. Q116 David Simpson: Very quickly, we will get on to the thornier issue now. You recently gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. In that Committee you had said that there was a particular challenge to Northern Ireland because of some of the Sinn Fein-run authorities. Let us call a spade a spade: the bottom line is, is this the real problem here? Mark Francois: Mr Simpson, as I am already on the record as having given evidence to one Select Committee on this matter and been quoted, I am hardly likely to turn up this afternoon and change my testimony. In essence I have already given an opinion on that. David Simpson: Okay, thank you. That is a yes. Q117 Mr Benton: Since this inquiry has commenced Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had meetings with various charitable organisations, different local parties and so on and so forth. In terms of your Department, do you coordinate in any way with the Secretary of State? Is there any mutual dialogue taking place? Mark Francois: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

75 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow Q118 Mr Benton: Yes. Is it reasonable to suggest that there might be some benefits in a dialogue or a coordinated approach? Mark Francois: Secretaries of State talk to each other on a frequent basis. At working level at my rank as it were I have very close working relationships with Mike Penning, the Minister of State at the NIO, who, as I say, understands well the practical realities of all this and who I think from some of the meetings that I was updating the Committee on has been working hard to try and overcome any practical obstacles with regard to all this. It is fair to say that there is quite a lot of liaison between Mr Penning and myself at working ministerial level within the MoD, which is not to say that the Secretaries of State do not work together. Q119 Mr Benton: In the light of previous responses, would it be fair to describe that a coordinated approach to this problem between your Department and the Northern Ireland Office could be better? Mark Francois: As I hope the Committee will acknowledge, I have not attempted to come here this afternoon with any sense of complacency. I hope we have not in any way between us conveyed that impression. Q120 Mr Benton: Minister, sorry again, I think you are misinterpreting me. On the basis of an earlier response, such as no response to your approach this is not a criticism of the MoD; all I am trying to get at is that the more I listen to evidence on this and the more I hear responses, and thank you for yours today, they have been very helpful, it seems to me that a dialogue between various parties and bodies could be improved in terms of trying to achieve a more concerted approach to the problem. The purpose of my question is to ask, if you are not getting the proper coordination with the NIO, what do you think can happen to improve that, or what can bring it about? Mark Francois: I think we have very good relationships with the NIO in actual fact. As I say, Mike Penning and I have tried to work quite closely together on it. In terms of day-to-day relationships with the political parties of Northern Ireland, NIO are clearly in the lead on that. I believe you are taking evidence from Mr Penning in a few weeks time, Mr Chairman. I will certainly debrief Mike Penning on my trip to Northern Ireland and whatever perceptions I have gained as a result of that. He will then be in a position to update this Committee directly on discussions that he has had with various political parties in Northern Ireland in order to try and address this issue as well. Mike is in the lead on that and, in fairness to him, I do not want to attempt to pre-empt his evidence to the Committee. I will debrief him on my impressions following my visit and then Mike will be giving evidence to you in a few weeks time. We work very closely with the NIO on this. Chair: We do not have a formal meeting with Mike Penning yet; we thought we would see how we did with you first, Minister. Mark Francois: Chairman, you are very kind. Chair: I will come to Alasdair. We are going to have to speed up a little bit. Q121 Dr McDonnell: Very quickly, and I will speed up, Chairman, if I can. We have alluded to this, we have touched on it indirectly, but could you give us some outline of what financial support the MoD provides to organisations and services like the Aftercare Service that support the armed forces community of Northern Ireland? How is this comparable with Wales and Scotland? Are there deficiencies or defects there if you look at the overall finance per head or whatever way you want to? Mark Francois: Well, you mentioned the Aftercare Service specifically; we fund that from the Ministry of Defence. We have protected that funding because we believe it is allocated to a very important purpose. We also have the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency as I have explained, which is funded as a core part of the Ministry of Defence budget and helps to provide support to all veterans in Northern Ireland, including those not directly covered by the Aftercare Service. Those sorts of elements are funded from the core MoD budget. We then of course work with the Northern Ireland Executive, but also with organisations in the third sector to try to enhance that provision as well. Q122 Dr McDonnell: Do you have any estimate as to the financial input and how to compare it with Wales or Scotland? I am trying to find out if there is a deprivation problem. Mark Francois: Is your question, do we spend differently in per capita terms on veterans in Scotland and Wales compared with Northern Ireland? Dr McDonnell: Yes. Mark Francois: I do not think there is any disadvantage in terms of what we spend but I am looking at the Admiral just to confirm. I do not believe that there is. Gavin Barlow: No, certainly not from an MoD point of view. Q123 Oliver Colvile: First, it seems to me that because you served as a reservist and Mike Penning has served in the Army, you have both come up with a similar kind of approach because you have some understanding behind how you both would feel. I think that, if I might say so, is a very useful thing to have. You have obviously got a very close relationship with the NIO, but the problem seems to be somewhere with the Executive and various parties within the Executive who might not be as supportive in trying to bring this forward. I just wondered if you have an idea as to how one might cajole or encourage some parts of the Executive to come slightly more on side. Mark Francois: I understand the spirit of the question, Mr Colvile. As I said, Mike Penning has been having discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland to try to see if we can make progress and move forward in this particular area. My understanding is that those discussions are, in effect, ongoing. If it so happens that the Minister of State from the NIO is asked to come and talk to you about this, then in fairness he would be best placed to be able to update the Committee on where he has got to on all that. Is there a dialogue with the political parties of Northern Ireland on these issues? Yes there is. Are

76 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 24 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow the NIO in the lead on that dialogue? Yes they are, which frankly is what you would expect. But are we working closely with the NIO on that? Yes, we are. Q124 Oliver Colvile: And you would be willing to give support as well should he require it? Mark Francois: I have known Mike Penning for a number of years and I have supported him in a number of areas. Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any final questions anybody would like to ask? We have had quite a good session. Kate Hoey: Can I say too, Minister, that I am delighted that you used the phrase United Kingdom such a lot, and did not refer to Britain. Ian Paisley: I think it has been a very helpful session. I do appreciate what you have said and I also just received word that a super new golf course is going to be permitted in North Antrim. You would be more than welcome to bring your armed service personnel there. Chair: I feel a Committee visit coming on. Mark Francois: In my day, Mr Paisley, I was more of a rugby player than a golfer, but nevertheless, thank you very much for the offer. Q125 Lady Hermon: Could we just clarify something for the benefit of the Committee, because in the last few minutes you have given very significant evidence at least I think it is very significant. Throughout the Committee session, you have reemphasised something that was not a surprise, and that is how very close the working relationship is with the NIO. But with the greatest respect, it is actually the devolved Administration, through the Health Department, through the Department for Social Development, through the Education Department through higher education that will deliver on the ground to ex-service personnel. The impression had been created before the Committee this afternoon that there was this gap, but it was in fact a close working relationship with the NIO and the MoD. Fine; that is what we expect and we are very pleased to hear that. But what you have actually indicated to the Committee, is that the lead is now actually being taken by Mike Penning, the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, that it is he who is now going to liaise with the Departments within the Northern Ireland Assembly rather than the MoD. Is that a very neat political decision and a bit of political manoeuvring? It is to be complimented; it is not a criticism. Is that just the way things have worked out? Mark Francois: No, I am not taking it as a criticism, Lady Hermon. These are in some respects sensitive matters as I think the Committee knows, and so from the UK Government I think it is important to have dialogue with the political parties in Northern Ireland to see how we can make progress on this issue. I am willing to be a party to that dialogue, but I think the practical reality is that a Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, who is meeting these politicians on a very regular basis, is probably better placed to take forward that dialogue than myself. If I am being humble there, I am also trying to be truthful. If they want ministerial input from me at the MoD, then I stand ready to assist, but frankly Mike Penning sees these people on a far more regular basis. On a purely practical point he is probably best placed to take forward that discussion, and I stand ready to help him. Q126 Lady Hermon: Can I just tease out a little bit more? Was a decision made at the meeting in Downing Street or at some stage in Downing Street by the Prime Minister that it should be the Northern Ireland Office that takes the lead on this instead of the Ministry of Defence, given the sensitivity around the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland? Mark Francois: I am afraid I was genuinely unable to be at that meeting. I was not privy to literally what was said in the room because I was not in the room. Lady Hermon: Perhaps you could write to us afterwards. Mark Francois: If the Committee would like us to provide them with a note, I will discuss that with the NIO. I am not trying to be evasive Lady Hermon. I was not there. Q127 Lady Hermon: No, and I am repeating that it is not a criticism of the NIO because Mike Penning is a very fine Minister indeed. The last point in fact I do need some clarification on, and that would be from the Admiral if I could just pinpoint him. At the very beginning of the Committee, when we were looking at where the inadequacies were and we talked about housing, the Minister said there was good access to housing and good access to health, and I just want clarification there. The evidence that was given in the early part of the Committee this afternoon gave the impression that housing was not at issue and that in fact housing was good because the numbers showed that about 100 or so would in fact leaving the services. However, that directly contradicts the memorandum supplied by the MoD to the Committee. I am just reading it. Before you all leave, could we just have clarification? I am reading from the memorandum, While it might be sympathetic, and I am sure it is The Housing Executive is prevented by the legislation from giving priority to armed forces personnel and the lack of a local connection means they will accrue fewer points. As a result, many serving personnel transitioning to civilian life in Northern Ireland will not be able to meet the points requirement for social housing in Northern Ireland. Is there a problem or is there not? I do not know the answer. We have contradictory evidence before us, so please clear up that ambiguity before you leave us this afternoon. Rear-Admiral Williams: I would be delighted. What I was trying say is that if you look at it on paper then it is more difficult to achieve the points required to gain social housing. Therefore I think I said, if you look at it on paper, you would expect to see more of a problem than there appears to be. What I think the team who put that advice together are saying is that there will no doubt be some individuals who are disadvantaged because they cannot get through that points system, but if that was a large problem I would expect to see much more evidence coming back from

77 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o002_Mark_Transcript 2 - NIC 27 February 2013 (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev February 2013 Rt Hon Mark Francois MP, Rear-Admiral Simon Williams OBE and Gavin Barlow the service families federations, from the Commander of 38 Brigade and from all those channels that normally I expect to see, that there was a major housing problem. I did not say that there was not one; I said that I did not have the evidence for it and I would have expected to have had the evidence for it. I cannot sit before you and say, Yes, Lady Hermon there is a massive problem with housing, because actually if you then say, Where is your evidence that there is this massive problem with housing? I could only rehearse those small bullet points on the note. Q128 Lady Hermon: Yes, but you would, I am sure, also accept because you have actually given the evidence that a number of armed forces personnel are extremely nervous about coming back to Northern Ireland when they leave the armed forces, about disclosing their identities, their past service, whether it is very distinguished, and I have no doubt that many of them are in fact very distinguished, about actually bringing themselves to the attention of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It is more a hidden problem rather than evidence based. That is something that needs to be looked at by the MoD. It is the evidence we have taken from other witnesses. Rear-Admiral Williams: Lady Hermon, I do not demur from their logic. There is that absolute logic, but I would say it is not unique to Northern Ireland. Very many service personnel when they leave take the view that they have done their service, they are proud of it, but they do not want to make anything of it. They move into society and they genuinely want to make a break and do something different. It is therefore very difficult for me to take an MoD view on that. We are there to try to provide the hooks if they need it, but I cannot compel them to follow one line or to identify themselves as armed forces personnel. Mark Francois: And Lady Hermon, I think what would be fair would be, as I say, when I go and discuss these matters face to face with the Commander of 38 Brigade in Northern Ireland, I will raise with him very specifically this issue of access to housing. If the Committee thinks it would be of assistance following that meeting, I will write directly to the Committee with the outcome of that discussion. Chair: Please do, that would be very helpful. Lady Hermon: That is very kind. Thank you, I would appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification. Chair: Minister, gentlemen, it has been a very useful session, thank you very much indeed. Mark Francois: Thank you Chairman. Thank you very much.

78 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 26 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Wednesday 17 April 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr Joe Benton Oliver Colvile Lady Hermon Kate Hoey Naomi Long Jack Lopresti Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills David Simpson Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Colonel Richard Gordon DL, Branch Chairman for NI, SSAFA Forces Help, and Brian Maguire, Area Manager for Ireland, Royal British Legion, gave evidence. Q128 Chair: Apologies for keeping you waiting; we just had quite a bit of business to get through. Thank you very much for joining us. As you know, we are conducting an inquiry into the application of the Armed Forces Covenant, with particular reference to Northern Ireland. We are very grateful to you for joining us today. Would you like to make any brief opening remarks, Colonel Gordon? Colonel Gordon: I don t think so. I apologise for putting in my memo rather late in the day, and I assume the Committee has seen that. That probably covers most of the background to what we want to say today, so I am happy to take the questions as they come. Brian Maguire: Likewise, I have made a written submission on behalf of the Legion. I am happy for that standing before the Committee. Chair: Thank you for those submissions. Q129 Jack Lopresti: Welcome. Thank you for coming. This is a question for either or both of you. What are your views on the principles enshrined in the Armed Forces Covenant and how would you like to see them implemented in particular, possibly, in Northern Ireland? Colonel Gordon: The view that maybe we have not expressed so much in the submission is that we do not see huge disadvantages by not having it implemented in Northern Ireland. I think you could argue some areas at the fringes might be improved if it were implemented, but by and large the cases and the clients that we have in SSAFA would not be any better advantaged if we had the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. Brian Maguire: Likewise, I have been in my current position for three years, and I cannot point to a single case, in all the cases we have dealt with in our time, where I can say for sure that the individual would have been better treated had they been living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Q130 Jack Lopresti: That is great to hear, but it has been enshrined in law to give more protection to veterans and their families, and in terms of the whole welfare aspect. You do not feel in any way that that will enhance your ability to deliver services and welfare in particular. It does not sound like it is going to make much difference either way, as far as you are aware. Would that be a correct analysis? Colonel Gordon: Some of specific areas are flagged up, such as housing. In Great Britain, housing is dealt with by local authorities; in Northern Ireland, it is dealt with by the Housing Executive, which is a single body. People come to us on leaving the services and say, What about housing? We say, You have to go and register with the Housing Executive, but we know that the Housing Executive will say, You ve got no points; you have to go down the private rental route. At which point, they may well come back to us and say, I need a month s rent deposit and a month s rent in advance, in which case we or the British Legion will look at that, and do so on a regular basis. I do not think there is a huge disadvantage as such. Brian Maguire: It is important to emphasise I am sure the Committee has heard this already from other people who have appeared here that there is already a very high level of co-operation amongst not just the service charities, but the other stakeholders in this particular sector. I would also say that, in some cases, some of the issues that are at stake here would not actually be affected by the full implementation of the military covenant. Issues to do with the security of individuals and their willingness to disclose their service background are not going to be affected. Q131 Oliver Colvile: Thank you very much indeed to you both for coming to see us. Why do you think that the Covenant is not being implemented in Northern Ireland? Colonel Gordon: My understanding is that objections have been raised in terms of clause 75 or paragraph 75 of the Belfast Agreement, in that it would be therefore positively discriminatory in favour of a particular group of people. If that manifested itself by giving them some advantage that was not available to the population at large that would be unacceptable. Q132 Oliver Colvile: These are people who have given their lives to try to protect peace in Northern Ireland. Colonel Gordon: The Covenant does not have the force of law. Therefore, it depends on the good will of the people who can implement change in favour of other people to make a difference. I used the example of housing. If a local authority in Great Britain decides that they will look favourably on serviceleavers in terms of housing that is one way of looking

79 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire at it. Other people might say that is positive discrimination, but you may have valid reason for doing it a very good reason to do it, because of what you just said. Q133 Oliver Colvile: I was under the impression that we had actually voted for the Armed Forces Covenant to actually be in law as well. Jack Lopresti: It is enshrined in law. Colonel Gordon: It is referred to in law. It is not law, as I understand it. Jack Lopresti: The principles are enshrined in the statute for the first time, so it is the law of the land. It is not a voluntary code of practice; it is laid down in statute. Colonel Gordon: Forgive me, but the Ministry of Defence publication, which is Armed Forces Covenant Myth Buster, says it is not a legal document. It is referenced in the Armed Forces Act and the Secretary of State is legally required to report to Parliament on its progress. It does not have the force of law. Jack Lopresti: I am not a lawyer, but it was part of the Bill and the principle of it being enshrined in law for the first time was hugely significant. Oliver Colvile: Mr Chairman, it may be the case that we will want to invite the Ministry of Defence to come and explain that comment to us. That might be helpful. Chair: It is a very interesting point, which I think we will need to Q134 Oliver Colvile: We talked about Section 75. If you were in our position, how would you actually try to enforce the military covenant to get round that issue of Section 75? How do you think we might do it? Colonel Gordon: Brian can speak for himself, but I would take a step back. What is the existing provision of welfare for veterans and serving people in Northern Ireland? We should assess what the existing provision is and say, Are there gaps and would those gaps be filled, if gaps there be, by the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant? Our general view is probably not. Brian Maguire: Can I just add that the Royal British Legion is a very large organisation. Oliver Colvile: It is a very good organisation as well. Brian Maguire: Thank you. I agree with that, obviously. At national level at corporate level, if you like, within the organisation the Legion lobbied successfully for the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. I operate more at the coalface, and my particular coalface is the island of Ireland. Where I operate, I am operating to achieve the best possible benefit and the best possible outcome for our beneficiaries and for our clients. I do that within our operating environment. We try to stay out of politics, certainly at local level. We are non-political; we are non-sectarian; and we are cross-community. We operate to achieve the best possible result for our beneficiaries. My experience in the three years I have been in the Legion is that this particular issue is not presenting us with any particular problems. Q135 Oliver Colvile: You are not saying that there is any gap at all. I have just come back from a funeral, as you can probably tell, of someone who was reputed to get things done. I am interested to know how we can actually do that. You are saying that it is not actually holding you back from being able to deliver a service to the armed forces. Is that right? Brian Maguire: I can only speak on behalf of the Legion. I am quite sure that other people who have appeared before the Committee may have told you otherwise, but I am relating my personal experience operating on behalf of the Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland. Colonel Gordon: The same would be true for SSAFA. Q136 David Simpson: Gentlemen, you are very welcome. You may have touched on this, but could you define for us the role of your organisations in supporting the armed forces community in Northern Ireland? We have an outline of the Legion and SSAFA. Mr Gordon, you touched on the housing issue a little bit as well, but could you define the two roles? I know there is a close relationship, but could you define the two roles? Brian Maguire: As far as the Legion is concerned, our strategy is based on four pillars, and those four pillars are welfare, representation, remembrance and comradeship. Welfare is first and foremost amongst that. We implement that strategy in all sorts of ways we do it in financial ways; we offer emotional support; and we offer practical support. We work in partnership with other organisations, both other service charities and other agencies. We have for example a very successful partnership with the Citizens Advice Bureau in Northern Ireland, offering benefits and money advice. That service operates both inside and outside the wire, as the expression goes, in that they are also based in some of the camps in Northern Ireland. We offer, for example, independent inquest advice for bereaved families. We can offer financial support, in terms of short-term crisis-type grants. We provide all sorts of practical assistance and advice. I should also say that the organisation is currently undergoing a significant amount of change, under its Pathway for Growth programme, and that will see us taking a much more person-centred approach in future. We have structurally reorganised into 16 areas. I am area manager for one of those areas, and that area is Ireland, consisting of Northern Ireland and the Republic. The area office is in Belfast. The plan ultimately is that each one of these 16 area offices will basically look and feel the same, and will effectively act as a local drop-in or pop-in type centre, a one-stop shop, if you like, where somebody can call in, get advice and get support. If the Legion cannot help them, we will signpost them to somebody who can help them. Colonel Gordon: SSAFA is fundamentally a caseworking organisation. We do not lobby and we do not campaign. We casework with clients. We work very closely with the British Legion; in fact, we cohabit with them in the same set of offices, which is hugely advantageous. We casework: when somebody who is a veteran, serving, families of or dependents of, including the TA, comes with a problem of any

80 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 28 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire sort, we use a complex form called the Form A, and interact with other service charities as well. The caseworker sits down and spends quite a long time with the client going through all their background, their expenditures, their incomes, to work out what the financial situation is and to decide what they need. It could be a fill of oil; it could be paying a month s rent in arrears; it could be white-good replacements or something of that sort. We do not give money to clients. We pay their bills. We will pay for a fill of oil if they get a quotation, but basically we almonise that money from other charities. We will go to the service benevolent funds; we will go to both military and non-military charities, from where we can put together the money we need for those people. We do raise money in Northern Ireland, but we do not raise much more than can run the operation that we have. I have 25 trained caseworkers, who have done a two or three-day caseworking course, and they dealt last year with something like 400 or 500 cases. We almonised and put out about 100,000 to our clients. Q137 David Simpson: Just as an aside question, do your organisations have much connection, with the War Graves Commission or is it a totally separate organisation? Brian Maguire: No, we do not have any connection. David Simpson: You have no linkages with them in relation to Northern Ireland. Colonel Gordon: No. Q138 Dr McDonnell: It is just a very simple question: do you get significant support, or how much do you receive, from the MOD, for instance, or the Northern Ireland Executive, in terms of the charities that you represent? Colonel Gordon: We do not get, nor do we seek, any help from them. As far as the MOD is concerned, we have our relationships with them, because some of the people who come to us may well be, as Brian said, inside the wire. We do see people, because they do not want to go to their own people to solve their own problems. We do not rely on the Ministry of Defence, nor on Northern Ireland Government Departments, nor do we seek to. Brian Maguire: Likewise, we are not financially reliant upon any external funding; we are internally funded. As far as the MOD is concerned, the Aftercare Service is part of the MOD and we would operate in close partnership, as would SSAFA, with the Aftercare Service. I have personal contact, on a regular basis, with various levels of MOD and the establishment, including the Army Welfare Service, the Personnel Recovery Unit, the Transition Unit and people like that who are relevant to our line of work. Q139 Mr Benton: Welcome. Can I just turn to the problem of homelessness and alcoholism with former service members? The Committee has been told in previous evidence that there is no real accurate assessment in quantitative terms of how many people are affected. I just wondered if you were in a position at all to comment on the extent of the problem of homelessness and alcoholism, and if you have any suggestions to put to the Committee of how that might be assessed, first of all, and what we can do to help. I listened carefully to your explanation about the possible conflict in terms of what might appear to be differential treatment, but I would like you to take into account another aspect of that, particularly where it is proven that armed forces personnel suffer from alcoholism or any other serious handicap sustained in the course of their duties. If that is directly attributable to their service to the nation, I, along with other Members of the Committee, feel very strongly that there should be some recognition of that, regardless of whether it has the force of law or not. What is the extent of this problem, because nobody seems to know just how serious it is? Of course, it goes without saying that, certainly in my personal view, members of the armed services, no matter which part of the nation they come from, should not receive differential treatment. Colonel Gordon: It is probably not going to give you much of an answer to say that I do not know the extent of it very much either. The reason for that is that we do not actually come across it. It is not an issue that lands on our desk or with our caseworkers, from clients, on the sort of basis that I could put any handle on it at all. Yes, we will get people saying, I am coming out of the service; I need to live somewhere. I described the process that we go through in that case, but homelessness and problems deriving from alcohol I think alcoholism is something that is a growing thing. Nationally amongst veterans, it is becoming an issue that is being focused on, but again we certainly from the SSAFA point of view are completely non-judgmental. If people come to us with an issue, we will deal with that issue. We will not say, Oh, it is because you are spending all your money on alcohol that you have a financial problem. We will deal with the problem they bring to us and not with what might be behind it. As far as homelessness is concerned, to be honest with you, it is not something that we see coming forward as a client issue at all. Brian Maguire: Homelessness and alcoholism are issues for the ex-service community, and some of my colleagues in Great Britain would deal with them and would have the resources to do so. Traditionally, they have not presented as a significant problem in Northern Ireland; however, there is, as you have rightly pointed out, a lack of research into the matter and it is something we are very cognisant of. We have recently commissioned research into this area. I mentioned the reorganisation of the Legion; it has been organised into three regions, and Ireland is part of the North region. There are regional specialists in that region, who deal with homelessness. We have asked those individuals to research what data are available to indicate the problem, if any, or to what extent the problem might be in Northern Ireland. To reiterate what Richard said, on a daily basis, on a practical level, we are not coming across obvious evidence of a huge problem. I can specifically recall two individual referrals from a homeless centre in West Belfast, where it became apparent somehow to the people running the centre that the individuals concerned were ex-service. They knew to call us and then we took it from there. That prompted me to do

81 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire some follow-up correspondence with that centre to make sure that, if they got future people coming in, they could look for warning signs that they might be ex-service, so that we could then help them. That is all I have to say on that. Q140 Mr Benton: I am quite happy to acknowledge that not everybody can be categorised as suffering from this trauma. It must be difficult to identify an individual case, but on this lack of research that you refer to and I think you have indicated that it is a bigger problem, quite a huge problem it does seem wrong to me that somebody is not facilitating the means to conduct the research into it. I don t know, but there are so many voluntary bodies that might possibly undertake this. Thanks anyway for your replies, which were helpful. Brian Maguire: Can I just come back on one point? I do not want it to be believed that I am indicating that there is a bigger problem. I am saying we are not sure. There may be a problem there, but there are no obvious signs of it. Mr Benton: I accept that. Chair: Before I was elected, I worked for a charity for homeless people, and I know that homelessness is often hidden. That is one of the problems with it. Q141 Oliver Colvile: One of the issues that accompanies both homelessness and alcoholism is mental health. You may have served with the British armed forces during the course of your time, and you may have seen conflict in Northern Ireland as well, and you may still want to live in what might be your home town or your home province in Northern Ireland, but you are very concerned that, if you end up actually having mental health problems, if you go and see your GP, he may sit there and say, So how did you get this? You then have to explain that you were involved in activities in Northern Ireland to protect the peace and all of that. Is that an issue, and do you either of you have the facilities in order to make sure that those people who have served with the armed forces, who may be suffering from mental health issues, and need help, can actually come to you knowing that they can be dealt with with a certain amount of sympathy, and will not potentially find themselves harassed and subjected to other things too? Colonel Gordon: You are going to hear about that later on when you talk to the people from Combat Stress. Again, we are lucky in that, within the one building, we have the British Legion, SSAFA, Combat Stress and the Royal Air Forces Association. Q142 Oliver Colvile: You would refer a problem to all of them, would you? Colonel Gordon: We would signpost to the people who are best able to deal with it, in exactly the same way that Brian says. If we get a debt problem, we signpost it to the CAB and people who are qualified to deal with it, rather than try to deal with it ourselves, because it is a horribly dangerous area to start handling. Q143 Oliver Colvile: Do you find many people who come to see you with mental health problems? Brian Maguire: We have physically referred people before who have walked into our office to see the Royal British Legion. We have physically escorted them to the office of Combat Stress. That is the advantage of being co-located, but even if we were not co-located, we would still refer them. I would not say there are huge numbers involved. At the end of the day, the issue we are talking about here is trust: trust in your GP and trust in the Royal British Legion or whatever other organisation you approach. That is one of the issues, as I think I referred to earlier, because whether or not the Covenant is implemented, it is not going to affect that, because that is a mindset. It is a mindset that a lot of people will share in Northern Ireland because of their background. Our office is on a street in Belfast city centre. It is a reasonably anonymous office but, despite that, we have had clients in that office who come in clearly nervous and who look out the blinds when they are there, because they may have been followed. The fact that they are still very security conscious and security aware is indicative of their type of background. Q144 Oliver Colvile: There is a similar issue, I have to say, to do with those people who have not been in the army or the military, who have actually been affected as well those civilians who have been victims of what happened during the course of the Troubles and their mental health issues. That is another area that I suspect you do not get too involved in either. The work of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish (Home Service) and I understand that may have changed, and I would be interested has been highlighted in evidence we have received so far. How highly does the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland value their services the supporting organisations? One proposal we have heard is that the Aftercare Service should be extended to all veterans in Northern Ireland as well. Do you believe there is a strong case for this? Colonel Gordon: Personally, I have some difficulty with that. I admire hugely what the Aftercare Service does. It is a bespoke set-up. It employs 12 caseworkers or something of that sort, and it deals with and can fast-track psychological and physiological care for former UDR and former Home Service Royal Irish Battalion people as well. If you start talking about extending the remit of that, you are talking about public funds being extended into other areas where there is existing provision. It takes you into the area of perhaps a mini veterans administration, not that we are ever going to have a veterans administration in the same way as they do in the United States. If I was a welfare charity worker in Glasgow, Newcastle upon Tyne or Bristol, and I saw all cap badges in Northern Ireland having positive discrimination and preferential treatment, which I was not able to deliver to my equivalents in those other cities, I might wonder whether that was fair. Brian Maguire: It is an invaluable service, covering 63,000 direct dependents and, I believe, something like 200,000 indirect dependents. My concern would be that, if the service disappeared I know that is not what you are asking that burden would then shift

82 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 30 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire to other organisations, probably principally to us and SSAFA, to a large extent. That would have resource implications for us if that gap suddenly appeared in the market. Whether or not it should be expanded, I would like to stay neutral on that. I do not want to speak against it, because I would not speak against anything that could provide a better service to the armed forces community out there. If I speak for it, it is almost stating there is a need out there and I do not personally think there is a need. I am with Richard on that: I think there is existing provision. Q145 Oliver Colvile: The very big problem is surely the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom that there are special issues in Northern Ireland in terms of the Troubles and all of that, whereas in England, in Wales and in Scotland, it is a much easier business to get involved in and deal with, if I might say so. You have to be much more sensitive, would you not say, in Northern Ireland? Colonel Gordon: Some of the people who come to us as clients are former UDR and former Royal Irish personnel. They may choose that they do not want to go and burden themselves to the Aftercare Service, because that is their own people. We do get some people from there. I agree with Brian: we value what they do hugely. There is no way that we could take on the burden of the welfare of all those people who they look after; it would just not be possible without our ramping up a huge number of extra people. I would have concerns about extending public funds into areas to deal with the sort of clients who we deal with on a daily basis, who are not dissimilar from the clients who are being dealt with in Newcastle, Bristol and Glasgow. Q146 Jack Lopresti: Do you work with the Northern Ireland Executive Departments in relation to providing support for your clients and the armed forces community in general? Colonel Gordon: No. Brian Maguire: Personally no; we do not. Q147 Jack Lopresti: To what extent is your work broadly hampered by the apparent reluctance or the inability of the Northern Ireland Executive as a whole to participate fully in implementing the Covenant? Does it have any impact on you at all none of the political difficulties or variances of opinion? Colonel Gordon: No. Again, we are not judgmental. Our clients come from wherever they come from. We have an office in the South as well and it deals with the same sort of thing. The answer is no; it does not impact. Jack Lopresti: You just crack on and get on with it basically. Q148 Lady Hermon: It is very nice indeed to see you both here this afternoon. We are all very sorry that we kept you waiting for so long to come in. Could I just clarify one key issue that you hinted at, at the very beginning, and you have just repeated it in response to my colleague? Colonel Gordon, you said at the very beginning that you did not see that the non-implementation of the military covenant or the Armed Forces Covenant would be a huge disadvantage. Yes? You are nodding in the correct direction that in fact that is what you said. Is it, in your view, the case that insisting upon the implementation of the military covenant in full and having it in legislative form, in Northern Ireland, would be unnecessarily divisive? If it is not a huge disadvantage not having it implemented, would it be, on the other hand, very divisive if it were implemented? Colonel Gordon: Unless somebody can assess existing provision in a way that we cannot or have not, and can show that there are gaps that would be filled by the implementation, then I think that is right. Brian Maguire: There is potential for it to be divisive and to have an overall negative effect, yes, because of the nature of Northern Ireland politics, which you are all far more familiar with than I am. Because of the very nature of politics, if you push hard in one direction, you will get a negative force in the other direction. My worry would be that things might actually turn out worse than they currently are. At the moment, we are operating successfully; we are operating in partnership. We have various means of communicating with each other that all work very well. My concern would be that, if too much attention was drawn to an issue like this here, it could actually have a negative impact on how we work in future. Q149 Lady Hermon: In response, again, to my colleague across the way, when you said in a very short reply to, Did you work closely with the Northern Ireland Departments in carrying out your work? and you said, No, actually you do not need to, because you are getting on and doing the things on the ground that ex-service personnel need and presumably their families need. Could you say a little bit about how you look after the families of ex-services personnel? For example, if someone has been in the services and that person was to die, and then we have a widow and we have children who are left and their funeral expenses, what actually happens in those cases? Does the family go to SSAFA first and then to the Royal British Legion? Colonel Gordon: They can go to either, and we both work with the same form and the same format of assessing what the requirement is. We then exchange it between ourselves, or we go to other charities as well, and we put the money together if we decide that the case is a valid one if there is eligibility. The one that you describe, a widow, would qualify as eligible. If dependents meet the criteria and we do define dependents in our Royal Charter as well then we would deal with them. Brian Maguire: I can give you a very quick case study to cover that, if you like an anonymised case study obviously. It is a couple of years old now. An individual, a man, joined the army as a married man with four young children, and he wanted to become an army chef. I think he was maybe 30 years of age when he achieved his ambition, and he was still in training when he got news that his wife had tragically died. He immediately had to leave training and go home. He had four kids to take care of. The Legion stepped in and the women s section of the Royal

83 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire British Legion in particular stepped in, because they have a particular interest in looking after children of service people. This individual was offered financial assistance, in terms of his children, in terms of school clothing, food vouchers, and he was given assistance in retraining. Now, as we move on two years, that individual has found his feet again. He has reestablished himself as an individual. He is working on again. Q150 Lady Hermon: Not as an army chef. Brian Maguire: Not as an army chef, but as a chef actually. It is a very minor case study, but it sums up that we work together in that respect. If the women s section had identified another need, they would have come either to the Legion or SSAFA; we always spread the financial burden of helping in a case like that. I should also say, in terms of families more generally, that the Royal British Legion operates a welfare break centre at Portrush. It is one of four in the United Kingdom; this one happens to be in Portrush, Bennet House. Recently, about a year ago, 2.5 million was spent on refurbishing Bennet House. It is an excellent establishment. Q151 Lady Hermon: Could you give us some idea of how large it is, and how many families are catered for? Brian Maguire: There are 16 rooms and there are facilities for those rooms to interconnect for larger families, if a family is deemed to meet the criteria for a break. Those criteria would include the basic Legion criteria of having served seven days paid service in the armed forces, but also being in receipt of means-tested benefits or, alternatively, having some other identified need. That need would be identified by a caseworker and assessed by a staff member in Belfast. That person would be awarded a welfare break of one week or two weeks, and that would be for them and, if necessary, a carer. Basically, for the time they were there, they would not have to spend any money; all their needs would be catered for and their day trips. It is basically a break away from the hardships of life. Lady Hermon: Umbrellas are provided, if necessary. Brian Maguire: Absolutely. Q152 Oliver Colvile: During the course of the Easter recess, I went to see an organisation called HMS Heroes, which is based in my constituency and deals with the children of service families. One of the issues that they brought up with me was that, if you are a blood relative of a service family, you get looked after but, if you happen to be a stepchild, then you do not; you fall through the floor. The question is this: do you also make sure that you not only offer a service to the children of service families, but also to their stepchildren, because it may well be that those children s mother or father got together with their partner when they were quite a young age? I just want to explore a little bit as to how much help you give to those stepchildren. Colonel Gordon: From a SSAFA point of view, the word is dependent and that means financially dependent. We define dependency and, if they meet those criteria and stepchildren of a certain age I am sure would do so then they will be eligible. Brian Maguire: Likewise, there is a list of very stringent and detailed criteria on eligibility for the Legion, but there is always room for exceptions to be made and exceptions are often made. A case can be made on an individual basis. For example, there have been recent cases in the Republic of Ireland that I know of, where the mother of a deceased person does not meet our criteria for a beneficiary, but they were given assistance, because we felt the need was there. Q153 Oliver Colvile: Thank you for doing that. And reservists as well? Colonel Gordon: Yes. Brian Maguire: Yes. Q154 David Simpson: Your comment has surprised me slightly in relation to the implementation of this Covenant in Northern Ireland being possibly divisive. We have listened to a number of witnesses and that is the first time, I believe, we have got that response from organisations such as yourselves. Maybe I am wrong, but is that a rule of thumb? Is that the general thought right across the whole of the Legion and SSAFA that to push this could have a negative impact? Colonel Gordon: We just have to look at it terribly cautiously, because we are aware that there is opposition, and we are already aware that there is a degree, however slight, of polarisation in people s approach to the implementation. Anything that exacerbated that clearly is not going to be helpful, because it is not good for veterans generally and it is not good for the people who appear as our clients. From a SSAFA point of view, we are really cautious about it. What we have told you today is about the fact that, if you assess provision and say, Will it make any difference? the best start point is to say, Is it worth pushing? Q155 Nigel Mills: Can I just follow up on that quickly? Are you saying you would rather we abandon this report and said there is nothing here for us to find, and did not recommend anything? Lady Hermon: I do not think that is quite what he said. Colonel Gordon: What I said was it would be worth doing a good assessment of existing provision, against the issues and problems that can occur, and to ask if there are any gaps, how those gaps are best filled, and whether the implementation of the Covenant with the caveats that we have just talked about immediately previously actually make a difference and make for a better outcome for our clients. Lady Hermon: What is so interesting is, in fact, one of the main issues that was raised with us in evidence was housing. As you explained, quite correctly, it is different in Northern Ireland, where we have the Housing Executive. Q156 Nigel Mills: Can I just ask you one question on where there is a difference, in that service-leavers can get funding to study for a first degree in England,

84 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 32 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire Wales and Scotland, but I do not think that currently exists in Northern Ireland? Is that right? Colonel Gordon: I am not aware of any service-leaver coming to us and raising it as an issue, so I do not know the answer to that. I am sorry; I do not know. Q157 Nigel Mills: That might be one area where there is still a difference in Northern Ireland perhaps compared to elsewhere, but you are not aware of anything similar to that any other areas where perhaps access to public services or charitable support is weaker in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. Brian Maguire: Can I just come back on your earlier point, not to disagree with Richard, but just to say also that I actually think that the work of the Committee potentially could be very useful. I am not saying that you are wasting your time or anything like that. It absolutely would not be for me to say that. You are focusing on issues that have clear relevance to our organisation and, in that respect, this can only be useful, because it looks like it is a fairly critical examination of all the matters that are relevant to how we operate in Northern Ireland. I just wanted to make that clear. Q158 Nigel Mills: I just thought the way you were going with your previous comments suggested that you did not want this issue raised too high in prominence, in case it provoked a counter-reaction from certain parties, and that our publishing a report that said, This should be implemented, might just be the thing that triggered the very reaction you did not want. Brian Maguire: From my point of view, it was not so much the work of this Committee but, if a particular issue was raised in a particular setting in Northern Ireland, that would have the potential to be polarising and polarising would be a better word than divisive and then I would worry about how we would move forward from that, on that particular issue, if that makes sense. It might draw a line in the sand and make it difficult for us to do something in the future, when currently it is not raising any issues. Q159 Jack Lopresti: Mr Maguire, I am a member of the Legion; I am a Vice President of my local branch, but I remember being on the Bill Committee and being lobbied by the British Legion extensively about how important it was for the Covenant to be enshrined in law, recognised in statute or however you want to discuss the definition. There was even quite a bit of debate about how prescriptive it ought to be. I took that to be the view of the national Royal British Legion. Are you saying that definitely is not the view of the Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland? I recognise the military covenant is to be enshrined in law or recognised in statute. Are you saying there should be an exemption for Northern Ireland, or the law of the land for the rest of the United Kingdom should not be enacted or enforced in Northern Ireland? Brian Maguire: I am not saying that, because that is a political matter and that is for the politicians. What I am saying though is that, whilst the Legion quite rightly lobbied for this at national level Jack Lopresti: It was hugely important. Brian Maguire: Hugely important. I am not going to disagree in any shape, form or fashion, but there was also a recognition within the Legion that Northern Ireland and some people may tell you differently is a very different place, with a particularly difficult history and its own unique set of sensitivities. There is a recognition within the Legion that the particular operating environment in Northern Ireland is different, and the bottom line is how we can operate best to meet the needs of our beneficiaries. Jack Lopresti: Which I accept. Okay, it is political, and you could easily argue, and quite rightly, that it stands to politicians to have that debate and discussion. My understanding is that you cannot pick and choose what laws you wish to enforce fully or not so fully, given the circumstances in any particular area. Where do you draw the line in that case? We will continue with the debate and discussion. Q160 Mr Benton: The legal aspect of that is an interesting point, but as a follow on from what you have been discussing, I would like to ask you, based on your experience of armed service charities, how they actually differ in terms of Northern Ireland and, say, other parts of the UK? Can you pinpoint any way that they differ? Is there a reduced provision in Northern Ireland? Are you in a position to quote any experience of that? Brian Maguire: I would say, in a positive way, we differ in the extent to which we operate closely together. You have probably heard already in other evidence of a new Northern Ireland veterans forum that has been established that Richard co-chairs. In that respect, we were always very closely connected anyway. We always spoke on a regular basis when we had to, and that is not always the case at national level, from my understanding. I would say, in a positive way, we operate much more closely together than elsewhere. Colonel Gordon: The relationship between military charities does vary over the country as a whole. It is much closer and better in some places, as Brian says, and we have now established a veterans forum, with the idea and this was partly in response to the question of the Covenant that we would put together a booklet, and each of these major military charities would have a page in that booklet that would signpost people as to exactly how to get hold of them, where to go, contact numbers and all the rest of it, a page per charity. We would have it printed, if we can find something to pay for the printing, and then have it widely distributed in libraries, in doctors surgeries and waiting rooms, and everywhere where there is public access, where it would be a useful place to have it, so at least we can raise the awareness of what military charities are out there and what they do, amongst the public at large. That would be a very good thing to do. Q161 Mr Benton: You are not aware and you said you could not quote examples or instances where, for want of a better phrase, differential treatment takes place in comparison with people in other parts of the UK. You are not in that position.

85 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire Colonel Gordon: By and large, the issues that clients bring forward to us and to the British Legion in Northern Ireland are pretty similar to the issues that they are bringing forward in other parts of the country. They tend to be to do with rent or replacement of white goods, or a fill of oil. It used to be a bag of coal and it is a fill of oil now, which is a rather more expensive proposition. It is relatively small-ish things. You get the big cases as well. You get the ones that Brian talked about, where you have children involved, and you can provide breaks for children and things like that. We have had witness support schemes and all sorts of other things that we do as well. The dayto-day nitty-gritty client issues tend to be pretty similar across the country as a whole. Brian Maguire: There would be some individual Legion services that are available in most parts of Great Britain, which are not available in Northern Ireland, but that is more down to demand. They are demand-led. There is, for example, a handy van, poppy-van-type service that the Legion provides in many parts of the United Kingdom. It was briefly trialled in Northern Ireland in partnership with another charity using unmarked vans, because of security concerns around having vans with poppy colours on them, which is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. Even with that, we found there was not a sufficient uptake of the service. It could be reviewed again in future, but that is maybe something that is a difference, in terms of a practical difference, in terms of how we operate. In general, the services that are available to veterans in mainland UK/Great Britain are also available from the British Legion in Northern Ireland. Q162 Lady Hermon: I have a couple of points. From SSAFA s point of view and from the Royal British Legion s point of view, have the two of you identified specific gaps in the care of former military personnel, gaps that in fact your two organisations cannot fill and that perhaps Government action or activity could actually help? What could be improved? I am sure something could be improved for military personnel and their families in Northern Ireland. Oh my goodness; there is a hesitation. Brian Maguire: I cannot point to anything. When we look at the services charity sector, if there is something that the Legion cannot help with, there will, in general, be somebody else there who can help. If we cannot meet the need or meet the service, we can refer to somebody who can meet it. We will always check and make sure and we are doing this more and more now that the statutory provision has been exhausted before we start using charitable funds. That was not always the case in the past. Lady Hermon: Translate that for us. Brian Maguire: Somebody, for example, might come to us and say, and it could be a caseworker coming along and putting in a form, as Richard mentioned earlier on, that Somebody has died. They were in the service and can we pay for the funeral? without checking to see if the statutory provision for a funeral had been exhausted first. In a simple sense, we would check that had been done first and, potentially if there was a shortfall, we might look at meeting it, but we would do a check, first of all, to make sure that person could not afford it themselves. What we usually find is, when a client comes to us, it might be with a particular need that seems immediately apparent to the caseworker, but then, when we start digging further, there are other needs there. In the past, we have probably been guilty to some extent as an organisation of putting a sticking plaster on the problem, moving on and giving the fill of oil, without really checking why the oil tank was empty in the first place. This is part of the changes that the Legion is currently undergoing, in that we are taking this much more holistic approach to how we deal with people, checking into what other means can be used to help them out and to get them back on their feet again. Q163 Lady Hermon: Is there a follow-up when you have done all of that analysis, and perhaps you have paid for the oil on that one occasion? In six weeks time, do you follow up and does someone then go to see the family again? Colonel Gordon: We would frequently have caseworkers who are going back, over and over and over again. That may be because the person may be living on their own. It is a befriending service as well, if you like. There will be follow-up visits, and there could be two, three, four or five. It could be spread over years as well so, yes, we stay closely in touch with people who have been clients, partly to see if they have any other issues. Q164 Lady Hermon: When this Committee will be taking evidence, as we shortly will be taking evidence, from the local Health Minister local in terms of local in Northern Ireland Edwin Poots MLA, is there not any issue of healthcare for ex-service personnel that we, as a Committee, should be raising with him? Brian Maguire: Both SSAFA and the Royal British Legion sit on the Armed Forces Liaison Forum, which looks specifically at healthcare issues, but healthcare is not something that the Legion as an organisation gets heavily involved in. We are part of that forum, as all the major ex-service charities are, and I am aware from my presence on that forum that there are some health issues, around things like IVF treatment and around things like provision for prosthetic limbs for ex-service personnel. I am aware of those issues, but they are not issues for us, as a locally based charity in Northern Ireland, to deal with, but I am aware there are issues in that field. Lady Hermon: That is very helpful, because we had received evidence to that effect. Colonel Gordon: We will pay for IVF treatment for injured service personnel as well, on a country-wide basis. Lady Hermon: That is really interesting. Q165 David Simpson: The question I was going to ask, Chairman, has already been covered, but just on another point, Brian: in relation to the British Legion and fundraising, where on the league table and maybe it is putting you on the spot with this one does Northern Ireland come in, when it comes to fundraising the amounts of money, as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom?

86 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 34 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire Brian Maguire: I can only answer that anecdotally. I know 1.3 million was raised from the poppy appeal last year. That is I know anecdotally that that is very high per capita, compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. Also interestingly and I appreciate this is the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee 247,000 was raised in the Republic of Ireland in the same period, which I think is also significant. It shows there is a level of support throughout the island of Ireland for the ex-service community. Oliver Colvile: There is significant support for the retired former armed services community in both Northern and Southern Ireland as well. Lady Hermon: The poppy appeal. Brian Maguire: In terms of the poppy appeal, the Irish poppy appeal is dealt with distinctly from the UK poppy appeal, I think because of Charity Commission guidelines and legislation in the Republic. It is organised distinctly and the monies are spent locally, in the Republic of Ireland. Last year, 247,000 was raised in the Republic of Ireland poppy appeal, and 1.3 million in Northern Ireland. Colonel Gordon: In SSAFA, we do not have the poppy appeal. We have to fundraise in whatever ways we can, which are all the ways that we all fundraise, with bridge lunches, speakers at events and stuff like that. The only thing that sets us apart from the rest of Great Britain is that we cannot use people in uniform to help with our fundraising. If you go to any other part of GB, they will use cadets in uniform with collecting tins on special occasions and stuff like that. Clearly we cannot and we do not do that. Q166 Kate Hoey: Can I just ask why? Is that because you think they will be at risk? Colonel Gordon: Yes. Kate Hoey: You just assume that they would be at risk. Brian Maguire: I think it may be military policy as well. I cannot be sure of that, but I think it may be policy. Q167 Kate Hoey: It would be very helpful to clarify exactly, because we keep being told that Northern Ireland is this normal, wonderful place again, and then things like this happen all the time. No one seems to want to do the reality of making it normal, because there are security concerns. We cannot have it both ways. Colonel Gordon: There are places where you could do it but, if it is a blanket issue, we have to say we do not do it. Brian Maguire: Just in relation to the earlier point, by way of a comparison between those figures, Royal British Legion membership because we are also a membership organisation in Northern Ireland is almost 14,000, and there are approximately 700 in the Republic of Ireland. The ex-service/veterans community in the Republic of Ireland is believed to be around 50,000 and, in Northern Ireland, I understand, it is around 150,000, just for comparison purposes. Q168 Jack Lopresti: Since we announced our inquiry, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has been having a series of meetings with the Northern Ireland parties and representations from military charities like yourselves. What involvement have you had with that, with meetings with the Minister of State? Brian Maguire: We have both been present at those round-table discussions. Q169 Jack Lopresti: Has there been any progress made? What are you expecting to get out of it, as far as being able to help you deliver your services? Colonel Gordon: It has more been informationpassing. It has been updating on where we are. It is a bit like what I and Brian referred to earlier, which is trying to say what we all do, what the provision is like the first questions we were asked this afternoon so that everybody understands. We had the Minister of State from the MOD over about three weeks ago, Northern Ireland Office Ministers and people like that, and the military as well. It has more been informationpassing than anything more concrete. Jack Lopresti: It is establishing where you are to begin with. Colonel Gordon: Yes. Q170 Jack Lopresti: Will there be further meetings like that? Brian Maguire: Yes; further meetings are planned. Q171 Lady Hermon: Not very long ago, we took evidence on this particular issue from the MOD, and we were told that, in fact, there would be a meeting at Number 10 to assess any shortfall in the implementation of the military covenant in terms of Northern Ireland, and that, if there were shortfalls, they would be addressed. Were you aware of any meeting in Number 10? Were you invited to any meeting in Number 10? Did you have an input at all into that assessment? Brian Maguire: I personally was not, but it is probably above my pay grade, to be honest. Lady Hermon: Not at all. You are the area commander for the island of Ireland. Brian Maguire: Area manager, but the Director General of the Royal British Legion sits on the Covenant Reference Group. I would suspect, if anyone was going to be involved in that sort of meeting, the Director General would have been invited. I do not know if he was or not, but I suspect it sits more at his level. Q172 Lady Hermon: Would he presuming it is a gentleman not feed down that information to you? Brian Maguire: Quite possibly, but I have not seen that yet. Colonel Gordon: I am in the same position. Q173 Lady Hermon: That is a bit of a disappointment. Can I just come back to one little point, which I just want clarification on? In the Royal British Legion restructuring, did I understand you correctly to say that, in fact, there was going to be a one-stop shop, if I could call it that, in Belfast? Brian Maguire: Yes.

87 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire Lady Hermon: We did receive evidence about Edinburgh, which has its own one-stop shop as well. Brian Maguire: Veterans First. Q174 Lady Hermon: We had not heard it mentioned anywhere else. When can we expect to see this in Belfast? Brian Maguire: The Pathway for Growth programme that the Legion is currently undergoing has identified 16 area office locations, and Belfast is one of them. We are in the early stages. We have yet to open our first office: it may be in Leeds; it may be in Liverpool. The premises have been identified. Belfast will be in year two of that programme. It will happen, but Belfast will be in year two of that programme. This is year one. The actual structure around the changed ways of working will actually be coming into play this year, probably from July or August onwards. That will include, for example, a national call centre, which is based in Cardiff, operating seven days a week, 12 hours a day, with trained professionals taking calls a national UK-wide free-phone number, and hopefully also a number that will operate in the Republic of Ireland, on the same basis. That will enable people to contact the Legion, seven days a week, 12 hours a day, because traditionally our offices have been basically nine-to-five offices. A lot of our offices in the past, traditionally, have been in out-of-town locations, which are not easy to get to. The whole idea is putting our offices in a prime location, where people can see where you are. They can walk in and get assistance, there and then. If we cannot help them, we can point to them towards someone who can help them. We are going to have a knowledge base established work is already well underway on that so that every time somebody comes in touch with us, whether that is by walking into an office, through the internet, which will also be improved in terms of access, or through the contact centre, we will have a record of that. If they walk in again six months or six years later, we will still have that record. We will know what happened to that person and what help they got and where they went to get that help. Q175 Lady Hermon: Without going into any of the details about the security arrangements for the particular venue in Belfast, you sound very relaxed and very confident that having a Royal British Legion reference point for ex-military personnel in the centre of Belfast will work. Brian Maguire: To some extent, I would say it is already working, given what we have already said about the existing premises. Do I have concerns about a more high-profile location? Yes, I would have some concerns about that, not so much from a staff point of view, but from the point of view of the beneficiaries the clients. Would they be comfortable walking into such a location in Belfast? That is something that I am talking to my people about, in terms of how we take this concept forward for Northern Ireland. Q176 Lady Hermon: Yes, but the internet is of course a very useful way to deal with that or to address those concerns. Brian Maguire: Absolutely. Lady Hermon: That is really fascinating. Thank you so much. Colonel Gordon: The offices currently are besides St Anne s Cathedral in Talbot Street. Actually, there is a lit sign outside the door that says war memorial, because there is a war memorial on display on the ground floor. So far, that has not produced any reaction at all. Q177 Naomi Long: First of all, can I say thank you both for coming today and also for the work you do for veterans in my constituency as well? It is very much appreciated. May I also apologise for the fact that I was detained somewhere else and was late? I just want to clarify something; perhaps it was clear at the beginning of your evidence, but I just want to clarify it for my own understanding. You seem basically to be saying that there are no gaps, in terms of meeting the needs of service personnel in Northern Ireland, which you are concerned about. Are they just the gaps that you would meet in your particular roles, that you are able to fulfil without engaging with the Executive or so on, or is that in general, and are you aware of gaps that the Executive would have responsibility for? I am not entirely clear which of the two you mean. Brian Maguire: We did make reference to this earlier. I have an awareness of gaps in some of the healthcare provision for certain treatments, which may or not be available in Northern Ireland, which would be available elsewhere to the ex-service community. Yes, you are right in what you are saying. From the Legion s perspective certainly, in our day-to-day work, our bread-and-butter work, if you like, on a daily basis, we are not coming across any brick walls that we could say would not be there if the client was living in Birmingham or in Edinburgh or Cardiff or any other part of the United Kingdom. Q178 Naomi Long: While you have identified that there are gaps in health you have mentioned that you have not identified those in other areas, such as housing, education or other places. It would be mainly health. Brian Maguire: Housing, I suppose, is a difficult issue, in that I am aware that, in certain parts of mainland UK, points are awarded for ex-service members to get them on the housing ladder. The quality of that housing might be an issue, from what I can gather anecdotally, but that is not the case in Northern Ireland. There are informal unofficial routes that can be taken. Some may say it should not be informal; it should not be unofficial, but the fact is there are established routes, there are established contacts, so we can make inquiries on behalf of clients, if they are having difficulties getting housing. We also have a scheme, which is very successful, which involves our potentially paying the first month s deposit, but also a deposit guarantee bond, where we will guarantee the landlord, should the person default, that the Legion will meet that cost. Most landlords, not all, will take that. As long as they get that in writing, most will accept that, and that means the

88 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 36 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire client does not have that financial outlay to start with, because the Legion is acting as guarantor. Q179 Naomi Long: It was just really for my own benefit, because I was slightly confused about the differentiation between barriers that you would meet in providing the services that you provide, and then barriers that you would be aware of that armed services personnel might meet themselves, but which would not fall within your remit, in terms of delivery. Colonel Gordon: This is what comes out from when the caseworker does his assessment and goes through this six-page form, which is quite complex. If there are issues being flagged up there that we know we cannot deal with, the first thing we have to do is try to find a way of signposting them, but there may well be, as in all parts of the country, issues where politically people are unhappy with the provision or the lack of something. That is always going to be the case. Q180 Dr McDonnell: Could I thank you for your evidence? I have certainly been inspired by it, and the openness and honesty with which you have approached the subject and, equally as Naomi, for all the good work you do. Certainly the work you do on the welfare front is very important. I was a GP for much of my life and I had quite a bit of overlap with some of your clients, as patients. To go back to another angle on the question I asked earlier about funding, are there any links with the British Departments of any consequence? You touched on that a couple of times there, or do you steer clear of them intentionally in Northern Ireland? Colonel Gordon: From a SSAFA point of view, we do not have any links, but then we go out of our way to describe ourselves as being not a campaigning or a lobbying organisation. We are a caseworking organisation and we deal with the issues in a non-judgmental way that come in front of us. We do not go and knock on the doors of Government Departments to say, Why aren t you providing this? Q181 Dr McDonnell: Not even the Ministry of Defence? Colonel Gordon: Not even the Ministry of Defence. Q182 Dr McDonnell: Is there anything you would like to see put in place or are you satisfied with that arrangement? Colonel Gordon: It would always open to us, and we would probably do it through SSAFA s head office in London, which has got daily links into the Ministry of Defence, if we had a major issue that we felt could be helped in that way. I was in SSAFA s central office yesterday, and I said I was coming to meet the Committee today, and asked, Are there any big issues that it would be helpful for me to raise? The biggest one, they said, which was not a Northern Ireland issue at all, was that last year there was a report on the workings of the military covenant that has not yet been debated and it is highly aspirational. If we could have less of the hope to and intend to and might and more of the do, then the Covenant and that then does bounce back to us would actually have a bit more focus, as to what it was actually setting out to do. Brian Maguire: Again as I mentioned earlier, I understand that the Armed Forces Liaison Forum is chaired by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and we have a seat on that. I attend the meeting. I think it is appropriate that the Legion are represented there, even though their core business is not something that we would normally concern ourselves with, but because of the nature of the other people present, I think it is appropriate that we are there. In terms of the MOD and again I mentioned this earlier there is regular contact at multiple levels from a practical viewpoint; that can involve presentations to personnel who are about to leave the army, in terms of what provision you might be able to make for them. It could be presentations to the wives of serving soldiers, in terms of services available. It could be some advice clinics done behind the wire. It could be talking to the person in charge of transition to make him aware of our services and to arrange for future provision of presentations. That is ongoing, and I would say, in the past two years, the level of contact has increased exponentially. It is a very helpful and worthwhile level of contact now, for example, between ourselves and the 38 Brigade yesterday. Colonel Gordon: If I could just come back actually Brian has reminded me we do not contact them on issues, but we contact them on broader things. In May, we are going to hear about the final footprint of the Territorial Army, and we expect there to be a fairly significant uplift in Northern Ireland for two reasons: a) we are extremely well recruited, and b) we have a very high level of retention as well. With the reduction in the regular forces and, therefore, the increased deployment of territorial forces, there is going to be an imperative on us to meet the families of those being deployed and to make them aware of what we are doing, which is back to this idea that we want to get together, so we actually have a way of saying to people, Here is the range of welfare support that is available to you. Q183 Dr McDonnell: Just very quickly, I was fascinated by one point where you were talking about the connection in Dublin and the removal of barriers there, which may have existed through a difficult period in history. Do you have any connectivity at all with the Government in Dublin in terms of the Legion? It is more the Legion I am thinking about. Brian Maguire: Yes. It is informal, but it is there. It is very healthy and positive. Q184 Dr McDonnell: The Government both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister attended in November in Belfast, and I know that the Irish Government are very keen to engage further. Obviously they are trying to do that without appearing intrusive. Brian Maguire: There has been ongoing, very healthy contact with the Department of the Taoiseach, and not just on issues of welfare, but probably in fact more so on issues of remembrance, which again is another one of our pillars.

89 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Colonel Richard Gordon DL and Brian Maguire Q185 Dr McDonnell: That is really what I wanted to get to, because they are also very keen to look positively and creatively at the remembrance of the Somme and all of that. I welcome that. Colonel Gordon: The time of the Queen s visit demonstrated that very clearly. Chair: We are way over time, but it has been an extremely interesting session, so thank you very much indeed for joining us. It was very valuable. Thank you. Colonel Gordon: Are we allowed to circulate some bits and pieces before we go? This is just an update and also, because we have just rebranded, this is our new look. Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Mr Peter Poole, Director of Strategic Planning & Partnerships, Combat Stress, and Colonel Paul Cummings, Director of Welfare, ABF the Soldiers Charity, gave evidence. Chair: We will kick off straightaway. I think you sat in on the previous session, so there is no need for me to do an introduction as to what we are doing. It is very good of you to join us. I am sorry to keep you waiting. It was our fault for starting late. In view of the time, perhaps we could get straight into questions, if that is okay. Jack, would you like to kick off? Q186 Jack Lopresti: Welcome. Thank you for coming. What are your views on the principles enshrined in the Armed Forces Covenant, and how would you like to see them specifically implemented in Northern Ireland? Colonel Cummings: The principles are sound. It is important to the veteran community that the Covenant is enshrined and that the Covenant is enacted throughout the United Kingdom, wherever that might be, bearing it in mind that there is an acceptance that the political realities are going to cause some time delay for some of the issues that are involved in the Covenant to be able to be delivered in the way envisaged in that document originally. Q187 Kate Hoey: Can I just follow on, Chairman, on that? We keep hearing about the political reality, but for those who have no problems with the political status of Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom, they are then being treated differently, because of the perceived political problem. Colonel Cummings: I do not think they are, madam. In almost every respect, people are treated exactly the same, and there is enormous advantage for most veterans who care to decide to live and settle in Northern Ireland. Health and education spring to mind as being outstanding exemplars for the rest of the country. Where the equality issue may raise its head, in terms of ensuring that a veteran can have his life experience reflected in his point score for social housing, then that is an area that veterans understand that there are, at the moment, some difficulties in making sure of that. What I would say is that, although in the Covenant some local authorities have said, yes, they will give a priority to veterans, what I do hear, time and time again, is veterans ringing me up to say, I ve been placed at the top of the waiting list, but there is no housing, so it actually makes no difference whatsoever. What I would say is that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland is extremely responsive and does enable people to move into social housing probably just as quickly as they might in Surrey, Sussex or elsewhere. Peter Poole: I have now listened to three different views about this and, quite honestly, what has been said throughout echoes my own views on it, or that indeed of Combat Stress. Q188 Jack Lopresti: Just a minor point going back to our last witnesses, is it your understanding that the military covenant is enshrined in the law? Peter Poole: I thought it was, but I might not be right. I did think it was. I would echo something that was said earlier, which is that the first annual report is yet to be debated in the House. I do have some misgivings about that, quite frankly; I think it should be. Colonel Cummings: If I may, the view is that the reporting of the Covenant is enshrined in law, whereas not necessarily the totality of what the Covenant represents is enshrined in law. The Government must report progress and what has been achieved. Q189 Oliver Colvile: What we should be pressing for is for it to be enshrined in law, frankly. That is what you are saying. Colonel Cummings: Possibly. Jack Lopresti: It is my understanding that it is. We can argue about the definition. I have heard people talk about it being recognised in statute or enshrined in law. Q190 Oliver Colvile: It is a bit like when we end up getting legislation wrong here and the judges interpret it in their own way. We need to tighten it a bit. In your opinion, what is the main reason why the Covenant is not being fully enforced in Northern Ireland, and do you hold to the view that Section 75 is the issue that is actually prohibiting that from happening, and that that is a problem? Peter Poole: Section 75 probably does have something to do with it, but whether that is the main reason as to why it is not fully operable, if it is not fully operable, in Northern Ireland, I do not really think I am qualified to say. Your previous speakers were rather more involved in this area than indeed am I. Colonel Cummings: I would just say that what we probably need to ensure through the delivery of the Covenant in Northern Ireland is a strong veterans forum, making its points through the Covenant Reference Group, if it identifies major issues. What I

90 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 38 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Mr Peter Poole and Colonel Paul Cummings would say is I do not think, at any time, the Covenant Reference Group has had advised to them any major concerns coming from veterans in Northern Ireland. Q191 Oliver Colvile: You think everybody is happy. Colonel Cummings: I would not say that, but what we need to do is to give the veterans in Northern Ireland a stronger voice. I am a Director of Veterans Scotland. I sit on a number of COBSEO which is the Confederation of Service Charities groupings and, through that, we are able to exert a real influence on the way in which these things run. I am not convinced that in Northern Ireland we have got that same strong group of individuals who are able to represent concerns, if they believe their community is being disadvantaged. Peter Poole: That is well said, because certainly Veterans Scotland does enable veterans issues to reach the Scottish Government, and I think that is important. Q192 Kate Hoey: Do both of you in your organisations have Northern Ireland bodies? Are you based in Northern Ireland? Colonel Cummings: No. I have a fundraising office in Northern Ireland, but my policy and direction is delivered centrally from one office in London by myself and five people. My experiences in Northern Ireland reflect time commanding a regiment, and then as a defence attaché south of the border in Dublin. Peter Poole: We do. We have what we call a community outreach team, which is a number of clinicians and a welfare officer. We also have an office in the same building, in fact, as SSAFA and the British Legion in Belfast, which is manned permanently by three welfare support staff. Q193 Nigel Mills: Mr Poole, in the evidence you sent to us, you said you would like to see Northern Ireland represented on the Covenant Reference Group. Who would you have in mind as representing Northern Ireland on that group? Peter Poole: Frankly, I am not altogether sure that I am in a position to know just exactly who it should be. Nonetheless, I would like to see them represented on it. Were there to be an organisation similar to Veterans Scotland, then clearly the chairman of that would be perhaps the ideal person actually to sit that on that particular group. Q194 Nigel Mills: You are not thinking it should be a member of the Northern Ireland Executive. Are you thinking it is more likely to be someone from the voluntary sector? Peter Poole: Speaking personally, it probably should be someone from the voluntary sector, and I suspect my organisation would go down that line as well. Q195 Dr McDonnell: I have just two very brief questions, one about what you get and one about what you give. Could you outline in a little more detail for us your role in Northern Ireland? Colonel Cummings, you have a head office in London; you have a fundraising office there. How strong a presence do you have, do you feel? What is your role and output? Colonel Cummings: The way in which my charity works is exactly the same across the United Kingdom. We have regional fundraising offices, but all of our outreach is managed from my office in London, directly with the caseworking organisations, which are the link between ourselves and our clients. We rely enormously on SSAFA s help and the Royal British Legion to identify the problem and then pass it to us, at our central office in London, to identify what funds can be provided to meet that need. Q196 Dr McDonnell: They are in the frontline and you provide the financial backup. Colonel Cummings: Absolutely. Peter Poole: We are completely different, because we are an organisation that delivers treatment. From a Combat Stress perspective, if I do it in the widest possible sense, we are UK-wide. We have three treatment centres for the delivery of in-patient treatment and we have, UK-wide, 14 community outreach teams. One of those, a larger one, is in Northern Ireland, because it covers the whole of Northern Ireland. Those who require in-patient treatment and are veterans go across to Scotland, where we have a treatment centre. We have two other treatment centres, one in Surrey and one in Shropshire. It is the Scottish one to which our veterans go. Q197 Dr McDonnell: How would I access that treatment centre? Peter Poole: You can contact us in a number of different ways: by telephone in Northern Ireland or by approaching our helpline are two ways. Alternatively, you may refer yourself to the Royal British Legion or SSAFA, which will in turn push you through to us. We will then send one of our three welfare officers in Northern Ireland to visit you, to discuss with you your needs and to make an appreciation of your needs, be they welfare or, if they are clinical, then that person will then get a clinician along to come and see you as well. The clinician will decide whether or not you need in-patient treatment or whether we can provide out-patient treatment. That is the way the system works. That is our pathway of care. Q198 Dr McDonnell: That is very useful. When you say clinician, is that a psychiatrist or a psychologist? Peter Poole: It is a community mental health nurse in Northern Ireland but, once they get to Scotland, it will be a psychiatrist or indeed a psychologist. Q199 Dr McDonnell: Lastly, the same question I asked the earlier witnesses: do you get much financial support from the MOD or, indeed, from the Northern Ireland Executive? Peter Poole: We do get some financial support from VSS. In fact, this year the award was rather better than last year. From the Ministry of Defence, we are actually remunerated for war pensioners who have a war pension of more than 30%, and for those whom the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency agree need treatment, they then fund the treatment in our centre and travel. You will be aware that the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme has no such provision,

91 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Mr Peter Poole and Colonel Paul Cummings so there is actually a dwindling number of war pensioners. We also in England benefit from a National Health Service Commissioning Board contract, which provides in-patient care for 224 of the most seriously affected veterans. Q200 Lady Hermon: Do you have a waiting list? If I were living in Northern Ireland and I could only go to Scotland it seems that those in Northern Ireland go to Scotland. Because of our very special circumstances and the very prolonged Troubles that so many service personnel came through, and given they are now older and they still have great difficulty with their lives increasing difficulty with their lives is there a priority given by your organisation to allow access to the facilities in Scotland from Northern Ireland? How long would I have to wait? Is there a waiting list? Peter Poole: You may have to wait up to four to six months for in-patient treatment, but you would get community treatment more quickly than that. In the meantime, you would be receiving in-patient treatment. Of course, the Northern Ireland Aftercare Service is also providing help alongside us, and we work very closely with them. We have to work closely with them, because we do not want to duplicate what is actually being delivered. We want to work closely with them to ensure that they will get treatment. When you talk about the 224, whether there is a waiting list and so on and so forth, of course that money from the NHS Commissioning Board does not extend to veterans in Northern Ireland, or indeed in Wales or in Scotland. Q201 Lady Hermon: Because of the devolved issue of health. Peter Poole: Absolutely. In Scotland, they decided that they would actually fund people going on that course from within NHS Scotland. Q202 Lady Hermon: That is an issue we could follow up with our Health Minister, when he comes to the relevant session. That would be helpful. Peter Poole: We do treat people as part of that programme from Northern Ireland, and indeed from Wales, but they are treated on the basis of charity, rather than on the basis of anybody actually financing. Q203 Lady Hermon: Thanks; that is very helpful. In response to my colleague Dr McDonnell, across the way, could I just ask Colonel Cummings about the financial support that you receive from the Government or otherwise, because it is my understanding that, in Northern Ireland, there had been a grant in the past. I do think I wrote a letter supporting the continuation of the grant. Could you just tell the Committee the outcome of that? Do you still get funding from the Government? Colonel Cummings: We have not had a grant this year. Historically, we had a sum of around 25,000 from the Northern Ireland Office, which is used to support veterans of Op Banner who have been disadvantaged through their service in the province, not necessarily people who are living in Northern Ireland but who, during their service in Northern Ireland, may have suffered injury, death or whatever. That money is used for that purpose and it is put in a restricted fund called the Northern Ireland Special Relief Fund. Q204 Lady Hermon: The Northern Ireland Office did not make that Colonel Cummings: Not this year. Q205 Lady Hermon: And the excuse given by the Northern Ireland Office? Colonel Cummings: I am waiting for it at the moment. Lady Hermon: Oh dear. Perhaps you would furnish the Committee with the excuse whenever you receive it. That is very disappointing news, because I know you do a lot of good work. Q206 Mr Benton: To the previous witnesses I put the question about homelessness and alcoholism among former service personnel. It certainly appeared that we have heard from previous evidence that the extent of it is not quantified, but there is an acknowledgement that there is a problem. I just wondered if you had any thoughts on how this can be ascertained. Colonel Cummings: I am probably your man, sir. I am a trustee of the principal service homeless charity, which is called Veterans Aid, which is based here in London, but has a reach across the United Kingdom. Peter and I also sit on something called the Ex-Service Action Group on Homelessness, in which we identify problems and try to find solutions. Certainly in London, the Government through something called CHAIN collects all the statistics relating to homelessness. We know how many street homeless there are, and we do ask the question, Are you a veteran? The figure that comes out is about 4% of the street homeless are veterans. Very few of those are street homeless because they have no other option; I will leave it at that. That problem probably is similar across the major cities in the United Kingdom. In the seven years that I have done this job, I am only aware of one or two requests for support for individuals who were street homeless in Belfast or in Northern Ireland elsewhere. What I would say is we clearly do not know how many individuals may not have a home of their own, but if we look at that across the United Kingdom in the whole sector of society, that is a problem for all young people. The other issue you might have raised was prisons, and the Howard League has printed a report on that, which suggests service personnel are under-represented in the prison population, with the exception of those committing crimes of violence and sexual offences. King s College London has produced a lot of published reports on alcohol abuse, prison population and homelessness. Q207 Mr Benton: Have you any thoughts or ideas of how the Committee might make recommendations in terms of actually assessing the extent of the problem, in relation to Northern Ireland, in comparison with the remainder of the UK? Colonel Cummings: The real problem that we have across the UK is that no one does ask that question

92 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 40 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Mr Peter Poole and Colonel Paul Cummings across the board, Are you a veteran? so there is nothing in the census to say how many veterans there are and where they are. We do surveys and we try to find it out, but we have no firm statistics. The other issue in Northern Ireland is there is still a perception by the veteran population that it is not a good thing to put your hand up and say, I am a veteran, so I am not sure you would get the right figure anyway. Q208 Lady Hermon: Because of the dangers attached to it even now. Colonel Cummings: Perceived dangers, yes. Q209 Lady Hermon: The real question I want to ask is really to elaborate on a point that you made, which was very striking indeed, and we have not received that evidence before, and that is we need the veterans voice in Northern Ireland to be much louder. I am summarising, but that was certainly what you were saying. That links in with the comment that you have made about homelessness. The difficulty with veterans making their voice louder in Northern Ireland is, I suggest to you, the concern that, if you put your hand up, even now, 15 years after the signing of the Belfast Agreement on Good Friday, even though we have had ceasefires and all the rest of it, there is still that perception and fear for service personnel and indeed their families to identify themselves with the armed services. Is that correct? Colonel Cummings: That is correct, but there is a place for leadership in this, from all of the service charities working in Ireland, to make themselves available to the veterans community in secure ways. That can be through the internet and the rest of it, without face-to-face contact or necessarily great detail on the individual, to identify where problems exist. I am quite sure that the Royal British Legion initiatives including, dare I say, the pop-in centre are going to help us identify what the issues are. Unless we have a strong forum, people are not going to go out and ask the right questions to be able to respond effectively. Q210 Lady Hermon: So it is a stronger veterans forum. It is not that, in fact, you actually believe that veterans are sitting quietly there, but, if they were not afraid for their own safety, they would be demanding every last woman and man the implementation of the military covenant. Colonel Cummings: I do not think so. I think the veteran population is enormously pragmatic. I think it is very realistic. I would just say that tonight I am going to my local Royal British Legion annual dinner, and I would suspect no one there will mention the Covenant. It is not of vital importance to the majority of veterans. Q211 Lady Hermon: Just say that again. Did I mishear you? At your dinner tonight with the Royal British Legion, the Covenant, which I have to say the Prime Minister has made a huge issue of, will not be the talking point there. Colonel Cummings: I do not think it will be. I think the Covenant is particularly valuable, and it is an enormously valuable tool to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged. The most important time for that is during transition from military to civilian life, because that is where the largest element of disadvantage is likely to lie. Once people have settled, I suspect, they get on with their lives. Q212 Lady Hermon: How come, then, we have so many young and not so young ex-military personnel of all the services who end up, terribly sadly, in prison? We have all these very good organisations. We have taken evidence this afternoon from the Royal British Legion, which I think does an exceeding amount of good work, as do Combat Stress, the ABF, Help the Heroes and all of these great organisations. Why are the service personnel falling between all of these stools? Colonel Cummings: I would just say there has been a lot of publicity, which is not necessarily backed up by sound statistical data. When the Ministry of Defence shared National Insurance numbers with the Prison Service, the number of veterans in prison, as a percentage, is very, very small, and certainly less than half what the POA had indicated that they thought it was. Lady Hermon: Very, very small I think you used very twice there? Colonel Cummings: 4%. Peter Poole: There are a number in the criminal justice system, and we have to be really careful here not to get mixed up between the criminal justice system and those who are actually in prison. I sat on our prison in-reach committee, which was looked after by NOMS, and certainly we were very clear that, when there was a study done, the numbers were nowhere near those that the Prison Officers Association or NAPO I think it was actually had actually said were likely. Q213 Lady Hermon: Again, to quantify somehow for us that very small 4% who are in prison, Mr Poole, you have now said that these must not be confused with those ex-military personnel who have become involved in the criminal justice system. What percentage do you think are in the criminal justice system? Peter Poole: I do not know, but that is probably likely to be the figure that is nearer NAPO s 10% or so. Again, we do not know, because nobody shares their National Insurance numbers with each other, and so the net result is that it is very difficult to find out. What we do, and what is being done a lot now in custody suites, is that people are being asked whether or not they have been in the services, but there are still quite a lot of people who, be it in Northern Ireland or be it elsewhere, will not admit to having been in the services anyway, because being in that position is actually the last straw in terms of what they would like to be, in many cases. Lady Hermon: It is very humiliating, I am sure. Thank you so much. Q214 Naomi Long: Thank you very much for your evidence so far. One of the areas that we have been exploring is about the work of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service, and it has been

93 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Mr Peter Poole and Colonel Paul Cummings highlighted in the evidence by a number of people we have received so far that that is a very valuable service. Do you have any interaction with that service yourselves as an organisation or any view as to how it is valued by the armed services community in Northern Ireland? Colonel Cummings: I have almost daily contact with the Aftercare Service and with the regimental headquarters of the two regiments concerned. It is hugely valued. It is hugely valued by the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment, and also it is hugely valued by the veterans community in Ireland, which believes that this reflects a real commitment by Government to support individuals who have made a significant sacrifice over time. The veteran community, I have no doubt, would very much like to see the support that is given to the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Home Service, through the Aftercare Service, extended to them. You heard a view earlier that maybe that is not appropriate, but I am sure they would like to have it because, without doubt, it is enormously effective and hits the mark in many ways. Q215 Naomi Long: One proposal that we have heard is that the Aftercare Service would be extended to all veterans residing in Northern Ireland. You have said that you are aware that there would be a desire for that among other veterans. Has that possibility been discussed or explored, and are you aware of any genuine impediments to that happening? Colonel Cummings: I have discussed it on occasion. The impediment is that there is a price that goes with it. The current service being provided by the voluntary sector the Royal British Legion, SSAFA Forces Help, Combat Stress and a host of other charities is meeting the need and meeting the need very effectively, in parallel to the way in which it is delivered elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Q216 Naomi Long: Obviously cost is one element. One of the other suggested impediments may be that the service itself is too tailored specifically to the UDR and RIR (Home Service) to be able to be useful to other groups. Is that a concern you would share or do you think that that just is not a concern at all? Colonel Cummings: The suit certainly fits the people who it is targeted at now and, I believe, with some minor adaptation it could meet the needs of the veteran population as a whole, because that particular community do have specific issues, but most of those issues are coping with the crises of life, which are shared, in many cases, by other veterans. Q217 Naomi Long: Just a final question on the Aftercare Service: do you feel that it could and indeed should be extended to cover former or serving service personnel who reside in the Republic of Ireland? Colonel Cummings: Again, I do not think it is needed, because the voluntary provision in the Republic is very good. SSAFA and the Legion have a reasonable footprint. Certainly when I was working down there, I could get a caseworker to visit a client very quickly, without a problem. It is important, and Peter will want to speak on this, that the Aftercare Service has a real remit in terms of mental health. Peter Poole: Thanks for that. I feel very strongly about the Aftercare Service, because what it does do is provides an easy route in for people who are suffering from mental health problems very much, in fact, the same as is available elsewhere. Some of it is through the National Health Service in England and in Scotland as well. What it does do is provides a route by which a veteran does not have to feel that he or she is going to be stigmatised by actually coming forward, and that is a real problem with the mental health issue. There is more of a stigma to mental health, or people feel that there is, and I think it excellent that they can actually go into a system where they do not have to identify, right from the outset, that they are suffering with any sort of mental health problem. Most people do have a significant difficulty with coming forward, and I think it is worse in Northern Ireland than it is perhaps elsewhere. By being able to get in touch with the Aftercare Service, with being able to just be seen as a normal veteran, they actually can go further. Q218 Naomi Long: Can I just come back on something you have just said? You said that people have difficulty in coming forward and that that is worse in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the UK. Is that specifically in relation to mental health or more generally identifying themselves as veterans? Peter Poole: I think both mental health and just identifying themselves as veterans as well. Q219 Naomi Long: You also mentioned the stigma, so I suppose there are two parts to follow up on this. Do you believe that the stigma of mental health issues is greater within the veterans community than in the general population, and do you believe that there is more of a stigma in the Northern Ireland context than in the rest of GB around mental health issues specifically? Peter Poole: In any organisation where you work really closely together with others, and particularly in something that has a macho background, as do the forces, then it is particularly difficult in the forces generally. In Northern Ireland, where people know each other more closely than perhaps they do elsewhere, there is a bigger stigma. Naomi Long: I appreciate that. It is just that general suicide prevention and mental health issues are things that I have done a lot of work on in my own constituency, so I am conscious that there is still a huge stigma attached and a barrier. I was just interested in how that affected veterans specifically, as opposed to the more general population, so that has been very helpful. Thank you. Q220 Jack Lopresti: How much work do you do with the Northern Ireland Executive Departments in relation to your duties in looking after veterans? Colonel Cummings: My answer would be very similar to that which you heard earlier, and that is very little none. Having said that, I have no direct link into the Scottish Assembly, other than through

94 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Ev 42 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 17 April 2013 Mr Peter Poole and Colonel Paul Cummings Veterans Scotland, and neither do I with the Welsh Assembly. Broadly speaking, the veteran community gets on with its business very effectively without a need to go to Government at whatever level. Q221 Jack Lopresti: We have spoken about the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom. Would you say that, because the entire Executive would not necessarily be on side, your work is any way impeded or hampered by that fact? Colonel Cummings: No, I would not. I go back to the point that actually services in Northern Ireland are so much better than they are in other places. Q222 Mr Benton: Again, I would like to go back to public services and charities in general in Northern Ireland. Have you made any comparison at all of the shortcomings in Northern Ireland in terms of charitable support, as compared to mainland UK? Have you any comparative exercises in existence? I hope I am making myself clear in the sense that the whole raison d être for our inquiry into this is that, in general terms, there is a deficiency in provision, both in terms of charitable availability, the carrying out of the convention and so on and so forth, and its weaknesses in Northern Ireland. I am coming at it from a general point of view. Is there anything at all in your spheres of activity that you could point to and say, Look, here is a definitive weakness in the system, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, compared to the rest of the country? I know it is a sweeping general question but really, fundamentally, that is what the Committee is concerned about. We are trying to deliberate on how we can best tackle it. Obviously that demands comments from experts in the field, such as yourselves. Peter Poole: From a Combat Stress point of view, we would like to have a closer relationship and perhaps it is an answer to both your questions actually with the Government, because what we are finding is that, in comparison to veterans in England and veterans in Scotland, veterans in Northern Ireland are not getting the same delivery of services that the others get. There is just no doubt about it. We do help veterans who need the six-week programme. We do clearly help veterans who are war pensioners, who can come across, but there are a lot of others who find it more difficult, because they might have to pay their own travel expenses to get across to Scotland or indeed to any of our other treatment centres. There are differences in the ways that we are able to help veterans who are resident in Northern Ireland. Also of course, there is the difference between the Home Service Force and those veterans who are regular forces but of a wider scope; clearly they are not war pensioners, so they do have to pay their own way to get to treatment. There are differences, and we would like to talk much more closely with the National Health Service there. For instance, in England and Scotland, we are very close with the National Health Service. Indeed, in some areas we have collaborations, in fact moving as far as partnerships, with the NHS. This enables us to provide veterans with the best care that they can get, be it from the National Health Service or from us. A lot of people who come into the National Health Service are signposted towards Combat Stress. Similarly, a number of people who approach us for care, we may well signpost to the National Health Service. We do not have that sort of relationship at the moment in Northern Ireland. Q223 Lady Hermon: Have you asked for it? Forgive me asking the obvious thing. Has Combat Stress asked for a meeting with the present Health Minister and has he declined? I would be astonished if he has. Peter Poole: We have a partnership arrangement with the Departments of Health of all four nations. We have not yet managed to progress that. Now, to be fair, that was only signed in January or February of this year. Previously, I have been and spoken to representatives of the First Minister s Office to ask whether or not we could get stronger relationships, but we have not actually got any further with that at the moment. Q224 Lady Hermon: You have not got any further with stronger relationships with the First Minister, but you do have co-operation from the Department of Health. Peter Poole: Neither we nor they have explored that relationship since the signing of the partnership arrangement. Q225 Lady Hermon: In February of this year? Peter Poole: It was either early February or late January. Q226 Lady Hermon: The current Assembly has been sitting, if my memory serves me correctly, since May of 2007, so we have had almost eight years of devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, and Combat Stress has only now signed an agreement, this year, with the Department of Health. Peter Poole: We did have a previous agreement. I am afraid I am not party to what was written in that particular one, but I do know about this one, because I was party to it. Colonel Cummings: If I can come back to the original question, what we see different in Northern Ireland is that, in Scotland and in Wales, we are seeing initiatives and ideas coming from the Assemblies, of reaching out to the veterans community, identifying themselves issues that they feel need to be addressed. We are not seeing that in Northern Ireland, where there is almost a vacuum at the moment. That probably needs to be addressed and, again, that is something this specialist forum could probably work with Government to identify need, and get the initiative coming from Government, rather than necessarily from the third sector. Q227 Lady Hermon: I have to say, and I am not in the gentleman s party at all, but I would know, off the top of my head, that the First Minister, who is also the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Health Minister, who happens to be a member of his party, would be very sympathetic and very supportive of the security services.

95 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o003_Mark_Transcript 3 - NIC (Corrected - draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Mr Peter Poole and Colonel Paul Cummings Peter Poole: Maybe we should push harder, but I think that Paul Cummings is right when he says that we are seeing initiative coming towards some of us in other places. That is a fair comment. Lady Hermon: That is a fact. The initiatives are coming from other regions in the UK, but they are absent in Northern Ireland. I am hugely disappointed to hear that, I must say, and surprised as well. Q228 Jack Lopresti: Since we announced our inquiry, there have been meetings with the Minister of State, various political parties and organisations like yourselves. Have you been involved in those meetings? Colonel Cummings: Personally not, although through COBSEO, which is the Confederation of Service Charities, on which my Chief Executive sits as an executive member, then yes. Q229 Jack Lopresti: Do you feel there will be progress as a result of these meetings? Colonel Cummings: I am sure there will. Q230 Jack Lopresti: Anything specific? Colonel Cummings: I am not up to speed on those. Peter Poole: It is the same with me; I am not involved with those. I am sure that there will be progress, because otherwise people will not continue to go to the meetings, to be quite honest. Jack Lopresti: There is no point having them unless something happens as a result. Colonel Cummings: I know that the Chairman of COBSEO, Air Vice Marshal Stables, is looking for the Covenant Reference Group documents to be really positive, and identify real progress being made in the whole Covenant area. Q231 Dr McDonnell: My question was relationships and we have covered them fairly well. The only thing, Chair, I would say is, in keeping with my colleague Lady Hermon and with Naomi, I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting with the Minister directly, if that was helpful. I see absolutely no difficulty. I would like to facilitate the work. I was a GP for a lifetime and I am very conscious of the work you are doing and how useful it is. I do think that Edwin Poots would literally jump through hoops for you. Peter Poole: We would be delighted with that. Dr McDonnell: Something is falling down somewhere. We have to get together. Chair: Indeed, that would be useful. It has been a very interesting session. Thank you very much for joining us.

96 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Ev 44 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Wednesday 24 April 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr David Anderson Mr Stephen Hepburn Lady Hermon Kate Hoey Naomi Long Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills Ian Paisley David Simpson Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Nelson McCausland MLA, Minister of the Department for Social Development NI, and Edwin Poots MLA, Minister of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety NI, gave evidence. Q232 Chair: Ministers, you are very welcome; thank you for joining us. As you know, we are looking into the Armed Forces Covenant and its application in particular in Northern Ireland, so we are very grateful to you for coming here to talk to us and give us the benefit of your experience. It is possible there will be a vote at some stage. If there is, I will have to suspend the Committee for 15 minutes and then reconvene. It may or may not happen; I do not know. May I invite you to make very brief opening statements, if you wish? Nelson McCausland: Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to the Committee about the Armed Forces Covenant. Ex-service personnel and their families can face housing challenges in particular. Having lived in service accommodation in a variety of locations during their career, they may not have a strong connection with any particular area. They may be leaving the services because of illness or disability and they will probably be facing a drop in income. It is my intention that, where service personnel and their families have to vacate militaryprovided housing, they are not placed at a disadvantage compared with other applicants. Personnel returning to Northern Ireland after several years of service in Great Britain or elsewhere should be treated on the same basis as any other local person. Ex-service applicants who are not originally from Northern Ireland but wish to settle there, after being based in the Province, should be able to do so. Service personnel who are leaving the forces because of serious injury or disability and who need access to adapted social housing must have their applications assessed as quickly as possible and can expect to receive an appropriate level of priority under the rules for the allocation of social housing in Northern Ireland. I am also anxious to ensure that providers of social housing in Northern Ireland give sympathetic treatment to surviving partners of former service personnel who have been killed in action. Where such family members have had service accommodation made available to them on a temporary basis, this should not disadvantage them if they apply for social housing. I know that ex-service personnel, in common with others with an institutional background, are at particular risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. For this reason, housing providers must give careful consideration to the potential vulnerability of ex-service applicants and bear in mind that some injuries, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, may not be apparent at the date of discharge but can lead to problems in sustaining housing at a later stage. I appreciate that in putting the needs of the nation, the armed forces and other people before their own, service men and women forgo some of the rights enjoyed by civilians. They are therefore entitled, at the very least, to be treated fairly and with respect. That is the basis of my Department s approach to the provision of housing services to ex-service personnel. Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Poots? Edwin Poots: The armed forces are a more significant issue in Northern Ireland than perhaps anywhere else given the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland, where armed forces personnel can still come under threat at a local level. Therefore, whenever armed forces personnel come back to Northern Ireland they are operating in different circumstances than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the consequences can be very dangerous for them. We do have a huge number of people who have taken up the load, particularly in the reservists, and Northern Ireland is contributing twice as many reservists per head of population than elsewhere. The task of ensuring that we do provide appropriate care for them is a very important one. That is also something we have to do with discrete care, given what I outlined at the very outset. So in all that we have done, in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, we have sought to provide the high standards that have been outlined within the Army Covenant without its actual implementation. We are looking for outcomes here, as opposed to means, in our delivery of service. I am very happy to take questions as to how we seek to do that. Q233 Ian Paisley: You are both very welcome, gentlemen. Could I ask something just off the back of that? This flows from what Mr Poots has just told the Committee. There will be many people within the Department of Health who are, and potentially in the future will be, reservists in the new arrangements that are in place for our Ministry of Defence. Are you going to put anything in place to allow those reservists to get time off to do their duty for their nation and also to go to camps and enjoy and participate in the work that they are volunteering to do?

97 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA Edwin Poots: That already is in place. We currently have 30 reservists in the hospital in Helmand, which is one sixth of the total personnel that exist in that facility. They are out there serving and supporting all of the troops who are out there from the allied forces. So there is a significant contribution made by the Northern Ireland armed forces already in Afghanistan through the health service. We are delighted to do that because, first of all, our staff want to do it and we want to support them in doing it. Secondly, there are huge benefits for the Northern Ireland health service in that the levels of trauma that will be witnessed in Afghanistan will allow them to maximise their expertise and will give them real life experiences of how to deal with some of the most critical and difficult situations, which can then be applied at home to other trauma situations that arise. Q234 David Simpson: You are very welcome, gentlemen, to the Committee. I have what is surely a twofold question but will deal with the first point. Has there been, up to date, a collective decision within the Executive of how to implement the Covenant in Northern Ireland? Nelson McCausland: There has not been. I think Members will be aware of the reasons for that. Q235 Lady Hermon: It would be helpful for all the Committee Members for you to elaborate a little bit upon what you actually mean. Nelson McCausland: The difficulty is that in Northern Ireland we have a five-party mandatory coalition. I know Members here will have some knowledge of the difficulties of a two-party coalition; a five-party one is somewhat more problematic. There are people within that Executive who would have a very, very different view from the one that I hold regarding the armed forces. They would have a very negative view about the British Army and therefore, for that particular reason, refuse almost to engage on these issues. That is regrettable because, as my colleague has already pointed out, members of the armed forces provide at great personal sacrifice, I believe a wonderful service for our country. That view is not shared by some other members of the Executive from an Irish Republican background. Therefore, there is difficulty in getting agreement. Personally, I think that the way forward on this is much more through individual Departments delivering for ex-service personnel, rather than trying to resolve something that I do not think will be resolved, as those who hold a different view will not change that view. Therefore, the relevant Departments, whether in regard to housing or in regard to health, should move forward on that basis. It is regrettable that it has to be done on that basis, but in practical terms that is where we are. Q236 David Simpson: I have a follow up that maybe Edwin can take. It is interesting that you mentioned dealing with it on an individual basis. Being diligent Ministers and having very diligent staff, you will of course have read the minutes from our last meeting, where we had evidence from the British Legion and from SSAFA. They made the comment that they felt that implementing the Covenant in Northern Ireland would seem to be maybe a backwards step, or could cause them difficulties because of the political sensitivities. Could both of you explain what your Departments are doing? From memory, and the Chair can keep me right, I think they talked about filling in the gaps of the Covenant that may not be fully implemented in legislation or law in Northern Ireland, but it could be done in a way that would really be in line with here. Do you want to reflect on that or give us your opinions on that? Edwin Poots: Certainly, we have done a number of things. The Armed Forces Liaison Forum is something that has been very important. All of our health trusts and ambulance trusts are represented on that forum, and we also have people from the armed forces themselves represented, and all the soldiers charities SSAFA, ABF, British Legion MoD, veterans, Combat Stress and our own Department. The purpose of that is to go through issues that may affect military personnel and veterans, and the impact it would have if we did not handle those well. Therefore, with all of the trusts, there is the ability to respond to that. There are liaison personnel within trusts to deal with people and deal with the issues that arise at a more local level, so you do not have to wait for a quarterly meeting. Within each trust there is a person there who will deal with Army personnel. So the Army Benevolent Fund people will be able to talk to the person in the trust where it arises that there is a difficulty and hopefully those are minimised in terms of the treatment path identified for a member of the Army or indeed a veteran. Q237 Naomi Long: It is good to see you both here. You have mentioned that there is no agreement at the Executive, which we are aware of. I think you were intimating that there had been no discussion because it would have been pointless, essentially, to raise the issue in the Executive where no agreement could be reached. Would you be aware, routinely, of what other Ministers are doing who may be implementing the Armed Forces Covenant within their own Department? There are obviously some Ministers who do not share the objections to doing this. Would you have any way of knowing that that was happening or monitoring that, or is that something that you accept, effectively, it is almost better not to raise, in the sense that, if it was raised, it would then become an issue for others? Nelson McCausland: As far as I am aware, the two Departments that would have the biggest involvement would be the two Departments here today. Not only are we from one party, and therefore do talk to each other Edwin Poots: Occasionally. Nelson McCausland: our offices are about two yards apart so I would have a sense of what is being done through health, and likewise. Q238 Naomi Long: It would not always be the case that there would be Ministers from the same party. Previously the Health Minister, for example, was an Ulster Unionist and so on. There would not be any

98 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Ev 46 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 24 April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA structure even within the Executive to allow that conversation to take place. Nelson McCausland: There is no structure, no. Q239 Naomi Long: There could be other Departments that are delivering and you would not necessarily be aware of what they are doing or they would not be aware of what you would be doing. Nelson McCausland: Post another election, it could well be different parties and different people. Therefore there could be a difficulty, possibly. Q240 Naomi Long: There would be no way for you, as Ministers, to easily co-ordinate the work that you do, then. Even if a series of Ministers are doing quite useful things it would not necessarily be visible to every Minister what other Ministers were doing in this area. Edwin Poots: Well, you could request the establishment of a ministerial sub-group. We have ministerial sub-groups on a whole range of things. Now, in terms of reasonably dealing with people and providing care for people, I would not see that as an unreasonable request. I think it would be unreasonable to reject such a request. I would not see an issue with our seeking the establishment of that, but it would only be done on the basis of agreement across the Executive. Nelson McCausland: The sub-committees within the Executive that have been established have been quite useful. One in particular relates to my own Department and others to more general issues about delivering social change and so on. That crossdepartmental approach is hugely important. I agree entirely that it is hugely desirable and I would fully support it. Q241 Naomi Long: One of the reservations that David alluded to, which we heard from some of the people giving evidence, was that, effectively, what Ministers were doing now below the radar, which was very helpful, if brought above the radar and into public discussion would then become a point of divisive debate and it could in some way hinder progress being made toward delivering the Covenant. Would that be your sense of it, as Members of the Executive, or do you feel that there would be enough maturity to allow Ministers within their own Departments to continue to progress in the way that you have to date? Edwin Poots: I suppose every country deals with its Army personnel in different ways. I was in America last week and whenever the flights were called army personnel were offered the opportunity to get on the planes first. Lots of places offer free access, and so forth, to Army personnel and veterans. Every place deals with it differently. Ministers will probably want to test us a little further, but Section 75 sets out a range of groups that cannot be treated less equally. I suppose the bottom line in all of this is that everyone is supposed to be treated the same. No one is supposed to be treated better, and indeed, no one is supposed to be treated worse. Army personnel will not then be treated any worse than anybody else. However, if there was a desire to treat Army personnel better, that would then pose a challenge to us. Members may have the view that Army personnel should be treated better. If I had two people waiting on an operation, who were fairly similar in their condition, and one of them was a veteran from Afghanistan who had been injured and the other happened to be a car thief who got injured in the car crash, I suppose most of us would say that the person who deserved to be treated first would be the person who had served their country, as opposed to the person who had been a burden on his country. We cannot make that kind of decision as things stand. There has been a thought that perhaps Westminster could extend Section 75 to include Army personnel. This is something for the Committee, perhaps, to give consideration to. I do not necessarily think that would add any advantage to where we currently are, because Section 75 is mainly about ensuring that minorities are not treated less well. I do not believe that the military are in that situation as things stand. Nelson McCausland: In terms of housing, a similar situation prevails. There are certain difficulties that can arise regarding service personnel getting access to housing. We can do a lot to address them. What you cannot do, because of equality legislation, is move into that area that there is in England, where the legislation requires councils to give additional preference for housing to certain applicants with connections to the armed forces. You can bring it up to the same level as everyone else by addressing the specific problems that might emerge, which we have identified, but the fact is that to give additional preference would, as we understand it, be contrary to the 1998 equality legislation. Edwin Poots: We can take steps. For example, if a member of the armed forces had been on a hospital waiting list in a trust anywhere in GB and moved to live in Northern Ireland, they would not come onto the list at the back of the queue. They would come onto the list, taking into consideration that they had been waiting for 12 weeks in another trust, and therefore we can take those things into account. Very often, armed forces personnel are disadvantaged because of the fact that they have to live in different places. I know that the Housing Executive have done some work on that front as well, to ensure that, if they are out of the country on service for a year and a half, they do not start on a new waiting list for housing. Q242 Naomi Long: We have moved on, I suppose, to two other questions we were going to ask later. I was really looking to see whether you thought the discussion of what you do in the Executive would inhibit you from being able to do what you currently do for the armed services. On Section 75, we have had conflicting evidence. We have had the evidence that you have given to us, which is that it would prevent you from being able to do certain things, which we accept. The evidence we have taken from others is that it is, in some way, a red herring in that all the Armed Forces Covenant requires is that people suffer no disadvantage. Therefore, for example, the issue you raised where someone moves from one part of the UK to another and would suffer no

99 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA disadvantage on the waiting list would not be in conflict with Section 75. In terms of housing, in your memorandum you said that the different legal framework would make it unlikely that your Department could fully reflect the position in GB. Specifically, what are the things you could not do in housing that in GB would happen routinely as part of the Covenant? This is what we have been trying to get to in the evidence. Nelson McCausland: Housing allocation in Northern Ireland is covered by the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order Article 22 sets out that there should be a scheme for the allocation of houses. One of the issues in there is that the person must be resident in Northern Ireland voluntarily and of their own choice. The question then is a technical one of: if a person is resident in Northern Ireland as a soldier, are they there of their own choice or not? Up until now there has been a view, amongst those that deal with these matters, that the person is not there of their own choice. We have that as a particular issue that needs to be resolved. Secondly, we are doing a general review of social housing allocation policy at present, as part of a wider series of initiatives in regard to social housing. One of the issues we are looking at is social housing allocation policy. A number of academics have been brought in to do an academic review of that and we are awaiting the outcome of that. We are also seeking further legal clarification. The point has been made that you get conflicting legal opinions and we are trying to get further clarification on a number of those points. The Housing Executive do accept that, six months before discharge when a serving soldier can get the Certificate for Cessation of Entitlement to Occupy Service Living Accommodation the person is therefore going to become homeless. Q243 Naomi Long: Just to clarify, you have mentioned about the legal advice that you are exploring. Is that at a departmental level as opposed to just general advice given across the Executive? Nelson McCausland: No, that is at a departmental level. My officials within the housing division of DSD have drafted some guidance on these matters for the Housing Executive. The Housing Executive themselves have said to us that this is potentially contentious and therefore we are handling it as carefully as possible. We do not want to make the situation more difficult, so it needs to be dealt with carefully and that is certainly being taken forward. Q244 Naomi Long: Edwin, would the situation be similar in health? Have you sought legal advice and guidance specifically on some of the health issues? Edwin Poots: I would go back to the Covenant, and what you indicated that the Covenant was set out to do, which was to ensure there is no less equal treatment of Army personnel. Cognisant of that, the Department of Health, which was under Michael McGimpsey at the time, established a protocol for service personnel in Northern Ireland. That protocol was for ensuring equitable access to health and social care services. The aim of that document was to establish a framework of assurance that will ensure that serving members of the armed forces, their families, and veterans suffer no disadvantage in accessing health and social care services, and have equality of access to those services, in common with everyone living in Northern Ireland. Following the publication of that protocol, the Department established the Armed Forces Liaison Forum, which we referred to. That provides that single point of contact with the Department, HSE representatives from the Defence Medical Services, and HSE staff in veterans organisations. That allows us to discuss those health and social care issues of mutual interest. That is the type of work that has been going on in our Department to ensure there is equality of treatment for Army personnel and veterans. Q245 Lady Hermon: I have to say that it is really very good for us as a Committee to have two Ministers from the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland coming and giving us evidence side by side. That has been very helpful this afternoon. There are a couple of things I want to pick up from your opening remarks I will have to be very formal Mr McCausland, which are in relation to homelessness among former military personnel. Is there an effort to measure this, and if there is, could you explain it to the Committee? We have taken evidence that no effort has been made to measure homelessness amongst former military personnel. You certainly made a reference to homelessness amongst those who have left the armed forces coming to Northern Ireland. What sort of statistics do you have available to you and what efforts are going to be made to capture that information effectively in the future? Nelson McCausland: I will draw a distinction at the start between the extreme case of rough sleeping and general homelessness. There is no evidence at the moment to suggest that the issue of homelessness is greater amongst ex-service personnel than any other section of society. Having said that, while there is no evidence in that regard that has been forthcoming, we do not have any accurate data at the moment on that matter. Q246 Lady Hermon: At the moment? That hints that you are going to do something different in the future. Nelson McCausland: That is why we have commissioned some work to look at this. The wider academic study looking at housing allocations, of which this is a particular part, may well bring forward some information in that regard. In setting up that group to do that work, we did specifically task them with looking at the position of former soldiers. It is not just going off to look at social housing allocations policy. They are definitely looking at this issue. Q247 Lady Hermon: That is very interesting; we had not heard that before. When do you hope to have a report on your desk and when do you hope then to assimilate that? Nelson McCausland: I would have to return to you with that information. I am not sure of the date when we will get that.

100 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Ev 48 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 24 April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA Q248 Lady Hermon: Do you hope to have it before the end of this year? Nelson McCausland: Almost certainly, yes. We now have a housing strategy in Northern Ireland, which we never had before, and this feeds into that piece of work developing and building up that strategy. I would want that this year, most definitely. Q249 Lady Hermon: Your colleague Mr Poots has referred on a number of occasions to the Armed Forces Liaison Forum that the Department of Health has, and we have had quite a number of witnesses who have been very complimentary about the Department and what they have done. Is there any intention within your Department the Department for Social Development to mirror what has happened in the Department of Health, such as an Armed Forces Liaison Forum? We have taken evidence this afternoon to say that it is very useful and very effective. If it is, why do we not mirror it in the other Department that has most to do with the armed forces? Nelson McCausland: It is not something we have done thus far. There has been quite an amount of engagement with representative bodies and so on. I am very much open to the idea and would certainly be keen to take it forward with officials to see what we can do in that regard, because it does seem to be a very good model. Q250 Lady Hermon: It is a very good model, but now I am going to turn to Mr Poots. Mr Poots, your written evidence to the Committee is very well drafted and this is just an opportunity to update the Committee. There is a reference on page 1, right at the very bottom of the evidence you submitted, which is about the Armed Forces Liaison Forum, about which we have had very complimentary evidence in the past. It says at the very end, The Forum meets two to three times a year, most recently in April Now, that has to be a misprint. If it meets two to three times a year, most recently in April 2011, I would like to know what has happened to it in the past two years. David Simpson: You do not want to overwork them. Lady Hermon: Is it a misprint? Edwin Poots: It may well be. I am aware that its next meeting is next Tuesday: 30 April. Lady Hermon: There s an update. Edwin Poots: I suspect that that was planned before this meeting was planned, but nonetheless. Q251 Lady Hermon: I am absolutely serious. The evidence that you have given suggests and we as a Committee have thought of this as something that might go into our report that this Armed Forces Liaison Forum seems eminently sensible: various different bodies trying to contribute, move together and be coherent in what help they can give to the armed forces. So I am intrigued. Perhaps someone could actually look at that and just double-check what happened in 2012 to the meetings, and drop us a note afterwards. Edwin Poots: Okay, I will seek to ascertain that for you. Q252 Dr McDonnell: I think most of the stuff has been covered, but there are a couple of points I would like to tease out. We are talking here about the Armed Forces Liaison Forum. Is that the same as the Veterans Forum? Are they one and the same thing or are they two separate things? I am talking about the Veterans Forum that Mike Penning was setting up. Lady Hermon: That is completely different. Dr McDonnell: Right. If I could touch on the Veterans Forum, where all these bodies and various stakeholders are gathered, do both of you feel that this is a potential group for an advance? Do you feel that this group could be worked with, either by the Executive overall or by individual Departments? Edwin Poots: A Veterans Forum provides very important outworking for those people who have served. We have considerable problems with veterans, particularly PTSD, which is affecting a large number of people going back to the Northern Ireland Troubles, Iraq and we will have a huge amount that will come to us from Afghanistan in due course, which has not quite kicked in yet. A Veterans Forum is very important, so we do have good working relationships with, for example, Combat Stress. We have a facility in Hollybush that is used by Northern Ireland veterans. Certainly a Veterans Forum is something that is very important. We have veterans who sit on our Armed Forces Liaison Forum but, nonetheless, a Veterans Forum would be purely representing veterans. Of course, prosthetics is another very important matter that we continue to deal with well. Prosthetics have a life span of about eight years, if they are well looked after and cared for, so it is important, particularly as veterans get older, that there is a support base for them and they are not left isolated or unsupported. Therefore, the care and support they can receive from something like a Veterans Forum is very important. Q253 Dr McDonnell: I have a couple of other questions because in the evidence presented, particularly evidence in terms of the Department of Health and Combat Stress, one of the things that was very clear was that they do have a facility and they do have CPN support, but there did appear to be a difficulty with the more severe cases who needed psychiatric support. In that case they had to go to Scotland. Would it be possible, Minister, within the Department of Health, to allocate a consultant or, within some of the psychiatric facilities, earmark a consultant, who would specialise, rather than having as many of them as currently having to go to Scotland? The suggestion was that sometimes the current arrangement inhibited them getting the level of care they needed. Edwin Poots: I certainly think that PTSD will be a growing issue and growing problem for us in the coming years. I made reference to Northern Ireland s reservists having twice as high a head per population of representation than any other region of the United Kingdom. It is apparent, in terms of research done, that reservists are more likely to have PTSD than regular soldiers. I do not think it would take a rocket scientist to identify that there is a significant problem coming our way, and we need to be well placed to

101 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA deal with it. Now, time is on our side to do that and it is something we will give consideration to doing. Our Chief Medical Officer has a very close working relationship with the Army and we need to continue to engage with him to identify the needs of returning troops. Q254 Dr McDonnell: Would it be possible to appoint one or two psychiatrists who would not necessarily be full time but who would be available and on tap for that? I certainly sense with Combat Stress, when they gave evidence here, that that was the bottleneck in their effort. While 80% to 85% of the clientele were able to be dealt with through counselling, community psychiatric nurses and various things, they did have a difficulty. It should not be too difficult, I would have thought, to establish a psychiatric service in an area that was relatively safe. Edwin Poots: Certainly it is possible. The desirability and affordability of it would all have to be addressed, and the best method of addressing that is through the Forum. You have the health expertise there, who have the knowledge of what they can do, and the Army personnel, who have the knowledge of what the need is. Q255 Dr McDonnell: Minister McCausland, could I turn to you for a second? The other problem that has come up, and we have touched on it a number of times, is housing. Do you think there are mechanisms to fix the housing gap? Last week the Legion were very clear that they provided financial support for a lot of ex-military personnel to access private housing, and while that may not be the perfect solution, it certainly seemed to work. Do you see any solutions for the housing stock? For instance, you mentioned the question of persons being there of their own choice. I would have thought that if somebody joins the Army that it is certainly a choice that they make. I cannot see how legislation or any other regulations from 1981 or wherever I would see the sense if it was a conscripted Army, but it is not. They are there of their own choice; it is a voluntary action on their part. Surely that should not create the circumstance where they fall foul of access. Nelson McCausland: Indeed. I welcome that question and the implication that flows from it, because that would certainly be my own view. Q256 Dr McDonnell: You and I agree on something at last. Lady Hermon: It is a red-letter day. Nelson McCausland: The age of miracles is not over. The issue, as in so many of these things, is that when you let legal experts loose on something you get all sorts of different with no disrespect to Lady Hermon Dr McDonnell: We have our legal expert here and we are very fond of her. Nelson McCausland: And rightly so. The point is that while you get differing opinions, we need to get clarity, and that is why I have commissioned that piece of work: to get absolute clarity on the law. As someone who has no expertise in these legal matters, it would seem reasonable to me, as it does indeed to Dr McDonnell, that it should not be presumed that they are there involuntarily. The other matter is the availability of privately owned housing, if people want to move into that sector. We have invested in the last number of years very heavily in terms of co-ownership housing, which is a very, very good way for people to get onto the rung of private ownership. It is readily accessible. It was over-subscribed in the past; it has now been topped up to the point where we can meet the demand. Finally, I suppose in regard to any soldiers coming out of the Army who may be potentially homeless, there is, under the Northern Ireland legislation of 1988, a duty on the Housing Executive to address the issue of homelessness. We are looking at the academic review of the social housing allocation policy, trying to get clarity on this legal point and then also drafting some guidance, potentially, for the Housing Executive. The relationship between the Department and the Housing Executive is that of an arm s length body. There is a limit to what the Department or I personally as Minister can do, but we would be looking to get some guidance so there is clarity on all these things. Q257 Ian Paisley: Can I just put on record my appreciation for the good work that you both do and that your Departments do in relation to, specifically, the housing allocations, where we have brought armed service personnel in? You have done what you can and what is possible in terms of interpretation of the rules, and we do appreciate that. We certainly appreciate the efforts that have been made by the Department of Health. We have all seen the letter about IVF, and I know that my colleagues will have some questions about that and prosthetics. I know that you are also doing some very important work with regard to brain injuries among armed service personnel. I think that that is all very commendable. However, going back to the structure within which you have to operate, there is constraint and I think we all appreciate that. We are fortunate at the moment to have two Ministers who have a particular empathy towards the armed service personnel in these two Departments, but is there anything that you can do in terms of the structure within the Department, so that if in the future there is a change in personnel, and therefore a change of the political party that is in charge of your Department, they cannot undo the good work that is being done? Is there anything structurally that can be put in place to protect these mechanisms and indeed the means to insist that a future Minister continues with this good work? Nelson McCausland: That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we get legal clarity, so that whatever is done is done on the basis that this is legally right, and therefore it is very difficult for someone else to undo it. If you are saying that a member of the armed forces is there on a voluntary basis, well, it is a case either legally they are or not, and that is then a matter that would be settled whoever was in the Department. Our housing body the Housing Executive as it is at present and whatever emerges from the restructuring of the Housing Executive in due course is semi-detached, or at arm s length, from central Government. I would have

102 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Ev 50 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 24 April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA hoped that it would adopt what would be seen, I think, as the compassionate approach to the issue; that people, whatever their backgrounds or political views, would look at these matters and say, Here are folks who have a need. Whatever I may think about them, the compassionate thing, the right thing, to do is to provide a service whereby they are not discriminated against in any way at all. We will be continuing with the review of housing structures. The outcome of that is some years away and the implementation further, so I am not sure what else I can say on those points. Q258 Ian Paisley: Compassion for one Minister could one day become a political football for another. Nelson McCausland: Absolutely, I agree entirely. Q259 Ian Paisley: I do not want to put words in your mouth, and I know you would not let me, but are you saying that for armed service personnel veterans, essentially, it is pot luck at the moment? You are fortunate in that you have got Ministers who have empathy, and are using their constructive and compassionate arm in Government to assist, but it is pot luck; next time around it might not be so beneficial. Edwin Poots: To that extent, you go back to the equality legislation, and it may be a matter for the Committee to consider further in its recommendations that the armed forces personnel would be part of the Section 75 groups Lady Hermon: Because it gives a guarantee. Edwin Poots: If the actions that we are taking are to ensure that they have equal treatment, then in law it would be very clear that no one could actually change something which was put in place to ensure that equality was actually applied. Q260 Ian Paisley: Let me just follow up on that then. In the memorandum that was submitted by you to the Committee meeting they are not numbered but it is on page 3 there is reference to Section 75, that it places a statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality, and that Northern Ireland might be able to offer support to veterans and service personnel. It says they are unable to give any form of preferential treatment in line with the objectives of the Military Covenant because of the restrictions placed upon them by this legislation. That implies that you have already taken legal advice. Are you able to share that legal advice, or are you intending to take further legal advice to get absolute clarity on this? Edwin Poots: My understanding is that I am not able to share that legal advice, however I am prepared to take further legal advice on the issue, and particularly seek advice from our Attorney General and Chief Law Officer in Northern Ireland on this issue. I do think that what we are talking about here is that the Military Covenant is about ensuring that people are not treated less fairly, and in everything we are seeking to do that is very clearly the case. If there are things that Westminster could do that would enhance us in that respect, then that would be greatly appreciated. Q261 Ian Paisley: Finally, could you give us an assessment of the after-care service that is currently on offer to Royal Irish Regiment, formerly UDR, soldiers? Edwin Poots: My understanding is that that service is very well received, it is a service that is greatly appreciated by the members and former members of those regiments, and all in all that it has been a significant success story. I suppose the issue that would arise is that we are offering that service for RIR/UDR; there are many people in Northern Ireland who are serving in a range of regiments who will not be entitled to that service, so whilst there is a considerable bulk of soldiers from Northern Ireland who will benefit from it, there is a considerable number who will not benefit as a consequence of serving in other regiments. Q262 Ian Paisley: How much does that service cost your Department at the moment zero? Edwin Poots: I do not know. I have not got the answer. Q263 Ian Paisley: If it was to be broadened out to Irish Guards, non-udr/rir officers, who would pick up that additional cost? Edwin Poots: I believe that it is funded by the regiments, but I do not have absolute clarity on that. If that service were to be provided elsewhere, to other soldiers in other regiments, then I think it would have to come from the Army. Ian Paisley: The Army MOD. Okay, thank you very much. Q264 Mr Hepburn: Can you tell us how the 38 Brigade works with the Housing Executive, and do you think their role is beneficial? Nelson McCausland: The Housing Executive has confirmed to me that it does liaise with the Northern Ireland Garrison regarding provision of accommodation to people who want to settle in Northern Ireland when their service has come to an end, and the Executive staff in those situations would go out to interview applicants in the establishment where they are based when that is required. There is a direct engagement between the Executive and the Garrison. Q265 Mr Hepburn: How beneficial is their role? Nelson McCausland: Do you mean the role of the Housing Executive? Mr Hepburn: 38 Brigade. Nelson McCausland: As long as the engagement is taking place, the applicants will be properly served. There is an obligation on the housing sector to treat members of the armed forces fairly, and the current system, as far as I am aware, is working okay in that regard. Edwin Poots: Thiepval lies in my constituency, and I know that many of 38 Brigade are based in Ballykinler, for example, where the housing is provided by the Army. That is the circumstance and it is not really a suitable location for soldiers to live in outside of the Army base. The Army do have considerable houses in Lisburn area; quite a number

103 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA of them are currently being offered for sale. Many of them are outside of the base. There is the opportunity for more serving personnel to be in Thiepval, and with good quality housing that the Army currently own. We would be keen to see more serving officers in that constituency. Q266 Mr Hepburn: Going back to the allocation of housing, if it is right that giving priority to armed forces for housing allocation is contrary to the law, equality law or whatever, there must be ways around it. Have you got ways to get around it? Nelson McCausland: That is what I have tasked, both from the legal perspective and the independent review by the academics, to come back with some responses and suggestions on that. It would seem to me that we can address that issue, and I welcome the comments from Dr McDonnell in that regard, regarding whether personnel are there voluntarily or not. Any other issues that may arise we would certainly look at very carefully. If there is then a need to give some guidance to the Housing Executive, that can be done. I want to ensure that we get the right outcome, and once we get the legal advice and the academic advice we will move on that. Q267 Nigel Mills: Mr Poots, I have a few questions following your written submission and a letter you sent to Mr Paisley that he kindly copied to the Committee. First, your Department published a protocol back in 2009 for ensuring equitable access to health and social care services for the armed forces. Have you had a chance to review that protocol and perhaps assess how successful it has been? Edwin Poots: In terms of the protocol, obviously its assessment is in the meetings that take place with the Liaison Forum and indeed the meetings that will take place between the trusts and the Army directly. The assessment that is carried out at those meetings is about how effective the course of works that we are doing is, in terms of the key areas of concern to the military personnel. A lot of that will be to do with mental health, prosthetics and so forth. What have the responses been like, where are our weaknesses, where are we falling down, how can we do it better? That is the course of work, so it is a continuum, to seek to identify that we are moving things forward in an appropriate way. That liaison is quite good; as indicated, my Chief Medical Officer has a good working relationship with the Army personnel, and there is good contact established there. Q268 Nigel Mills: Has that process identified any areas where you are falling down on finding that equitable access? Edwin Poots: IVF is an area where we do not have equitable access with the rest of the United Kingdom, in that NICE have made recommendations that we have not applied in Northern Ireland. Where three cycles of IVF treatment are available, not in all but many parts of the UK and it ranges from various places we are not offering three courses of IVF. Now, that impacts upon everyone. It also impacts upon military personnel and we all know that some of our military personnel have suffered quite grievously in some of the conflicts they have been involved in. Therefore it may be something which is of huge importance to them. Q269 Nigel Mills: So it is not a situation where armed forces veterans are suffering inequality compared with other residents of Northern Ireland; it is compared with other areas of the United Kingdom. Edwin Poots: It would be compared with other soldiers in other parts of the United Kingdom, although not all parts of the United Kingdom offer the three cycles of IVF. Q270 Nigel Mills: In the rest of the United Kingdom we have a situation where priority NHS treatment for veterans is offered subject to the clinical needs of others, whereas I think in Northern Ireland you have kind of turned that sentence around and are ensuring no disadvantage. Do you, in practice, think that those things achieve much the same? Priority subject to clinical needs in others is about the same as doing everything based on clinical need, really, isn t it? Edwin Poots: Practically I expect that the outworkings are not considerably different. When it comes to Section 75, one of the important lines in it is to have regard to, so it does not mean that you cannot do certain things, but you have to give regard to what the outcomes are before you actually do it. There is room for interpretation of Section 75, and perhaps civil servants sometimes have a very strict definition of it. Perhaps it could be tested at some point as to whether that is actually the right definition. As I indicated to others, I would be happy to take further legal advice on the issue. Q271 Nigel Mills: When you are testing clinical need I accept that that is probably not something you get do every day Edwin Poots: It would surprise you. Nigel Mills: I assume that in reality clinical need is quite a difficult thing to decide: whoever is in the most pain, or has the most immediate need for the surgery, or something. It is not like every hip replacement has the same clinical need, and is something that you can therefore say, You can be top of the queue because you meet certain criteria. Have there been any examples where you thought Actually, I could do this armed forces veteran quicker than purely precise clinical need will get to, or is that not a situation that arises? Edwin Poots: It certainly has not been brought to my attention. Some of my colleagues will bring cases to me and they go into the system. It is never the job for a Minister to second-guess the role of the clinician; it is for the clinician to decide, but that one has not come to my attention as yet. I think that one of the areas of greatest clinical need is probably in the mental health of our soldiers and veterans. That is an area that always proves to be challenging. I would say that, in Northern Ireland, mental health has been the poor relation within the health service traditionally, so it would then fall that for people who are in the Army, or who are veterans, who are suffering mental health issues and we know that is quite common the

104 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Ev 52 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 24 April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA service we are providing may not be as good as in other parts of the United Kingdom. Q272 Nigel Mills: Do you have any evidence on the extent to which that is a problem? Edwin Poots: No, I have not. I just indicate that the amount of money that we spend on mental health as a proportion of the population that requires mental health treatment is not where I would like it to be, but we all know that we are in a period of constraint, and I am not in a position to significantly increase that budget at this point. Dr McDonnell asked a question about psychiatrists and so forth, and whether we could make them available. Those things probably would be desirable for us to do, but our ability to do it may be constrained. Q273 Ian Paisley: I just noticed, on the query about the date in April 2011, that was written evidence submitted on 17 October 2011, when you were previously before another Committee. Q274 Lady Hermon: So I stand corrected. Can we have the dates of the meetings last year? Thank you for that correction. Could I just pick up on the point that you made; you were very complimentary in your remarks about Combat Stress, views that we would share in this Committee, I am sure. Could I just double-check: does the Department of Health actually make a financial contribution to the work of Combat Stress? So, for example, if a veteran from Northern Ireland was extremely unwell and needed to go to Hollybush House in Scotland, does the money follow the person going to Scotland? Is there financial contribution to Combat Stress? Edwin Poots: I am not sure. Combat Stress, I believe, were with you last week or the week before. Lady Hermon: Yes. Edwin Poots: They have subsequently sent me a letter requesting a meeting, so I am sure that will be a matter for discussion at that meeting. Q275 Lady Hermon: And you have agreed to a meeting, or will be agreeing to the meeting. Edwin Poots: I will be agreeing to the meeting. I got the letter yesterday and I signed off a note agreeing to it, yes. Q276 Dr McDonnell: Just another point to tease out: Mark Francois, the MOD Minister, told us that the MOD did a lot of the funding of advanced prosthetics for service personnel wounded in action. The DHSS in Northern Ireland wants to provide those. Is there an issue there, is there a complication, or is that a decision taken to avoid complications? Edwin Poots: In Northern Ireland we have taken the position that those who require prosthetics should all receive it at the top-end standard, and our officials have liaised closely with MOD and senior clinical staff at the RDS and the Belfast Trust on matters relating to prosthetic component re-provision, and the defence medical rehabilitation centre at Headley Court in Surrey held an open day on 18 April to establish joint links between NHS representatives, devolved Administrations, Murrison centre staff and the staff of Headley Court. Frank Young, who is our co-director of Therapy and Therapeutics at Belfast City Hospital, and Dr Lorraine Graham, who is a consultant in rehabilitation medicine at Musgrave Park, attended that event, so there is a close working relationship with them, with the aim of providing top-quality prosthetics to all of our people, including our veterans. Q277 Dr McDonnell: Can you claim anything from the MO for doing that, or is that purely at DHSS expense? Edwin Poots: I believe that once the person comes to Northern Ireland, it is a DHSS expense. Prior to that, any treatment that they would receive, for example at Headley, would be covered by that source. Q278 Naomi Long: The MOD and the Northern Ireland Office have indicated that what they are trying to do is identify whether there are any gaps in service provision where members of the armed services are treated more disadvantageously, and where some work needs to be done. In your Departments, do you currently monitor or record the proportions of armed forces members who are, for example, on waiting lists for housing, registered as homeless, or on waiting lists for hospital procedures and treatment? Do you keep any record of that at all that would allow you to see whether it was a higher proportion in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the UK, or whether it was disproportionate in terms of the background population, for example? Nelson McCausland: In terms of housing, there is nothing to suggest at the moment that it is in any way disproportionate. There is no firm data at the moment on those matters. Q279 Naomi Long: Do you judge that, Nelson, based on levels of complaint that you receive, or representations? How would you get an estimate of whether it is disproportionate or not? If there is nothing to suggest that it is, what would you be looking for that would suggest that it was? Nelson McCausland: Those who work in the area of homelessness, whether in the extreme form or general homelessness, would have a fairly good understanding of the nature of the clientele that they are dealing with. That is the basis for it. It may be somewhat subjective, but that would indicate there is not a particular problem. Having said that, if you take the extreme case of rough sleeping, the number of rough sleepers in Northern Ireland is extremely small. Having been out on a few nights to meet a number of them, it was quite clear that it is not ex-service people. Edwin Poots: In terms of the medical side of things, I indicated at the outset of my comments that being discreet was particularly important in Northern Ireland. Therefore we cannot have a system which has 70,000 employees with military personnel flagged in it. In the interests of military personnel, that is not easily identifiable through the health and social care system, and, again, it is something for the Liaison Forum to highlight perhaps and do that course of work on.

105 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA Q280 Naomi Long: So it is not something where you believe that the Executive, through the Departments, would be able to collate information for the NIO and the MOD. It would actually almost be the reverse: that they would need to be collating that information through their support mechanisms to then feed back to you as individual Ministers to deal with in terms of the security issues. Edwin Poots: I think so, yes. It is very important that we ensure that military personnel are not compromised in any way, shape or form, particularly those who live in border areas in counties such as Fermanagh and Tyrone. Q281 Mr Anderson: Part of the responsibility for the Secretary of State for Defence is to seek the views of any relevant devolved Administration when preparing the Annual Report for Parliament on the Armed Forces Covenant. Last year, despite being requested, my understanding is that the Northern Ireland Executive decided not to respond. Was that a formal decision? Nelson McCausland: No, it just does not happen. Edwin Poots: It would have been dealt with through OFMDFM, and it was not brought to the Northern Ireland Executive. Q282 Mr Anderson: So there was no formal or informal discussion with yourselves or other groups within the Executive. Nelson McCausland: No. It would only come on to the table or agenda for an Executive meeting if it had got through OFMDFM, and it did not therefore it did not arrive. Edwin Poots: It requires the agreement of both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister before a matter comes to the Executive s table, so for example if, on this issue, the Deputy First Minister had refused to put it on the agenda, it would not have been on the agenda. Q283 Mr Anderson: Do you know whether they are intending to contribute to this year s report? Nelson McCausland: I have no knowledge of that but I would not necessarily anticipate any change, unfortunately. Q284 Mr Anderson: The Minister of State for Defence, Mark Francois, told us that the MOD was working with individual Departments to try and make progress on filling gaps where he believed it was lacking compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Have your Departments actually worked with the MOD on trying to identify those gaps and filling them? Nelson McCausland: My understanding is that, yes, there has been contact with the MOD. Certainly there has been contact with the local garrison and contact with veterans organisations, so there has been a fair level of engagement. I think we are fairly clear as to what the issues are that need to be addressed, and they are the ones I outlined earlier. If there are other things either the MOD or veterans feel should be addressed and would be in the remit of my Department, I would certainly be happy to look at those. Edwin Poots: I know, Mr Chairman, that Mike Penning is looking into the Military Covenant in Northern Ireland and what can be done. There was a meeting that took place with the Prime Minister between senior members of my own party. At that, there was a proposal for a facility in Northern Ireland, which we believe should be funded by the Government and military charities, to provide specialist treatment for PTSD and life-changing injuries. Mike Penning is due to meet again with us to update us on his findings. Q285 Mr Anderson: You might not be able to answer this because it is not your Department, but do you think there is a scope for the MOD to work with other individual Departments so that it increases access to public services for the armed forces community, and if there is, could you expand on it? Edwin Poots: I have no doubt that there are other Departments where military personnel will have a role in terms of the service that is being provided to them. DEL would spring to mind particularly as one where people are looking for employment opportunities, having served in the military, but there are many other Departments, yes, where certainly there would be opportunities. That is why I would be happy and suggested earlier on that I would be happy to put the case forward for the establishment of a ministerial sub-group, because we have them on issues such as suicide, children, poverty and so forth. There is no reason why we could not request the establishment of such a ministerial sub-group, which would assist us in having a better co-ordinated response to the issues that come before us. Q286 Lady Hermon: Could I follow up on what you have just said about the meeting that took place at Number 10? Could I just ask you to clarify precisely whether it was in fact the Prime Minister at that meeting who gave a commitment that there should be a facility in Northern Ireland to deal with PTSD? Edwin Poots: He did not give that commitment, unfortunately. Lady Hermon: It is just as well we clarified that. Edwin Poots: The people who were at that meeting requested that such a facility would be put in place, and he tasked Mike Penning, the NIO Minister, to look at the issues, so there is a follow-up meeting to that due to take place. Q287 Lady Hermon: In other words it has not been ruled out, but it has not been confirmed. Edwin Poots: That would be right. Q288 Lady Hermon: Right. I am glad I clarified that, because I thought we were going to have an announcement from Number 10 about a commitment for a special facility in Northern Ireland, which would be very welcome. Edwin Poots: Well, any influence you can bring to bear there would be greatly appreciated. Q289 Lady Hermon: Oh, you would probably have more influence, I have to say, than I would in Number 10. Anyway, moving on quickly, I come back

106 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Ev 54 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 24 April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA to the Annual Report on the Armed Forces Covenant. The Secretary of State for Defence has a duty under the legislation whether we like lawyers or not, they can be very useful to seek the views of any relevant devolved administration when he is preparing the Annual Report. We have taken evidence repeatedly that in fact there has not been a reply from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and you have explained to the Committee why that would be. Surely it is perfectly within your remit, as Ministers in relevant Departments and very much involved with delivering the Armed Forces Covenant, for you to make that contribution to a much needed Annual Report, and to make it much more balanced. What you have told us is that there is a lot of very good work going on in Northern Ireland, by your Departments in particular, towards looking after the armed forces and those who have served their country and retired with injury, psychological or otherwise. Surely that should not go unnoticed in the Annual Report. Could we just convince you to make that happen? Edwin Poots: I would tend to agree that the Report is the poorer for not having the contribution of Northern Ireland in it, because we make up an important element of the military, and should a request come to me, I would be very happy to respond to it. Q290 Lady Hermon: And is that likewise? Nelson McCausland: Likewise. Q291 Lady Hermon: And to date, can I just ask you then, is it the case that the MOD has not formally asked individual Ministers to make a contribution to the Armed Forces Annual Report? Nelson McCausland: I am not aware of direct requests to the Department. I assume that the request has gone to the centre. Q292 Lady Hermon: To OFMDFM, and then it is lost. It is sucked into a black hole, so to speak. Edwin Poots: If protocols do not prevent it, I am sure that all of this could be facilitated. Lady Hermon: Perhaps that is something the Committee could look at when we are finalising our Report, and make a recommendation, if we can, to that effect, since you are so willing to contribute. That would be very helpful. Q293 David Simpson: I just want to go back to one point. Nelson, I think you mentioned earlier that at long last we had now managed to get a housing strategy. Are either Department, particularly yours I suppose, aware of any difficulties there have been in housing security force people who have served in the Army because of the sensitivities in the areas geographically within Northern Ireland. Are you aware of any particular difficulties? Nelson McCausland: It is not something that has been brought to my attention so far. I would have thought if there were major problems I would have had representations from local elected representatives, or indeed by MPs. I have not, to my recollection, had any thus far. David Simpson: That is good. Q294 Naomi Long: I have one final question and a comment to preface it. I think, Edwin, that you have mentioned the potential for DEL to be involved in terms of employment and training. I am aware that Stephen Farry as the Minister is liaising with the MOD around his Department in terms of what is going on with the Armed Forces Covenant and where his Department s responsibilities can be. Again, that is maybe something where it would be helpful if there were some mechanism for Ministers collectively to be aware of that ongoing work. Nelson McCausland: The point is well made; as my colleague said earlier, the idea of a ministerial or executive sub-committee dealing with this would be particularly helpful. There is a range of issues where they span two Departments. For example jobs and benefits: there is a crossover there. The provision of accommodation: if somebody is suffering from PTSD, can they manage to live independently? What support do they need for independent living? There is a crossover there, and a crossover again with DEL. Therefore that would be the ideal approach. Q295 Naomi Long: Just very briefly, I think you will probably be able to answer this, and we probably can predict the answer but we will give you the opportunity to give us an answer anyway. Both the Scottish and Welsh Governments have appointed an Armed Forces and Veterans Advocate, so that is a senior civil servant, to have responsibility for ensuring the policy developments across their departmental remit and so on that impact on the armed forces will be dealt with in a particular way. Combat Stress indicated to us that they would like, for example, in terms of structural issues around this, perhaps to see similar measures, and also to see Northern Ireland represented on the Covenant Reference Group. We are not currently represented. If we were going to send somebody to that, who would represent us at that? At what level would that have to be? Given what we have already established about tensions around these issues within the Executive, is there a means I suppose it is a similar question to the one which Sylvia has asked by which those difficulties can be worked around in order that we could be represented in that situation? Edwin Poots: Again, the Liaison Forum is probably the appropriate vehicle for such a discussion. It may be that we can appoint an armed forces advocate from a single Department, which other Departments could then use to support them in the work that they do. Whilst we are somewhat hamstrung, there are still opportunities for us to think outside the box on how we achieve the results that the Military Covenant aims for. Q296 Kate Hoey: Sorry for missing your opening. You say there are problems, but just summarise very simply for the Committee what is the stumbling block to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, fully implementing law in this respect, to do with the Military Covenant. Edwin Poots: We have a joint office, in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, who have equal powers. Obviously, one party in that office is

107 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o004_Mark_Transcript 4 - NIC Corrected (Draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev April 2013 Nelson McCausland MLA and Edwin Poots MLA Republican. They do not support being in the United Kingdom in the first place and they certainly do not support the British military personnel. That is, quite bluntly, how it is; that is the reality that we work against. However, we seek to work with each other and as far as that is possible come to agreement on issues. Some issues we will not find common ground on, and some issues are left to people to follow their own pursuit and actually achieve those outcomes. Others, perhaps, whilst not facilitating us, will not block us in achieving those outcomes. Q297 Nigel Mills: Is it only Sinn Féin that you think are blocking the Assembly, or are any of the other parties also not keen on this idea? Edwin Poots: I do not think that I or Nelson is best placed to answer that question, but perhaps others in the room might be. Lady Hermon: No, we want to hear from you. You re the witnesses. Nelson McCausland: It would be inappropriate, I think, for us to speak on behalf of another nationalist party. Dr McDonnell: You are dead right. Chair: I think that is probably good timing for you to catch your flight back, appropriately. I found it a very useful session, and very valuable. Thank you very much for coming over to see us.

108 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 56 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Wednesday 15 May 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr David Anderson Mr Stephen Hepburn Lady Hermon Naomi Long Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills Andrew Percy David Simpson Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Major Alan McDade, Chairman, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker, Vice President, and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett, Secretary, Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment, gave evidence. Q298 Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us. As you are aware, we are conducting an inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant and its particular application in Northern Ireland. We are very grateful to you for coming to talk to us this afternoon. We would like to ask various questions. Can I invite you to make any very brief opening remarks you wish, particularly telling us where you draw your members from? Alan McDade: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It is kind of the Committee to invite us to be here and we are very thankful for the opportunity to address you. Our written submission has been with you for some time and we stand by what we say in that written submission. As to our membership, currently the Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment is a bit unique, as associations go, insofar as we draw our membership from those ex-servicemen who serve in the First and Second Battalions and the now disbanded Home Service Royal Irish Regiment. Equally, if any members or ex-servicemen from the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Ulster Rifles, the Royal Irish Fusiliers and the Royal Irish Rangers find themselves closer to our locations, they can join our branch and become full members of our regimental association. We currently have around 480 active members, drawn from a population who are young, active and want to play a part in the association. We have a lot of sleepers who are on the books but do not actively turn up at meetings. The association s aims are to be there as an organisation to promote comradeship, to carry on from the service community, be a welfare organisation and help any servicemen or women who find themselves in need of support, whatever that support may be. We put the ethos around our membership that every one of us is a welfare worker and that we keep an eye out for each other. If we find that any of our members, or ex-servicemen who are not members, are from any other regiment we try to assist them and point them in the right direction to find assistance from charities or their own regimental associations. Q299 David Simpson: You are very welcome, gentlemen, to the Committee. The evidence or submission that you gave in writing is very interesting. If you are diligent in your work you may have read some of the evidence that we received. It is very confusing for the Committee, certainly from my perspective, because the last time we had evidence was from the Royal British Legion and from SSAFA, who made it very clear in the Committee that they were not in favour of the Covenant being implemented in Northern Ireland because they felt it would have a detrimental effect. Personally, I disagree. You are saying that it should be. Why do you believe it should be, and how could it be implemented? Alan McDade: As we have stated, the Military Covenant has been enshrined into UK law, we believe. Servicemen in Northern Ireland are therefore disadvantaged, purely and simply because, if it is UK law Q300 David Simpson: Can I stop you for one second? Sorry for cutting across you. Chairman, can I clarify that point? I think SSAFA mentioned at the last evidence session that they did not believe it was enshrined in law. I stand to be corrected on that. Chair: My understanding, having had it researched, is that the Armed Forces Covenant is mentioned in law, it is written in law, but there is not a legal requirement to implement it. Special Adviser, have I put that correctly? Special Adviser: Yes. Naomi Long: Could we also clarify that neither SSAFA nor the British Legion said that they did not want it implemented, but they raised issues about how it would be implemented. David Simpson: I think if we check the minutes, Chairman Chair: One thing at once, please. With regard to the legal position, have I stated that correctly? Special Adviser: The principles are enshrined in law and the Secretary of State for Defence is required to provide an annual report on the Covenant, but I think that is distinct from saying it is enshrined in law, which implies that every provision of it is written in law and is judiciable. That, I think, is not the case. That is what Liam Fox, as the Secretary of State for Defence at the time, made clear in the Commons in Q301 David Simpson: To go back to what I said taking Naomi s point I stand to be corrected if I repeated it wrongly, but they did say that if it was forced through, it could have a detrimental effect on the current provision that is there. They said words to that effect, but the minutes can be checked in relation to that.

109 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett Chair: You can state your position on it anyway. Alan McDade: If it is not there, is it not the case that servicemen are disadvantaged in Northern Ireland compared to England, Scotland and Wales? The reverse has to be the same, by definition. Q302 David Simpson: How do you think it could be implemented? Alan McDade: For ex-servicemen who have been demobbed in Portsmouth, whatever they are entitled to, housing etc, should be the same in Cardiff, it should be the same in Edinburgh and it should be the same in Belfast. That is the position we are taking. Q303 Lady Hermon: It is very nice indeed to see all three of you here. Sorry we ran a little bit over with our private business but it is very good of you indeed to come over and give us evidence. Could we focus a little bit more on where you think Northern Ireland ex-service personnel are disadvantaged compared to those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Where do you actually identify those specific deficiencies? Mr Brooker, we have not heard your voice, so go on: the floor is yours, as they say. Howard Brooker: Could I say firstly that the military community in Northern Ireland are different from the military community everywhere else? That is the first point you need to take on board. Q304 Lady Hermon: Why would you describe yourselves as being different? That is not to say that I disagree with you, but I would like you to articulate it. Howard Brooker: I am sure you very much agree with me, but that is the first thing I need to say. I served as a part-time soldier for over 30 years. I lived, worked and served as a soldier in the same community. I worked as a farmer at my home, I lived, obviously, in my home and I served as a soldier around my home. That automatically makes me different. With that came a great threat to my life. I am not saying I personally, but I am speaking broadly about soldiers across Northern Ireland. With that came a threat to my life. The differences are ad infinitum. I could list them now: personal security, where I could go, where I could not go, how I treated my family the list is endless. I am different; therefore, when I serve or leave the regiment, I have different needs. I will give you a couple of examples that I have not heard addressed. Lady Hermon: That would be very helpful, thank you. Howard Brooker: One of them is the issue of the personal security of the ex-member of the Royal Irish Regiment or that family. I left the regiment when the Home Service battalions were disbanded on 31 March Incidentally, I left the Home Service part of the regiment as the highest ranked soldier. I personally was the highest ranked soldier on that day and the only person in that rank, so I was unique. I had personal security needs when I left on that day and since, and those are not addressed. I am not laying blame at any door for that. Efforts were made at the time and a little team was set up in the Lisburn headquarters in Northern Ireland to deal with that, but it really was more of a sop to the soldier maybe that is not the right term rather than something that would be effective. That is just an example. From day to day and increasingly so, the IRA, who are still there, would like to see me gone. I am speaking broadly of the soldier and not me personally. There are still threats to soldiers. For instance, around the town of Cookstown about two years ago there was a huge threat against ex-members of the regiment, to the extent that they were all given personal security measures, they were all rearmed and things like that. That is something that needs to be addressed. I am different in that respect. Q305 Lady Hermon: The principles are not spelt out in detail in legislation. What we are really looking at in the Committee is if the Armed Forces Covenant were to be implemented in exactly the same way across the UK, would that address the really important issue that you have just raised? Howard Brooker: Under the scope of the Covenant, in heading 11, is support after service. Specifically under support after service, I think personal security of the ex-member is part of that. We had this discussion with one of your Members earlier and we said that whether you call it the Ulster Covenant or whatever you call it, it does not really matter as long as something exists that deals with the issue. It seems to me that if the Covenant were implemented, that lays the onus on Government or whomever to formally see that the personal security of the ex-soldier is seen to. There is no formal arrangement at the moment. There is no onus on anybody to do it. There is nobody I can go to and say, You are not doing your job properly. That is an example. The Covenant seems to be a way of formalising that and placing the onus. Across a range of issues at the minute things work under the radar, and they work very well, I am told. But what happens if that arrangement suddenly disappears? Your next speaker will probably home in on that point, but what happens if that disappears? Where is the onus then placed to deal with these things? Those are the issues that concern me. Q306 Lady Hermon: Are there any other specific areas of deficiency? Howard Brooker: I will mention another one as well but maybe I am stealing the limelight here. Lady Hermon: No it is fine; it will come back to Mr McDade in a minute. Howard Brooker: I will deal with another issue, which is victimhood. I did some specific work directly with victims once I left the service, through a victims group voluntary service. Something that is very close to the heart of those who have served is the definition of the word victim. We have a different definition in Northern Ireland from the one we have European-wide. That is something that troubles people and it is something that could be dealt with. What is the definition of a victim in England, Scotland or Wales? I suppose it is different from here. Lady Hermon: It is different. Howard Brooker: But nevertheless I am treated differently. Lady Hermon: Thank you, that is very helpful to us.

110 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 58 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 15 May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett Q307 Dr McDonnell: I appreciate that; you have added a couple of dimensions. The personal security one I think is important. We need to get some sense of how the Covenant would help that, in detail. I can see the Covenant being applied and people still living in disadvantage in terms of personal security. People in Portsmouth, or wherever, do not need the level of personal security that you are talking about, so if you apply the same standard as Portsmouth you still do not get the level. The victimhood thing is important as well. The two points I would like to concentrate briefly on, which have emerged from other evidence and in which I have taken an interest, are, first, access to housing and, secondly, healthcare, specifically proper psychiatric support for those who need it. That is not something that 95%, 96% or 97% will need but there are a small number who will need it. What are your views about how housing needs are met? Secondly, what are your views as to how psychiatric support, for those few who need it, is delivered? The sense we were getting from other organisations is that, fair enough, there is psychiatric support in the form of psychiatric nursing support, but if a patient needs a psychiatrist, in some cases they have to go to Scotland. Again, would it not be easy to extrapolate it all to appoint or have somebody responsible appoint a local, friendly psychiatrist who would deal with those issues? Alan McDade: To take the first point on housing, in our written submission we gave a case example. This was actually the son of a friend of my wife s. He had served 21 years in the Royal Signals and he found himself being medically discharged from the Army with one year still to serve. Because of that, and because the way he was discharged was actually quite rushed, and he had a wife and children both parents had agreed to move back to Northern Ireland the particular difficulty he found was that no one could help him get on to the housing list in the area he wanted, to raise his family. He also found difficulties getting schooling. He was fortunate enough in that when he contacted headmasters, he did then find that with the second he approached he got through. He ended up, on the housing side, having to use half of the gratuity he received from the Army to put a deposit down on a house because it was the only way, within the time frame, he could get a house in the area where schools were available, where he could comfortably raise his family. Housing is a bit difficult. My understanding is that someone coming out of the forces in England, Scotland or Wales, having been on service for 22 years and living in married quarters, does get some kind of recognition that elevates them up the list for council housing. That is not applicable in Northern Ireland. The example of that Royal Signals guy is a case in point. From a psychiatric point of view, we rely heavily on the Royal Irish Aftercare Service for our members, some of whom have gone through traumatic experiences during the Troubles. Nobody knows when PTSD is going to hit. In some cases the guy is fine, you meet him at social gatherings, meetings and so on, and then suddenly the next thing you hear is that he is being treated for depression, and it is the slippery slope in looking for psychiatric help. As I said earlier, in the association we are all welfare advocates and we try to help and keep an eye out for those individuals. There are those who slip through the net but our first point of call is to use the UDR and Royal Irish Aftercare Service. I have another example. I personally met an ex-soldier who had been out for some time, coming out of Tesco in Newtonabbey doing his weekly shop. I asked him if he was doing okay, if everything was fine. He just put his shopping down and said, No boss. I said, What s wrong? He then started to tell me the story. His son had been involved in a fairly serious road traffic accident. He had had to give up his job. His wife had left him and gone back to live in England. Their marriage had split up. He was left with no job, having to look after his disabled son. My first question to him was, Do you need help? He said, Yes please. A big problem is getting them to admit that they need help. He did ask for help and my next phone call was to the UDR and Royal Irish Aftercare Service. Within three days someone was out to see him. Obviously, it was in confidence and I did not know what happened. About four months later, at a social gathering, he came up to me and said, Thanks very much. What you did for me was very, very good and I am now on the road to getting my life back on the straight and narrow. The psychiatric care and the help that is given to our soldiers by the Royal Irish Aftercare Service has to be applauded as a model to go forward. Do we need someone in Northern Ireland? Yes please. It is a problem for some soldiers to get to Scotland. If it is local, obviously it is a lot easier for them, particularly if they have commitments in the home. Chair: That is useful, thank you very much. Q308 Mr Hepburn: What about other social requirements and things that people in normal walks of life take for granted, like doctors and dentists? What sort of assistance is given for that sort of thing? Raymond Corbett: I can answer that one. I left and I got my resettlement all sorted out by the Army. They do give you advice and they do tell you where to go to, but if you left the Army and five years later you still need help, you are lost by yourself. You need an association of some sort, or someone in the Royal British Legion to help you. You do get advice when you leave. However, in saying that, if you have mental health issues at that stage you do not know who to turn to if you have been out for a while. There is an aftercare package run by our regimental association and it is very good. However, they need informing about who needs it. Associations and the Royal British Legion are really the only people who can put them right in that way. Once you leave the Army, you leave the Army. I have left it and it is a different atmosphere altogether to come into. You lose all your friends. Depression does set in, there is no doubt about it, because you have been with those people for 20-odd years, and when you leave you are by yourself, really; you feel you are by yourself. Q309 Mr Hepburn: How long does that cut-off take?

111 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett Raymond Corbett: It took me about five years to get rid of that, personally. I was fairly lucky; I had my own home. If you have not got your own home, it is very hard to come out, get a house and then try and buy your home. You want to keep your resettlement money and you want to start your own business, because people leaving the Army do not really want to work for anybody; they want to work for themselves. After 20-odd years in the military taking orders, you want to work for yourself. Q310 Mr Hepburn: You think there is a case to be made to prolong the aftercare. Raymond Corbett: I would say so, especially in the Royal Irish. We have it extended until Also, what I would like to see is the aftercare expanded to represent all services. At the moment it is only Home Service Royal Irish. They do not look after the First Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment. If they come home, they are not looked after. Nor are other regiments, the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy included. Alan McDade: Your question was directed towards what other help is needed. As Raymond says, the career transition partnership is a facility given to all servicemen leaving. I availed myself of it when I was coming out. It was beneficial to me. What are not there are particular nuances that apply to the ex-service community in Northern Ireland who want to settle in Northern Ireland. Where do they find a doctor who has no questionable background in respect of their political sympathies in Northern Ireland? Where do they find a dentist? Where do they find schools and so on? I think the career transition partnership should have a bolt-on package for the Northern Ireland-settling ex-service community. I see Dr McDonnell looking at me; I am not casting aspersions on the doctoring profession, certainly not. I have the greatest respect for physicians. Q311 Dr McDonnell: I hesitate now. I spent 30 years as a GP and I had many military people and security people as patients. I think most GPs, regardless of personal politics, would be reasonably professional. Mr Hepburn: There is the Hippocratic Oath. Dr McDonnell: I do not think we should gild the lily. Howard Brooker: I think you might have missed the point that Alan was making. It is not the point that any doctor would have any doubts; it is the doubt that would be in the settling man s mind. He would have that doubt and say, Where should I go? That is where the doubt lies; it is not with the doctor. Dr McDonnell: Sitting in a GP s waiting room or something like that, or a dentist s waiting room, would be exposure that people would be entitled not to feel frightened of. Q312 Naomi Long: Thank you for your evidence so far. It has been quite enlightening to hear from your perspective how things are working, as well as from those who deliver the services. That is quite important in terms of the evidence that we are taking. In your written submission you argued that the UDR and the Royal Irish Aftercare Service should be expanded to cover the wider ex-service population in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland as well. What benefits do you think that would open up to veterans who are not currently under that service provision? Alan McDade: The UDR and Royal Irish Aftercare Service was set up as a bespoke organisation. When you consider that 60,000 of the population of Northern Ireland served during the Troubles in the UDR and the Royal Irish Home Service, there was, in each of the battalions throughout the Troubles, a welfare organisation who looked after the welfare needs of servicemen in those battalions. When the battalions were gone, the MOD recognised that there was a need for this aftercare, and indeed they funded it until As Raymond said, they have extended that now until Our worry and concern is what is going to happen after We firmly believe that the model that has been developed after the disbandment of the Royal Irish Home Service is an exact model that should be applied not just in Northern Ireland, but we could look after Southern Ireland as well. Equally, we could look at a similar organisation in Scotland, England maybe two or three in England and Wales. We believe that that model works. It has been proven to be successful in the six years of its existence. If it is working, expand it, make it better, embrace the Royal Signals, embrace the Royal Navy and embrace all the other regiments and the Air Force service community that is settling in Northern Ireland. If the expertise is there, make use of it. That would be our view. Q313 Naomi Long: Earlier in the evidence, Howard, you said that your experience of being in the Army was different and therefore the context when you leave essentially you leave into the community in which you also served as a soldier is not typical. You have also described the aftercare service as bespoke, because it was designed around the needs of people who were in that context. The MOD certainly made the case that it was a bespoke service, which was catering for a section of the armed forces community that would be in a context very specific to Northern Ireland, home regiments and so on. Would you accept that because it is so tailored, it would not be appropriate to broaden its remit, or that to broaden its remit would mean it could lose something of what it does in a very bespoke way, for people in a very unique situation? Raymond Corbett: I personally do not think it would affect it whatsoever. It would probably help it if we got more funding. We have people who do not only serve in the Royal Irish but who serve in the Navy or the Air Force. They come home, but if they wanted help they would have to go back over to England, Scotland or Wales to get help. If the aftercare service was expanded within Northern Ireland it would not be a problem for their families. Howard Brooker: May I make a couple of quick points as well? A soldier settling out of any regiment in the British Army and coming back to Northern Ireland is no different in the eyes of the community. He is still a soldier and in that sense he is still a target. He needs to resettle; that is the first thing. The second thing is that perhaps the military did not extend the aftercare service because it does not exist anywhere

112 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 60 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 15 May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett else in the UK. Therefore everywhere else in the UK would immediately have aspirations for their own aftercare service. I think maybe it came down to finance. They say, We do not want to make it for all the Army, because if all the Army see that they will want it everywhere else as well. That might be one of the constraints. That is no reason for not doing it though. It does not mean it is not right to do it. Q314 Naomi Long: Just to clarify, it is only the Home Service and not general service personnel from the Royal Irish who can avail themselves of the service. Howard Brooker: Yes. Naomi Long: So even those who are in the Royal Irish but are not Home Service would not be able to benefit from the aftercare. Howard Brooker: It may well be that the aftercare service might see fit, on occasions, to help others whom they are not really expected to help, but they would purely be doing that as a gesture of good will. They would not be supposed to be doing it. I think that is wrong. It is wrong that they have to do that. Q315 Lady Hermon: You mentioned that there might have been financial constraints that meant the aftercare service was not extended. Have you figures that you could give us as to the cost of the aftercare service per year? What is the commitment now? It has been extended from 2012 to 2014 but do you have a round figure of the cost? Raymond Corbett: I do not think it would be right for us to give those figures. All we are saying is that they have been funded. What they have been funded we do not know. Alan McDade: We could write to the director of the aftercare service and ask him if he would be kind enough to send it in. Lady Hermon: It would be very helpful to the Committee if we had some indication, even if it is not an exact amount and it turns out to be 5 million less than that. Thank you for that commitment. Q316 Mr Anderson: Can I ask about the particular people who are not covered by the aftercare service? Do they access the general National Health Service for mental health problems? Do they have problems with that? There is the obvious issue you have a problem but are they not allowed access, or is there a waiting list? Howard Brooker: There is a waiting list. Alan McDade: They would go on to the waiting list the same as anyone else in Northern Ireland. Q317 Mr Anderson: I was just picking up on what you said. Effectively it was that if they could not go on the aftercare service it was almost as though they had no alternative other than to go to Scotland. Alan McDade: Obviously they could go through their normal GP in Northern Ireland, who would refer them. We have no evidence of individual cases that we could quote to you on that. Q318 Nigel Mills: In the written submissions that you kindly sent us, you both called for a representative of the Northern Ireland veterans community to be appointed to the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group, as the Scots and the Welsh have done. Do you have any views on who you think that appointee should be? Alan McDade: First of all, we advocated in our written submission a veterans forum for Northern Ireland. Since we wrote that paper, we understand that there are moves afoot for that to happen. The other aspiration we had was that there should be a veterans commissioner for Northern Ireland. We have a population of 150,000 ex-servicemen from the Korean War right through to Afghanistan today and our own Troubles, but we have no voice in Northern Ireland. There is no one that we can go to, as a veterans commissioner, to voice our concerns. An ex-serviceman or woman not from the Home Service regiments, who can use the aftercare who settles in Northern Ireland and has issues or problems with their pension has to phone the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency in Blackpool to try and get it resolved. There is no office that they can walk into and just say, I have a problem and my problem is, because it does not exist. They are then into the realms of trying to get the Royal British Legion to take up their case. They are very good at doing so and they do try to sort matters out but if you are like me, I would prefer to sit down across a table with someone and say, Here is my issue, here is my problem, please can you help? rather than phone. Something needs to be done for that 150,000 population in Northern Ireland so that they have access to someone who can take up their case for them. Q319 Nigel Mills: Is that a veterans commissioner appointed by the Northern Ireland Executive, the MOD or where? Alan McDade: We would not care who it came from, as long as that someone was there. Lady Hermon: But you would be pleased if it was the First Minister or Deputy First Minister who was appointing the veterans commissioner. Chair: I am sure you would be. Lady Hermon: I would be absolutely thrilled if that were the case. Q320 Nigel Mills: We did not quite get an answer about who you would like on the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group, did we? Alan McDade: We think that the Military Covenant Reference Group should have someone on it from the veterans, not from the charities but someone who is a veteran. To be fair to a lot of the charities in Northern Ireland SSAFA, Combat Stress and so on they are probably all themselves ex-service. No disrespect to them, but there should be a veteran, knowing veterans problems without the baggage of having to worry about Combat Stress issues or SSAFA issues. That person should come from the veterans community within Northern Ireland. Q321 Nigel Mills: The Scots and the Welsh have both appointed a quite senior civil servant as their representative. Are you not thinking it should be

113 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett someone from the Executive being appointed or a civil servant? Alan McDade: If there is somebody from an ex-service community in the Assembly in Northern Ireland then why not? Q322 Naomi Long: We are talking about engagement with the Assembly, Executive and so on. We have had evidence from Ministers and others about some of the things they have been doing in terms of delivering the Covenant in practical ways, despite the logistical challenges around trying to do that more corporately within the Executive. If there was a policy effect in the armed services community generally in Northern Ireland, who would you raise it with? Who would be your first point of contact? Would you initially go to 38 Brigade or are there mechanisms for you to liaise directly with individual Ministers or with the Executive in some way, if it relates to a particular Department s responsibilities? Howard Brooker: As a regimental association, we are part of what we call the regimental family. The regiment still has a headquarters in Belfast and a regimental secretary who is a retired officer. He is a civilian but he is a retired officer. Our point of contact is probably with him or with the aftercare service. But regiments come and go, as we have seen. Looking to the future we would like to see something a wee bit more formal than that, so there will be continuity in the future. On top of that, the regimental secretary has a very small staff and a very wide field of responsibility. To be honest, the problems of a regimental association are well down his list of priorities. That is our first point of contact. Alan has raised the point about a victims commissioner. If you have somebody who is a focal point and has just that interest in his mind, it has to be a big advantage. Q323 Naomi Long: Say for example that there is a housing issue or a health issue, is there any mechanism in place for you to raise that with the Minister, other than as any citizen would, by going through an elected representative and seeking a meeting on a one-to-one basis? Howard Brooker: You mean can we go directly to the Assembly? Naomi Long: I mean is there a mechanism for you to do that? Howard Brooker: Not that I am aware of. Alan McDade: There is nothing formal but there could be ad hoc contact. Q324 Naomi Long: We have heard evidence from the Executive, but do you have examples of problems that you have faced in an area where you have been able to engage with a Minister or Department and have those issues resolved? Is there anything specific you can think of that would demonstrate how even the ad hoc arrangements work for you at the moment? Howard Brooker: There is nothing formally at the minute; it will just be through your local representative. We basically do not have any contact at all with the Executive or with the Assembly on a formal basis. Could I just make one point? I will probably raise the hackles of one Member s neck when I say this but I had some contact with a victims group and I did some voluntary work for a year or two with them. One of the issues that came up was the Maze site. Victims across Northern Ireland from the military community were horrified that that particular piece of ground, which we reckon to be the most irreconcilable piece of land in Northern Ireland, was chosen as a site for a reconciliation centre. That view was put very firmly through victims groups, with a huge petition. Many of the people who signed it, the vast majority, were from the ex-service community who said, We do not want this. Our views were ignored. Things like that rankle a bit. A veterans commissioner would be somebody who could take that on and perhaps carry our views to the higher echelons of Government. We certainly do not have that access. Q325 Naomi Long: You have highlighted one issue, and it is obviously a highly political one as well as a practical one. At a practical level, do you sense that there is more willingness for Ministers to engage around things like delivery of service to the community as opposed to the high level issues that would be around, such as political process stuff that is being dealt with in a slightly different way? At a practical level, do you sense that they are more open to engage with and to listen to the concerns that you would have about delivery of services? Raymond Corbett: Everybody has a concern at the end of the day, but for us to get things done we have to go on a one-on-one basis with the Minister, our local MP or our local councillor, but there is no mechanism, as Alan said, for us to go direct as a body. It has to be done as an individual case. Q326 Naomi Long: If you do that, is it responsive? Raymond Corbett: It can be at times. There are other times when you just hit that wall, as well you know. Naomi Long: We have all been there. I appreciate that, thank you. Q327 Mr Anderson: Can I ask you about the potential for a veterans commissioner? In your submission, you said that you thought a commission should be set up with legal powers. Can you tell us a bit more about what you envisage? Alan McDade: When we put that forward in the written paper we were of the view that a veterans commissioner would be like all or some of the commissioners in the UK who have legal powers. I am thinking more along the lines of an energy regulator, who has the power to tell the energy suppliers to cut their prices, or their overheads, or that their profits are too big. Mr Anderson: I wish you were right on that. Alan McDade: That is my understanding. I think that if the veterans commissioner had the power to compel people to come and talk to him and tell him why certain things have not happened in respect of veterans in Northern Ireland, it would be at least a starting point. At the minute, as Raymond says, we hit a brick wall.

114 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 62 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 15 May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett Q328 Mr Anderson: One of the things we have heard constantly from a number of witnesses is the worry that if it is seen that ex-servicemen and veterans are given what some people would see as preferential treatment I am not necessarily agreeing with that it could actually be detrimental to what you want to do. Do you not think that this could potentially be spun that way? Alan McDade: I am not sure I am getting the drift of what your question is. Mr Anderson: If you have a veterans commissioner, for example, and if someone cannot go to hospital they say, I am going to go to the veterans commissioner and you are going to have to let me come into hospital, would that not mean effectively that someone can say, Hang on here, I worked in a factory all my life and I cannot get into hospital, why should you? Howard Brooker: It is all based around need. Take, for example, someone going into hospital who is ill and has an operation carried out to cure their illness. Somebody down the road who has not got that illness cannot say, That is preferential treatment. What we are asking for is something that is based on our need. It is all based around needs. We are not asking for something that is going to disadvantage somebody else or advantage us over that other person. What we are asking is just for something that deals with our need. We have different and specific needs. Q329 Mr Anderson: I agree with that. I am not talking about people with differences, though. Take two people with identical needs, two guys who live next door to each other, one worked in a factory and one has been in the forces. The guy who worked in the factory is told by his GP that he cannot go to the hospital for six months. The guy next door is told that he cannot go for six months, but he can go to the commissioner, if it is set up, who can then instruct them and say, You have to get this guy in because he s in the forces. We are hearing constantly that if you do that it could be detrimental overall. Howard Brooker: That issue obviously is there and will raise its head. Q330 Mr Anderson: Who do you think should have responsibility for setting this up? Would it be the Executive, the UK Government? You are talking about legal powers. Alan McDade: The Executive have set up victims commissioners in Northern Ireland, so obviously the mechanism is there. I am not aware totally of how it works, but the mechanism must be there if they can set up victims commissioners and so on. Q331 David Simpson: I want to clarify some of the comments I made at the start with regard to the Royal British Legion and to SSAFA, in what I understood to be their concerns and objections. In the minutes of the last meeting I put the point to Colonel Gordon. I said, Is that a rule of thumb? Is that the general thought right across the whole of the Legion and SSAFA that to push this could have a negative impact on the care and welfare? Colonel Gordon s reply was, We just have to look at it terribly cautiously, because we are aware that there is opposition, and we are already aware that there is a degree, however slight, of polarisation in people s approach to the implementation From a SSAFA point of view, we are really cautious about it. What we have told you today is about the fact that, if you assess provision and say, Will it make any difference? the best start point is to say, Is it worth pushing? Mr Maguire when he was here also said in a question from Nigel Mills about whether this should be implemented from the Committee s point of view, and whether we should be pushing forward with it From my point of view, it was not so much the work of this Committee but, if a particular issue was raised in a particular setting in Northern Ireland, that would have the potential to be polarising and polarising would be a better word than divisive then to implement it and draw a line under it could cause difficulties down the line, as far as the care would be concerned. That is the point that I was trying to raise. I want to clarify that there seems to be a difference from what you are saying today, from the Royal British Legion s point of view and from SSAFA s point of view. Chair: Do you want to respond to that point? Alan McDade: In our submission we put the point that there is disjointery within Northern Ireland through our association. We are not linked to the Royal British Legion and we are not linked with any other regimental associations. Basically, we do not talk to each other and we do not know what the others are thinking. David Simpson: That is a bit like politicians, but we won t go there. Alan McDade: That is why we put forward the idea of a veterans forum. Q332 David Simpson: Howard, you were shaking your head. Howard Brooker: Surely, the solution should be based on need, not whether it is going to polarise anything. To say that we will not do it because it is going to cause polarisation is, I think, a ridiculous attitude. It has to be based on need and the best way of dealing with that need, though certainly there are sensitivities. Q333 Naomi Long: The point that was being raised with us was this. We had received evidence from a number of Executive Ministers who are, within their own Department, progressing elements of the Covenant. They are delivering in their Departments for armed services personnel. The concern that was being raised was that, if you push this and say every Department must do it and there has to be a corporate decision taken at the Executive table, and for this to be carried forward there has to be a reporting mechanism and all those other things, what could actually happen is that some of the good work that is going on under the radar, which is benefiting the armed services community, could then be out in the open and under attack from other members of the Executive who would be opposed to it taking place. It could, if it was then forced on to the Executive table, be stopped.

115 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett The issue raised was whether it was more important to have the mechanism agreed by the Executive and delivered in the same way as in the rest of the UK; or was it more important to have the services delivered by Ministers within their Departments, to the best of their ability where they can, in a different way from how it may be done in the rest of the UK but with the same objective of supporting the armed forces community. That was the issue. The question we were probing with them was: is there a risk, if you push hard on the Executive as a corporate entity, that you end up actually impeding some of the Ministers who are making progress in their own Departments quietly and getting on with the job of delivering? Frankly, there are other Ministers, you and I both know, for whom it does not matter how hard you push, they are not going to deliver. Is it better to let the ones who will get on with it? That was the debate that was happening. I would just be interested to know, knowing the political landscape as well as the situation with the armed services, whether you see a risk, if this becomes a political football for want of a better word that it could jeopardise good work that is being done by the armed forces community, the Executive, the NIO and others around trying to support the armed services community, albeit in quite a unique situation. Howard Brooker: I see exactly the point you are making but I would make several points. Firstly, there is no evidence that the good work going on under the radar would stop simply because you raise the issue. Q334 Naomi Long: Sorry to cut across you, but there are a number of examples where Departments decisions have been called into the Executive, which would put them out to vote in the Executive, which would not be carried because of the different mechanisms there. That would be an example. It would not be on this issue; it would be on other issues. Howard Brooker: Maybe so, but if people are doing it under the radar then it is under the radar and it can remain there. If people are doing it as a gesture of good will or whatever, that can still remain. Going back to the veterans commissioner, perhaps there is an alternative route by which the veterans commissioner could work with the Executive as a focal point. Maybe that is something that can get around the issue. We are not here to drive any particular mechanism; we are here to see that the job is done in the most efficient way. Q335 David Simpson: I want to move on to another point in relation to the ex-service forum. Mike Penning, the Minister of State for the NIO, recently convened a Northern Ireland veterans forum, which brought together various voluntary organisations and other stakeholders. Are you familiar with this forum, or were you invited to attend it? Alan McDade: Firstly, we were not invited to it and secondly, we did not know it was happening. That is why, in our written submission, we advocated it but we did not know where or when it was happening. We have seen no output from what took place and we were not invited. Q336 Lady Hermon: Have you written subsequently to ask to be invited to future meetings of the group? Alan McDade: No ma am, we have not because we do not know who to write to. Lady Hermon: Write to Mike Penning MP, c/o the House of Commons. It is easy. Alan McDade: I will do that. Q337 David Simpson: In relation to the forum itself, whilst you were not invited to it, were not told where it was going to meet and do not know if you are going to be invited to future forums or whatever the case might be, if you were invited to the forum and if it were set up and implemented, what do you believe the benefits would be of that forum? I suppose it is hard to answer that; it is a hypothetical question. Alan McDade: What would be our aspiration is, I think, a better word. Our aspiration would be that there would be co-ordination where all the disparate organisations that we have the associations, the Navy, the Air Force will be in one place at one time. A problem shared is a problem halved, and if it is pitched at the right level and the output coming from that forum is constructive and it helps the veterans community in Northern Ireland, we can then say it has been worthwhile. If it is just a talking shop, then it is not worth it. We have to have outcomes from it; we have to have a plan and take action forward. That is what I would like to see from it. The veterans commissioner, hypothetically, would attend that, so he could hear from the grassroots David Simpson: Or she. Alan McDade: Or she, whoops. David Simpson: It is not PC to say that. Q338 Lady Hermon: I have to add a quick PS. I think, in fairness to the Northern Ireland Office Minister Mike Penning, that would be his wish that it is not just talking shop. He too would like to see constructive output. That is an aside. It brings us to a really important question, which is the final question for this session. It is in relation to Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which as I am sure you are aware puts an absolute duty on all public bodies, including all Government Departments, to promote equality of opportunity between various groups. We have taken evidence in many sessions that Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act means that preferential treatment cannot be given to ex-servicemen and women. Do you think Section 75 is actually being used as a smokescreen or an excuse for inertia or for not doing things as well, or better, in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? Or do you think it really is a deterrent? Alan McDade: I will make one point and try very hard to contribute. When the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was written and enacted, nobody had heard of the Military Covenant. There were certain opt-out clauses within the 1998 Act, for example, 50/50 police recruiting. When we move on 12 years or more, the Military Covenant principles are arrived at. Does that mean that all laws then have to reflect the Military Covenant? Does it mean that the 1998 Act has to be amended to give preferential treatment to

116 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 64 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 15 May 2013 Major Alan McDade, Lt Col (Retd) Howard Brooker and Capt (Retd) Raymond Corbett ex-servicemen and women? That is a question for politicians. Equally, our view my view would be that the Act does need to be reviewed, with a view to the fact that a serviceman, when he signs up, signs an unwritten cheque. He hopes that the cheque is not cashed, but that cheque says that it is his life. When he serves in the armed forces he comes back and is assimilated back into the community. The cheque has not been cashed, luckily for him, but unfortunately for quite a few others. That in itself means that in Northern Ireland as one part of the United Kingdom, the serviceman settling in Northern Ireland is being disadvantaged. That is the concern we have. Whether or not it is debated, politicised or not, I do not know. It does need to be reviewed such that the serviceman and the veteran settling in Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged compared with England, Scotland and Wales. Q339 Lady Hermon: I do not want to put words into your mouth but if I understood you correctly, you would like to see Section 75 amended to give much greater priority to the care of ex-service personnel. Alan McDade: I think we would like to see Section 75 amended to give equality to a veteran who settles in Scotland, England or Wales and to one who settles in Northern Ireland. Q340 Lady Hermon: Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act does not apply to Scotland, England and Wales; it only applies in Northern Ireland, just to make that point. But you would want to see it amended. Could I come back to Naomi Long s point: do you not feel, given the reality of politics in Northern Ireland, that it might be exceedingly difficult to get agreement on the amendment of Section 75 to give priority to ex-service personnel? Howard Brooker: Of that there is no doubt. Alan McDade: There is no doubt about that. Howard Brooker: As I have said several times this afternoon, we are not here to drive a mechanism. We are here to achieve an end. To pick up on your last point, in my opening remarks I said, By definition I am different, therefore the treatment of me as an ex-serviceman has to be different. For somebody to come along, complain and say I am being treated differently is simply a fact of life. I am different, therefore I need different treatment. That cannot be avoided. Alan McDade: There is nothing stopping the other person who is complaining from signing that cheque of his life as well. He chose not to do it, but as servicemen and women we chose to do it. Lady Hermon: You might find that some may say they served in a completely different type of army and that would get us into a very contentious situation. Q341 Chair: We are out of time but thank you very much. It has been a very interesting session and has been very helpful to us. Thank you for coming. Alan McDade: Thank you Mr Chairman and Members for having us this afternoon. Chair: It was a pleasure, thank you. Lady Hermon: It is very good of you to come, and very much appreciated. Examination of Witness Witness: Brigadier Rob Thomson, Commander, 38 (Irish) Brigade, gave evidence. Q342 Chair: Brigadier, you are very welcome. There is no need for me to go through the introduction again; I think you were here for all of the last session. Thank you very much for joining us. Would you like to make a brief opening comment? Brigadier Thomson: Mr Chairman, thank you very much indeed for your welcome and thank you for the opportunity to come and talk to your Committee. I am Commander of the 38 Brigade and I thought if I set out at the beginning what I am responsible for, it might help the Members. I am responsible for providing largely discreet support to the civil powers. That includes bomb disposal experts and engineers who do an advanced search as we deal with instances of IEDs etc. I am responsible for delivering firm base, which is a phrase we use in the military to talk about support to families of soldiers and support to service personnel. I am responsible for the security of all the garrison: the serving, regular and reserve within Northern Ireland. I include civil servants within my responsibility, who are currently serving our Department. Finally, my job is to represent the Army in Northern Ireland as a region of the United Kingdom. In some senses, that is broken down into two jobs. One is about connecting with Government at the local and regional level district councils, Lisburn but also to a degree at the Northern Ireland Executive, although that is measured and moderated carefully for me by the Northern Ireland Office. On a broader scale, it is to have the right community engagement approach across Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland, as we have contacts down in the south. The second point is that I have served in Northern Ireland a number of times. I first served in 1991 and 1992, I returned in 1995 and have served in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and I have lived in Northern Ireland for eight years. I have seen it in its darker days and I have seen it in areas of absolutely substantial progress today. I have specific responsibilities for the Royal Irish Aftercare Service, who report to me, and I then report through the chain of command up to the Ministry of Defence. I am responsible for the personnel recovery unit, which helps look after the wounded, injured and sick soldiers as they are being dealt with in their medical crisis and as they transition out into the world. Finally, I am responsible for what we call transition. That is a phrase we have established over the last 12 months and is about how we enable soldiers to leave the Army and find their feet in a proper way. Those are the three absolutely specific areas of responsibility that I have.

117 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Brigadier Rob Thomson Chair: That was very useful, thank you very much. Q343 Naomi Long: You are very welcome. I want to share with you some of what other people have said in the evidence we have taken. Effectively this could be summarised to say that people have said that the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland is being implemented in practice, although obviously it is being implemented differently than would be the case in GB. What are your views of that assessment? Brigadier Thomson: The first thing to say, before I make any judgment, is that the veterans in Northern Ireland make a real contribution to society in Northern Ireland through their contribution to the workplace, their contribution to the community more widely, some of them through government, and also through charities, through sport etc. We are very proud of what the veterans in Northern Ireland do for the community. I will make three points and then finish with another one. The ends matter more to me than the ways and the means. To me it is all about making sure that we deliver the outputs required by serving soldiers, their dependants and by the veterans community. We have to recognise that the environment in Northern Ireland is different and that means we need to have a regional solution that might be described as bespoke to Northern Ireland to make sure we deliver the ends. It is all about making sure that the ends are delivered correctly for our people. That leads us to a pragmatic, rather more low-key approach to deliver the right sort of things for our people. The second point is that I have a genuinely strong sense that the outputs and the ends of the Covenant are being delivered, largely. We are not complacent and I absolutely know that there are still areas in policy that we want to fix. As we heard this afternoon, there are individual cases where we need to pick up a lad, a lass or a family and deal with their particular medley of needs. When you look at things like the Service Pupil Premium, that is really good. It is better in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We know that when we go through to the Ministry of Defence and make a pitch for funding delivered to schools in the whole of the UK, we won 15% of the funding. That, set against 3% of the population, is a significant achievement. Quite a few headmasters and headmistresses are really grateful for the way that that has been done. There are some monetary things that matter and have been successful. We also have some resources that recognise the difference about Northern Ireland. We have a Families Employment Advisory Team, which provides advice to spouses of serving personnel and helps them find jobs in Northern Ireland. We have a Children Education Support Officer. She is absolutely brilliant. She is connected with almost all the schools with which we need to be connected. She is able to ensure that we deal with policy issues but also, if there is a crisis for a soldier moving into Northern Ireland, she can pick up that crisis and then work it through with a particular headmaster. We have done some things with the charities. This was a mad idea, but 36 of the wives in Ballykinler, which is quite isolated, when we got there in 2007, did not drive. We came up with an idea with SSAFA, where SSAFA paid for half of the driving lessons for those wives. We saw a turnaround and gave people the ability to get out and about. That is for the serving community, but the Covenant is also about the serving community. It is not just about veterans, so that is really important. There are problems. There are still frictions in policy terms; we have not cracked A-levels or first time tertiary degrees for service leavers and we have some work to do on that. We would say, overall, that we have a strong sense that people are having their needs met. The third thing is that we have a really strong team. People have described Northern Ireland to me as either a village or a valley. I am not clever enough at geography to work out which it is but the connections within Northern Ireland are really quite incredible. Everybody knows somebody else. We have tried to take the same approach to delivering our support to the veterans. It is not perfect; I found out this afternoon that the Royal Irish Regiment is not aware of the veterans forum, although we have absolutely had Royal Irish officers on that forum. We try to do this together: it is high level Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office as a broker into the Northern Ireland Executive, it is a bit about 38 Brigade, it is about the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, it is about our charities, it is about the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency. The important thing is to have a network that underpins the delivery of the outputs. That, I think, is where we want to try and get to, so that what we do is deliver the ends and outputs for serving soldiers, for their families and for the veterans. Naomi Long: You briefly mentioned issues around education, particularly the tertiary degrees. I know that the Minister is in discussion with the MOD around trying to resolve some of those issues. There certainly seems to be goodwill in at least parts of the Executive to try to take this forward, but that is very helpful, thank you. Q344 David Simpson: You are very welcome, Brigadier. We were told by the Ministry of Defence that the 38 Brigade was the firm base, linking to all parts of Government in Northern Ireland. There is a smile when I say that. Can you tell us how it works in practice and what is the reality of the relationship with the Executive? Brigadier Thomson: It is not just about 38 Brigade; that is the first point. There is a network of people who have connections with veterans issues and serving soldiers. The Reserve Forces and Cadets Association are really important. I would describe them as our partner, in many ways, as we tackle these things. We tend to have a bottom-up, discreet conversation approach, rather than a top-down demand approach. Marching up the hill of Stormont dressed as I am would be utterly counterproductive. David Simpson: I would not have a difficulty with it. Brigadier Thomson: I recognise that gentle conversations work, either with a particular Executive Department, such as Health, where we have set up the Armed Forces Health Liaison Forum, or we might find

118 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 66 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 15 May 2013 Brigadier Rob Thomson it better to talk to an Education and Library Board. Actually we tend to be mostly in the South Eastern Education and Library Board area of responsibility, because that is where the regular garrison lives. It is a layered approach. Thirdly, we use the Northern Ireland Office as brokers because they have a much greater sense of and feel for politics in Northern Ireland and what the art of the possible is. Q345 David Simpson: The term discreetly, and all the rest of it, has been used quite a bit by the witnesses that we have had. In practice, doing your job, do you miss a central point of contact within the Northern Ireland Executive? That is someone who can be an advocate or a champion the same way they have been in Scotland or Wales; someone that you can go to and start talking about the issues to do with the Covenant or the welfare of veterans. Brigadier Thomson: I do not miss that because the approach that we have at the moment is a broad sweep of contacts within Departments and some agencies, such as the Housing Executive. Because that is layered from strategic down through to tactical, from an Executive Department at the highest level, a Permanent Secretary potentially, all the way down to an Education and Library Board representative, we can, in a sense, go in the right place at the right time to achieve the right effect. If you did create I must choose my words carefully a magnate who would be somebody I could go to all the time, he would then have to take a top-down approach. That might put at risk some of the achievements that we might have. Q346 David Simpson: What is your view on the evidence that we heard earlier about a victims commissioner. Lady Hermon: Veterans commissioner. David Simpson: A veterans commissioner, sorry. Brigadier Thomson: That has to be judged by what terms of reference you give him and what powers you give him. It is too easy to say that we should have a veterans commissioner. It would all depend on what powers you tell him to fulfil and what authorities you give him to execute those responsibilities. On a spectrum, if he was just going to be a good friend who would socialise, get around and work through private conversations, that might be easily doable now. If, however, you gave him a set of responsibilities and a set of authorities that required pan-northern Ireland Executive support, firstly, you would not achieve it because the voting system would make it incredibly difficult and, secondly, you could politicise my position as the military. We are making gentle, steady progress in all sorts of ways, both as a regular garrison but also, importantly, as a reserve garrison. I think we are moving in the right direction. As I look back at Northern Ireland, I am absolutely clear about how far we have come in Northern Ireland. That is really good. It is not a crashing bow wave of progress but we are gently moving forward. There is a danger that we could end up politicising that is too simple a word, but I think you all know what I mean with potentially adverse effects because there might be reactions that we would not necessarily want to see. Q347 Mr Hepburn: What are the problems in accessing social housing in Northern Ireland for ex-servicemen? Brigadier Thomson: The first problem is capacity because there is less social housing available. It is just a simple matter of volume; there is less social housing available. We have connections within the Housing Executive architecture that allow us to take particular issues about particular people in and then be signposted to the right part within the Housing Executive. I know that my Major, who helps run transition for soldiers, has dealt with four soldiers, who are leaving the Army, since November We are working with those. Three of them have been placed through the Housing Executive: one in a house and two in a hostel. The hostel is not perfect but that is what has been delivered. One lad is, at the moment, in the process of being placed and we have not quite got there, so there are three green and one amber. We think we have the right connections. I absolutely recognise that they are probably more personal than institutional and that is something that we are going to continue to work at, to go from a personal good bloke relationship, which is sound in one sense, but does not give you any guarantee. There is a bit more work for us to do in that space. Q348 Mr Hepburn: It all seems as though it is personal contact, persuasion and talking to people, rather than anything in black and white or in rules and regulations. Do you think it would be better if there were rules and regulations giving servicemen the same as servicemen have in the rest of the UK? Brigadier Thomson: You make a very sensible point and that is where we want to get to. Interestingly, under the Armed Forces Liaison Health Forum there is a set of terms of reference that has been signed up to and agreed, which tells people what they are trying to achieve. That is a model that we would want to try to get to on the housing front. We have not got this absolutely perfect. We will operate with humility but also, hopefully, with energy to tackle the holes that we see in order to go from informal arrangements to formal arrangements. Sometimes formal arrangements can be discreet. They do not necessarily need to be shouted about from the rooftops but that is what we would try and do in the housing space. Q349 Nigel Mills: Brigadier, you just mentioned the forum with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is a catchy title, isn t it? Can you just tell us a little bit more about how that forum works and what benefits you think that forum has actually brought? Brigadier Thomson: It is a forum, like any other forum, which brings together the stakeholders who have an interest. I suppose we are the customer in one sense, but we also have the Royal Irish Aftercare Service in that forum. There are a range of customers who meet with the deliverers the Department of Health. They have a set of terms of reference, which look at areas of action in order to make sure that there is no disadvantage afforded to service personnel and veterans as a result of their military service. They take a range of issues that they will try and deal with. One

119 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Brigadier Rob Thomson of the current issues is genome technology, where it has just been agreed that the Northern Ireland health service will deliver support to genome technology, which is what you would get if you lost a leg or a limb in Afghanistan. Although that is going to be funded by NACMO, it is an example of good news among that forum. It very much focuses on trying to deliver outputs. Q350 Nigel Mills: In Northern Ireland, there are still a couple of areas of healthcare where residents are behind the rest of the UK. IVF treatment is the one that is usually cited. Do you think progress is being made in equalising those issues as well or is that a step too far? Brigadier Thomson: The important thing in the IVF example is that the solider is not disadvantaged set against his fellows in Northern Ireland. That is the most important thing. In Northern Ireland you are entitled to one set of treatment for your IVF treatment. You do get more elsewhere. Now, no serviceman has come to me asking for IVF treatment in the time that I have been Commander. Having asked the question, we have no records of anybody wanting it. If a serviceman who had been injured in service through a dreadful IED required IVF treatment, I am pretty certain that we would take that case and provide a bespoke solution, probably pulling in the service charities, because that would probably be an appropriate use of them. The important point is that the lad in uniform is not disadvantaged set against his peer in Northern Ireland. That becomes a perception. In England he might get three or in Scotland he might get two; I cannot remember the figures exactly. What we try to do is make sure that there is no disadvantage to servicemen within the context of Northern Ireland. Q351 Nigel Mills: Taking you back to the forum, do you think it would be helpful if any other Departments of the Executive had a similar forum? I do not know if that has been tried in any other Departments. Brigadier Thomson: It is a model that works and has merit for us to examine and apply to other Departments, noting that sometimes, for example, on education because the regular Army is based in the south-east corner of Northern Ireland we might want to have a forum not with the Minister for Education but with the South Eastern Education and Library Board. They will understand our equities much better. Why go one level up when you do not need to? That model is a very good model. Taking things away from the personal and informal to something more formal will be something that we can explore gently, over time and steadily, and build on success. In some senses, success in one Department will inspire another Department to help us in that respect. Q352 Chair: Can I just come in on the health issue? Throughout England, regardless of what any Government says, there is a postcode lottery for health services. IVF is probably the best example. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommend three free cycles, whereas that is not delivered across England at all, so there are differences anyway for non-service personnel. How do you make sure that service personnel do not lose out? Are you comparing it with what is available in Northern Ireland or extrapolating across and looking at what is available in England? It is a difficult one because there is a postcode lottery even throughout England. Do you understand what I mean? Brigadier Thomson: Absolutely. There are two comparators. In the first instance, we are comparing people within the context of Northern Ireland. That is where we want to make sure there is no disadvantage. I absolutely understand that there has been some affirmative action by different parts of Government in England, mostly at the local level, which will make it look as though a serviceman gets advantage there when set against Northern Ireland. It is difficult, sometimes, to compare that. Often these get portrayed in micro-senses, and we should try and broaden the picture. There are some things that work really well for servicemen in Northern Ireland that do not work as well for people on the mainland. We need to see the broader picture rather than just concentrate on the micro one. We will hunt out ruthlessly any disadvantage that we find and apply the right levers to meet the ends that are appropriate. That is what we will always try to do. Q353 Lady Hermon: Brigadier Thomson, I have one little point of clarification. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland actually believe that we live on the mainland and the rest of us is connected to the United Kingdom. Brigadier Thomson: I am sorry. Lady Hermon: Moving on swiftly. It is okay, we forgive you. David Simpson: People do make that mistake. Brigadier Thomson: I am very clear that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, it is just a different part of the United Kingdom. Lady Hermon: No, it is just that we are the main part. I was just teasing you, slightly. I actually mean it of course. In the evidence we had in the previous session, we dedicated quite a bit of our time to the aftercare service for the RIR Home Battalion. I do not suppose, off the top of your head, that you would know the cost. Brigadier Thomson: Yes. The first year of operating was 2.2 million. In the last financial year the costs had fallen to 900,000. Lady Hermon: Fallen to 900,000? Brigadier Thomson: Yes, because demand had gone down to a large degree. Q354 Lady Hermon: That being the case, could we have it extended? We have taken a lot of evidence about extension, and the cost has gone down dramatically. I am astonished, because I had actually guessed 5 million and thought that was a bit moderate. Now that it is well under 1 million, you could not possibly gainsay extending that to others. Brigadier Thomson: I believe that the Royal Irish Aftercare Service is a bespoke solution to meet a bespoke set of needs for those incredibly gallant people who fought with distinction and now live in the country in which they operated. That is the watershed for me. That is why the Royal Irish

120 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 68 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 15 May 2013 Brigadier Rob Thomson Aftercare Service is absolutely crucial for those people. There are issues of trust and confidence that will play out in the personal security space, which means that when we give them a welfare solution, a psychological solution or a physiotherapy solution, they need to know that when they are going into that space they are going there with complete confidence about their personal security. Interestingly, I think it is a testimony to the quality of the people who have served in the Royal Irish that demand has gone down. We have removed the employment capability that the aftercare service had. I do not have that in the figures but when it was set up, it was about enabling people to move from the military service into other jobs. They had quite a bit of work to do in the early days, giving people advice about jobs. Six years on, most people are now employed. There are other ways we can deliver support to people who might need employment advice now, so that chunk of the capability has been taken out. We do not end up with a package of money and then decide to spend it on broader things. We end up with a requirement, which is costed across Government. Then, if those costs fall, that is an advantage, I expect, to the Department of State. We will keep under review the Royal Irish Aftercare Service. We have just started a pilot where wounded, injured and sick soldiers, who I would judge to be the people most at risk as they transition out of military service, are being looked after by the Royal Irish Aftercare Service. In many ways, the Royal Irish Aftercare Service are a signposting organisation who are a very important part of our network as we look after wider veterans. I am not convinced by the argument to make it an aftercare service for everybody. This might be a bit simplistic but you could see the Northern Ireland Executive say, Okay, the aftercare service will deal with all veterans issues and we do not have anything to do. I do not think that is right. I want, over time, the position of veterans in Northern Ireland to change. I think it will be more difficult for a soldier in the Royal Irish Home Service and UDR for his position in society to change over time than it will be for an Irish Guardsman who has only served in Afghanistan. I think that in Northern Ireland people will make those sorts of distinctions. We would want the Northern Ireland Executive to pick up its responsibilities to the veterans over time. Q355 Lady Hermon: With the greatest respect, I have to say that I hold in the highest esteem any person who goes off to serve in Afghanistan. It is not just that they have only served in Afghanistan. I understand what has been presented as a very coherent argument but you must also be sympathetic to those who are coming back from what I would describe as hell on earth Afghanistan it is called to Northern Ireland. Does the aftercare service package extend to those people or not? Brigadier Thomson: I have served in Afghanistan with my boys, and if the needs of those heroes who are coming back from Afghanistan are not being met in Northern Ireland then we should think about extending the Royal Irish Aftercare Service. I would claim that, as I said at the beginning, broadly the needs of veterans are being met in Northern Ireland and it matters not whether you are an Irish Guardsman who has come back from Afghanistan or a Royal Signaller who grew up in a different part of Northern Ireland, because those are being met by extant arrangements. One of the most important things that we have set up is transition. Transition is a system that is a virtual network, but I have a Major in my headquarters who runs transition. To soldiers who are leaving the Army, anywhere, we are saying, Come to Northern Ireland and do the career transition partnership programme in Northern Ireland. Do not go and find out about employment in your local education centre or local CTP organisation, because they will not understand the nuances of Northern Ireland. You need to come to our excellent team in Aldergrove and they will help you. We run transition fairs twice a year. The Housing Executive are at our transition fairs. We have education people at our transition fairs. A lad who is leaving the Army can bring his wife. All of the service charities are there. We even have the TA there, to persuade him to join the TA after he leaves the regular Army because we are trying to build the Territorial Army, and Northern Ireland has huge success in that space. We have the educators there and we have employment advice. That is the system we have set up. It is quite new and has only been in place for about a year. That, I think, will allow people coming back into Northern Ireland out of regular service to find their feet in a really sensible and wise way. Actually, many people coming back to Northern Ireland are coming back to communities that they know really well. Most soldiers who settle in Northern Ireland are coming back to communities that could not be more supportive. If you settle in Lisburn, it is red carpet treatment when you arrive back. Q356 Lady Hermon: It is the same in North Down, I have to say. Brigadier Thomson: North Down was second on my list. Lady Hermon: That is really informative. We had not received evidence about that wider service. That is really helpful. Brigadier Thomson: We would be delighted to explain formally about transition. If it would help the Committee I can write a two page note to explain the left and right of arc using, I apologise, careless military language. Lady Hermon: That would be exceedingly helpful indeed. You are going to have to please forgive me. I have another commitment at four o clock. I am not leaving in a huff because of the reply, quite the opposite. I am really impressed by the evidence you have given. Thank you so much. So much of it was new to us. Q357 Naomi Long: In terms of the engagement of the UK Government through the MOD and the Northern Ireland Office, do you believe that they are taking an active enough role in implementing the

121 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Brigadier Rob Thomson Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland and delivering on their responsibilities in that regard? Brigadier Thomson: I think it is not just about the MOD and the Northern Ireland Office. You will be bored of my phrase about partnership, but this is a partnership that we deal with. The MOD are very seized of it. The Minister of State for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans was out in Northern Ireland just before the snow; we just got him to Aldergrove airport. The Minister of State for Northern Ireland has been very active, very energetic and very supportive. He brings real empathy to the serviceman s predicament because he has served in the military. It is not just about the MOD and the Northern Ireland Office. I like to think that we are tackling the issues with energy and that we have ideas such as transition, and pilots with the wounded, injured and sick soldiers in the Royal Irish Aftercare Service, to show that we are absolutely on the front foot. One of the other ideas that we put together, as a result of Mr Penning s veterans forum, which built on some existing arrangements, is that we will go back to him in June with a pamphlet. 1 That pamphlet will have the responsibilities of every charitable organisation and every Government agency, the Housing Executive and places like that on a page. That will tell you what their responsibilities are, what they do and what they do not do. It will give you the website and the contact number. Our desire is to get that in every doctor s surgery, every pharmacy output and every lawyer s office. My worry is not that the system is not there; it is about connecting the man or lady who needs it with that system. You have a fundamental problem with soldiers, it does not matter whether they are male or female, in that we are proud people. We do not call early for help because it is not in our DNA to do it. What we have to do is get out there a system that is soaked in the environment in Northern Ireland and is active enough to be able to send people to us. We want every MLA s constituency office to have this pamphlet so that when somebody comes in, even if they will not declare to somebody that they happen to be a veteran, they will pick it up and see, That is my crisis and that is where I go to. It is about passage of information, to a degree. We have more work to do there; I can see that very starkly this afternoon, having heard the evidence of the Royal Irish Association. Naomi Long: That would be hugely helpful. I think that David would probably agree about some kind of pamphlet, even for constituency offices. There are ex-service personnel who come to us regularly with a whole host of issues, not always related to being ex-service personnel. Some of them will be standard problems that they have but that are often complicated by that. For example, if they have particular reasons why they cannot live in a particular neighbourhood they are often reluctant to disclose that to some of the statutory organisations because of fears for their security and so on. It can complicate the issue of how you actually resolve their problem. Having some kind of pamphlet there for them to pick up, to give them 1 Note from witness: The date is yet to be fixed, will be in the summer. reassurance that you are supportive of armed service personnel who are coming in and seeking that guidance, they may feel more able to be open and free with you about it. Also, to give them that bit of extra information, so that they can then judge what to share or not share with different parts of the system, would be really helpful. Q358 David Simpson: I know you have many roles but do you act as a central point through which Army charities can come to you, raise the issues and concerns that they have, and then that is fed back to the MOD? Brigadier Thomson: I can absolutely act as a filter. They can bring an issue to me or they can go direct to the MOD. SSAFA or the Army Families Federation have their own hierarchies. My regional co-ordinator for the AFF will go through her Army Families Federation headquarters all the way up to the Chief Executive, who will probably talk to the Adjutant General or will go and buttonhole the Minister of State for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans. So they have two avenues. We have set up the veterans forum with the Minister. It met in January. There was a second meeting after that. We are now meeting again in June at working level, to bring a draft of this pamphlet together, so that is our principal output. At that meeting, these people can bring issues to us. We engage with them all the time. I sit on quite a few of their boards. ABF will ask me into their regional meetings quite willingly, so we have a pretty good purview on what I would call the operating picture of charities in Northern Ireland. Q359 David Simpson: I take it then that you sit on the forum. Brigadier Thomson: Yes. The Minister for Northern Ireland will quite quickly point at me. Q360 David Simpson: I take it then that you will take it on board that the Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment was not invited to the forum and you will see to it personally that they will Brigadier Thomson: We will have to have a debate about whether we want regimental associations on the forum, because the Royal Irish Aftercare Service, which is about delivering David Simpson: That is not the answer I am looking for. Brigadier Thomson: I have already said to Andrew Percy: You should have a meeting at the very least. Brigadier Thomson: Actually I bumped into them on the way in and I said to the Chairman of the Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment to please come to my headquarters. David Simpson: I will say that they are behind you. Brigadier Thomson: We will keep under review the membership of that forum. We are delighted to expand our relationships out to the regimental associations. There are many more regimental associations than just the Royal Irish, but they do have the largest equity in Northern Ireland.

122 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Ev 70 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 15 May 2013 Brigadier Rob Thomson Q361 David Simpson: You will at least start by meeting them. Brigadier Thomson: Yes, we already exchanged cards on the way in, and my deputy is a Royal Irish officer. Q362 Andrew Percy: I am sorry for being late. On the pamphlet idea, I think Nigel will confirm that for those of us who are MPs on the other mainland Brigadier Thomson: If you could not remind me of my sins I would be very grateful. Andrew Percy: I have to say that, as a Yorkshire MP we would rather not be part of the mainland because then we would not have to share a border with that place they call Lancashire. Chair: I am a Lancastrian, but please carry on Andrew. Andrew Percy: So it does exist then? I have obviously never visited myself. I think the pamphlet idea would be useful for MPs across the whole country actually, because it is a big issue for all of us when we have ex-forces personnel. Brigadier Thomson: Those pamphlets are in place in some parts of the UK. Q363 Andrew Percy: On the veterans forum, I agree with David s point: I hope there would be that meeting with the regimental association. There has been one meeting of the forum up until now, has there? The first one was 5 February; how many times has it met since then? Brigadier Thomson: It met with the Minister of State once and it will meet with him again at the six month point, which will be once we have got through the G8, so probably at the back end of June/early July. The date is not absolutely fixed yet, but we are all meeting on 12 June at working group level. 2 My principle is that we get direction from the high level, we then take it away, work out what we are going to do about it, bring some work back, sort it out at our level, and then present it. Q364 Andrew Percy: We now know that you will have met with the regimental association before 12 June, which is excellent news. Brigadier Thomson: Yes. Andrew Percy: What is the time frame on the actual reporting back of the forum in terms of gaps in provision? How long is this process expected to take? Brigadier Thomson: We have not set up a very complicated reporting process, so we will take issues as they appear. We are not delaying issues to a sixmonthly cycle. If there is something that comes up we will absolutely put that back to the Ministry of Defence so that they understand what we are doing. In fact, the Ministry of Defence Covenant team will be on that veterans forum. London is going forward into the very front trenches, as it were, to understand what is going on in Northern Ireland, because of those nuances and the need to make sure this is done properly. They will always be at that veterans forum. Q365 Andrew Percy: So the process is that the forum meets, gaps or issues are highlighted along the way, they are then actioned and there is not going to 2 Note from witness: This has now been changed to 20 June. be a big report at the end of this process saying, Here are the following gaps. On that basis, who takes ownership, once a gap has been identified, for filling the gap and driving it forward? Who is then the lead on that? Given what you said earlier about a bottom-up approach, and what you have just said now about it going back to the MOD to drive it which would seem to be a bit of a top-down approach I am just wondering who actually takes ownership and who monitors how that gap is filled? Brigadier Thomson: I suppose it depends on what the issue is. I know what my responsibilities are. If it is about a Royal Irish Aftercare Service issue, I am responsible and I will solve that issue. If it is about transition, I will solve that issue because I am responsible for it. There will be other people who will be responsible, such as the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, who sit on that forum, and they will take away issues that they are responsible for. What we are trying to do is create a partnership approach. We can enable some things for SPVA simply through our contacts and our ability to get a network in place. Each organisation has quite clear responsibilities. They would take actions away from that forum to implement them and put them in place. Q366 Andrew Percy: It is difficult to say, but the risk with any forum is that it then becomes a talking shop. Brigadier Thomson: There will be actions and there will be records of decisions. We decided last time to produce this pamphlet. That is an output that was agreed with the Minister of State last time around. We will deliver that back to him and then it will get published. People s feet will be held to the fire. We like staff actions, we like records of decisions and we will, as a first agenda item, go to the records of decisions from the previous meeting to make sure that they have been tackled. Q367 Naomi Long: This is the final question. It relates to an ongoing debate throughout the inquiry around what the barriers are to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in a meaningful way in the Northern Ireland context. One of the barriers that has been suggested is the equality legislation, and specifically Section 75, the argument being that to give people priority treatment on the basis that they have been a member of the armed services would be a breach of the equality regulations. Obviously, that is one interpretation. Others have given evidence that they do not believe that that is the case and it is in some way a red herring or a smokescreen, on the issue that in fact the Armed Forces Covenant only requires people to have their situation made equal with what it would have been had they not been members of the armed forces, so to suffer no disadvantage, the action that would be taken within Departments would be legal in Northern Ireland. Have you had any experience dealing with that specific issue around equality duties and the equality law? Have you any experience of where that has been an impediment. Do you have any view as to whether that is an impediment to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland more fully? Do

123 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o005_Mark_Transcript 5 - NIC Corrected (Draft).doc.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev May 2013 Brigadier Rob Thomson you not believe that it is and it can be effectively worked around? Brigadier Thomson: I am not a legal expert. I am a soldier, not a politician, but I have a view about the political context because it is my job to understand the environment in which I operate. I think, in some senses, these two bits of legislation can be complementary. The Armed Forces Covenant is about ensuring that there is no disadvantage to service personnel. The second principle is about where there is particular need to take care of them in a better way. 3 Section 75 is, as I understand it, a fundamental part of the Belfast Peace Agreements from 1998 onwards. I absolutely recognise how far we have come and we need to preserve that progress; that is my slightly intrepid comment as a soldier, looking at the politics from below. That is about promoting equality of opportunity. I think we can reconcile those two things when we focus on the ends. There are some things where, if you were to be a real legal theorist, you could say that the Service Pupil Premium in Northern Ireland is almost intolerable in law because actually it provides 3 Note from witness: This principle relates to wounded servicemen. some advantage to service personnel, but we have a broad enough approach to be able to allow us to prosecute in that particular way. 4 It is about the ends and not about the ways and means. I am going to continue, as a man responsible for outputs, to focus on my outputs. If the ways and means about delivering those outputs became such a hurdle that they were working to the disadvantage of service personnel, we would make noise about it. At the moment, I do not see it as something that I cannot get over; I can generally work my way around it. Q368 Chair: It has been extremely useful and very interesting. Thank you very much for joining us. Brigadier Thomson: I apologise for my mainland comment. 4 The Service Personnel Pupil Premium (paid by Dept of Education through the Common Funding Formula), is paid directly to schools to assist with the rebalancing of educational needs as a consequence of parental postings, allows for educational provision to be maintained within the classroom without disruption to the development of the remaining children bringing the service children educational standard to a comparable level to that of their NI peers. A pupil premium is awarded to a number of groups who require additional educational support such as, Newcomer children, Roma children and Irish Traveller children.

124 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Ev 72 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Wednesday 5 June 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr David Anderson Mr Joe Benton Oliver Colvile Mr Stephen Hepburn Lady Hermon Kate Hoey Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills Andrew Percy David Simpson Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Brian Gormally, Director, and Daniel Holder, Deputy Director, Committee on the Administration of Justice, gave evidence. Q369 Chair: You are very welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for joining us. As you know, we are looking at the application of the Armed Forces Covenant, with particular reference to Northern Ireland. We are well on with our inquiry. We are very grateful to you for joining us. Would you like to make a very brief opening statement and perhaps introduce yourselves as well? Brian Gormally: Yes, I have just a couple of words, Chairman. First of all, thanks very much for the invitation. It is a privilege to give oral evidence to the Committee. We have made a written submission, as you know, so I will not repeat that now. Let me just say a couple of things about the nature of our organisation. We are a human rights NGO and we are therefore interested in protecting the rights of all individual human beings, including members of the Armed Forces. The stance of a human rights organisation in Northern Ireland means that we are very committed to the human rights and equality framework, which underpins the whole peace process and was a fundamental part of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. We, like the House of Lords, have said that the Northern Ireland Act is, in many ways, a constitutional document as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and that includes Section 75. As an organisation, we would be very concerned to protect the framework of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, and we really believe that we should not interfere with that framework without extremely good reason. That is the direction we are coming from in this matter. Daniel Holder: I am Daniel Holder. I am also from CAJ and am Brian s deputy. As Brian said, our starting point is the international human rights framework, including the rights to health and housing, and taking reasonable steps to address needs there. In essence, in terms of the issue around the legal framework and equalities issues, we do not think there is any real major conflict between dealing appropriately with the welfare, housing and health needs of service personnel with the current equalities framework, including most of the types of measures that would be envisaged under applying this particular Covenant. What would concern us, in relation to NHS waiting lists or social housing lists, is any move away from the concept of making decisions on the basis of objective need. I certainly would not want to see a shift towards placing a value judgement on the role of the forces, or service to the state being part of a criterion for those sorts of things. We would see as problematic any move away from objective social need, but the concept of objective social need itself is a way of ensuring that some of the health and housing issues of service personnel are dealt with and most of the measures of the Covenant do not appear to conflict with that. Q370 Oliver Colvile: Section 75 creates a statutory duty for public authorities in Northern Ireland to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between certain groups. Does giving due regard to promoting equality thereby actually prevent a public authority from introducing a policy that gives special consideration to a particular group, such as the Armed Forces community? Daniel Holder: In terms of dealing with this directly, it depends what you mean by special consideration. Certainly, the framework of the Covenant and the step of dealing with disadvantage faced would not conflict; in fact, there would be positive duties to deal with elements of disadvantage faced by service personnel and others in relation to that. In relation to special consideration, you can divide that into two things. One thing would essentially be where you are looking at the particular needs of service personnel that are not actually shared by other groups in society. Equality of opportunity and equality of treatment are not about treating everyone the same when there are clear differences in their actual needs. There have been many measures brought in that are tailored to the specific needs of groups, which certainly would not conflict with either the human rights framework or the section 75 framework. I know that section 75 has been singled out quite a lot in this debate, but in reality any problems would be with the broader framework of equalities and other legislation. The only area where there would be potential problems would be if special measures afforded more favourable treatment to a particular group on a basis other than objective need and if members of that group, say members of the forces, were predominantly from one or other of the equality categories such as gender or religion and a result of that more favourable treatment was then less favourable treatment to other groups within those categories. That is when you start to enter into the realm of potential indirect discrimination, and you

125 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 73 5 June 2013 Brian Gormally and Daniel Holder could be vulnerable to challenges in relation to the policy. Clearly, the make-up of the Armed Forces within some of our equality legislation is different in Northern Ireland from Great Britain, but if the Armed Forces were predominantly male, equally those types of challenges could be brought in Great Britain under sex discrimination legislation. Q371 Oliver Colvile: Have you any specific examples of where this might have happened? Daniel Holder: In terms of challenges being brought? Oliver Colvile: No, in terms of consideration of specialist groups. Daniel Holder: To be honest with you, I could list section 75 examples and equality impact assessments where there have been. There are quite a lot of them, but they generally tend to be dependent on whether there is objective need. You could look at all sorts of policies, such as the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development s anti-poverty strategy, where you are not targeting the whole population, but are targeting rural populations. Now, while that may impact on some section 75 groups more than others, that is because they are in greater need and there is certainly no conflict with the duties there. We were examining, of late, some of the Department for Education s policies. Some of their school admissions policies, a number of years ago, were up for debate, and there was talk of using free school meals as a criterion so that you would target less-well-off children as a category. Certainly, there should not be any conflict with section 75 in doing that. To give you an example of where the duties have been misconstrued, I do remember quite a lot of debate, initially, when the duties came out, in the name of section 75. For example, now that there is an equality of opportunity duty, should health trusts and others cease to fund women s groups when they do not fund men s groups? The answer to that, of course, is no, because there is an easily identified objective need and different needs within those groups. Therefore, it is perfectly consistent with the section 75 framework that you continue to provide particular and specialist support to those types of groups. Q372 Mr Benton: The main thrust of this Committee s inquiry is looking at the disparity in terms of the way the Covenant is applied to the ex-armed Services in Northern Ireland, as opposed to what goes on elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is the main thrust of the inquiry here. If I understood the last contribution by Mr Holder correctly, there should not be any reason why members of the Armed Services in Northern Ireland should be treated any differently, despite section 75. Let me give you an example. I do not know how housing is allocated by social housing providers in Northern Ireland. However, in England, Scotland and Wales there is a points system. The simple point I am trying to make is that, to be consistent with the challenge of the conflict between the two things, you could even interpret that as being in conflict: if you have a situation where you give priority to housing. Following on from your response, I was wondering what you see as the problems. What is the conflict in terms of human rights, as far as you are concerned? Brian Gormally: As Daniel said, there is no conflict, so long as any social benefit in that sense is contributed on the basis of objective social need. If there is some advantage given to a particular group that has no connection with social need and is, in some sense, a value judgement on their profession or whatever, then that could be in conflict, in England as well as in Northern Ireland, with equality principles and legislation. In the example of housing allocation, yes, there is a points system in Northern Ireland, which is based on a whole raft of criteria in terms of objective social need. Looking at it, we cannot see any difficulty with answering the particular housing needs of ex-servicemen. Certainly, the necessity for a connection with Northern Ireland is answered by either service in or past residence in Northern Ireland. In terms of the allocation of points, for example, if somebody had to move out of service accommodation then they would be homeless and would get 50 or 70 points, which would see them fairly high up the housing waiting list, so there should not be any difficulty at all with meeting social needs. The other point to make is that you have heard evidence from the charities working with servicemen saying that they do not see any gaps in Northern Ireland provision compared to British provision. Q373 Nigel Mills: I may already have the answer, but, just to be clear, do you think that, when the Armed Forces Covenant says that there should be special consideration for the injured or the bereaved, not only does that conflict with section 75, it conflicts with basic equality rules across the UK, so there should not be any special consideration? Brian Gormally: Do you mean special consideration about the bereavement and injury, or about the fact that they are a member of the Armed Forces? Nigel Mills: I was quoting the phrase in the Armed Forces Covenant, which is, Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved. Daniel Holder: In terms of objective need, there already is specific consideration of people who have disabilities and injuries, and there should be specific consideration in general of those who are bereaved, even in issues such as welfare reforms. We are not advocating for the bedroom tax in general, but the impact of that might be an issue that would negatively impact on the bereaved. There is a big difference between an objective measure, such as someone who is injured or bereaved, and just the fact that they are a member of the Armed Services being taken into account as a criterion for social housing. That would be when we get into problems with the equalities framework. Q374 Nigel Mills: So you think that giving someone special consideration just because they were themselves, or are a relative of, a current or former member of the Armed Services would conflict with section 75?

126 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Ev 74 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 5 June 2013 Brian Gormally and Daniel Holder Brian Gormally: It depends in what context you mean. For example, if the Ministry of Defence wishes to give special services to servicemen or ex-servicemen, there is no problem about that at all. It is just like saying, We will increase the pensions of ex-service personnel. Nobody could have any problem with that on equality grounds. However, if you say that somebody who has an injury that has been sustained in action, because they were a member of the Armed Services, should be treated, vis-à-vis somebody with a similar injury, in a differential fashion on a basis other than clinical need, then I think you are conflicting with a whole lot of principles. Nigel Mills: That is what I was trying to clarify. Daniel Holder: It is where it would constitute less favourable treatment to someone else through the priority given to the individual. Q375 Nigel Mills: So there are two key parts to the Armed Forces Covenant. One is that they should face no disadvantage compared to others. Do you think that is utterly redundant, seeing as that is covered by the law anyway? Daniel Holder: I would say so. Q376 Nigel Mills: And the second half, which suggests special consideration, you think is wrong because Brian Gormally: It depends how you interpret it. If you wish to interpret it as taking a decision, for example, whereby you are going to disadvantage somebody else with an injury by putting a member of the Armed Forces higher up the waiting list for an operation on some basis other than clinical need, then I do think you have a problem. I am not sure that it was the intention of the Armed Forces Covenant to discriminate against injured people. Q377 David Simpson: I just really have a point of clarification. You will discover, gentlemen, that some of the questions may overlap. Forgive us for that, but section 75 is a major issue and has been raised a number of times. We have received conflicting evidence about the extent to which, if at all, section 75 is in conflict with the principles outlined in the Armed Forces Covenant. Can you give us a straight yes or no: is it in conflict? Daniel Holder: I would go back to my first answer: I am sorry, but it is more complicated than that. It depends how you interpret this question of special consideration. If you interpret it as meeting the specific needs of Armed Forces personnel that are not shared by others, or specific programmes from them, then no. There are a lot of ifs and stages to go through. If it was interpreted in a manner whereby, effectively, more favourable treatment was given to Armed Services personnel on a basis that was not on objective need, that that then resulted in less favourable treatment of other persons, then there would be a case to answer in terms of indirect discrimination. Q378 David Simpson: I am sorry for cutting across you. For a person coming home from Afghanistan or Iraq, who has lost two legs and an arm, are we saying to those people, You do not deserve special treatment? Daniel Holder: It is not a question of special treatment. Brian Gormally: The issue is what you say to the person who has lost their legs and arms in a car accident, if you say, You deserve less favourable treatment. That is what is against the law. If you are not saying that, if you are saying that the Ministry of Defence is going to give special hospital care, as I understand it does, to people who have lost limbs in Afghanistan, then there is no difficulty with that because nobody is put at a disadvantage. But if you require the National Health Service, in its ordinary operations, to give a premium to people who have served in the forces, and some kind of favourable treatment, then you are, by that act, disfavouring somebody else. That is as clear as can be. There is no difficulty if service people s employer or the Government, through the Ministry of Defence or whatever is relevant, wishes to give particular care and support to service people. The Aftercare Service in Northern Ireland for ex-members of the Royal Irish Rangers, for example, is a particularly funded aftercare service that other people do not have. There is no problem with that because you are not disadvantaging anybody by that. Q379 Kate Hoey: So are you saying that the Military Covenant is not really worth it in Northern Ireland? Brian Gormally: It is not for us to say how the Military Covenant is applied or not. All we are doing is saying that, on what I think is a common-sense interpretation of it in terms of meeting the special needs service people might have, there is no conflict with an equality and human rights framework, so long as it is based on objective need. Daniel Holder: It is important to stress that most of the Kate Hoey: Is it okay in the way it is being implemented in Scotland and England? Daniel Holder: This is an important issue because section 75 has been singled out a lot, and I am not quite sure why it has been section 75 rather than some of the other equality legislation in this issue. In terms of what section 75 is, it is very rare in fact, I am not sure that it has ever been found that there has been a substantive violation of section 75, or that a policy has been found to be de facto incompatible with it. The enforcement mechanism would be an investigation by the Equality Commission and potential direction from them and the Secretary of State. It is different from something that could be found to be discriminatory in court. Mostly, the section 75 duty is a policy appraisal tool. It involves conducting an equality impact assessment that will identify potential adverse impacts on groups. That is, essentially, its purpose. Most of the provisions envisaged under the Covenant are very unlikely at all to conflict and flag up the idea of an adverse impact. The provisions in relation to removing disadvantage impacts are something that could be positively encouraged under the section 75 framework. The provisions are for very special measures to meet the particular needs of service personnel that others do

127 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 75 5 June 2013 Brian Gormally and Daniel Holder not share, such as post-conflict trauma, although obviously there are other people in society who are victims of post-conflict trauma beyond service personnel. It is only this issue in relation to more favourable treatment for service personnel on a basis that is not objective need that could impact on others and which could come into conflict and could come into the realm of indirect discrimination in general. Now, challenges under equality legislation could come, but all section 75 would require the public authority to do would be to consider alternative policies and consider all mitigating measures in relation to the policy. We do not always see a very diligent implementation of section 75. Some of the discussions that have singled out section 75 as some sort of block to the Covenant being implemented are perhaps a little overdoing it. Q380 David Simpson: Daniel, just listening to what you have said, I think it is a complete minefield. There is no straight answer to this really. When I listen to the legal terminology and jargon that you are coming out with and I am not degrading it when I say that, by the way, because I have not a clue what you are talking about it sounds to me like it is a minefield and therefore there is no straight answer here. Brian Gormally: We are not experts in this, being based in Northern Ireland, but in some respects equality legislation in England and Wales has overtaken equality legislation in Northern Ireland. I would expect that, if the Armed Forces Covenant was being interpreted in a discriminatory manner in England and Wales, there would be legal challenges. I think it is wrong to single out section 75 as being something so peculiar to Northern Ireland that it is going to provide a particular block. Section 75, as I said at the very beginning, is very important; putting an equality duty on public authorities is one of the important elements of our peace settlement. However, I do not think that, in general terms, our equality legislation now is any more rigorous than it is in England and Wales. Chair: We have a number of people queuing up to ask questions and we are very time-limited, so brevity on all sides please. Q381 Oliver Colvile: I represent a naval garrison city, as you probably have read in your briefings. I am also the Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Armed Forces, with special responsibility for the Royal Marines. So, surprisingly, I actually want to stand up for the military and those people who have ended up potentially putting their lives at risk on the front line in defence of the United Kingdom and our country. I therefore want to make sure that we recognise that the military have done a brilliant job defending our country s future and defending us as well. Do you think there is a case where the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to say, This is a far too sensitive issue for us to deal with and we therefore need to refer it back to the Ministry of Defence for them to make provision, or do you think that that would be, frankly, unacceptable? Brian Gormally: It is not a question of the Northern Ireland Executive saying that this is a very sensitive issue. Of course issues to do with the Armed Forces have a certain sensitivity in Northern Ireland. It is different and you do not need me to tell you about that. In terms of what is being proposed, I do not see that there is any reason for the Northern Ireland Executive to have any qualms about meeting the objective needs of service people. I am sure that you are not implying that the service people who have given service to the country would want to have particular advantage over other people who were suffering misfortune physical or mental injury, or any other misfortune in life as that would be contrary to the ethos of service. Daniel Holder: Plus, it seems that most provisions under the Covenant can be and already are being implemented in relation to health, housing and removing barriers, so they are already being implemented in a way that appears satisfactory from the evidence this Committee has received to date. Q382 Lady Hermon: Actually, the question I was set to ask has been overtaken by events, so this is an unscripted question. I actually find the evidence very enlightening, and this is prompted by your reply, Mr Holder, about section 75 itself and your surprise, which was very genuinely conveyed, that so much of the evidence given to this Committee in the past has actually focused on section 75 as being some huge hurdle or problem to implementation of the Military Covenant. You are saying, quite clearly, that if it were better understood, section 75 does not do that at all. Am I correct? Daniel Holder: Yes, in terms of most of the application of the Covenant, particularly removing barriers, and also specific consideration. If we defer, as we already do, to the international human rights framework, the UK is a signatory to the United Nations covenant on economic and social rights, which has provisions for a right to health and housing of all persons, and obliges the state to take reasonable steps to meet the identified housing and health needs of different groups in society. That is not justiciable at the moment. We have argued it should be through a Bill of Rights, but that is already the treaty-based commitment of the state. If there is evidence that that was not being realised and that particular groups, such as the Armed Forces, were facing significant disadvantage, and it was not remedying that, then perhaps that is an issue that would have to be dealt with. At the moment, it seems that the provisions, in terms of removing disadvantage and addressing the particular needs of groups, can be met through the framework and through section 75. In fact, some of them would be positively encouraged. Any measure that is aimed at targeting objective need would be positively encouraged under the equalities framework. Q383 Lady Hermon: Why do you think it is that there seems to be a misunderstanding or lack of understanding about section 75 I am not just pointing the finger at the Northern Ireland Executive here within Departments in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Why do you think that is?

128 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Ev 76 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 5 June 2013 Brian Gormally and Daniel Holder Daniel Holder: I have read some of the evidence where it says that civil servants have said that this cannot be implemented, but I have not actually seen an equality impact assessment that has taken place that has then led to a policy change that has restricted the application of the Covenant. I am yet to actually see that, so I am not sure to what extent it has taken place. Reading the evidence of the Northern Ireland Health and Housing Ministers, who gave evidence to the Committee, they seemed to be under the impression that the issue around ensuring there were no unnecessary barriers to health and housing provision was being dealt with in a satisfactory way. Again, the issue of section 75 was only raised in relation to preferential treatment outside of objective need, which is only one potential interpretation of the Covenant. Q384 Lady Hermon: I have a very quick question. As a matter of curiosity, is CAJ often or ever invited to give briefings to the Executive or the Assembly? Daniel Holder: On section 75, we most recently gave a submission to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill, which actually sets out in detail the jurisprudence around what due regard means and what type of obligation section 75 entails. Q385 Dr McDonnell: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We have already covered a lot of the ground, and you are very welcome. There are just a couple of very simple points I want to tease out, because a lot of the ground has been covered. Two issues jumped out of a lot of the evidence. No. 1 was housing and access to housing. While, Mr Gormally, I respect the advice you gave us, the evidence we were getting was saying that somebody who was being demobbed, retiring or withdrawing from the Armed Forces in England and wanted to go back to live in Northern Ireland was at a significant disadvantage in terms of housing access. Yes, they could make themselves homeless, but if you have a wife and three children, that is a bit more complicated. That was the one point that has been put to us. The second point was on health issues. While there would be support, and it would appear to me from the outside that there are a lot more health issues stress, mental breakdown or whatever while there was reasonable primary care and pre-primary care, once it got to the point that somebody needed psychiatric care, they had to be shipped out of the country as there was no proper, adequate secondary level of care. In that context, your written evidence made the suggestion of conducting an assessment of the housing and health needs of service personnel. What would you like, hope or expect to emerge out of that assessment? Brian Gormally: On the issue of housing disadvantage, as I understand it, there is not a difficulty with the criterion of an association with Northern Ireland regarding the Housing Executive, so the fact that soldiers and other service personnel may be mobile and sent about different places in the UK and abroad does not sever the link they have with Northern Ireland. I do not want to go into the Housing Executive points allocation system, and I do not have it in front of me, but, for example, the maximum number of points you can get over a period of five years for being on a waiting list is five. Being homeless, which the service person in your example would be, gives you 70. We would have to look at a specific example if someone was saying that they had been disadvantaged. I have not seen any specific examples referred to in the evidence, but I doubt it. It seems to me that the allocation system is sufficiently flexible to deal with ex-service personnel. Daniel Holder: In terms of the health care issue, there could be someone who has a very specific service need that is not being met for people with particular mental health or trauma issues related to conflict. That could be for service personnel, but also, in the context of the Northern Ireland conflict, for others who have suffered trauma throughout the conflict. We drew attention in our written evidence to the fact that there is already a provision in terms of residency requirements for health care within the health visitor regulations that exempt service personnel from meeting residency requirements, so that is there. To go on to the needs assessment issue, because issues were being raised about what the objective need of service people was at the initiation of the inquiry, that seemed to be a sensible way of taking things forward. We have listened to the evidence the Committee has been given by others in the welfare organisations and it seemed to indicate that perhaps some of the issues we had anticipated were not as severe as we might have originally thought they were. For example, in terms of what the needs assessment could look at, if there was a need to look into this issue further, on top of the evidence that has already been given, the impacts of welfare reform might be something that will impact on service personnel as well as other groups in terms of mental health assessments and cuts in relation to disability benefits. That might be something that wants to be monitored and assessed over time to see if there is a specific impact on service personnel and others in other situations. Q386 Mr Benton: Can I just refer to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland? They have published a protocol, which you will be familiar with, ensuring equitable access to health and social care for the Armed Services. I would like to ask you three points on this. The first one is, do you support the measure as one that is designed to enhance equality of access to public services? Would you welcome similar action by other Departments in the Northern Ireland Executive? Finally, are there any other ways the Northern Ireland Executive could take action on this particular issue within the equality framework as it exists in Northern Ireland? Daniel Holder: Yes, of course we welcome equality of access for all persons, including service personnel, on health services, and this is quite a sensible way to do it, set out within the DHSSPS protocol. There are concrete actions in there and results in health service waiting lists that may represent the specific issue of the mobility of service personnel from one area to another, so you do not end up at the back of the queue

129 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 77 5 June 2013 Brian Gormally and Daniel Holder if you move to Northern Ireland from somewhere else. That seems eminently reasonable. Obviously, consideration would have to be given to other groups in a similar situation and whether that is also afforded to them. All Departments have duties under the equalities framework to afford equality of opportunity, under the human rights framework, and to take reasonable steps to ensure they meet the health and housing needs and so on of particular groups. You mentioned other issues and initiatives. We will go back to an issue that is very important to us in terms of the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement and its subsequent agreements, which is that the way to ensure that the rights to health and housing are set up on a permanent basis is to enshrine them within a justiciable Bill of Rights, which is not currently the case. Brian Gormally: Can I just give an example? You are asking about other actions. This is not a prescriptive example, but it just shows how differential action can help redress inequalities. Somebody mentioned the lack of a residential trauma unit for ex-service personnel within Northern Ireland. I think that people in Northern Ireland go to Scotland. Such a provision would be entirely reasonable because it is not always reasonable to say that trauma victims should go to a generalist service. Sometimes they need to go where they feel safe and welcome, which is why the Executive and the European Union fund a whole range of victims groups to provide services to different categories of victim from different sides of the community and some cross-community. We have the Disabled Police Officers Association, for example, and the Aftercare Service for the RIR, as I mentioned earlier. All of those are measures to redress particular aspects of need. As Daniel has indicated, they are not only reasonable under equality frameworks, but actually are positively promoted in order to redress actual disadvantage. Q387 Mr Benton: I do not know about other Members of the Committee, but there is still some confusion in my mind as to how a conflict exists between section 75 and the Covenant. The allegation, whether founded or not, is that there is a differential between the treatment of ex-armed Services people in Northern Ireland compared with other places in the UK. At the risk of repetition, I just want to make it perfectly clear in my own mind that, in your opinion, there should not be any room for confusion in terms of equality and rights as far as section 75 is concerned. If I am interpreting your responses correctly, I would like to ask either of you now, what, in your opinion, is causing the differential, if it exists? Brian Gormally: The point is whether it exists. We need to see evidence that there is a differential in treatment in practice between ex-service personnel or serving members of the Armed Services in England, Wales and Scotland, and in Northern Ireland. As I understood the evidence from the Armed Services charities, they said that there are no gaps that they can see. If somebody wants to do the process, which Daniel was talking about a few moments ago, of an objective assessment of the particular needs of service personnel in Northern Ireland and compare that to a similarly objective assessment in other parts of the UK, and can identify differentials, then that is an issue that could be looked at, but we cannot really speculate on what action might be needed to redress a speculative differential. Daniel Holder: Can we just be clear with an example here? From the evidence we have seen, there is certainly no conflict at present between the way the Armed Forces Covenant is being implemented and section 75 and other equality duties. Now, there could hypothetically be circumstances where there was a conflict with equalities legislation. To give one very obvious example, if there was an amendment to the Housing Executive points scheme, where people were given points not just on the basis of objective need, including objective need that is linked to injuries or other things, but purely on the basis of their being a member of the Armed Forces, then there could be a conflict between the equalities legislation and that particular interpretation of the Covenant. Now, in terms of section 75 being the main blockage to the implementation of the Covenant in that way, that is not really the case. Yes, it may be flagged up in policy appraisal, but you are more likely to get challenges under the general equalities legislation. Indeed, in reality, the main issue that would be a blockage to giving more favourable treatment in that way would be that, post-st Andrews Agreement, major decisions like that, or legislation, that are not within the Programme for Government, require a consensus by the Executive. That, in a sense, is where it could not be implemented. It is not the section 75 duties that would be the main vehicle in that type of mechanism. Again, if the Covenant sticks to alleviating disadvantage that service personnel face and providing special measures that relate to their particular circumstances, rather than providing more favourable treatment that does not relate to particular circumstances, then that conflict will not arise. Q388 Mr Anderson: Part of the problem we have as Parliamentarians is that we can go to references of what local authorities have done, where they have Covenant champions, or we can go to the devolved Administrations, and we can pick up reports saying, This is what we have done to fulfil our remit under the Armed Forces Covenant. We cannot do that in Northern Ireland because we are told by Northern Ireland people, We cannot produce this for you because of section 75. Is that correct? Daniel Holder: No. I think that what has happened, in reading through some of the other evidence I presume what you are referring to is the fact that the devolved Administration has not input material that would then be in the annual report put before Parliament. That will not be because of section 75. That will be because there is not consensus within the Executive partners to producing the content of the report. We have come across this in our human rights work in many issues. There have been a number of treaty reports that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has submitted to the Council of Europe and the United Nations that have had, metaphorically speaking, lots of blank pages in them, because of the Northern Ireland Executive. The most recent example

130 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Ev 78 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 5 June 2013 Brian Gormally and Daniel Holder is the report to the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. There is no information in relation to devolved matters in Northern Ireland in that report. We have yet to be given a formal explanation for that, but on a previous occasion the explanation was that there was not consensus between the First Minister and the deputy First Minister as to what the content of that report to the Council of Europe would be. That, therefore, is the likely reason why there are missing pages and, hence, missing chapters in the report to Parliament. In that circumstance, because it engages treaty compliance, there is an argument that it is a default of international obligations. It is obviously more difficult to make that argument in terms of the Covenant, which is set out in legislation, rather than in an international treaty. Q389 Mr Anderson: In your own evidence, you specifically raised concerns about the possibility of equality duties being misrepresented. Can you expand on that, or do you think that you have already covered it? Daniel Holder: That does not actually relate to the debates in the Committee, as our written evidence predated all of that, but it relates to a debate that was in the House back in November There was exclusively a focus on section 75 as being a special problem that prevented the application of the Covenant. I think that the issue is somewhat more complex than that, as we have been through in detail already today. Q390 Mr Anderson: So in terms of what we have heard as a Committee this is a big question by and large, have we been misled or misrepresented by other people or has it just been misunderstood? Daniel Holder: No, in terms of the Health and Housing Ministers, I think there was a reasonable appraisal of what section 75 duties entail. There were some micro-issues among witnesses. I think there was a statement that 50:50 recruitment to the police would necessitate an exemption from section 75. I am not sure that that is technically correct; I think it would require an exemption from other fair employment legislation. It is more the focus that has been given to that particular legislative provision, rather than the broader equality framework and the broader context of power sharing, which requires Executive agreement for regulations and major policy changes that may be more relevant to this debate than purely looking at section 75, which is compatible with most of the things that would come out of the Covenant and most of the interpretation of the Covenant in relation to welfare issues. Q391 Mr Anderson: Is it being used as a red herring? Daniel Holder: I mustn t speculate. Brian Gormally: We do not think that it is a blockage to any sensible interpretation of the Armed Forces Covenant in that sense. The reporting issues and it is only the report that is in legislation; the Covenant itself does not have any legislative power are probably to do with, as Daniel intimated, lack of consensus at Stormont rather than any problems with section 75. Daniel Holder: In terms of section 75, as Brian said in his opening remarks, we would be very much against the opening up and anything that would be regressive to what is quite a key cornerstone of the peace agreement. The first debate I mentioned followed the idea of a legislative exemption to section 75, which could undermine its purpose. Also, there has been a suggestion made that the Armed Forces should be added as a category. Clearly, no case has been made for that or for them being a disadvantaged group and it being a protected characteristic. Equally, that would not afford preferential treatment anyway, because it is a duty about equality of opportunity, so it would not serve that type of purpose, and it would risk giving undue weight to considerations where there is not objective need. We certainly would not want any regression in an equality duty that is very dear and very important to us. Chair: We are out of time. Thank you very much indeed for joining us today and for your evidence. It has been very useful to us. Thank you very much. Brian Gormally: Thank you for the opportunity. Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Evelyn Collins CBE, Chief Executive, and Jacqueline McKee, Director of Advice and Compliance, Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, gave evidence. Q392 Chair: I think you heard my introduction, so I will not go through it again. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. Would you like to make very brief opening statements and introduce yourselves? Evelyn Collins: Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you for the invite. We are very pleased to provide evidence for you this afternoon, in addition to the written submission we made. I am Evelyn Collins, Chief Executive of the Equality Commission, accompanied by Jacqueline McKee, who is Director of Advice and Compliance. Our submission, as you know, really does concern the application of equality laws in Northern Ireland and how they relate to the Armed Forces Covenant. I am happy to say a few words about section 75, by way of introduction. We in the Equality Commission have particular responsibilities for providing advice to public authorities in respect of the section 75 duties, agreeing schemes that public authorities have to have to fulfil their section 75 duties and, indeed, investigating potential breaches of the duties. Would it be helpful if I started off with a few minutes on that, or would you rather we go to questions? Chair: Given the time shortage, it might be best if we get to the questions. Evelyn Collins: We are in your hands.

131 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 79 5 June 2013 Evelyn Collins CBE and Jacqueline McKee Q393 Oliver Colvile: Do you think there are any areas of the Covenant that could be implemented without coming into conflict with equality legislation in Northern Ireland? Are there matters that are necessarily in conflict with the equality legislation? Evelyn Collins: As we understand it, the central principle of the Armed Forces Covenant is that those who have served in the Armed Forces and their families should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens. There is no conflict with equalities legislation in relation to that. In respect of the legislation in the Northern Ireland Act, which sets out the section 75 duties, we do not see any conflict with the Armed Forces Covenant in respect of that. The section 75 duties are a duty for public authorities, including each Government Department, to, on the one hand, pay due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity across a range of named categories, and also to pay regard to the desirability of promoting good relations across three categories, so it is a policy mainstreaming tool and public authorities are obliged to have an equality scheme. As I mentioned, we have a role in approving equality schemes. They are also obliged, when considering policies or introducing policies, to consider the impact that those policies will have on those groups. Therefore, we do not see any conflict with the section 75 duties in Northern Ireland with policies that relate to the Armed Forces. We have also set out in our submission that, separately from the section 75 duties in Northern Ireland, there is an anti-discrimination legislation framework. That covers, separately, issues relating to discrimination on grounds of religion, political opinion, race, gender and so on. The majority of the aspects of the Covenant do not conflict with the provisions of the various antidiscrimination legislation either. It is only when the potential for preferential treatment comes into play for members of the Armed Forces that an issue about indirect discrimination may arise. It is a may arise. In that case, whether it is a Government Department or indeed a private sector employer, issues of justification come into play, so there are examples where public authorities can justify different treatment for one of the protected categories under the antidiscrimination legislation. Q394 Lady Hermon: It is very nice to see both of you here this afternoon. Could I just ask for a point of clarification? I believe that you were present when we received evidence from the previous witnesses. Could I just ask whether in fact you are confirming what the Committee on the Administration of Justice s two representatives told us earlier: that section 75, which has been given in various evidence-taking sessions of this Committee as the reason why there is difficulty implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, is not the case. Evelyn Collins: We do not see that there is a conflict between the Armed Forces Covenant and the application of the section 75 duties, so that is right. Q395 Lady Hermon: So you are confirming that you agree with the evidence of CAJ? Evelyn Collins: Yes. Section 75 itself is a policy mainstreaming tool. It obliges public authorities to pay due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and regard for the desirability of promoting good relations. It does not dictate, mandate or prohibit any particular policy provision or policy on the part of any public authority. There is a set of procedures that public authorities need to go through to ensure they are in compliance with their section 75 duties, but it does not dictate one particular policy outcome compared to another. It is a policy mainstreaming tool. It is different from the anti-discrimination legislation, which I was trying to explain, which creates a set of rights for individuals not to be discriminated against, whether directly or indirectly, and where there is a potential, if preferential treatment is given, for an indirect issues claim to arise, considerations of justification can come into play. One of the difficulties on reading the evidence and the application of the consideration you are giving to this with the antidiscrimination legislation, or indeed the section 75 legislation, is that being a member of the Armed Forces, or a former member of the Armed Forces, is not a protected category for the purposes of the legislation itself. Let me take an example under gender discrimination legislation. Provisions for positive action to encourage more women into senior management are perfectly lawful, because they are a protected category under the anti-discrimination legislation and positive action provisions are permitted under the gender equality legislation. Because the Armed Forces are not a protected category under the anti-discrimination legislation, but may operate to advantage people with one characteristic more than another maybe men over women then the potential for justification arises. It is at that point that public authorities can have justification arguments brought into the equation. As an example: there are plenty of differential provisions for people who are unemployed, whether it is concessionary access to leisure centres, special training measures or special encouragement of employability measures. There is an argument that those who comprise unemployed people might be more from one community than another, or more men than women, but there is a broad social policy justification that comes into play. The social policy justification is legitimate and proportionate to meet an end of encouraging more unemployed people to seek work or find work. Does that help in explaining the separation between the section 75 duties, which are a mainstreaming tool, and the anti-discrimination legislation framework? Lady Hermon: That is very helpful, thank you. Chair: Just before I bring Nigel in, it might be that the Chairman is getting old or that the room is very large, but I cannot necessarily hear. I am sat furthest away, as well. Oliver Colvile: It is my age, too. Q396 Nigel Mills: These are interesting issues to tease out, because they strike me as being two parts to the Armed Forces Covenant. One is saying that you cannot give worse treatment to people in the Armed

132 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Ev 80 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 5 June 2013 Evelyn Collins CBE and Jacqueline McKee Forces. Are you saying that that is redundant or are you saying that, because the Armed Forces are not a protected group in existing equalities law, that if we did not have that provision, in theory, you could discriminate against people just because they are in the Armed Forces? Evelyn Collins: I said they are not a specific group protected under equality laws. I do not think that anybody has suggested that to you, and certainly we would not be suggesting that to you. Certainly, Army personnel and ex-army personnel have exactly the same protections of all the provisions of existing equality law in Northern Ireland. If there was a concern that they were being discriminated against on the ground of gender, race or religion in Northern Ireland, they would have the same access to equality laws as everybody else in Northern Ireland. Q397 Nigel Mills: If they were being discriminated against just because they were or had been a member of the Armed Forces, would that be Evelyn Collins: It is not a protected category in terms of anti-discrimination law, nor is it in Britain. Q398 Nigel Mills: So the Armed Forces Covenant, to the extent it is legally enforceable, which is dubious, actually does give a protection that might be necessary and is not already there in equality law? Evelyn Collins: It certainly provides a policy framework, which sets out the clear intent of Government that people who have served or are serving deserve recognition and deserve not to be treated any differently because of their service. That is a very important provision, obviously. Q399 Nigel Mills: You mentioned giving the unemployed discounted access to a leisure centre. If a leisure centre in Northern Ireland gave discounted access to a member of the Armed Forces, and I challenged that, saying, That is unfair on me because they are a fit adult, so why am I paying more than them? do you think I would have a case? Evelyn Collins: You would have to frame the case, saying it was indirect discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds that is protected by antidiscrimination legislation. There are more men serving in the Army than women, so someone could say that that is indirectly discriminatory because, as a woman, they are less likely to serve in the Armed Services and therefore there is an indirect discrimination claim. The leisure centre or public authority that funds the leisure centre would be saying that, as with the unemployed example, there is a broad justification in the interest of the country as a whole that we give special treatment to this particular category, even if it has balance one way or the other that is differential. Q400 Mr Benton: Welcome. I think you might have answered the question I was going to ask. I am fascinated by this phrase, due regard. I think you might have covered it in your previous answer, but I wanted to ask, in terms of equality and your organisation, can you elaborate a bit further on what you mean by due regard? I heard your response before, but let me pose a supplementary to you, in terms of equality. Supposing it was proven that a member or ex-member of the services in Northern Ireland was discriminated against compared with his fellow soldiers and ex-soldiers in England, Scotland and Wales. What would due regard mean then, in terms of your Commission? Evelyn Collins: The due regard is applicable in relation to the section 75 duties, where public authorities have to give due regard. As I said earlier, it is not a duty to achieve a particular result. Where we look for guidance on what due regard means, it is case law, primarily from Britain and around the British duties, which are formulated slightly differently from the duties in Northern Ireland, although the general principles apply: that they are a mainstreaming tool. It is a duty to take certain factors into account. Due regard means giving the issue the level and depth of consideration that is appropriate in the circumstances, and public authorities are of course entitled to take other factors into account in reaching any decision. The duties themselves and the due regard do not necessarily apply to the act of discrimination that you are talking about. That would have to come under the anti-discrimination legislation. Q401 Mr Benton: Would your organisation take action if it became Evelyn Collins: If it was an issue that was uncovered through a public authority looking at an equality impact assessment, for example, we would obviously be advising the public authority on how to conduct their equality impact assessment properly to ensure that those categories listed in the section 75 duties are properly considered. For an individual action, simply by being a member of the Armed Forces, there is no provision under the anti-discrimination legislation to mount such a case. So it would be, as I was saying, an indirect discrimination claim based on there being proportionately more or less of a particular category engaged. Q402 Mr Benton: It is the anxiety that is created through this conflict that this Committee is concerned about. At the end of the day, fundamentally, where we are all coming from is that we cannot understand why an ex-serviceman in Northern Ireland if it is substantiated is being treated differently from other United Kingdom citizens. I am still not very much clearer about this conflict and how it is coming about. The evidence we have heard so far, to me, is conflicting. On the one hand, we are being told that there should not be any difficulty about it, yet we have evidence from other sources to say that it is different and they have found sources, so in trying to search for a solution and get equality for every UK citizen, it is a bit problematic. I am not being critical of anyone, but having due regard is not fair and not substantive enough. It is not solid enough. It just means that they will give it regard and do nothing about it. Evelyn Collins: As I was saying, the section 75 duties, which oblige public authorities to give due regard, do not dictate, prohibit or mandate any particular policy position. I read an answer to a parliamentary question from a few weeks ago in the House of Lords, where

133 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 81 5 June 2013 Evelyn Collins CBE and Jacqueline McKee the Ministry of Defence representative said that, as far as they were concerned, 90% of the Covenant was being fully applied in Northern Ireland. It may be formulated slightly differently or articulated slightly differently, because of the particular sensitivities in Northern Ireland, but as you heard in the previous evidence there is not much evidence of differential treatment for those from the ex-service personnel in Northern Ireland and some specific measures are also in place there. Q403 Oliver Colvile: As my colleague has said, we have had very conflicting messages during the course of this inquiry. Do you think that current legislation is clear enough to ensure that there will not be some form of judicial review? It seems to my mind that if this carries on having these conflicting views then there may be a judicial review where someone feels they have not actually been treated in accord with the Armed Forces Covenant? Evelyn Collins: I had not thought about the avenue of judicial review before in relation to this. There is a job of work to be done to make sure that all public authorities are fully clear about the obligations they have under section 75 and how they apply to all policies. That is an important point. I am not sure whether I have sufficiently thought through whether someone has access under a judicial review to give a proper answer to that. The grounds for judicial review in terms of being reasonable, proportionate and so on would need to be considered. Q404 Mr Anderson: What we are basically saying is that your remit is to make sure that nobody is disadvantaged, but also that nobody is possibly advantaged. Evelyn Collins: Our remit is, in respect of section 75, to provide advice to public authorities and others on the duties. Our remit under the anti-discrimination legislation, of which there are several main pieces in Northern Ireland, is to both provide advice and assistance to those who have responsibilities under legislation, and advice, and sometimes legal assistance, to those who want to take cases under discrimination legislation. Q405 Mr Anderson: Are you aware of any cases where public authorities have given special advantage to certain groups and, if so, how were they justified? Evelyn Collins: I mentioned that provisions for the unemployed were not uncommon. Q406 Mr Anderson: Would that happen over the whole of the United Kingdom? Evelyn Collins: Yes. Q407 Mr Anderson: Specifically in Northern Ireland, are there any particular groups that have been given special advantage? Evelyn Collins: That is the main one I can think of. There are also positive action provisions under each of the anti-discrimination pieces of legislation, as I mentioned, which would allow special provision to be made for protected groups under the antidiscrimination legislation. The unemployed is the one I think is most relevant. Q408 Mr Anderson: If there was a policy proposal that sought to implement a particular aspect of the Covenant, what would your role be in doing that? Evelyn Collins: It would be to advise the individual public authority that was thinking about it, whether it was the Department of Health or the Department for Social Development. I see in the Department for Social Development s evidence to you, it talked not so much about section 75, but about the provisions of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order as being an important consideration for it in respect of how it manages housing allocation. Our job would be to advise the individual public authorities around how they comply with their duties. Q409 Mr Anderson: Would it be your role to go to them or would they have to come to you? Evelyn Collins: It can and does work both ways. Q410 David Simpson: You are very welcome, ladies. So far it has been very agreeable in relation to the evidence, but body language talks a lot. When we were receiving evidence from the previous gentlemen, we saw shaking of the heads and disagreement. We have not reached that point yet, so we may reach it before the end. Evelyn Collins: Me shaking my head? David Simpson: Yes, it seemed to be in disagreement with some of the evidence that had been given. We may get to that point within the questions. Chair: I think we can only refer to those taking part in the meeting. Evelyn Collins: I shall have to watch my body language. David Simpson: We may get to that, because we like a bit of spontaneous activity. My question again could overlap on some of the issues. The Armed Forces Covenant calls primarily for promoting equality of opportunity for members of the Armed Forces community as compared to other citizens. I presume you would agree with that legitimate claim, with no difficulty at all? Evelyn Collins: Yes. Q411 David Simpson: Special treatment is called for only in cases where service personnel are injured or bereaved as proper return for their sacrifice. Is there a case to be made that this is a legitimate aim that merits special consideration? Evelyn Collins: That is what I was saying earlier about the issue of legitimate aim. I am sorry if I sound laborious on this. David Simpson: It is good to get clarification. Evelyn Collins: Going to the anti-discrimination legislation, as I have explained, being in the Army or formerly in the Army is not a protected category for the purposes of the anti-discrimination legislation. Where it might bite is if there is differential, such as more Catholics than Protestants, or more Protestants than Catholics, or more men than women. Then a potential indirect discrimination case might arise in

134 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Ev 82 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 5 June 2013 Evelyn Collins CBE and Jacqueline McKee respect of that preferential treatment being given or offered. The case then becomes whether that can be justified. The test for justification is, is it a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? There is case law about what that might look like in terms of gender or whatever. I am unaware of any case law where service in the Armed Forces has been considered. In a broader social policy context, as I said in relation to unemployment, where there is a general social policy aim to encourage more people to get employability and jobs, you could certainly imagine that a case could be made that having special treatment because you were in the Armed Services was a legitimate aim. As far as I am aware, it has been untested under the anti-discrimination legislation as an indirect discrimination provision. Q412 Lady Hermon: This is just on the foot of your reply to my colleague, Mr Simpson, and also to Mr Anderson s reply. It is very clear from the evidence we have received this afternoon that this is a complex area of law. It is general equality provisions and it is, on top of that, section 75. Forgive me if I have misquoted or taken down the phrase incorrectly, but I think it was said that there is an important job of work to be done not just a job of work, but an important job of work in relation to public authorities and public bodies understanding their obligations under section 75. Then, in reply to Mr Anderson, having made that point which we have all accepted and been persuaded that there is a large job of work to be done you said that it works in both directions sometimes the public authority goes to you and sometimes you give advice. Surely, in light of the confusion that has been highlighted to this Committee in session after session about the impact of section 75, would it not be enormously useful for the Equality Commission to raise its profile? There is an enormous amount of good work that is done silently, without a song and dance, promoting equality. Would it not be useful if that important job of work was actually taken back to the Equality Commission and that work began now, explaining what the implementation of the Military Covenant means to all public authorities? Evelyn Collins: Certainly in our preparations for this, in the written evidence and so on, we thought that there is work to be done with particular people. We have had initial discussions with those to seek to explain that our view is that section 75 is not a barrier to the introduction or implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. Q413 Lady Hermon: You have started that job of work? Evelyn Collins: Yes. Q414 Lady Hermon: Have you started with the Executive? I would suggest that first. Evelyn Collins: No, we have not yet had a direct conversation with the Executive as a whole. We have been speaking initially to individual Departments. Q415 Dr McDonnell: Thank you very much. You are very welcome. Thank you for the evidence so far. There were a number of specific interventions that were mentioned in earlier evidence in our inquiry that would improve the quality of life for the Armed Forces community in Northern Ireland. These included, for instance and these are not comprehensive the establishment of a one-stop shop for ex-service personnel to access advice and support when they were in difficulties and improved priority for social housing. There was also mention of a need for improved access to IVF treatment for those who may have been injured and might have difficulty conceiving normally. Do you have any views on this? Would you like to comment on some of those points? Evelyn Collins: We cannot see that a one-stop shop would have any difficulty in the Northern Ireland context. It makes sense to have a place where people can go to get advice and assistance about what provision there is in Northern Ireland, so I cannot see how that would conflict with the anti-discrimination legislation or section 75. In respect of housing, I understood from the evidence given by the DSD to you that they are looking at what can be done. We have obviously looked ourselves at where issues in relation to homelessness for former serving personnel might come into play. I understand that there is a review going on and that requests have been made that that will look at what special provision can be made. We would be happy to make a comment to that review. In respect of IVF, it was interesting to me, when preparing for this, that there was a difference in Northern Ireland generally compared to GB about the number of treatments you can have. That is something of interest to us. Certainly, where there is a legitimate reason, a legitimate aim can be put forward for a particular treatment. I do not see that there is any difficulty. Q416 Dr McDonnell: Have you yourselves ever undertaken any investigation relating to services for Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, either independently, autonomously or at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive? Evelyn Collins: No, we have not. Q417 Andrew Percy: The previous witnesses seemed to be suggesting, implying or in fact explicitly saying that there was an overemphasis on section 75. They actually drew out the broader equalities legislation applying to the UK generally. I am just wondering what your view is on whether or not section 75 places any stricter requirements or burdens on Northern Ireland than the Equality Act 2010 does to the rest of the UK. Evelyn Collins: The GB duties are slightly differently formulated, as I said. I will not repeat the section 75 duties; you have heard those on a number of occasions this afternoon. In GB, the duties are on public authorities to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations, so they are more broadly formulated. The provisions that apply in schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act, which relate to equality schemes and our role in that, do not apply in Britain. The general principles are the same. Public authorities need to pay due regard or regard to it, so I do not see any particular differences

135 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o006_Mark_Transcript 6 - NIC Corrected (draft).xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 83 5 June 2013 Evelyn Collins CBE and Jacqueline McKee in relation to that. What I and the Equality Commission feel very strongly about is that the Equality Act 2010 makes a provision in relation to a number of areas, which improve the standard of rights for people in Great Britain compared to Northern Ireland, in particular in respect of disability, age, in the provision of goods and services, and aspects of the race legislation and the gender legislation. It is, and I would hope it would be, a matter of some interest to the Committee that there is now quite a differential set of rights for people in Northern Ireland as a result of not having a similar single Equality Act or enhancements to the anti-discrimination legislative framework enacted in 2010 in the Equality Act in Great Britain. Q418 Andrew Percy: Do you have a view as to which is potentially more problematic to the implementation of the Covenant: section 75 or a UK Equality Act? In a sense, which is the strictest of the regimes, so far as our concerns are? Evelyn Collins: The regimes, in terms of the mainstreaming duties on both sides of the Irish Sea, are to pay due regard. Although there has been more case law on what due regard means in GB, it is unlikely that, if cases were to come before the courts in Northern Ireland, they would differ significantly in their interpretation of the statutory language. I do not think that there is more or less strictness. The fact is that the duties have been in place in Northern Ireland since 2000, and there is a great deal of familiarity, despite what I said earlier, around the application to this particular issue around the duties, possibly more so than in Great Britain. There is a greater use of the language of section 75 generally in discussions about policy issues. That may be where you have seen it come through in some of the evidence; whether at district council level or Government Department level, people are used to talking about section 75 duties. Chair: There will be a vote at 4 o clock and we will have to finish before then. Forgive us for all disappearing in a rush. Q419 Nigel Mills: We have got to a situation where the Armed Forces Covenant has been effectively brought into force in England, Scotland and Wales, but clearly not in Northern Ireland. Do you have any concerns that that has created non-equivalency, so, in theory, a member of the Armed Forces could be at a disadvantage in Northern Ireland compared with in GB? Evelyn Collins: As I said earlier, the answer to the parliamentary question that we saw, broadly the provision is the same. There are issues in Northern Ireland that signal some caution, partly around the potential for indirect discrimination and partly because of the sensitivities involved in dealing with issues likely the Armed Services, which may have closer associations with one community than the other. We referenced that in our written submission: we recognise that employers and others feel more cautious around those issues that may have more associations with one community than the other. Q420 Nigel Mills: Can I ask you a tricky question? Feel free to dodge this. Evelyn Collins: The others have not been tricky, then? Nigel Mills: You have not heard this one. Under the current law, could the Assembly ban former members of the Armed Forces from being special advisers? Chair: We did not have this one programmed. Evelyn Collins: We were discussing on the way over that I have not seen the final version of the legislation that was passed on Monday, so I should exercise caution and not answer that. Nigel Mills: I am not asking you about that. Presumably, as you have said that Armed Forces are not a special group in equalities law, in theory they would not be protected. Evelyn Collins: As I understood, the legislation is designed to deal, amongst other things, with those who have had convictions. Nigel Mills: I was not asking about that legislation. Evelyn Collins: Yes, in general terms, as they are not a specific protected category for the purposes of equality legislation, an individual claim of discrimination on the basis simply of being in the Armed Services has nowhere to go in the antidiscrimination legislation framework in Northern Ireland, in Britain or indeed in Europe. The European Union, which governs much of our equality law, does not have service in the Army as a protected category. Q421 Nigel Mills: However, passing the Armed Forces Covenant in the way it has been done in the rest of GB may give some protection? Evelyn Collins: As I read it, it is a set of aspirations and a set of principles. It is not a law as such. It has value in terms of declaratory intent, but, as I read it, it does not provide any new rights or different rights for members of the Armed Services. It is about the way society wants to treat people who have served. Nigel Mills: The law requires a report on implementation of the Covenant, rather than requiring implementation? Evelyn Collins: Yes, I did not see it as a new legal framework. Chair: Any final questions? I think you have answered everything. Thank you very much indeed for coming. This has been a very useful session. Thank you.

136 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Ev 84 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Wednesday 26 June 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Mr David Anderson Oliver Colvile Lady Hermon Kate Hoey Naomi Long Dr Alasdair McDonnell Nigel Mills Ian Paisley Andrew Percy David Simpson Examination of Witness Witness: Mike Penning MP, Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, gave evidence. Q422 Chair: You are very welcome, Minister. We appreciate you are attending with some very severe time constraints and personal issues, and we are very grateful to you for joining us today. Thank you very much indeed. Mike Penning: I was very close to letting you guys down. I am conscious I made a promise to do this, but I will leave here and go to my father-in-law s bedside; he is very poorly. I apologise, I am not on top form and my usual boisterous self, but I will try hard. Lady Hermon: We are very grateful that you are here. Q423 Chair: I am sure your next to top form is quite acceptable, so thank you very much for joining us. Are there any opening remarks you would like to make? Mike Penning: I know it is traditional to give some opening remarks. To put it in context, in September of last year I was appointed Minister of State in Northern Ireland. My previous role was as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, but in this context I had already sat on the Prime Minister s main Committee on the Covenant. I asked to do that not least because of my own military background, but because there were a lot of crossovers in the Department for Transport, believe it or not, and how we looked after our military once they had left the armed services. Naturally enough, with my new portfolio, I thought it was very important that I gave a Northern Ireland as well as a squaddie s perspective, if you wish, to the Committee, so I asked to stay on. Very quickly after that, I started to have people coming to see me, particularly political representatives from Northern Ireland, about their concerns about the Covenant, which I thought at the time was right and proper. I shared some of those concerns, which is why this Committee is doing this inquiry. There was a representation from the DUP to see the Prime Minister, particularly about the Military Covenant. The leadership of the party went, and I was asked to attend that meeting. Subsequent from that meeting, the Prime Minister asked me if I would take overall responsibility for looking at the Covenant within Northern Ireland. That does not at all take away the responsibilities of the Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence, but it does allow me to ask questions of the Ministry. I see it from outside; I can ask questions like Why are you doing this?. Subsequently, like this Committee, we have done an extensive piece of work, and I have reported back to the Prime Minister. I would say, and I say this very openly, that there are parts of the Covenant in Northern Ireland that work a damn sight better than in my own constituency, in particular the way that the charities work closely together. I mentioned only the other weekend to a senior person in SSAFA in my constituency that SSAFA and the British Legion work out of the same room, the same office, in Northern Ireland, and his jaw dropped about four inches. It just does not happen. That is not detrimental to either one of those charities; it is just the way it has happened historically, particularly in England. This allows for a lot of the duplication that we see from the charities not necessarily to take place. The report basically shows that around about 93% it is very difficult to be exactly precise, but about 93% of the Covenant is being delivered on a regular basis within the Province. The 7% is probably what we want to talk a little bit about today as well. My particular area of concern, which I am still doing quite a lot of work on, is post-traumatic stress and how we deliver treatment for that. It is a really, really complicated issue, especially delivering in a small environment like Northern Ireland, where frankly communities are very close. Someone, for instance, could be at a day centre for treatment sitting next to someone who they may not want to sit next to, which may not be exactly the same situation for someone coming back from Afghanistan, for obvious reasons. How we deliver that is something I am working on very closely with the charities and with the Brigadier, who I know gave evidence to this Committee. We are pulling everything together and going to have a single point of contact in the Northern Ireland Office should people feel it is not working properly. That is new, with a new address specifically for Covenant enquiries and we will be writing to all elected representatives in Northern Ireland in the next few weeks, explaining what should be happening, but if they feel it is not happening there is now a senior civil servant in my own Department who will be responsible for looking after the problem and taking it to the MoD if that is where it needs to be, or to health, housing or wherever it may be. Having said I was not going to do very much of an opening comment, there we are.

137 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev June 2013 Mike Penning MP Chair: It is very useful. Mark Francois has written to me outlining that position, which you referred to earlier, as well. Thank you very much. Q424 Ian Paisley: I personally thank you for coming today, given the circumstances that we have been made aware of. In your comments, Minister, you said 93% has been delivered in Ulster, and there is an issue about the 7%. Could you maybe at a later stage provide us with the statistical basis that has allowed you to say that, so that we know where that is coming from? You could maybe go through a bit more detail. I want to ask you specifically about the veterans forum you established for the military. Could you give us an update on that work and what is happening with it? Mike Penning: I thought it was very important to give ministerial guidance to all the bodies in Northern Ireland, including the MoD, who are engaged and involved in providing after-service care, for want of better terminology. That Committee has sat. I have now agreed with the Committee, at my suggestion, that it will meet every six months. There are already three forums that take place, and sometimes it is quite complicated to work out who is in charge of what, but the overarching forum will be this ministerial forum. At the meeting, it was very interesting that for a lot of the groups, particularly some of the charities, it was really the first time they had had an opportunity to thrash out some of the issues they had. The question I kept putting to them was, Is there duplication? Is one of you spending charitable money on doing X when someone else is doing X as well? Could that be done closer together? I think everybody accepts that the initial meeting was very useful. The Brigadier has carried it on, with a subcommittee. They have also formed a subsequent forum as well. I will be fair to the Committee; I am slightly concerned that we might have too many forums. I don t care what the labels are as long as we deliver, and make sure it gets delivered to those that have served our country in that way. The forum has met; we will meet again quite soon, and I can reconvene it at any time should I wish to do so because of a particular incident. Q425 Ian Paisley: One of the groups in it was the Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment. They said that they had not been involved in the forum at the point when we met them. Was that an oversight, and are they going to be involved? Mike Penning: As I understand it, they were not at mine, and I have met them extensively. I think it was one of the other forums that they have been invited to. That was an oversight. It has been addressed now. I knew about that, and they are there and they will be there. They are a very, very important part of delivery in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to them. They do an excellent job. Q426 Ian Paisley: We are looking forward to the publication of the pamphlet you are going to produce, detailing your responsibilities to the charitable organisations, other agencies and so on. I think that will be very useful. Recently, the Committee looked at how veteran issues were handled in the United States of America. They produced a booklet for all service leavers that details basically a one-stop shop, where they go and how they do it. Would you consider that as part of your work? Mike Penning: If the pamphlet is used for that purpose, it would be really useful. Obviously, it is for the MoD and the Minister of State, Mark Francois, to deal with that, but there is no point having duplication. When I left the army, frankly, I was given a month s pay Ian Paisley: Have you spent it all? Mike Penning: My box arrived at home about six months later and that was it. I got a warrant to go home and very little else. Things have moved on enormously since I served, but there is still more we can do. The biggest thing I found when I left the army, and I hear from people leaving now, is a real culture shock when you leave the armed forces and come into civvy street. That is why so many of them end up reenlisting. It is not necessarily because they want to go back actually many of them will be on the streets of London and other great cities of this nation tonight. We must do everything we can to help them in that transitional period. I think the pamphlet will help. It could be duplicated across the United Kingdom. I do not think it should be just restricted to services available in Northern Ireland. I think if we get this right Q427 Ian Paisley: It could be good practice for the whole of the UK. Mike Penning: It will be good practice best practice, a word we use quite a lot. It needs to be updated regularly as well. One of the ways we are looking at updating it is making it available online, like everything these days. That can be updated very easily and quickly, and then the formal pamphlet can be perhaps quarterly or six-monthly. Q428 Ian Paisley: In terms of concrete outcomes, one of the issues we saw working in the States is that every soldier leaves with a mobile phone. That appeared to be the regular way in which the veterans services kept in contact with former soldiers. It appeared to be a very useful way of keeping in touch and keeping them informed of rights and opportunities that they had. Again, it might be something that you could look at. Mike Penning: That will be something for the Minister of State in the MoD to look at, because there is obviously a cost implication. The point you made about having a point of contact is very important. Long before I got into this portfolio, one of the things that I thought was important, which data protection and other things get involved in, is that the charities, especially the charities involved in delivering care, should know when someone is coming out of the armed forces. That would be a simple tick-box, for instance, on their discharge form: Can we give your address, or an address, to the forum? in our case. That cannot be done at the present time, but it is massively important that we do as much as we can. Pride is the biggest thing. In our constituencies when we meet former servicemen and women, the last thing they want to do is ask for help, particularly if they

138 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Ev 86 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 26 June 2013 Mike Penning MP are suffering from post-traumatic stress. They may not even know that they are the biggest thing about that is they do not know themselves. We need to be there for them, which is perhaps why I banged on the door and asked whether I could have this portfolio on the Armed Forces Covenant side. Q429 Oliver Colvile: First of all, thank you very much, Minister. I am sorry I was late, but I was listening to the Chancellor delivering his comprehensive spending review. So that you are aware, I spoke to Mark Francois last week about this. He and I have agreed to try and meet again and have a further conversation about the benefit book that was produced in the United States of America. He did make the point, of course, about the National Health Service. We have one, whereas in the States they do not actually have it. The second thing that I have always thought is, yes, we do need to make sure we have an intranet so that the veterans can actually tap into that. Thirdly, one of the other things that came out of our trip to America was that they ring the veterans after they have left, some three months later. If they don t get an answer they go back to them, and they follow them up for six months or so to make sure that happens. Finally, can I make the point that the reservists also need to end up by actually being included? My advice would be not that we should give them a tick-box, but that there should be a tick-box if they do not want the information to be given. It needs to be positive rather than negative. Mike Penning: I agree. Of course, while we have the NHS here, the Veterans Agency hospitals in America are brilliant. I visited those when I was the shadow Health Minister, when we were looking at their IT system, which at the time was the largest IT operating data system in the world. That was brilliant, and they told us the one for our health service would not work because they had tried it, so that was interesting. It is a huge agency you visited them; they are a massive organisation, and hugely funded. The point I also would make, which you rightly make, is that this is one army, one armed forces. As we move even more to relying on the reservists, they must be treated exactly the same. In many ways, we probably need to look at them more, because if they come straight back from operations, and go straight back into their civilian occupation, they don t get the sort of downtime that the regulars get, which is obviously difficult. Q430 Oliver Colvile: You might like to come and visit Hasler Unit, in my constituency, which deals with people who have lost their limbs. Mike Penning: I think you will find I have, actually. Lady Hermon: That is after the Minister has visited my constituency to see Palace Barracks. Q431 Kate Hoey: Thank you for coming, Minister. I think really the crux of our whole inquiry, and certainly what I, and I am sure all Members, want to know, is are you confident that all the work is being done to absolutely ensure that the armed forces community in Northern Ireland do not face any disadvantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? Mike Penning: Yes, I am confident of that. There are obviously political situations in Northern Ireland that make the delivery sometimes more complicated than in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I would say that there are people in other parts of the United Kingdom in political bases that are also not supportive of our armed forces. They are not in Northern Ireland, and not in my constituency or previous constituencies. It is not the fact that we can t deliver the Armed Forces Covenant; it just has to be delivered sometimes in a slightly different way, but the key is that it is being delivered. I have been pleasantly surprised, for instance, when I raised the issue with all the political leaders of the main parties in Northern Ireland. When I said to Martin McGuinness, I may need your help publicly on this, he said, You ve got it, and I am more than happy to put that on the record. Q432 Kate Hoey: The Committee on the Administration of Justice have highlighted some benefits that could arise from looking at the objective need of the armed forces community in relation particularly to health and housing. Is that the kind of work that the Northern Ireland veterans forum is doing? Is it comprehensive enough? Mike Penning: Housing was one of the issues we looked at very early on because, in a lot of councils in Northern Ireland, you could just walk in and say, I am an ex-serviceman, can you help me about my housing situation? In other parts that would not be a particularly safe thing to do, but that does not mean that that community is not delivering the provision. We found no evidence at all of any problems with that. Where we do, that is exactly the sort of situation where at the end of it there will be me actually working it through with my officials. I must praise the work that the Brigadier has done on this, because he is very conscious, and has put an awful lot of effort and commitment into making sure that, where there have been problems, it does not become a story, we just sort the problem out. I think that is what we would all want. Q433 Kate Hoey: The other area they raised was the whole question of welfare and disabilities, particularly relating to disability benefits. Are the Government looking at the effects of that specifically? Mike Penning: Yes. As you can imagine, no matter where in the United Kingdom you come from, if you come from the armed forces and you have a condition that has been either caused or exacerbated by your service in the armed forces, you should not be worse off. That is exactly what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Lord Freud have been looking into Iain Duncan Smith comes from the Scots Guards, and I would have his guts for garters if he wasn t looking at it. It is very important that people understand that people should not and cannot be worse off if they have served their Queen. Q434 Kate Hoey: I am very encouraged by your answer to my first question. Presumably the Government is committed to filling any gaps that

139 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev June 2013 Mike Penning MP might be identified anywhere either through us or through the forum. Mike Penning: Yes, I think filling the gaps sometimes could be taken as We will go and sort that problem out. My attitude is that I will get that problem sorted out. It may not be me and my Department, but we will sort it out. Kate Hoey: But you are responsible. Thank you very much. Q435 Nigel Mills: Mike, that all sounds very encouraging. Are there any upsides or downsides to this issue becoming more of a political hot potato? Would you be concerned if this became a political debating point in Northern Ireland? It might wind some people up to perhaps try and block things rather than help things carry on. Is it better to be under the radar rather than being given greater attention? Mike Penning: I think the biggest concern of the military and the charities is that it does become a political hot potato, or a tool used by a particular party. To be fair, some of the political parties have come to me and said they were concerned about, for instance, section 75, and whether that was causing problems. I have been able to discuss with both of those party leaderships that actually section 75 is not causing problems, and they have accepted that now. I spoke to the Chairman of this Committee about it privately, that wherever possible we need not to create the story, as I alluded to earlier on. Let s not let these people be used. They have served us; let s make sure we look after them rather than creating any political clout for an individual or party. Q436 Lady Hermon: It is very good of you to keep your promise, as we expected you always to do, by coming before us this afternoon, in light of your personal circumstances. Could I ask for clarification of a key statement you made to the Committee? If my hearing serves me correctly, it implied that Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, had given a commitment that he would give you his backing. But let s just clarify: backing to the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland? Mike Penning: I have spoken to all the political leaders in Northern Ireland. I said to them that, for this to work and not to become a political hot potato, I needed them, if necessary publicly, to support that the armed forces are looked after when they leave the armed forces. I got that commitment from all of them, including Martin McGuinness. Q437 Lady Hermon: And he is prepared to say that publicly. Mike Penning: Yes. That is what he said to me. Can I emphasise this? This is why I do not want this to be a political hot potato. There has been no evidence whatsoever that Martin McGuinness s party and Ministers have not been fulfilling their commitment to the Covenant; actually, they have. Lady Hermon: I have to say, Minister, that actually contradicts a lot of the evidence that we have received from other witnesses before the Committee, so that is why I had to clarify that particular statement. That is a key piece of evidence for the Committee. Thank you. Q438 Naomi Long: Good to have you with us. Following on from the last piece of evidence and discussion we had, we have been told that, when the MoD wrote to the Northern Ireland Executive asking for input into the annual report on the Armed Forces Covenant, no reply was received. Mike Penning: Correct. Q439 Naomi Long: I think there had been a working assumption that there may have been an issue getting cross-party agreement within the Executive for such a report to be forwarded. I have a couple of questions. First of all, have the NIO taken any role, or have any of your discussions centred around how the Executive might be able to engage directly with that report? When we spoke to two of the Ministers who came and gave evidence to us, they said they would be happy to respond individually to the report in terms of what their ministerial remit refers to. Other Ministers may be in the same situation. Is there any way that could be facilitated, as opposed to an Executive report that would have to go through the Executive mechanism, assuming that that is where the block lies? This is really to try and find some clarity as to whether you have established where the block lies. Mike Penning: Far be it from me to know exactly where the block sits, in the Executive or anywhere else. One of the things I wanted to do in taking this portfolio forward was actually, if necessary, to get individual consents. It is very, very difficult, as I am sure you are aware, for many things to have completely consensual agreement. That is the way forward at the moment, though. Obviously this is devolved, so it is entirely up to them whether they submit or not as an Executive. My view is to save, for want of a better word, a longer discussion or anything like that, if individually they would submit, I think the MoD would be very happy with that, and certainly the Prime Minister s Committee would be speaking for them. Q440 Naomi Long: That would be very helpful because I think individual Ministers would be willing to submit. It would avoid the appearance that actually the Armed Forces Covenant is not being implemented at all in Northern Ireland, which is the impression that is being given. Mike Penning: I was going to wait to see your report, Mr Chairman, but it was my intention to write to the individual Ministers responsible, and ask whether I could get that indication from them. To all intents and purposes, it does not matter what the label is on the letters. If I have got the letters, that is the end of it; we are where we are. Q441 Naomi Long: In terms of the report and how it is handled once it is received, obviously some people have expressed disappointment that it has not been debated on the Floor of the House to give people an opportunity. I know there was some debate around armed forces issues yesterday, but not actually a debate on that report on an annual basis. That would be a role for the MoD. Is that something that the Government would be interested in? Is it something

140 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Ev 88 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 26 June 2013 Mike Penning MP that in principle you would be keen to advocate for in your role? Mike Penning: I know my place in the hierarchy of this great establishment, which is very low. That would be something for the business managers and the MoD, not for me. However, I do think it is important that there is a full facility when the documents come in. Of course, there are many other ways of getting a debate on the Floor of the House or in the Chamber about this sort of thing, where very often you can get that more quickly I am going to get shot by the business managers now than if you wait for Government time, perhaps. Q442 Naomi Long: Perhaps, as a suggestion, you would be willing, in your role after the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, to advocate from what you describe as a lowly position. Relative to most of us, you would find the ear of the MoD slightly more quickly to advocate for that, and it would be a good opportunity. Mike Penning: I reiterate, though, from my experience on the Back Benches, and many Members have been here an awful lot longer than me, that there are many avenues to get it a lot more quickly than waiting for me to get to the top of the list perhaps. I see Mr Chairman nodding, so he knows what I am saying. Q443 Chair: I don t know. Everything is relative, as Naomi said. I was busy doing other things at the time, but I think the Prime Minister did mention the Armed Forces Covenant today in Prime Minister s Questions. Mike Penning: I was not there either. Chair: It is obviously quite high on his agenda as well. Mike Penning: I was swotting my brief. Chair: Indeed. Oliver Colvile: He did. Chair: Yes, I thought so. Q444 Mr Anderson: It is good of you to come, Minister, given the circumstances. Can you explain to us how the Executive, the various UK Government Departments and the individual Departments in Northern Ireland actually work on the Covenant? Do you have a formal meeting structure? Mike Penning: No. Sitting down with the Executive or the Ministers in Northern Ireland in a formal structure just does not work. What I have done is meet them individually, whether it has been in health or elsewhere, and discuss it with them. There are very good channels, particularly with 38 Brigade in that regard. One of the things we wanted to do by setting up the Committee, headed by myself with the Brigadier chairing if I am not there, was to have confidence that if someone came to my constituency office today and said to me, I am a soldier and I have got this problem, you know you can go through the correct channels. One of the reasons that the MoD, and Mark Francois in particular as the Minister of State, have been happy for me to take this role on, and why the Prime Minister asked me to do this, is because they know I will be that advocate, coming from a military background. But I am not going to beat around the bush: is it difficult sometimes? Yes, of course it is, but it does not mean that you are not going to do it. Q445 Mr Anderson: We are all pleased with what you said before about your view that this was working well over there, despite the fact that we cannot show it, because we don t have written evidence on that. Would you say it is working as well as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom? If it is not, are there any barriers that we could move, or any lessons we can learn from other parts of the United Kingdom that could be applied to Northern Ireland? Mike Penning: I would probably reiterate what I said in my opening remarks. I wish that charities worked as closely in my constituency as they work in Northern Ireland. I don t think there is any doubt about that. Are there turf issues? Are there people who have done this historically over many years, and new charities on the block are finding that is an issue? Yes, of course. The willingness to actually sit down and talk and then, on a day-to-day basis, work together is something the rest of the United Kingdom could do better. One of the reasons is that because they have to do a lot of this work quietly, they have learnt to do it this way, whereas in my constituency, and perhaps in your own, there is a lot more in your face going on. I reiterate what I said at the start. I came into this very sceptical, but I have been really very pleasantly surprised. I do not want to damage the good work that has been done. Is there more to be done? Of course there is. You will get people to give evidence to this Committee, I am sure, who say, This is happening and that is happening. That is perfectly understandable. Nothing is going to be perfect, but to answer your question about whether this is operating better in the Province of Ulster, I think it is. Mr Anderson: Good. Q446 Dr McDonnell: Thank you very much, Minister, in the circumstances, for being with us. Obviously you have told us that you are taking the lead in Northern Ireland, but are you getting all the co-operation you want from the MoD? Mike Penning: Yes, to the extent where I am not even certain they are here listening to what I am saying, which is very unusual. Two things. I think the MoD fully understand that they can do so much in Northern Ireland, but then there has to be political steer in Northern Ireland as well, and I am being used, if you wish, in that capacity. It is fairly unusual for the MoD to give this sort of support to another Government Department in heading this up, so that is good news as well. Of course, they were told to by the Prime Minister. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister said, Mr Penning is going to do this, and I want the Minister of State to report back, so that has been useful. Not only is the Prime Minister hugely supportive of the Covenant, because you heard him today which I wasn t there for but I can talk to the Prime Minister about this issue. He is very much on board with this, so with that sort of credibility you tend to get support because they know, at the end of the day, that it is very important.

141 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev June 2013 Mike Penning MP Q447 Dr McDonnell: What struck me about veterans affairs in the US was that there is a separate Department there. Is there not a case for a separate veterans division of some sort within the MoD that would be more focused and, if you like, more specific? What worried me, and I am coming relatively new to this stuff, was to some extent I felt, if there is a problem, where the Covenant was needed here was to ensure that people got healthcare. Really, what is happening is attempts have to be made to squeeze more out of an already overstretched health service or housing situation in some cities or whatever across Britain. Would it not be better that you had, as a resource, however small, a veterans affairs unit or committee, call it whatever you like, that had the money to basically add value where the health service or housing was so that veterans could get a top-up rather than coming into a pressured situation? That is my concern. Mike Penning: Our version of the Veterans Agency does exist here, but it is not funded in the same way, because obviously you do not have a universal welfare system in America for a starter. That is part of the biggest reason. I remember looking at this when in Opposition, and having discussions with the Prime Minister about it, because it is a passion I have had all my life, or certainly since I served. We have a Veterans Agency, and we have now a Minister of State who is the Veterans Minister. It was the most junior job in the MoD before, but over the years it has been elevated. Personally, I do not think you could do that in this country, simply because of the way that the health service and education are, but it is certainly one for the policy wonks to look at to see how it is done. To do that I am being very honest about this you would have to draw funding from nigh-on every Department in Government to put into a central pool, and I do not know how that would work. A little note has been passed to me: the SPVA does exist and are very active, and they are part of my Committee as well in Northern Ireland. Q448 Dr McDonnell: I have a couple of other brief points. We heard a great deal of evidence about the highly valued aftercare service in Northern Ireland. Would there be benefits in expanding that service to a wider catchment of veterans? Have you any views on the possibility of widening the service? Mike Penning: To widen it, you would certainly have to speak to the Armed Forces Minister, because it is funded by the MoD for two specific units of Her Majesty s Armed Forces. They are highly valued and they are very good. However, to expand it to cover all ex-servicemen within the Province would be very complicated and probably would not deliver in the same way. You are probably aware that the aftercare services have three more years worth of funding. I may be wrong, it may be four, but they are secure, which is what they were concerned about. I have an open mind about that. At the moment, I think we are okay, but it would be quite a shift in their remit to do it that way. Q449 Dr McDonnell: Would there be a possibility of the forum looking at that, or the feasibility of that? Mike Penning: I do not think it is something for the forum to discuss at this stage. It may well be what Ministers need to discuss. I will wait for the Committee s report as to how that works. There is no hint either way. We have looked at it and at the moment we have decided not to, but everything is open. Q450 Dr McDonnell: The Regimental Association of the Royal Irish Regiment raised concerns that the aftercare service was only funded on a temporary basis. I gather the funding is now committed to about Mike Penning: Yes. I would be amazed if they did not come before this Committee and say they were worried, because nothing in finance in Government is permanent. They did very well and put a very good argument together to get that funding to The negotiations will start, I think, in late 2014 or 2015 to see how that flows forward. I was not at the spending round announcement earlier on today, but money is very tight, so for them to get that shows you the esteem that they are held in within Government. Q451 Lady Hermon: I have two quite different questions, although obviously, there will be a bit of an overlap given the topic we are discussing. The Northern Ireland Executive, we understand, is the only devolved Administration not to have actually formally nominated a representative to the Covenant Reference Group. In light of your evidence earlier today about the attitudes, certainly, of the most senior member in the Executive, the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, why do you think they have not nominated someone to the Covenant Reference Group? Mike Penning: I don t know. That is a straight answer to a straight question. Would we like them to? Of course we would, and we are doing everything we can, and we will continue to encourage them to do so. Of course, the Executive in Northern Ireland is completely different from the other two devolved Administrations. With that in mind, of course as we move more and more to normalisation within Northern Ireland we saw that with the G8 only last week would we hope that they send a delegation? Yes. Am I going to talk to them extensively about this? Yes. Do I want the same person to come every time? No: they can spread it around if they want. I don t mind how they do it, but I would like them to do that; of course I would. Q452 Lady Hermon: In light of the expression of support given by Martin McGuinness, you would expect things to change and improve, and for someone to be nominated not necessarily Martin McGuinness, obviously. Mike Penning: I did not discuss that point with him. I discussed the issue to do with supporting ex-service personnel and the Covenant. It is certainly something we can discuss, and I am more than happy to raise it again with them directly, through officials, if

142 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Ev 90 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 26 June 2013 Mike Penning MP necessary. It would be useful, to say the least, that they sent a representative to the committee. Q453 Lady Hermon: Yes, it would be extraordinarily helpful. Mike Penning: I have said it already: this is not just about Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein. There are five political parties involved in the Executive, in the coalition, and it is important that it is seen to be a Northern Ireland delegation. Q454 Lady Hermon: Yes, I think as a Committee we would be very happy if someone was to represent the Executive. Mike Penning: At the moment it is me. Q455 Oliver Colvile: Specifically on that point, it is either one of two things. Either we, Mr Chairman, might write as a Committee asking why the Executive in Northern Ireland has not nominated people, or would it be possible for you Mike Penning: It is entirely up to the Committee what you do, but I continue to raise it and publicly say that it would be helpful, to say the least, if a representative was at the committee. We are in a coalition situation in Northern Ireland, and there are five political parties represented in the Executive. If one turned up each time, that would be helpful, but that is for them to decide, and not for me. I want them to govern for want of a better word. Q456 Lady Hermon: We appreciate that you were not actually present for the statement by the Chancellor on the comprehensive spending review. I was struck by much that he said, but in particular he gave a commitment, much to be welcomed I am reading exactly what he said to fund the Military Covenant permanently. That was the word he used, and that was welcomed around the House. As the Minister with particular responsibility in Northern Ireland, could we have a guarantee that Northern Ireland and the veterans in Northern Ireland will benefit from that commitment of spending, and the commitment permanently? Mike Penning: As I understand the Chancellor s comments, he was speaking as the Chancellor for the United Kingdom, so naturally that would be for the United Kingdom. Q457 Lady Hermon: So our veterans in Northern Ireland will not be forgotten. Mike Penning: They are not forgotten now. Q458 Lady Hermon: They are not forgotten now. Could I just make a suggestion, Minister? It is something that has been brought to my attention in my constituency. As we move towards commemorations, which will be tinged with sadness, to mark the First World War, there are groups trying to upgrade war memorials to commemorate the war dead particularly of the Great War and the Second World War. Money is very tight for local government. Is it something that you could kindly take back you obviously have a very good working relationship with Mark Francois and the Ministry of Defence that in Northern Ireland we could look at money earmarked for upgrading war memorials across Northern Ireland where they need them? Not all of them do, but I do know one or two in my constituency. Mike Penning: You have touched on a very important point, which is the sad but important commemoration of the First World War, particularly the Somme, which is coming quite soon. The work that I am doing, and other Departments are doing, particularly with Ministers in the South, is hugely important. One of the things we are looking at doing is getting the five, or it may be seven, VCs that were won by Irishmen at the Somme. We will take those to the Somme. We are trying to track down the owners. We know the owners of most of them. I think two of them are in museums; the Fusiliers Museum in Armagh, which I had the pleasure of visiting, actually has one of them. It is not my portfolio, but in my own constituency we have a memorial, and there was help from the Memorial Fund. There is a national fund to help with restoration and repairs to memorials. I will get my officials to send that note to the Committee. Lady Hermon: That is very kind of you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Q459 Ian Paisley: I have a point on memorial and promotion helping to boost morale. As the Minister will know, I pushed the Armed Forces Minister quite hard about a permanent state of the art museum for the Irish soldier, because our history of fusiliers and all the rest of it is very significant. I don t know if the Minister would take a second bite at pushing for a very special one-off museum in Ulster for the Irish soldier, where all these things could be brought together, tourists could be attracted to it, and we could have a significant uplift of interest in the activities of the armed services. All the regimental silver, for example, could be collected and put into one point. It is something we have talked about, but it would be something that would be very significant for us. Mike Penning: I have raised it with the Armed Forces Minister. The MoD is going through a consultation at the moment. I think there will be a museum it is just where. There may even be more than one, interestingly enough. I have been trying to track down some of the regimental silver as well, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is really difficult, but very important. I come back to the previous point I was making on the work we are doing with the Republic. There is a sea change in mood, especially to do with First World War. I served with soldiers from the Republic who were in the British Army. It was very hard when they went home on leave really hard. A lot of them stayed with us actually, and did not go home for many years. After the First World War, there was a very similar situation; lots of them did not get jobs, did not get their jobs back, things like that, and a lot of the medals were thrown away or destroyed from shame. There is a real change in that a lot of people are now trying to get their medals back. They ask whether their grandfathers got their medals, if there is any way they can buy duplicate medals, and all these sorts of things. I know the Veterans Agency are doing a lot of work at the moment to actually try and make sure that

143 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev June 2013 Mike Penning MP families, no matter where they are from, north or south of the border, whose loved ones served bravely, could have those medals and those sorts of things back. The point the hon. Gentleman touched on, which I think is enormously important, is to remember the Irish soldier. Q460 Ian Paisley: Let us take the history of the Black Watch. When they served for the first time in Ireland in 1812, I think it was, they were paid an additional allowance because it was so windy and it blew their hats off. That is quite an interesting aside, and stories like that are Mike Penning: The Committee may not know that I have just been made an honorary Colonel of the Second Battalion of the Royal Irish Cadets, and head gear for me as a guardsman has become a whole new experience. The interesting thing is, of course, with the Mercians leaving Northern Ireland, a Scottish regiment coming back to be based in Northern Ireland will be hugely significant. As we know, that is now going to happen. Q461 David Simpson: It is good to have you here, Minister. My sympathies with your circumstances. One of the main issues that we have been pursuing during the course of the inquiry is the impact of the equality legislation in Northern Ireland, which you touched on briefly, on the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. Most recently, we heard that implementation of a significant portion of the Covenant was entirely in keeping with Northern Ireland s equality framework. What is your view on that? Mike Penning: I agree. Section 75 was the contentious thing. I met a delegation from the hon. Gentleman about this the other day, and Nigel Dodds said to me, This is not an issue for us now; we accept the evidence that you have put to us that it is not an issue. It does not mean we should be complacent. It is something we have to work at as a community to make sure, but the special legislation that sits with section 75 in Northern Ireland is not a hindrance for the Covenant, and that is very important. Q462 Lady Hermon: I appreciate you are not a lawyer so I am not putting you on the spot, but as a Committee we have received conflicting evidence from witnesses about the actual status of the Armed Forces Covenant. We know that we have got the Armed Forces Act of 2011, and some witnesses said that the Covenant itself was an aspiration; it is a principle about how we look after our veterans. Others felt it is enshrined in law, it is a legally enforceable right and the MoD has a responsibility. Would you like to give us the wisdom of your experience as to where you think the status of the Armed Forces Covenant truly lies? I can see from your face that you are pleased to have this question. Mike Penning: That is because I am not a lawyer. I remember going through the Lobbies and voting for a piece of legislation on the Military Covenant; it is law in this country. However, as I have said a couple of times to the Committee today, in my own constituency, there are some 4,000 people inappropriately housed on the social housing waiting list. Have I managed to resolve the issue of servicemen and women coming out of the armed forces and getting housed in my constituency as per the Covenant? No, I have not yet. It is an issue across the United Kingdom, but it is not an aspiration; it is a requirement that no one should be worse off, or whatever language we want to use, should they have come out of the armed forces. They should not be better off, but they should not be worse off. Q463 Lady Hermon: Yes. They should not be penalised for serving Queen and country. I agree with that indeed. Members of the Committee, and I wasn t one of them, were able to benefit from a recent visit to America. During the representations that were made to them there, one of the issues discussed was the fact that they have special courts the Veteran Treatment Courts in the United States. I am quoting because I wasn t on this particular trip. These were courts that were set up to address the specific needs of veterans involved in the criminal justice system, and help ensure sentences are positive and treatment orientated. Is that model in America something you would advocate that we should perhaps follow, or like me, do you believe that in fact we are equal before the law and that includes veterans as well? Mike Penning: It is not always that I agree with the hon. Lady, but I completely agree on this occasion. I am teasing you. How anybody wants to follow the American legal system frankly, I don t fancy that very much at all. It is a crazy system, and very litigious. We are all equals. If you have served the Queen, and in some cases we are talking about many, many years, no matter how you did it, you have the same rights as anybody else in this country. That has to be it. Having special courts for special people my concern is where will that end? If you look at America as to where it has gone, it is a very interesting situation. You have the likes of Judge Judy on the TV, where you give up your rights to a democratic trial because some pompous woman wants to get on TV again in the next couple of days. That is probably libellous, but there you go. Lady Hermon: Yes, I am very pleased to be unanimous with the Minister. Q464 Andrew Percy: In fairness to the American legal system, it is built on 1,000 years of English common law history, and the Judge Judy model could be operating in exactly the same way under our system. If you have signed a contract, there is nothing wrong with that. However, I want to come in on this treatment courts issue. As we saw at the presentation, it is not about giving people access to a different legal system at all, where there are different sanctions. It is about giving people who have served their country a more informal support to help prevent them reoffending. We do it in this country for lots of groups of people already. We do it for young people through the Respect programme. It is not something that runs contrary to the legal system. I would just say, Minister, that I hope this is something that you and other colleagues in

144 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Ev 92 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 26 June 2013 Mike Penning MP Government would at least look at. It is not about accessing a completely different judicial system; it is about how you treat people, who may have particular mental health problems that have been caused by their service, in avoiding reoffending. You were not to know from the way it has been presented today, but I hope that we will be able to, and I know Dave will be coming on to speak to you about this, because it is about preventing reoffending. Mike Penning: To be fair, I know the system and have looked at it. I am still quite antagonistic towards it, because I don t see the need here. Without delving into other Departments and other ministerial colleagues responsibilities, looking at America and looking at how we look after our vets are completely different. Even though they have veterans charities, they are not like ours. They are not like Help for Heroes, the British Legion or SSAFA. Combat Stress is what we have here. The similarities just are not there. Q465 Andrew Percy: I understand that in a way, but the presentation we received from the veterans court that was set up in Arkansas was not about people who are simply veterans having access; it is people whose criminal behaviour can be linked to something that has happened in service, and consequently they need to be dealt with in a particularly sensitive and different way, in the same way as people in our system who have a drug dependency or, through the Respect programme. We are trying to avoid court, so I would reiterate that. For people whose criminal behaviour is perhaps driven by their service, I would hope that we would be able to find something in our justice or probation system that would recognise that, and respond more sensitively. Mike Penning: I am always as pragmatic and as open minded as I can be. I will certainly speak to colleagues, particularly in the Ministry of Justice, and take a look at it. However, I would be misleading the Committee if I said that I thought there was a need to do that. I may be already starting from a negative position, and it is a long way to move me to another position. However, when you look at section 75, I did come from there. I did think there was a problem when I first came into this, so I am very open minded about it. I am conscious, though, that it is a very different system. Chair: One more contribution on this, then we will have to move on. Q466 Mr Anderson: I have been quite involved in this as well, Minister. The thing for me that stands out is that these courts are working. You can t forget the fact that they are veteran-specific. The Buffalo Court has been going the longest: 300 offenders, not one re-offence. Whatever way we pitch it, I would suggest as a nation we should look at that because, if nothing else, it would save us money. It is obviously for the betterment of the people in there, and the key thing is, everybody involved in the system and the courts are all ex-service people. They have empathy. They are not soft on the people going through the courts. The first thing people have to do is admit they are guilty. It was based on work they had done in drugs courts about ordinary people getting into drugs. It does not really do much good to bang those people up. All they keep doing is going back. It is about stopping that reoffending. All we ask as a Committee, from the evidence we have had, is: will the Government at least look at this? It will be different from things we have done in the past, although I have to mention the work we have done with Lord Beecham, who was the Labour spokesperson in the Lords, a longstanding lawyer. I worked with him in Newcastle. He said it is similar to what we do in domestic violence courts; people like Andrew will know better than me about that sort of thing. My view is, if this is something that is working, surely it needs looking at. Mike Penning: The commitment I gave to my hon. Friend is that I will speak to the Ministry of Justice. It is their brief, not mine. In general terms, it is the MoD as well. Whereas I have responsibility for the Covenant in Northern Ireland, the MoD has the responsibility for the Covenant in its entirety. My officials are scribbling away as we speak, and I shall drop them a line. Q467 Oliver Colvile: During the course of our trip, we obviously learnt quite a bit about how it is that the US Government takes greater responsibility for providing support for veterans than the UK Government. I fully understand there are a separate set of issues. They do not have a National Health Service; we do. They do not necessarily have municipal housing in the same way as we do either, so that s fine. Do you think there are other areas where the UK Government could provide greater support? How do you think this has been a big bugbear of mine during the course of the last three years we can try to get Government Departments working much more closely together? You told a wonderful story about how the MoD is working very closely with you, but what about other areas as well? Mike Penning: I will answer the last question first. Anything any Committee, Parliamentarian or anybody can do to get Government Departments to work closer together is brilliant. I experienced it when I was at Transport, when I gave an exemption to the special forces to use blue light. When I became the Transport Minister, I could not believe that bomb disposal guys could not technically use a blue light. We changed that law and allowed them to do so, and the same for our special forces. I think you are dragging me into territory that is not mine, and I have no intention of doing down that route, Mr Chairman. That is a matter for the MoD rather than me. I just have a specific brief on this in Northern Ireland. Rather than being tempted to have a personal view, I might let someone else give evidence on that, should they wish to. Q468 Oliver Colvile: Tomorrow, we are meeting the insurance industry to talk to them about the Covenant issue as well. Do you think there should be a way in which veterans potentially could get a preferential rate on insurance? Mike Penning: Insurance should be based on risk. That is for the insurers, which is why I was very much opposed to the European ruling that said that the

145 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :44] Job: Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o007_MP A - NIA (i) - Corrected.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev June 2013 Mike Penning MP insurance companies could not charge less for women than men, because women frankly are safer drivers than men. That is a fact. Lady Hermon: Oh, say that again for the record. Mike Penning: For the record it is a fact, actually. I personally think it is a matter for insurance companies to decide what the risk is, and whether or not they feel that they should encourage people to be insured with them because of their previous careers. It should be based on risk. That is what insurance is about, isn t it? You insure against risk. All I can say is that the armed forces has a broad church of driving abilities. Coming from the Guards, I should probably shut up at that point. Chair: That is the end of the public session. I will ask members of the public to leave the room now. Thank you very much for attending.

146 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [ :45] Job: Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o008_MP B - NIC Corrected.xml Ev 94 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Thursday 27 June 2013 Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair) Kate Hoey Naomi Long Nigel Mills Examination of Witness Witness: Christopher Jordan, Managing Director, Bureau Insurance, gave evidence. Q469 Chair: Mr Jordan, you are very welcome. Thank you very much for joining us. We are almost at the very end of the inquiry we are doing into applying the Armed Forces Covenant with particular respect to Northern Ireland. We are very grateful to you for joining us. Would you like to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what you do? Christopher Jordan: My name is Christopher Jordan. I am the managing director and creator of two insurance organisations Bureau Insurance and Orbis Insurance. We deal with the uncomfortable risks, the risks that most insurance companies decline. Bureau, for instance, on household insurance, deals with houses that had subsidence, flooding, people with criminal convictions. Orbis deals with impaired life travel and life assurance. We are members of BIBA, British Insurance Brokers Association, which accounts for virtually all brokers in the United Kingdom. We are very energetic members of BIBA because we actually solve or attempt to solve the problems. I have given evidence to the flood committee, and I think we have come up with a reasonably practical idea on how to solve uninsurable houses in flood. About two and a half years ago I was contacted by BIBA, who in turn had been contacted by Ian Paisley, with a question along the lines of, Could the private sector intervene to improve the Armed Forces lot? I have read the Covenant, not all 78 pages I do apologise but those relating to financial products. The gist of it is that we are here to try to improve the lot of the Armed Forces, and part of that relates to the financial products that are available to them and at what cost they are available to them. That was my remit. I met with Oliver Letwin about nine months ago and produced a report for him, which I have updated, and I have copies here that I will leave at the end. He was also interested in another idea that had come up. Apart from just insurances, could the private sector administer the MOD compensation scheme cheaper than is happening at the moment? The answer, without being derogatory to anyone, is probably yes, because it is their job to do so. Secondly, I have been reading reports in the press that under the MOD compensation scheme, there are now a number of claims that are lawyer-led. The litigation culture is now creeping in everywhere in our society; insurance companies with whiplash claims are very much aware of that. I have a very major probably the largest insurance company in this country that would like to tender for that position and give a fixed amount for it. You can either say yes or no, but it would not diminish the quality of administration. We think it would probably improve it. That is really my background, and that is where I am up to at the moment. Ian suggested coming along to this meeting, and Edward very kindly gave me all the points that you would like to raise. I have tried to be as prepared as possible. Q470 Chair: Thank you. You say the companies you are involved with deal with the more difficult end of the market. Is there any implication in what you said that members of the Armed Forces may struggle to get insurance through the ordinary channels? Christopher Jordan: Probably not. There are some instances, but probably not. I was asked to give my comments on it because we have been quite well known in the industry for solving problems. First of all, with regard to the access to insurance products by the British military, there is now huge access to insurance for everybody in this country through various channels, either through a broker, an insurance company direct, or the proliferation of comparison websites like GoCompare and comparethemarket.com that kind of thing. That is open to everybody, including the Armed Forces. There are a handful of insurances that are more difficult and more expensive for the Armed Forces to access. It is not discrimination as such; it is what the insurance company would call risk assessment. The two major ones are life assurance and personal accident insurance. Most of those covers exclude the war risk, and there is no point in going to Afghanistan if you do not have the full cover. The insurance companies will either exclude it, basically saying they do not want to quote for it, or they will quote for it at very, very high margins, because of the perceived risk, and I think it is probably perceived, although we have all seen the harrowing stories. There are other minor ones like travel insurance, because if someone from the British military books a holiday nine months in advance, he may get injured in the meantime or he may get called up, which would evoke the cancellation. There is a very minor insurance called weddings insurance, where again both those things may come into play and you may have to cancel or postpone. For the rest, the major insurances like motor and household insurance and gap insurance and all the other insurances are not rated dissimilarly from anybody else in this country, but they are for life and personal accident. When I saw your remit and the questions you had, I tried to go one better and provide the insurances that the military want but at a cheaper price, and that is what the report here says to do on a non-profit making basis.

147 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :45] Job: Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o008_MP B - NIC Corrected.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev June 2013 Christopher Jordan Chair: That is interesting. Q471 Naomi Long: You mentioned issues like life insurance and personal injury insurance being more difficult for the military. You talked about the exclusions when people are engaged in active service and so on. Would there be a disparity between the rates for someone resident in Northern Ireland and someone resident in GB as their normal place of residence? Christopher Jordan: None at all. Naomi Long: That is something that we would experience more generally in terms of insurance. Obviously the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland would generally be seen as higher; therefore, there may be a perception that people are more at risk even when they are not on active service. In Northern Ireland for example, people who have retired from the Army might still be seen as a bigger risk to insurers. Christopher Jordan: We have never come across that. I worked with Linsey Farrell in Northern Ireland on four occasions to make available household insurance for people who have been involved in the Troubles. We have a very large scheme in this country called Fairplay, which is for people with criminal convictions. We were invited over there to find out if we could extend that particular cover to people in Northern Ireland, which we did. In this country, the proposal form asks what I think is a bit of a dubious question: Have you ever had a criminal conviction? I think that is quite unfair. The question should be, Have you ever had a criminal conviction that has not been spent? We give a chart that says what you have achieved. If it has been spent, we do not want to know. The one thing we had a problem with in Northern Ireland was the insistence that we could not call it a criminal conviction; we had to call it a political conviction. To me it was semantics, but as long as I got the information I wanted, I did not care what kind of thing you called it political, criminal, whatever. We agreed to do that, and we have insured people who have been involved in the Troubles. As I said, I met with Linsey on about four occasions to overcome that kind of problem. Q472 Kate Hoey: Do you not distinguish between the kinds of trouble that they have been involved in? If someone has been involved as a member of the Armed Services or someone has been involved as a member of the IRA, it would not make any difference? Christopher Jordan: No, it is the conviction itself. When we first started the scheme, we took advice from a probation officer, who said, Yes, look at the conviction, which is what the insurance industry does. If you answer yes to the question, Have you ever been involved in a criminal conviction? the probability is that you will not get insurance. One in four working adults in the United Kingdom has a criminal conviction, a non-motoring criminal conviction, which is 8 million people it is staggering. Chair: Really? One in four? Christopher Jordan: Yes, one in four working adults. There are about eight people in this room. Q473 Chair: We will not go into that. I think you mentioned in your submission that you are looking to try to reduce the costs of insurance to the Armed Forces. You briefly touched on it, but would you like to give us a bit more information? Christopher Jordan: Yes. At the moment, with the exception of life and personal accident, the costs are very similar to what would be available to anybody in this room or anybody walking past Parliament. The insurance companies do not discriminate; they riskassess, and life and personal accident is one of the areas where the risk assessment says we need to charge higher. They are private companies and they have to make a return for their investors. I believe that if you cut out the brokers commission, which is cutting my own throat, and reduce the profit element of the insurance company, we could probably save about 40% of costs on every single insurance for the Armed Forces, which is a huge amount. I am launching Military Insurance Services here in the Commons on 16 or 23 October. That is my organisation and it is a broker-led one, and it will offer 11 products from life right through to gap. It is a precursor to launching a full-blown, not-for-profit insurance company. We will be working on the smell of an oil can for it, and it will all be technology driven, quote and buy. We believe that we can get premiums reduced by about 20%. For us, the larger the market force, the more attractive it is to the insurance industry. The British military the military family is the Armed Forces, the reservists, the veterans, the cadets, civilian workers of the MOD and all their families, grandparents, parents, children etc. The problem with the Military Insurance Services insurance company is that it needs to be funded by about 40 million. It is basically a mutual a co-operative; it is owned by the members, for the members. The members would be anybody who insures with it. The profits would then go back into the company to help reduce commissions or, shall we say, level the playing field with regard to life and personal accident. The problem is that commercial lenders are not interested in organisations that do not make huge investment and returns on their money. It is possible that normal commercial lending avenues will not be available, so we are going to have to seek elsewhere. We may even seek the money from the insurance industry itself or outside investors people who are patriotic enough in this country. It could even be, and I will mention it in a report later on, a possibility that the Government might consider. It is money that will come back, but it has to be there to reserve the possibility of claims in the first place. Our long-term aim is to form a not-for-profit insurance company, which will offer 11 forms of insurance at up to about 40% cheaper than is available on the market at the moment. Some of the profits will go to subsidise life and personal accident insurance so they are the same for everybody within that military family. Q474 Nigel Mills: Forgive my ignorance on this topic, but if I am in the military, the time when I have a much bigger life insurance risk is when I am deployed somewhere, presumably, in the line of fire.

148 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [ :45] Job: Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o008_MP B - NIC Corrected.xml Ev 96 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 June 2013 Christopher Jordan Do the Ministry of Defence actually provide insurance when you are there? Christopher Jordan: Yes, there is the Ministry of Defence compensation scheme, whose headline figures I believe are 570,000 for loss of life and what we call capital benefits, which is loss of limbs or permanent disability. In addition to that there is an extra 1 million as an income stream over several years. Somebody totally disabled could expect up to 1.5 million. I recently interviewed the wife of a rugby player who was completely and totally paralysed playing his last game of rugby; 1.5 million would have gone nowhere. They have spent about 500,000 on a house with lifts and all the rest of it. It is purely a parliamentary decision as to how much money you would pay, but 1.5 million is not a lot. If the individual wants to top it up, that is where life assurance and personal accident comes in under the private sector. However, I think it has to be borne in mind that the risk is probably greater in the line of fire and in war, but it is also fairly high in this country because of accidents that happen on the defence range. Life assurance should be for 365 days a year, not just for that period in Afghanistan. I used to get people phoning me up at the airport saying, I am flying off to America; can you increase my personal accident to 5 million? I would say, If that is what you want to do, I ll do it, but why die rich in the air and poor on the ground? Life insurance should be for life; you are protecting your family irrespective of whether you are in Afghanistan or Aldershot. Q475 Nigel Mills: I have no idea I have never done it but how much more expensive would a life insurance policy be for somebody serving in the military that excluded while you were in theatre? Christopher Jordan: The loading would be quite substantial, but what is the point of having it? Life assurance is life assurance. Your commitments to your family do not disappear just because you happen to be at war. You either have it at its fullest or it can be quite worthless otherwise. There is, as I say, the military compensation scheme, which has a headline figure of 570,000. This is the scheme that we talked about with Oliver Letwin, about bringing in private industry, which could save a very considerable amount of money in administering it and looking at the kinds of claims that ambulance chasing lawyers tend to bring forward at the moment whiplash and all the rest of it. It is part of the fodder of insurance companies now. Q476 Nigel Mills: We are here looking at the Military Covenant in Northern Ireland as compared with the rest of the UK. It is not your experience that you would be saying to a serving soldier from Northern Ireland, When you come back, the support you get at home is a bit less than you get elsewhere in the UK, so actually you need extra things in your insurance to help you sort out housing or help you get the health treatment you need. That is not something you have ever seen a need for. Christopher Jordan: I would see the need for it if it existed. Insurance companies looking at domestic insurance like household and motor insurance do postcode underwriting, which has been slated for various reasons. If you have a BT postcode, you may be paying higher for your household insurance because of the incidence of malicious damage and theft in those particular areas. If you have an NW postcode, you will be paying twice as much as if you had a BT postcode because there is so much shrinkswell London clay; insurance companies will tap in your postcode and see a high subsidence area. There are various factors that go into insurance. BT is unfortunately one of those areas that are looked upon as being a high risk for claims, and of course they had a lot of problems with flooding last year in the BT areas. Q477 Chair: That is very close to my constituency in Tewkesbury, where we have the GL20 postcode and that tends to be a disqualifying factor in getting flood insurance unfortunately. Going back to PAX insurance and Service Life Insurance, they provide products exclusively to members of the Armed Services, as I understand it. What is your view on that? Christopher Jordan: In a way they are slight competitors, so it would not be fair of me to really comment upon them. When you say it is exclusive, PAX is administered by Aon, which is the second largest insurance brokerage in the world. It is actually underwritten by AIG, American International Group, so it is not exclusive; PAX is part of the Aon group. People will say, Oh, you are Fairplay insurance, but Fairplay is part of the Bureau organisation. My feedback and hearsay is that they are very, very good at what they do. I do not have any negative comments on it at all. It is necessary and I think they have been very successful schemes, which shows how necessary they are. It is just that I wanted to take a different tack. Q478 Kate Hoey: Is there room for more insurance companies dealing in this way? Christopher Jordan: At the moment there are some that specialise in it. There are some retired people from the military who have set up their own insurance brokerages. Aon has probably had the largest slice of the market with their PAX scheme. What I am saying is that there is possibly a radically different approach, which is to recognise what the Armed Forces have done for this country and to start cutting profits to give back to the Armed Forces. That is what I really would like to do. Q479 Kate Hoey: Just so I am clear, do you deal only with people who have left the Armed Forces? Christopher Jordan: No. Kate Hoey: You insure people through life assurance policies when they are in the Armed Forces. Don t the Armed Forces have insurance when they are serving? Christopher Jordan: No, it is a purely voluntary scheme to insure your own life. Kate Hoey: But aren t you covered in the Army? Christopher Jordan: Yes. They have the MOD compensation scheme. Q480 Kate Hoey: Is yours better? Christopher Jordan: No. You cannot knock the MOD compensation scheme; it is a very good scheme and

149 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [ :45] Job: Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/031091/031091_o008_MP B - NIC Corrected.xml Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev June 2013 Christopher Jordan very worthwhile to the Armed Forces. What I was saying about it was that the insurance industry could probably administer the scheme. I did mention to Oliver Letwin that there is a possibility that the insurance industry could insure, and he felt that selfinsurance was probably the cheapest way to go. I am not sure if that is right, but it depends on what claims you are going to get in a year, and one cannot predict that. I was suggesting that the insurance industry administer the scheme on behalf of the MOD and possibly save the money in two ways. Firstly, they would bring the insurance industry s expertise to bear on administration; and secondly, they could start looking at lawyer-led claims and whether those are being inflated. They certainly are in the insurance industry whiplash, 3,000. We all know that in parts of this country there are gangs going around deliberately ramming into cars for personal injury claims. If you watch daytime TV, it is not all Jeremy Kyle; it is all about InjuryLawyers4U and what have you. It is a whole culture that we have unfortunately imported from America. It has grown and grown and grown. Look at any daily paper: the claims management companies for personal injury and PPI have huge adverts, so it is obviously very profitable for them. Q481 Chair: Is there anything else that you could help us with in terms of providing extra security for members of the Armed Forces, and indeed veterans? Christopher Jordan: We include the families because, from an insurance point of view, if you insure one person and they have a claim, you are going to lose money. If you insure 100,000 people, then you can absorb the claims. You reach critical mass. We decided we would extend it to anybody who has been in the Armed Forces veterans, cadets, territorials, civilian workers because you increase the market from a purely commercial point of view, which gives pressure on costs. There were three strands to the report I presented to Oliver Letwin. One was insurance, which we have covered. The second one was the administration of the MOD compensation scheme, which Kate brought up. The third one was banking. I have been rather usurped by what has happened with guaranteeing deposits, but my aim was to ask the Government to fund a scheme whereby somebody in the Armed Forces could borrow, as a deposit, their salary. If somebody was earning 30,000 in the Armed Forces, they would borrow it from the Government at, shall we say, 1% to use purely as a deposit on the purchase of a property. Armed with that 30,000, they could then go along to a commercial lender, Santander or whatever, and say, I want to buy a house for 150,000 and I have a 20% deposit, so the rates would come down commensurate with the size of deposit. That is one thing I have put forward. The second thing, and I am talking to one of the major clearers now, is to get an affinity card to go alongside the Barclaycard but to be called the Military Insurance Services card, either to have a cheaper rate or to go back into charity or go back into the non-profit organisation. They were the three strands: insurance, MOD compensation and banking. I have enough here to leave everybody a copy. Chair: Thank you. That is a very, very useful short session and very interesting. Apologies for the small number of people here, but it has been very useful to us. Thank you for your written submission as well. Thank you very much indeed.

150 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SE] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 98 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Written evidence Memorandum from the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee I write to you on behalf of the above committee to raise concerns regarding the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant (AFC) in Northern Ireland and to respectfully request that the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) consider launching an inquiry along similar lines than that announced by the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee on the 31 October There is a perceived lack of movement with regards to implementing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. Some Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly use Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act to veto any attempt to implement the AFC and some others use it as an excuse to do nothing, This should not mean that we should do nothing as this leaves the Service and Ex-Service Communities in Northern Ireland at a disadvantage to the rest of the United Kingdom. Something needs to be done (even if quietly) to help and support the Service and Ex-Service Communities in Northern. Ireland. The NIAC may also be able to help with regards to the AFC Interim Report (2011). It states on page 8 of the report: Many of the services delivered by Government to members of the Armed Forces Community are provided in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Devolved Administrations. In drafting the report, we have taken care to ensure that we distinguish clearly between the situation in different parts of the UK where that is a relevant factor. It will be apparent from the text that our relationship with the Scottish and Welsh Governments is well advanced in these areas, but also that there is further work to be done in building links with the Northern Ireland Executive It may be that the NIAC could establish what is being done about building links with the Northern Ireland Executive and by whom. On page 14 of the report it also states: In acknowledging the very considerable progress made, we wish to draw particular attention to two points that we would expect to see addressed in the next annual report to be published in the autumn of 2012, The first is the application of the principles underlying the Covenant in Northern Ireland and, associated with that; the absence of Northern Ireland representation on the Covenant Reference Group, The Annual Report reflects this point but it is one which we hope could he addressed with the devolved administration sooner rather than later. It would be very helpful if the NIAC could address these two very important points. I look forward to your response. February 2012 Further memorandum from the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee About Us Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs), are statutory bodies established by government to support the Veterans community of ex-servicemen and women, war widows (ers) and their dependents. Members, all volunteers, are appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence but the committees are independent of both the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The committees, formerly known as War Pensions Committees, were established in 1921 in the wake of the First World War. Their role was to assist the Ministry of Pensions. Members adjudicated on and administered grants to disabled ex-servicemen and also organised the care of widows and neglected children. They also monitored the Government s administration of the War Disablement Pension Scheme. Although both the title of the committee and its responsibilities have changed, ensuring that Veterans and their dependents are aware of the benefits to which they are entitled under, for example, the War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation Schemes, remains central to their role. There are now 13 VAPCs organized on a regional basis throughout the United Kingdom, with separate committees in the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland. In the latter, the Secretary of State appoints six members and the remainder are from ex-service charity organisations. Many VAPC members are ex-servicemen and women. Their role is described in detail below.

151 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 99 The Role of the VAPCs (1) Raising awareness The VAPCs raise awareness, especially at local level, of the support available to Veterans via the: (a) War Pensions Scheme. (b) Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. (c) SPVA Veterans Welfare Service. (d) Welfare Pathway and public service provision. (e) Cross-government support to both Veterans and serving members of the Armed Forces and their families. (2) Assisting The VAPCs assist the Veterans community by (a) acting as advocates for the implementation of cross-government support to injured personnel, their dependants and Veterans; (b) highlighting gaps or issues in provision of services and feeding these back through SPVA or any mechanism subsequently put in place by the providing Department or organisation; (c) understanding the welfare provision network in their local areas and assisting Veterans and dependants in accessing local services as envisaged under the Service Personnel Command Paper; (d) working with all parties to assist individual Veterans and their families when they are unable to obtain the required support and are experiencing difficulty in accessing services; (e) referring individual Veterans and their families to SPVA Welfare for assessment where appropriate; and (f) monitoring the SPVA welfare service and liaising with other organisations with a view to ensuring the welfare needs of veterans and their dependants are addressed. (3) Advising and representing The VAPCs can advise and represent Veterans: (a) who have problems or complaints regarding their War Pensions or the AFCS claims process where there is no formal recourse to an independent body. VAPCs liaise closely with SPVA; (b) by offering an independent explanation of a scheme as it relates to an individual Veteran, assessing issues in response to specific complaints; and (c) by providing a formal independent review of complaints by convening an Independent Complaints Panel where necessary, as outlined by the SPVA complaints procedure. (4) Recommending The VAPCs play a part in consultation processes which affect Veterans by (a) acting as a conduit for local consultation by Ministers, the MOD and the SPVA on issues affecting Veterans who receive a pension from either the War Pensions or Armed Forces Compensation Schemes; and (b) Commenting on policy initiatives put forward by government. Northern Ireland Armed Forces and Veterans Community We believe that the Veterans and Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged compared to their counterparts in the rest of the UK. Some would say that Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act is a barrier and that it should be amended. Our concern is the apparent lack of Political interest to either allay these fears or to actively address the issues. Other devolved administrations have put mechanisms in place to address the needs of veterans but there does not seem to be any movement by the administration in Stormont. Communication has been entered into with Members of Parliament and Government Ministers but the response has been that this falls within the remit of Stormont. It is alarming to note that, the NI Executive failed to respond to a request for their input into the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report On 28 June 2010, the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill was introduced as a private Member s Bill by Mr David McNarry, however the administration at Stormont did not endorse this. In addressing the COMMITTEE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER on 12 January 2011, Mr Bob Collins (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland) stated: As far as the remit and interest of the Equality Commission is concerned, it appeared initially as though what was represented as the intention of the draft Bill may have been in some conflict with equality

152 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 100 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence legislation. However, on the face of it, after careful reading, the Bill seems not to conflict with any equality or anti-discrimination legislation. What is concerning to us is disparity and disadvantage, we as a body are not calling for preferential or priority treatment for the Armed Forces Community and Veterans, all we ask is for parity with other Armed Forces Communities and Veterans throughout the rest of the UK. If we may give some examples where we believe some progress could be made. Housing In England, Scotland and Wales a high priority is given for adapted social housing for seriously injured service leavers. Employment Spouses of service personnel are disadvantaged on posting to Northern Ireland. CRB checks are not valid in Northern Ireland. Education Family can apply for a school place on receipt of a married quarter address but a supernumerary place cannot be applied for by the school until the child is resident, this can lead to a gap in education and does not instil a seamless transfer. Health Service people with severe genital injuries are guaranteed three cycles of IVF in England, two to three in Scotland and two in Wales. In Northern Ireland eligible couples are offered one IVF treatment. Links between the Armed Forces Community in NI and Departments of the NI Executive. Some informal links probably exist but are not necessarily trumpeted as otherwise they may attract adverse reaction from political opponents. 38 (Irish) Bde is the regional infrastructure organisation which has responsibility for all serving personnel. Reserve Forces & Cadets Association NI (RFCA NI) has responsibility for reservist employment issues and it has been suggested in Parliament that they should broaden into other associated spheres. (They are new in the field of caring for Veterans) However Government has already put in place other organisations to advise and deliver welfare not to mention the excellent work of other MOD providers, for example: the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee (VA&PC) and the Veterans Welfare Services (VWS) who work within the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA), the UDR and R IRISH (HS) Aftercare Service (both of these organisations being part of the MOD), also the outstanding work of the local Service and Ex-Service Charities including the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress, SSAFA Forces Help, the NI Phoenix Project and Naval, Regimental and RAF Associations. What is missing in a Northern Ireland context is an overarching level of coordination, cooperation and governance. The only coherent link between any of these Armed Forces community agencies is the Armed Forces Liaison Forum where routine meetings take place (2 or 3 times a year) within Dept of Health and Social Service and Public Safety (DHSSPSNI) attended by Bde, Aftercare Service, Veterans Welfare Service, VA& PC and ex-services charities such as Combat Stress, Royal British Legion and the Army Family Federation. The NI Equality legislation (Sect 75 of the Northern Ireland Act) legally prevents veterans or anyone else being treated more favourably than others but it is our opinion that the word priority conjures up some form of preferential treatment over someone else. This we believe, is wrong and all we aspire to achieve is to insure that no one within the Armed Forces & Veterans Community is disadvantaged because of their background or service. Principal barriers come from opponents citing Sect 75 which is legally binding. This we believe is akin to the industry barrier of you cannot do that because of health and safety There are those that would use the legislation to veto any progress in implementing the AFC (or parts thereof) and others that would use it as an excuse to not do anything.

153 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 101 The level of coordination between the NI Executive, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO), the MOD and other relevant UK Government departments These links must include the welfare service providers, both MOD and Charities, who are best placed to support all Veterans, The Northern Ireland Devolved Government must be seen to support the Armed Forces and Veterans Community with practical and financial assistance. The absence of NI representation on the Covenant Reference Group As of today s date we are still unaware if Northern Ireland is still not represented on the Covenant Reference Group January 2013 Supplementary memorandum from the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee Further to a request by the Committee for copies of correspondence between the Northern Ireland Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee and the OFMDFM, the below correspondence was supplied. Correspondence from John Davies MBE, Chairman, Northern Ireland War Pensions Committee to Rt Hon Peter Robinson MP MLA, 28 July 2008 Subject: Priority treatment for war disability pensioners Dear Mr Robinson I am writing to you in my capacity of Chairman of the Northern Ireland War Pensions Committee, a constitutionally designated body appointed by the Secretary of State, about the totally unacceptable and continuing situation regarding the non-availability of priority medical treatment for war disability pensioners living in Northern Ireland. I did write to your predecessor, Dr Paisley, last November, however, sadly, he simply dismissed the matter with a single line response, which was signed by a junior civil servant. As you are probably aware, the facility of medical treatment has been withdrawn from those eligible individuals living in the Province, whilst the service is still readily available to those living on the UK Mainland. Furthermore, separate arrangements are in place in the Republic of Ireland, whereby the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) will pay for private treatment for an accepted war disablement pensionable condition, when such treatment is not provided under the public health service in that country. The fundamental view of the Northern Ireland War Pensions Committee and indeed the wider ex-service Community, remains that war pensioners living in the Province are being treated quite unfairly and differently from their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. As such, we are absolutely obliged and totally committed to continue to make representation at the highest level until the matter is resolved to the benefit of our war pensioners. The bottom line is that these war pensioners, a number of whom are now old, frail and living in difficult conditions. Many still struggle under the burden of wartime injuries. These individuals, when they enlisted, joined the British Armed Forces and, in their time of need are being clearly disenfranchised from their colleagues living in the remainder of the United Kingdom In comparison with our counterparts on the Mainland, veterans living in Northern Ireland are being completely ignored. I say, this, because both the devolved Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly are working hard to introduce new initiatives for veterans. To address this shortcoming, would it not be sensible that you appointed a Veterans Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to ensure that the needs of our local veterans are being met. In view of the foregoing, I am now writing to seek whatever support you can give to ensure that veterans living in Northern Ireland receive the same privileges as those living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely, John Davies, MBE Chairman Northern Ireland War Pensions Committee Reply from Kevin Curran, Correspondence Secretary, OFMDFM to John Davies MBE, Chairman, Northern Ireland War Pensions Committee, 5 August 2008 Dear Mr Davies Thank you for your letter dated 28 July regarding Priority Treatment for War Disability Pensioners.

154 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 102 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Your correspondence is currently under consideration and a response will be issued in due course. Yours sincerely Kevin Curran Correspondence Secretary February 2013 Executive Summary Memorandum from the Department for Social Development Northern Ireland 1. The Department for Social Development is responsible for housing policy in Northern Ireland. The Department s position is that applicants for social housing or homelessness assistance must not be disadvantaged because of a background in the Armed Forces. Introduction 2. The Department for Social Development: has overall control and responsibility for preparing and directing social housing policy in Northern Ireland; works closely with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and Registered Housing Associations in implementing social housing polices, and has regulatory powers over the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and Registered Housing Associations. Information for the Committee Access to social housing 3. Article 22 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 requires the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to allocate its housing accommodation according to a Scheme approved by the Department. By agreement, registered housing associations in Northern Ireland also allocate their housing according to the Housing Executive s Housing Selection Scheme. 4. Article 29 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 makes it unlawful to discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the basis of political opinion or religious belief in the allocation of housing in Northern Ireland. While the Housing Selection Scheme did at one time include additional points for ex-service applications, such provision is now likely to be unlawful. The Department s current approach is based on ensuring that ex-service personnel are treated no less favourably than other applicants and work to date has focused on three issues: homelessness; connection with Northern Ireland, and guidance. Homelessness 5. Under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, the Housing Executive has a duty to secure that accommodation becomes available for eligible applicants who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need. To ensure that individuals who are do not become homeless when they are discharged from the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defence issues a Certificate of Cessation of Entitlement to Occupy Service Living Accommodation six months before discharge. The Department has ensured that the Housing Executive will accept such a Certificate as evidence that an applicant is threatened with homelessness and therefore falls within the scope of the Executive s statutory duties to provide advice about the prevention of homelessness and, where the applicant has a priority need, to secure that accommodation is available. 6. Article 5 of the 1988 Order provides that a homeless person has priority need for re-housing if they are vulnerable for any special reason. The Department takes the view that ex-service applicants who are at risk of homelessness or rough sleeping because of their institutional background are vulnerable persons within the meaning of Article 5 and should be awarded priority status. Connection with Northern Ireland 7. A particular rule of the Housing Selection could be interpreted in such a way as to render applicants for social housing ineligible if they are ex-service personnel from other parts of the UK who have been based in Northern Ireland.

155 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev As a first step towards removing this potential barrier, the Housing Executive has been instructed to interpret the rules of the Housing Selection Scheme in a way which does not disadvantage any ex-service applicant. The necessary amendment to the Scheme will be made at the next available opportunity. Guidance 9. The Department aims to issue guidance for the Housing Executive on the provision of housing for service and ex-service personnel. The thrust of the guidance will be that applicants for social housing or homelessness assistance in Northern Ireland must not be disadvantaged because of a background in the Armed Forces. Future position on social housing in Northern Ireland 10. In England, legislation requires councils to give additional preference for housing to certain applicants with connections to the Armed Forces and prevents councils from using the requirement for applicants to have a local connection in a way that discriminates against applicants who have served with the Armed Forces in the council s area. 11. The Department has commissioned academic experts to undertake a fundamental review of social housing allocation policy in Northern Ireland. The experts have been asked to explore the possibility of giving some recognition to ex-service applicants. However the different legal framework makes it unlikely that we would be able to fully reflect the position in Great Britain. Affordable Housing 12. On 27 April 2012, the Scottish Government announced that the priority groups eligible to apply for its shared equity schemes for first time buyers would include serving members of the armed forces and veterans as well as widows, widowers and other partners of service personnel killed in action. 13. Given that the provision of affordable housing is governed by the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, it is unlikely that it would be lawful to follow the Scottish example in Northern Ireland. 14. The Department is exploring new ways in which more affordable homes can be delivered for all and has offered to facilitate a meeting between a local veterans organization (AA Veterans Support) and the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association. Adapted Housing 15. Service personnel leaving the Armed Forces because of injury or disability can be allowed stay in service families housing for three months after discharge but may ultimately need access to adapted social housing. This need is assessed by the Housing Executive and, because of their disabilities, seriously injured ex-service personnel are likely to have a high priority for adapted dwellings. 16. The Housing Executive works with other providers, including veterans organizations, to ensure that the full range of applicants needs can be met. Conclusion 17. In summary, the Department s position is that applicants for social housing or homelessness assistance must not be disadvantaged because of a background in the Armed Forces. The Department s current approach to access to social housing is based on ensuring that ex-service personnel are treated no less favourably than other applicants, in line with the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order January 2013 Memorandum from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 1. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (the Commission) pursuant to Section 69 (1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, reviews the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice relating to the protection of Human Rights. 1 In accordance with this function the following advice is submitted to the Committee in response to its call for evidence on the Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland (NI). 2. The Commission provides advice drawing upon the full range of internationally accepted human rights standards, including the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the treaty obligations of the Council of Europe and United Nations (UN) systems which the United Kingdom (UK) has ratified and is therefore duty bound under international law. The relevant international treaties in this context include; The European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 ( ECHR ) [UK ratification 1951]; 1 Northern Ireland Act 1998, s.69 (1).

156 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 104 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 ( ICCPR ) [UK ratification 1967]; European Social Charter, 1961 [UK ratification 1962]; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 ( ICCPR ) [UK ratification 1976]; The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 ( ICESCR ) [UK ratification 1976]; The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2009 ( UNCRPD ) [UK ratification 2009]; and The International Labour Organisation Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 [UK ratification 1954]. 3. In addition to these treaty standards there exists a body of soft law developed by international human rights bodies. These declarations and principles are non-binding but provide further guidance in respect of specific areas. The relevant standards in this context are; Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 4 of the Committee of Ministers Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces ; and OSCE Handbook on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel 4. The Commission notes that there are concerns regarding the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in NI. For example, the Ministry of Defence 2012 Annual Report on the Covenant states: In contrast to Scotland and Wales, it has not been possible to make the same progress in building support for and delivering the Armed Forces Covenant from within the Northern Ireland Executive. The suggestion that the Covenant could provide preferential access to cross-government services for serving and former members of the Armed Forces could be seen as running counter to their strict equalities legislation The Commission in its submission will provide advice on the international human rights obligations which the UK Government and NI Executive are required to comply with. This submission does not advise however on the application of NI domestic equality legislation as this function is within the competence of the Equality Commission NI. 6. International human rights law requires the UK Government and NI Executive to guarantee protections to all persons on an equal basis, without direct or indirect discrimination of any kind. In particular, the Commission advises that jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Engel v Netherlands has made clear that: the Convention applies in principle to members of the armed forces and not only to civilians. It specifies in Articles 1 and 14 that everyone within (the) jurisdiction of the contracting States is to enjoy without discrimination the rights and freedoms [set forth within it] 3 7. The Commission further advises that the ECtHR has ruled that a differential treatment of certain groups may be justified provided that it meets a legitimate aim and is proportionate. 4 Indeed, the Court has found that a failure to make reasonable and proportionate adjustments for persons with unique circumstances may amount to discrimination. 5 An example of this in the domestic context is the Court of Appeal judgement in the case of Burnip et. al. 6 In this instance the Court of Appeal found housing benefit regulations to be discriminatory as they failed to make reasonable adjustments for disabled tenants who may require an additional room to accommodate a carer overnight. 10. The Commission advises that international human rights bodies have recognised the need for specific protections for armed forces personnel and have sought to enhance protections through a number of instruments. For example, the Committee of Minister s Recommendations draw upon the right to adequate food as protected by the ICESCR, Article 11, setting out the right of members of the armed forces to decent and sufficient nutrition. Similarly, further to the right to family life as protected by the ICESCR, Article 10 and the ECHR, Article 8, the OSCE Handbook recommends that armed forces should organize programmes for assisting families/partners in case of deployments abroad Whilst international human rights instruments principally refer to serving members of the armed forces, a number of the standards also set out obligations with respect to veterans. For instance, the Committee of Minister s have recommended that states put in place appropriate compensation schemes for persons leaving the armed forces due to injury as a result of service The Armed Forces Covenant relates to armed forces personnel as defined broadly, including both serving individuals and those who are no longer in service. 9 2 Ministry of Defence 2012 Annual Report on the Covenant 3 Engel v Netherlands, European Court of Human Rights, 8 August 1976, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 1, 1979, p Posti and Rahko v Finland (App /95), 24 September 2002, (2003) 37 EHRR 58 5 Glor v. Switzerland case (Application No /04, judgment 30 April 2009) 6 Burnip, Trengove, Gorry v SSWP [2012] EWCA Civ OSCE Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel (Warsaw: 2008) pg Ministry of Defence Armed Forces Covenant 2011 Page 6 9 Indeed in certain respects it extends to the family of service personnel

157 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev In respect of serving personnel the Covenant contains a number of obligations which reinforce existing human rights. For example, it recognises Government s responsibility to maintain an organisation which treats every individual fairly, with dignity and respect, and an environment which is free from bullying, harassment and discrimination. 10 This recognition accords with the ICCPR, Article 7 and the ECHR, Article 3, both of which prohibit torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Moreover, the commitment to address such incidents reflects a recommendation by the Committee of Ministers that states take robust action.. to morally condemn any such treatment and to bring to justice and punish those responsible The right to accommodation of an adequate standard protected by the ICESCR, Article 11, is also addressed by the Covenant as it recognises that Where Serving personnel are entitled to publicly-provided accommodation, it should be of good quality, affordable, and suitably located. This commitment reflects the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers that armed forces personnel s accommodation should provide sufficient living space and be appropriately ventilated In respect of veterans, the Covenant provides protection for the right to social security, which may include a pension, and elaborates on the range of support to be made after service. This provision accords with the European Social Charter, Articles 12 and 13, and the International Labour Organisation s Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, The provision also reflects the Committee of Ministers Recommendations, which require that Retired full-time professional members of the armed forces should be granted an adequate retirement pension which allows them to live decently and participate in public, social and cultural life 13. The provision in the Covenant requiring additional support for those injured in service is reflective of provisions within the UNCRPD, which specifically recognise the right to social protection for persons with disabilities. 16. The Commission notes that the Covenant aims to ensure the Armed Forces community suffer no disadvantage due to service. It seeks to achieve this aim through taking positive measures to enable equality of outcome with other citizens and ensuring special treatment for the injured and bereaved. The two approaches are demonstrated with respect to the right to health care, which is protected by ICESCR at Article 12. The Covenant requires that serving personnel who are re-deployed throughout the UK should retain respective places on NHS waiting lists. This measure will assist in ensuring that armed forces personnel are not disadvantaged due to the nature of their service, ensuring equality of outcome with other citizens. On the other hand the Covenant requires that those requiring treatment for an injury emerging from their service should receive priority treatment As indicated at the outset the Commission will not analyse the implications of the Covenant in the context of domestic equality law. However, the Commission reiterates that international human rights law permits states to make reasonable adjustments where an objective and reasonable justification exists. In making such an assessment the implications on others must be considered. This is illustrated in the aforementioned case of Burnip et al in which the Court of Appeal considered the potential impact on the social housing budget as it affects all tenants before reaching its decision The Commission advises that the Committee consider whether an objective and reasonable justification could be made for affording those injured and bereaved preferential treatment through the introduction of the special measures as set out in the Covenant. It should be noted that international human rights law, and the ECtHR in particular, affords member states a wide margin of appreciation with respect to regulation of the armed forces due to the close correlation to national security The Commission notes that both serving armed forces personnel and veterans who are living in Great Britain benefit from the Covenant, those living in NI do not. This raises concerns regarding the equivalency of rights protection throughout the UK, particularly with respect to those rights protected by the Human Rights Act February See Covenant Page 7 11 Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 4 of the Committee of Ministers Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces Seepage 30 Explanatory Memorandum 12 Ibid para Ibid para See Covenant Page 6 15 Burnip v Birmingham City Council & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 629 (15 May 2012) 16 Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 493

158 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 106 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Memorandum from the Committee on the Administration of Justice ( CAJ ) 1. CAJ is an independent human rights organisation with cross community membership in Northern Ireland and beyond. It was established in 1981 and lobbies and campaigns on a broad range of human rights issues. CAJ seeks to secure the highest standards in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland by ensuring that the Government complies with its obligations in international human rights law. 2. CAJ welcomes the opportunity to provide Written Evidence to the Committee on its inquiry into the implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland. The focus of our comments relates to the relationship of the Covenant to the devolved matters of health and housing provision. To this end CAJ would like to draw attention to two important and complimentary equality principles. Firstly that there are duties to target specific measures and initiatives to address the needs of particular groups facing disadvantage including, where applicable, service personnel. Secondly, that it is important in general that measures to tackle disadvantage through health and housing provision are undertaken on the basis of objective need. 3. The principle of objective need has long been incorporated into health and housing provision in Northern Ireland. A good example of this was the establishment forty years ago of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, an independent body set up to allocate houses on the basis of objective need. This decision was made against the backdrop of political bias in housing allocation by local councils. In relation to a strategic framework for tackling disadvantage and social exclusion, the objective need principle was also committed to under the St Andrews Agreement CAJ is also concerned the inquiry does not become a platform where the equality duties introduced as a central component to the peace process risk being misrepresented or undermined. Further to the commitment in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement Parliament legislated to introduce the statutory equality duty contained in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act This duty is a policy appraisal tool which obliges public authorities to assess whether policies will constitute an adverse impact (ie discriminatory detriment) on any of the nine recognised equality grounds. When this is the case public authorities can be obliged to consider alternative or mitigating measures. As official guidance makes explicit the Section 75 duty does not prevent positive action to counter disadvantage among particular sections of society and also states such action may be an appropriate response to redressing inequality. 17 CAJ would be concerned at any suggestion that there should be a legislative amendment to Section 75 which would in effect permit policy which may constitute discriminatory detriment. 5. In relation to a legal framework to ensure public authorities take reasonable steps to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, CAJ would like to draw attention to another provision of the peace settlement, namely the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement deferred advice to Government on the Bill of Rights to an independent body, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, who delivered its final report in The recommendations, which are yet to be legislated for, include enshrining rights to health and housing. 18 Providing for these rights has been committed to by the UK under international law. 19 Contrary to popular misconception this does not mean the state has to, for example, provide everyone with a house. It does however mean public authorities would be obliged to take appropriate measures to ensure any specific needs of disadvantaged groups are being redressed within available resources. This would include addressing the specific health and housing needs of service personnel where specific problems and disadvantage are identified. 6. CAJ is not aware whether a specific assessment of the health and housing needs of service personnel has been conducted in Northern Ireland. Given the differences in circumstances and legislative framework it should of course not be assumed that measures designed for service personnel in London or elsewhere, could necessarily be read over. In the context of its duty of care such a local assessment could prompt the Ministry of Defence to introduce and resource additional specialist support programmes for the health and housing needs of its personnel. It may also identify and recommend remedy of particular barriers constituting unfair disadvantage to service personnel within the general heath and housing policy framework. This would be consistent with an equalities framework. Consistent with the principles set out above we would however caution against any measures which would in effect afford preferential treatment on a basis other than objective need for health and housing waiting lists and related provision. 7. In relation to some of the specific housing and health issues which have arisen in debate, consistent with the policy framework set out above, it would be reasonable that, for example, temporary absences are disregarded for the purpose of assessing entitlement to publicly funded health care. We note that in Northern Ireland health regulations already provide a broad exemption for service personnel in relation to meeting ordinary residence requirements for NHS care. 20 More problematic however would be any scheme amending 17 Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998: Guide to the Statutory Duties February 2005, paragraph Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission A Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland: Advice to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Belfast, 2008), pages Including under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). 20 Provision of Health Services to Persons not Ordinarily Resident Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 SR 2005/551, rule 3(h).

159 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 107 housing legislation to afford priority status to service personnel for housing provision on a basis other than objective need. Such a move would risk conflicting with the above principles and framework. February 2013 Memorandum from the Regimental Association of The Royal Irish Regiment Executive Summary 1. This submission has been compiled and is submitted on behalf of the Regimental Association of The Royal Irish Regiment. In this submission we wish to influence the committee s deliberations in respect of the Implementation of the Military Covenant in Northern Ireland not just for our members but for all members and ex-members of Her Majesties Armed Forces living or serving in Northern Ireland. 2. We are fully aware of the progress made in England, Scotland and Wales and it is a travesty that UK law is not applicable here in Northern Ireland because of local Northern Ireland legislation. We suggest to the committee that Northern Ireland is a special case and we wish to put forward some ideas which will bring together the whole Ex-Service community in Northern Ireland. We also note that there is no representation from Northern Ireland on the Military Covenant Reference group. This is a matter that must be put right with the utmost haste. 3. We are aware of the other Ex-Service Associations in Northern Ireland who represent Ex-members of the Royal Navy, the numerous Regimental Associations of the Army and the Royal Air Force Association, all doing their own thing but unfortunately, it is our experience that we do not talk to each other! So one of our recommendations is the establishment of an Ex-Services forum. There is also the Royal British Legion (RBL) of which many of our members are also members of that group. All these groups are voluntary organisations who do sterling work supporting their own branch members each in their own way; each in isolation from each other. This needs fixed which is why we are in favour of a Northern Ireland Ex-Service or Veterans Forum. 4. The main impediment to implementation of the Military Covenant in Northern Ireland is Section 75 as we shall refer to it of the Northern Ireland Act This causes us the most concern and is without doubt the major issue that needs addressed urgently. Quite simply, it is the main impediment to implementing the Military Covenant in NI. There is no doubt in our mind that at the time of drafting the Sect 75 legislation it was never envisaged that it would be at odds with the later drafted Military Covenant but it now is. How is this issue to be dealt with to allow NI veterans to be on a par with the rest of the UK? 5 The Defence Secretary is on record in the House of Commons of stating that any changes to the 1998 Act is a matter for the Local Assembly as it is NI legislation. That may be correct so how is this to be fixed? It must be fixed if NI Veterans are not to be discriminated against. Reccomendations 6. We recommend the following, which are not in any order of priority, to the Inquiry with our sincere plea that these be adopted. (a) An NI Veterans Commission is established with legal powers to support ALL Veterans in NI. (b) An NI Veterans Forum is set up to co-ordinate all the disjoined veterans associations in NI (c) An NI Veterans representative is immediately appointed to the Military Covenant Reference Group to champion our NI Veterans concerns and issues. (d) Legislation is introduced to amend Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to exempt HM Forces Veterans from the NI Act therefore providing the same rights and support as in the Rest of the UK. (e) The UDR/R IRISH Aftercare is expanded to provide the same and more service and support to all HM Forces Veterans living in NI. 7. The following pages provide further details to support the above recommendations. Introduction 8. The Army Resettlement program, managed by the Career Transition Partnership (CTP) is established to assist service leavers to find civilian jobs. The CTP does not assist service leavers in any of the social requirements like finding housing, doctors, dentists etc. in the area that they choose to live in after their service is completed. All of these were provided whilst serving in the Forces. Only when faced with leaving does the service member have to face the challenge of obtaining their own housing etc. Aftercare 9. As part of the disbandment package for the R IRISH Home Service in 2007, an Aftercare organisation was established. It s remit being to provide support for those ex-r IRISH Home Service soldiers by providing four main support areas:

160 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 108 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence (a) Welfare, Medical, Vocational, Benevolence. 10. It should be remembered that since 1970 some 65,000 personnel have served in the UDR & R IRISH, a not insignificant number of the total Northern Ireland veteran s populace. Add to that population those being demobbed from the rest of the Army; the Royal Navy & the Royal Air Force, who choose to settle in NI at the end of their service. So we suggest that the ex-service population in NI is a significant section of the whole community. 11. The establishment of the Aftercare Service has been a success; ask anyone who has had the need to use its services and they will confirm this fact without hesitation. It was initially funded for five years commencing in 2007, however in funding was extended by the MoD, we believe until to What happens then? The veterans will still be here. They will still have continuing needs to be addressed; be it medical, social or welfare needs. Who is going to provide that service? 12. The Aftercare service is and remains unique in the Army; no other group of Ex-Army personnel have access to this kind of bespoke organisation and the service they provide. They have to rely on The Royal British Legion, which does great work for veterans or they have to rely on their own Regimental Association, in one exists here in Northern Ireland. 13. So what about all the other Ex-members of the Armed Forces living in Northern Ireland? They have no right of access to the Aftercare Service. This must surely be wrong. If the establishment of the Aftercare Service in 2007 was set up and funded specifically for the R IRISH Home Service and it has worked then surely there is a need to expand its remit to include the rest of the Ex-Service population residing here and indeed in Southern Ireland as well. Regimental Associations 14. At the same time as The Home Service Battalions of The Royal Irish Regiment were disbanding our Regimental Association formed. The Ulster Defence Regimental Association had already been established some years previously in the 1980s. At the time of writing the R IRISH Association has approximately 500 members attending Branches throughout NI and one Branch in England. There are many other Associations in NI which are too numerous to mention. Reservists 15. As more and more reductions are occurring in HM Forces and greater reliance is to be made on Reservists then they also must be considered in this equation as well. NI has a sizeable population in the Reserves and they are veterans as well with their own specific needs and support requirements. It would be our view that they have nothing by way of support organisation other than the RBL. Specific Inquiry Points 16. We consulted on the specific points requested in the Inquiry calling notice and received the following comments and views. Some have been edited in the interests of brevity. Links between the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland and Departments of the NI Executive 17. Links exist but are not necessarily trumpeted as otherwise they may attract adverse reaction from political opponents. 38 (Irish) Bde is the regional infrastructure organisation which leads for all serving personnel, Reserve Forces & Cadets Association NI (RFCA NI) has recently attempted to lead on behalf of 38 (Irish) Bde for veterans. Why: (a) They are already engaged on reservist employment issues and keen to broaden into other associated spheres. (b) Downside RFCA NI is new to this particular game and has not appreciated other efforts already being made on behalf of veterans, (i) notably by the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee (VA&PC) within Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA), (ii) by the UDR and R IRISH (HS) Aftercare Service (both of these organisations being part of the MOD), (iii) by the NI Phoenix Project and by Regimental Associations. (c) This has led to a degree of friction which better communication and co-ordination can ease. 18. Needs a degree of joining up to make it coherent but the principal is accepted of private, not public; bottom up and not top down. 19. The only coherent link between any of these Armed Forces community agencies and NI Executive is thought to be in the field of Health and Social Services, where routine meetings take place within Dept. of Health and Social Service and Public Safety (DHSSPSNI) attended by 38 (Irish) Bde, Aftercare Service,

161 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 109 Veterans Welfare Service and ex-services charities such as Combat Stress. As far as we know no ex-service associations attend. 20. In principal, better to let these successful, although quiet approaches continue rather than insist on full, open and public demands for access. The NI Equality legislation (Sect 75) legally prevents veterans or anyone else having any degree of priority anywhere, so why fight it and hand a political victory to our detractors? Barriers to progress, statutory or otherwise, in implementing the Covenant 21. Political: Principal barriers come from political opponents citing Section 75 which is legally binding. We therefore believe that this is the main area to focus on. It is actually is the case that due to the presence of the Aftercare Service, many UDR/R IRISH veterans are actually better off in terms of welfare support than some of their counterparts in GB. 22. Security: For a service person that has been away from normal life in NI, serving for perhaps twentytwo years in the forces and then returning to NI to settle down into a new civilian life is not without its problems. Those who served in the R IRISH Home Service Battalions are likely to be more street wise than comrades who have been absent and serving elsewhere in the world and will not be up to date with NI s idiosyncrasies. 23. Let s face it; there are people in our communities who are anti HM Forces, past present and no doubt in the future. Some of these people are employees within the very government departments that are supposed help veterans but they cite Section 75 as the reason why an NI resident Veteran cannot receive priority. This is not the case in England, Scotland or Wales, where Ex-Services personnel do get priority. Here in NI, the immediate issues of having to find a house and get onto the housing list in the area he/she wants to settle in; finding a doctor, finding a dentist, getting children into schools etc. Even applying for jobs the question of employment history is a dead giveaway and identifies the applicant as ex-military. All of these are a worry for the Ex-service personnel returning to NI and to trying to assimilate back into the community. 24. If the veteran has been medically discharged from the forces it is for the NHS to treat him/her as there are no longer any military hospital facilities in NI. Section 75 Issues 25. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is the equality legislation that formed a key element of the Belfast agreement. Section 75 places a statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality when carrying out their functions in relation to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, officials in various Government Departments who would be able to help ex-service personnel have refused to so as they would be in breach of Sect 75 of the Act. 26. This problem is well known as (a) Paragraph 36 of the Defence Committee report, The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 1: Military Casualties, states: (i) The provisions of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) and the Health and Social Care (HSC) sector in Northern Ireland in providing war veterans with priority over other individuals with respect to healthcare treatment. (b) In the Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant of September 2010 they stated that, Service personnel based in Northern Ireland: (i) are disadvantaged more than their contemporaries elsewhere Eg, Service families in the province are prevented from identifying themselves as such due to the security situation. This can cause difficulties for partners in explaining their career history to prospective employers and for Service children in obtaining the necessary support in schools, among other issues. The level of co-ordination between the NI Executive, the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and other relevant UK Government Departments 27. It is known that formal links exist between all these groups and many more informal links are already in place. 38 (Irish) Bde must use its own MOD department to champion the armed forces community and therefore it is somewhat passive towards the NIO, but facilitates it at every level. Not certain if more formal levels of coordination are actually necessary to improve the lot of the armed forces community, especially veterans. 28. Why can t we have a Veterans Commissioner for NI? We have Commissioners for many other groups and they were created because there was deemed to be a need to have one someone in charge of the issues for that specific grouping. We contend that there is a need for a Veterans Commissioner in NI. Why? For the very reasons that there needs to be a joined up head in charge who can bring together all the veterans groups in NI under one umbrella and have the teeth to dealt with all issues pertaining specifically to NI veterans.

162 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 110 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence The absence of NI representation on the Covenant Reference Group 29. This must be put right immediately we were appalled to discover this fact when researching for this paper. 30. The Aftercare Service has proved to be a success so it must be strengthened and expanded to include all veterans in NI. It needs continued funding; agreement of resources; protection of assets/tools; it must be independent; and there must be no interference in its running. Other Comments Views from the R Irish Banbridge Branch 31. Any legislation on this matter must guarantee that all former and serving members of the Armed Forces be treated the same as every other citizen. They must not suffer from any form of discrimination due to their service in HM Forces. 32. Former members of the Armed Forces have served in many conflict and humanitarian zones around the world; they do so by direction and orders of their Government and Commanders. Sadly, due to the recent conflict in Northern Ireland and the Armed Forces role in it, it is felt that there is an increased risk of discrimination directed as ex-service personnel either by individuals, group or a government agency towards individuals. 33. We believe that in respect to housing, a member of the Armed Forces nearing discharge and who wishes to return to the area from which they left at the beginning of their service, is at a distinct disadvantage to the rest of the general public who have always resided in that area. This is due to the fact that the former service person will be treated like any other individual wishing to move to that area with little or no consideration given to the fact that the individual had no choice but to move to where the ship or unit they were posted to was stationed. We feel that the ex-service personnel should, at the point of discharge from the Armed Forces, be treated like others who resided in the area they wish to return, to so as to create a more level playing field for individual. 34. With regards to benefits the above mentioned point can also have an adverse effect to the ex-service person due to the fact that if they cannot obtain a permanent address; as they are deemed to be voluntarily leaving their previous address they will not be eligible for certain benefits. Perhaps this is a factor why some ex-service personal are living on the streets. 35. With regards to employment ex-service personnel starting out in their new career can face more significant challenges that other members of the public do, one example is the misconception that ex-service personnel wishing to take an instructional career will always act like they are dealing with service personnel on a parade ground (on a personal note I myself have heard employers stating this). 36. There is a special situation within Northern Ireland that does not exist within the rest of the United Kingdom; ex-members of the armed forces living in Northern Ireland will always have to contend with the personal security issue when approaching any individual or agency for help. This is due to this fact that the ex-service person may have to hold back from divulging information to the individual or agency for fear of compromising themselves as an ex-serviceman/woman and potentially presenting themselves as a target for terrorists 37. Due to the current economic situation many charitable organizations that help ex-service personnel are suffering from lack of funds. This along with the Armed Forces withdrawal from Afghanistan, its massive downsizing and the continued end of service members leaving will next year and for many years, make it harder for those charities to raise funds. The lack of front of media exposure will result in the Armed Forces slipping further and further from the public conscious leaving many ex-service personnel to carry on with their lives with the physical and mental scars of service but with less and less help available. Comments from the R Irish East Tyrone Branch 38. The UDR/R IRISH Aftercare Service It has matured into an outstanding organisation and we would strongly recommend that it should be extended to include all ex MOD who live in Northern Ireland and further extended and given guaranteed funding for the next five to 10 years. 39. Difficulty in coming forward to seek help security risk! It is a fact that there is an on-going security risk in NI of being identified as a veteran by people who are unsympathetic to veterans who may well be employed by some of the very support organisations which are supposed to provide support and to help veterans. Therefore individual cases need to be dealt with by people within trusted support organisations who will not compromise the veteran s past. If the veteran can go to an organisation or group that they trust and have confidence in that their past service history is treated confidentially then the reluctance to come forward will be abated. 40. Other The increasing security risk to all ex MOD needs a process whereby individuals can be kept informed of threats immediately they are identified. It is only those who are members of the Associations who

163 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 111 get to find out about increased security threats but only if they attend meetings and usually much too late. A text notification from a central threat assessment body (38 Irish Bde G2 maybe). A Recent Case Example 41. Here is a recent case in point of a now ex-service soldier who lived his childhood here in Northern Ireland, sought a career in the armed forces, served and has now been medically discharged. He wanted to return home to NI with his wife and two children. Here is his story after being medically discharged from the Army after 21 years service with the Royal Signals: (a) I served 21 years. I was in the Royal Corps of Signals. I was discharged on the 7 Sept I had to go through the PAP10 21 process when my kidney disease got to the point where I was unemployable. I was told by various officers that a discharge would be unlikely and that I should be able to finish my 22 years. This did not happen, I got discharged with one year to finish meaning I left with 30k instead of 50k because I could not commute with a medical pension which really REDACTED me off. (b) I did not receive a lot of help from anyone, but to be honest I was never in a position where I needed to ask for it. All I got from the Army was the generic service leaver s pack and resettlement info. I attended a CTP workshop, worked out what I wanted to do when I left and built my resettlement courses around that. (c) I got medically discharged from the Army but didn t get a discharge date until after the enrolment process had already begun in NI, so I had to go online, look up all the schools in the area I wished to settle and ring them all to see if they had any places available and this was after the summer holidays. Luckily the 2nd preferable school had two places spare so I got REDACTED in. (d) As for getting a home I made some inquiries and knew that I would not get to the top of any housing list in NI so I put down half of my leaving money to purchase a house in REDACTED, it was my decision to put down half in order to get better monthly repayment rates etc. (e) As for Job seeking, the jobs that appear on the CTP website (right job) for NI are scarce and nearly half advertised are for REME reservists!! I trawl the jobsites myself, am on Linked In and am currently waiting to be called forward by REDACTED for training on the 28th Jan. I was working for REDACTED group sub-contracting for REDACTED but got laid off on Friday because they are having problems getting tooled up vans over here and do not want to pay wages while they wait, both jobs I sourced myself online. (f) I joined the same doctor s surgery as my mum and the rest of the family, and the same goes for the dentist. My medical docs where given to me before I left the Army to pass on to my new doctor. (g) I have not joined any British Legion as of yet but will look into it at some stage and I am still waiting to hear back from the Veterans Agency regarding a follow up medical for my war pension, this has been taking a while and its something I need to start chasing. (h) Not sure if this is exactly what your after REDACTED, I tend to do things myself and am generally reluctant to ask for help off anyone or agency unless I truly need it. If I don t need to use up their resources then they can be concentrating on people who do need it. (i) My biggest gripe is the housing. If I could have been guaranteed a council house I most certainly would have rented to start, and tried using my money to start a business of some kind. As it stands I had to make a decision and putting a roof over my families head is more important than anything else. 42. The above is only one example every case will be different. February 2013 Memorandum from the Royal British Legion I am writing to outline the views of The Royal British Legion regarding implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. The Royal British Legion is the UK s leading Armed Forces charity. We provide practical, emotional and financial support to all members of the British Armed Forces past and present, and their families. We actively campaign to improve their lives and safeguard the Military Covenant between the nation and its Armed Forces. We also organise the Poppy Appeal, run one of the UK s largest membership organisations and are recognised as the nation s custodian of Remembrance. Our mission is to provide welfare, comradeship, representation and Remembrance for the Armed Forces Community. The Legion was a key player in the decision in 2011 to write the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant into law. Those principles no disadvantage as a result of Service and special treatment where justifiable, eg 21 PULHHEEMS Administrative Pamphlet 2010 (PAP 10)

164 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 112 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence in the case of Service-related injury represent a culture shift, ensuring the welfare needs of the Armed Forces are considered by every branch of Government. With regard to our welfare provision, I am keen to stress the cross-community nature of the Legion s work. In line with our Royal Charter, we have a duty to be there for any individual who has served in the UK s Armed Forces. We work throughout the island of Ireland; my remit as Area Manager covers both Northern Ireland and the Republic, and we have an Area office in Dublin as well as Belfast. In NI there are 78 Branches and almost 1.3 Million was raised for the 2011 Poppy Appeal. In the Republic of Ireland, there are ten Legion branches, raising a total of 245k for the 2011 Irish Poppy Appeal. As a non-sectarian, non-political organisation, the Legion stands shoulder to shoulder with all who Serve, whatever their background. Nationally, significant progress has been made within the framework of the key Covenant principles. The exemption from the financial assessment for Universal Credit of compensation paid under the War Pensions Scheme and the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, and the exemption of Guaranteed Income Payments from the financial assessment for social care provided by Local Authorities are two such examples. The Community Covenant Scheme has revolutionised the way local authorities in Great Britain approach the welfare needs of the service personnel, veterans and Armed Forces families within their areas. Better-informed Councils have resulted in changes to policies on issues such as school admissions, aiding the smooth transition of service children between schools. However, we acknowledge that, in NI, the historical and legislative backdrop makes the situation different. The sensitivity of the historical situation in Northern Ireland underlines the importance of a cross-community consensus on Covenant-related issues. The Legion is aware that implementation of the principles of the Covenant could potentially contradict NI s equality laws, specifically Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act In the rest of the UK, one of the key principles being implemented, in relation to the Covenant, is the principle of special treatment in certain circumstances. Appearing to discriminate in favour of one group over another would be contrary to the fundamental basis of Northern Ireland s equality laws. Furthermore, some issues unique to Northern Ireland will not necessarily be solved through implementation of the Covenant. Due to security concerns, veterans in Northern Ireland often do not reveal their service connection to, for example, their GP. This is not something that will be overcome by implementing the Covenant. Several other situations are affected by this particular problem, including social housing and eligibility for the Pupil Premium. In terms of future progress on this issue, whilst remaining supportive of the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant, the Legion recognises the need to adopt a distinct approach in Northern Ireland, one that acknowledges and takes account of the unique cultural and legislative environment. There already exists a very high level of cooperation between the key stakeholders here, these being the locally-based Armed Forces, the Service/ex-Service charities and the various other agencies and groups which are directly involved in ensuring that the needs of the ex-service community in Northern Ireland are recognised and, as far as possible, met. That said, it would be useful if, in those circumstances where an ex-service person is facing a particular difficulty, one which relates to his/her Service and which would be addressed under the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant had he/she been living in any other part of the UK, some means existed by which they could raise their concerns and by which the principle of no disadvantage at least could be respected. As you will know, there has been some debate about an Armed Forces Advocate. The Legion takes a pragmatic position on the issue. Whether an advocate is just for the Armed Forces or for the emergency services, including the Armed Forces, we would see such a system as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Such a system would, of course, depend on a cross-community consensus being forged. We hope very much that the committee s inquiry can encourage such a development. February 2013 Memorandum from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland Introduction 1. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (the Commission) welcomes the opportunity to provide the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with a submission to its inquiry on the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. Our submission concerns the equality laws in Northern Ireland and how these relate to the Armed Forces Covenant. 22 While the legislative framework on equality is somewhat different in Great Britain, we note that similar issues may arise in the implementation of the Covenant. The Armed Forces Covenant 2. As we understand it, the Armed Forces Covenant s central principle is that those who served in the Armed Forces, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens. In very general terms, the Covenant provides broad statements of support, encouragement and gratitude to Armed Forces personnel and their families, for their services in current military operations. 22 Annex 1 The remit of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

165 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev The Covenant sets a framework for how the Armed Forces Community can be treated, but it does not specify in detail how it should be applied in every case and at every time. The scope of the Covenant, as would be expected, embraces many aspects of life and therefore has potential impacts on the policy development and service delivery of public authorities as well as local service providers. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 4. Public authorities are bound by statutory equality and good relations duties arising from Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act Under Section 75(1), designated public authorities are required, in carrying out their functions, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between certain groups. 23 Such public authorities are also required by Section 75(2) to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion and racial group. 5. Public authorities are required to have an Equality Scheme setting out their practical arrangements for complying with the equality and good relations duties. A public authority s obligations are to have arrangements for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted on the promotion of equality of opportunity. In assessing or consulting on proposed policies, a public authority should seek to identify any potential adverse impacts; whether there are further opportunities for the promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations, and to consider alternative options or measures which may mitigate any identified adverse impact of the policy. 6. A public authority must adhere to its Section 75 duties and Equality Scheme commitments. The Section 75 duties must be complied with when it makes a decision to develop or review a policy, but Section 75 does not in itself prohibit the development of particular policies. Anti-discrimination Legislation 7. As referred to above, a central principle of the Covenant is that the Armed Forces Community should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens. In this regard, it is noted that the Armed Forces Community are protected, to the same degree as all other citizens, by the equality laws in Northern Ireland, and have access to recourse under the equality laws if they consider they have experienced discrimination on any of the protected equality grounds There are many aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant which aim to ensure that the Armed Forces Community enjoy the same standard of, and access to, services as other citizens. Such measures include the provision of information and assistance to reintegrate into society. As such, these aspects of the Covenant are consistent with the equality and anti-discrimination laws. 9. It is, however, when more specific actions which aim to provide the Armed Forces Community with preferential treatment are identified as action that may be taken by a public authority, or private sector organisation, that problems may arise under anti-discrimination legislation. Examples of such treatment may include preferential treatment in relation to access to housing services, access to leisure services, or discounts in shops and restaurants. 10. In the Commission s view, such preferential treatment to individuals may be indirectly discriminatory on grounds for example of race or sex or political opinion. 25 In such cases it would be for the organisation to justify the treatment as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The same issues about potential indirect discrimination would arise in Great Britain on similar grounds. 11. In terms of the provision of a good and harmonious working environment by employers in Northern Ireland, it is noted that many employers have developed equality policies which aim to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent harassment. 26 It is recognised that the Armed Forces generally and the associated Covenant are likely to be associated more closely with one community in Northern Ireland. As such, there is a need for employers to ensure that emblems or displays associated with the Armed Forces Covenant are handled appropriately within the workplace. The Commission advises employers that when such displays, presentations or emblems are displayed with decorum (and, if appropriate, during the designated time) and with a sense of due proportion then they are unlikely to create or sustain a hostile environment. It would, however, be for each employer to ensure that it has in place appropriate employment equality policies to ensure that a good and harmonious working environment is promoted. 23 Between persons of a different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; between men and women generally; between persons with a disability and persons without; and between persons with dependants and persons without. 24 Protected grounds in NI include age, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief and political opinion, race and disability. It is noted that being a member of the armed forces community is not specifically protected as an equality ground under equality legislation. 25 It is noted that discrimination on grounds of political opinion is protected under the Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998 as amended and not the Equality Act 2010 which applies in GB. 26 Equality Commission Guidance: Promoting a Good and Harmonious Working Environment

166 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 114 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Conclusion 12. Section 75 must be complied with when a public authority makes a decision to develop or review a policy, but Section 75 does not in itself prohibit the development of particular policies. The public authority must adhere to its Section 75 duties and Equality Scheme commitments. 13. There are many aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant which aim to ensure that the Armed Forces Community enjoy the same standards of, and access to, services as other citizens. As such, these aspects of the Covenant are consistent with equality and anti-discrimination laws. It is, however, when the Armed Forces Community are given preferential treatment, that problems may arise under anti-discrimination legislation. 14. The Commission provides advice and guidance to public authorities to enable them to comply with their duties under Section 75 and to all employers with regard their responsibilities under anti-discrimination law. As part of this advisory service, the Commission advises employers on the provision of a good and harmonious working environment and the sensitivity around emblems which may be associated more closely with one community in Northern Ireland. Annex 1 THE EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND 1. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland ( the Commission ) is an independent public body established under the Northern Ireland Act The Commission is responsible for implementing the antidiscrimination legislation on fair employment, sex discrimination and equal pay, race relations, sexual orientation, disability and age. 2. The Commission s remit also includes overseeing the statutory duties equality duties on public authorities in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998: to pay due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and pay regard to the desirability of promoting good relations, as well as the duties in Section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended). 3. The Commission, along with the NIHRC, has also been designated as the independent mechanism in Northern Ireland, tasked with promoting, protecting and monitoring implementation of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Memorandum from the Ministry of Defence Introduction The Coalition Government published its Programme For Government on 20 May In this, the incoming Government made a commitment to rebuild the Armed Forces Covenant. In a subsequent speech on board HMS Ark Royal on 24 June 2010, the Prime Minister said that he wanted the Covenant to be written into the law of the land. The Armed Forces Covenant was published in May 2011, setting out for the first time its two main principles: that members of the Armed Forces Community should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given the most, such as the injured and the bereaved. The Armed Forces Act 2011 refers to these principles, but its main purpose is to place an obligation on the Secretary of State for Defence to report to Parliament each year on progress. In each annual report, the Secretary of State is required to state whether or not views have been received from the Devolved Administrations on areas for which they are responsible. The introduction to the 2012 Annual Report states that: the views of the Northern Ireland Executive have been sought but not obtained. The delivery of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland requires a different approach from the rest of the United Kingdom to ensure the current support for the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland is not undermined, and to prevent the Covenant becoming unhelpfully politicised. It is important that the unique security, legislative and political context in Northern Ireland is considered and that appropriate governance mechanisms are in place to ensure that support is delivered effectively. The existing network in support of the Covenant in Northern Ireland is working well and, while there is always scope for further improvements, the ends articulated in the Covenant are being increasingly met. Context The context for the Covenant in Northern Ireland is complex. Notwithstanding the significant political achievements made in the last two decades, there are enduring security, legislative and political nuances which must be accounted for in the delivery of Covenant outcomes. The normalisation of security measures in Northern Ireland was achieved in July 2007 with the cessation of Operation Banner, the Army s support to the civil authorities, after 38 years. Throughout this period, the operation called on all three Services and, at its height, saw 28,000 troops deployed in support of the police. More than 250,000 Service personnel made a contribution in those 38 years. Over 600 Service personnel were killed during Operation Banner, a clear

167 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 115 indication of the commitment to achieving a stable and secure environment in Northern Ireland. 63,000 personnel of the Ulster Defence Regiment and later the Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment lived and worked within their own community, and many continue to do so. The security situation in Northern Ireland has improved significantly but there remains a hardcore of dissident republicans who continue to resist the democratic process. As a result, life in Northern Ireland for serving and retired Service personnel is not normal. The threat to clearly identified military personnel remains high, and almost all veterans maintain their anonymity lest they become unintended victims of this threat. This reluctance to declare previous service remains a challenge to the identification of individuals who may require assistance. The largest veteran community is that of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Ulster Defence Regiment. Recognising the enduring security situation, a bespoke Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service is in place, funded by the Ministry of Defence. It supports veterans in the delivery of psychiatry, physiotherapy and welfare casework and signposts them to other organisations, according to their needs. Challenges to Implementation Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a statutory obligation on public authorities in carrying out their various functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. There is a perception by some that the legislation is acting as a barrier to the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland being implemented on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom, however it also ensures that the Armed Forces Community is not disadvantaged when it comes to the provision of public services. It has been argued that the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland is important enough to justify amending section 75. It is for Northern Ireland Executive Ministers to decide how the Armed Forces Covenant should apply in Northern Ireland, to the extent permitted by law and in those areas for which the Executive is responsible. For its part, the UK Government regards section 75 as a fundamental part of the Belfast Agreement and does not agree that it is desirable to amend it. Other barriers arise from the current security situation. Members of the Armed Forces Community understand the particular problems that arise from living and working in Northern Ireland. They will sometimes try and reduce their exposure to a higher level of security risk by concealing their links to the Armed Forces. Despite the challenges, there are many clear advantages to living, serving or settling in Northern Ireland. Many of our Service personnel have chosen to return to the region, bringing much sought after skills to the Northern Ireland economy. The veteran and ex-service community are clear net contributors to the community of Northern Ireland in its broadest sense. Scope of the Covenant The Covenant extends to those serving in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve; to those who have served in the past; and to their families. This group, which amounts to a significant proportion of the UK population, is defined as the Armed Forces Community. The scope of the Covenant is defined by 15 themes. These were published alongside the Covenant in May 2011 and are as follows: terms and conditions of service; healthcare; education; housing; benefits and tax; responsibility of care; deployment; family life; commercial products and services; transition; support after service; recognition; participation as citizens; changes in defence; and recourse. The delivery of some of these themes is the sole responsibility of the UK Government or the Ministry of Defence (for example, in the case of terms and conditions of service, deployment or changes in defence). But in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the delivery of other themes including healthcare, education and housing is the responsibility of the respective Devolved Administrations. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have been supportive of the Covenant. As part of meeting their responsibilities, the Scottish Government published its report Our Commitments Scottish Government support for the Armed Forces Community in Scotland on 5 September 2012; and the Welsh Government s Package of Support for the Armed Forces Community in Wales was published in November 2011 and updated in November The Northern Ireland Executive has not made commitments in the same way. Current Status of Implementing the Covenant in Northern Ireland The UK Government, including the Ministry of Defence, is committed to ensuring that the provisions for which it is responsible are applied consistently throughout the UK, to the extent that is permitted by law, including section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act Under the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the devolved administrations are responsible for many of the policy areas covered by the Covenant. There is therefore scope for variation where the Devolved Administrations are responsible for delivery.

168 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 116 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence There are inconsistencies in the access that Service personnel living and working in Northern Ireland have to public and commercial services. As an example, fees covered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in England, the Scottish Government and Welsh Government to enable Service Leavers to study for a first degree under the Further and Higher Education Scheme are not provided by the Northern Ireland Executive. In parts of England, Scotland and Wales, members of the Armed Forces who have urgent housing needs are given higher priority for social housing and are not required to prove a local connection. In Northern Ireland, the provision of social housing is administered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and housing is allocated on a points basis. While it might be sympathetic, the Housing Executive is prevented by the legislation from giving priority to Armed Forces personnel, and the lack of a local connection means they will accrue fewer points. As a result, many serving personnel transitioning to civilian life in Northern Ireland will be not be able to meet the points requirement for social housing. As these examples show, it can be difficult for some members of the Armed Forces Community to overcome some of the disadvantages arising from Service life and in some cases members of the Armed Forces Community choose not to self-identify as such when they apply for public services. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland Executive Ministers have been unable collectively and publicly to endorse the Armed Forces Covenant and advance it more fully in Northern Ireland. However, work is underway at the grass roots level to reduce the disadvantages that are faced by members of the Armed Forces Community. It is important that gaps in provision are filled, but it is equally important to ensure that this work does not become counter-productive. In contrast to some of the difficulties highlighted in the examples above, Armed Forces units based in Northern Ireland report that provision in Northern Ireland for members of the Armed Forces Community is generally good. Delivery The current approach to the delivery of the Covenant in Northern Ireland is to deliver a low-key solution. 38 Brigade estimate that between 150 and 200 personnel per year are leaving the Armed Forces to settle in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of those leavers, many of them veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, will transition to civilian life with ease, but a small percentage are likely to encounter difficulties. At present, the majority of personnel are able to access MOD-funded support for up to two years after they leave the Services. There is a well established resettlement package in place, which includes the services of the Career Transition Partnership based at Aldergrove, which has a 92% success rate in placing Service leavers in employment in Northern Ireland. In addition, extra resource has recently been applied to support Service leavers in the areas of health, housing, education and welfare to ensure that vulnerable personnel are identified, assessed and given the extra support they require. 38 Brigade works closely with the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency and the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, as well as all the third sector charities. Working groups and links in specialist areas at both the strategic and tactical levels are already well founded. The Reserve Forces and Cadets Association has established a network of individuals in each of the 26 councils in Northern Ireland that are prepared to engage in dialogue on issues facing the Armed Forces to ensure that no disadvantage exists and may assist in identifying local solutions to problems without contravening legislation. Wounded, injured and sick personnel benefit from an extra level of support from the Personnel Recovery Unit based in Northern Ireland, and are currently part of a trial under which the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Regiment Aftercare Service takes them after they are discharged. Of course, any network needs improvement and refreshing: those supporting serving and retired Armed Forces personnel continue to tackle gaps as they appear, either in the policy space or the delivery space. A table setting out the position on delivering some of the key Covenant commitments in different parts of the UK is attached for the Committee s information. Interaction with the Northern Ireland Executive There are established links between Headquarters 38 Brigade, acting on behalf of the Armed Forces Community based in Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Departments. For example, 38 Brigade has established links with the Northern Ireland Department of Education on funding for Service children; and, through the Department for Social Development, with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on the provision of social housing. Healthcare is another key issue. As a further example, a relationship between 38 Brigade and healthcare providers in Northern Ireland (in particular the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust) has existed for at least six years. The current arrangements include a contract for secondary healthcare for serving personnel. In August 2009, the then Northern Ireland Health Minister launched a new protocol for liaison between his Department and the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, aimed at ensuring that members of the Armed Forces, their families and veterans

169 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 117 were not disadvantaged when seeking access to health and social care services and received the same services as the rest of the population in Northern Ireland. The protocol covered waiting lists, dentistry, IVF, prosthetics and the availability of mental health facilities; and it matched the commitments made in respect of England, Wales and Scotland in these areas at that time. On 22 January 2013, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mike Penning MP, held a meeting with 38 Brigade staff and representatives from a range of Service charities operating in Northern Ireland. The aim of the meeting was to begin a process of identifying where gaps exist in the provisions made for the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland and to consider whether there was any overlap. Community Covenant One of the areas where implementation is especially difficult is in relation to the Armed Forces Community Covenant. To date, around 230 Community Covenants have been signed with local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales; and Ministers are keen to see agreements put in place with as many local authorities as possible in Great Britain. The approach in Northern Ireland needs careful consideration because we recognise that it might not be helpful to try and extend coverage to district councils in Northern Ireland. There is a risk that pressing for Community Covenants to be established in Northern Ireland could serve to highlight divisions in some communities and thus be counter-productive. In any event, in Northern Ireland fewer public services are delivered by district councils than their local authority counterparts in Great Britain. Governance A new Cabinet Sub-Committee was established in December 2011 to oversee work on the Armed Forces Covenant and maintain momentum. This Ministerial Committee is chaired by Oliver Letwin, the Cabinet Office Minister for Government Policy, and has the following members to represent the different areas of the United Kingdom on non-devolved matters: Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office; Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Scotland Office; and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Wales Office. The key stakeholder group responsible for facilitating, monitoring and reporting on the work undertaken to fulfil the obligations set out in the Armed Forces Covenant is the Covenant Reference Group. The Group is chaired by the Cabinet Office and brings together officials from a range of UK Government departments with representatives from the three Families Federations, a number of Service charities and other organisations. Since its inception, the Group has included representatives from the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Following initial dialogue with the Northern Ireland Executive at official level, a seat has been available for the Northern Ireland Executive but this has not so far been taken up. At the working level, a network of contacts has been established (and is frequently used) with Armed Forces Champions appointed in other Government departments and in the Devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. The Northern Ireland Executive has not chosen to appoint an Armed Forces Champion in Northern Ireland. Conclusion The Covenant applies to the whole Armed Forces Community, wherever its members are located, and the Ministry of Defence is keen to see it implemented widely. We recognise that the circumstances for the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland are different, for reasons that are well understood. We consider it important that the Armed Forces Covenant does not become a trigger for division and that work to implement it in Northern Ireland proceeds on a basis that is agreed by all. We will seek to ensure that members of the Armed Forces Community are not disadvantaged compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services by working at the most appropriate level; and that Service charities are able to continue to go about their business. February 2013

170 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 118 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE MOD COVENANT COMMITMENTS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UK Aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant fall to Devolved Authorities and so there is some variation in the implementation of measures relating to several themes: healthcare, housing, education, family life, transition and support after service. Healthcare Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 1. Mental health - DH and MOD fund Big White Wall - Big White Wall website available to - Big White Wall website available to - Big White Wall website available to for Armed Forces Community in Armed Forces Community in Armed Forces Community in Wales. Armed Forces Community in NI. England. Scotland Hour Helpline available to Armed - 24 Hour Helpline available to Armed - 24 Hour Helpline available to Armed - 24 Hour Helpline available to Armed Forces Community in England. Forces Community in Scotland. Forces Community in Wales. Forces Community in Northern Ireland. - Approx 50 extra veterans mental - The Veterans 1 st Point service - Mental Health and Well-Being - UDR and R IRISH (Home Service) health nurses. provides mental health services in the Service for Veterans (part funded by veterans are able to access the UDR - National Veterans mental health NHS Lothian region. The Scottish MOD). and R IRISH (HS) Aftercare Service, network established by DH in England Government is considering rolling it - An All Wales Veterans Health and which provides welfare support, out across Scotland. Wellbeing Service has been funded by medical services and a benevolence the Welsh Government since April capability. - Scottish Government is introducing a Each Welsh Local Health Board new mental health strategy that is appointing an experienced clinician addresses the needs of the whole as a Veterans Therapist with an population, including veterans and interest in or experience of Service Service families. health problems. 2. Veterans - Priority NHS treatment for veterans - Priority NHS treatment for veterans - Priority NHS treatment for veterans - DHSSPSNI ensure no disadvantage subject to the clinical needs of others. subject to the clinical needs of others. subject to the clinical needs of others. and prioritise according to clinical need. - Veterans Information Service is - Veterans Information Service is - Veterans Information Service is - Veterans Information Service is being rolled out to contact personnel being rolled out to contact personnel being rolled out to contact personnel being rolled out to contact personnel 12 months after leaving Armed 12 months after leaving Armed 12 months after leaving Armed 12 months after leaving Armed Forces. Forces. Forces. Forces. - Veterans Scotland has created an - No priority afforded to veterans as online information portal and quarterly NI Equality legislation prohibits. meetings now held with a Minister.

171 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 119 Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland - Scottish Government has funded the - Veterans are less likely to disclose Veterans Assist portal. previous service due to security concerns. 3. Prosthetics - Prosthetic limbs are same standard - Prosthetic limbs are same standard - Prosthetic limbs are same standard - Prosthetic limbs are same standard as those given by DMS. as those given by DMS. as those given by DMS. as those given by DMS. - DH to announce enhanced disability - The same standard of prosthetic service centres for veterans in limbs are provided to the whole February population, thus ensuring equality legislation is not breached. - DHSSPSNI directed towards BLESMA for additional funding. 4. IVF - Service people with service related - Service people with service related - Service people with service related - Eligible couples in NI are offered serious genital injuries are guaranteed serious genital injuries are guaranteed serious genital injuries are guaranteed one cycle of publicly funded IVF. three free cycles of IVF. two or three free cycles of IVF. two free cycles of IVF. - The NHS in Wales is aiming to provide three cycles of IVF to all eligible patients in time, in line with NICE guidelines, but this is subject to competing priorities and so may take time to achieve. 5. Better information - E-learning package launched - E-learning package complete. - E-learning package complete. - Unaware of e-learning package. for GPs September Package to be Investigation in progress. updated by end March Transfer of medical records from - Transfer of medical records from MOD to GPs. MOD to GPs. - Transfer of medical records from - Transfer of medical records from MOD to GPs. MOD to GPs although some Service Leavers may not authorise release of their docs due to security concerns. - All GP practices have been provided with a leaflet about veterans.

172 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 120 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 6. Mobility - For families of those serving the - NHS waiting list time accrued in - NHS waiting list time accrued in - NHS waiting list time accrued in waiting time on a NHS list is taken another location is taken into account another location is taken into account another location is taken into account into account when moving to another when posted. when posted. when posted. location. - Other factors taken into account will be target waiting list times and clinical need. - In NI, waiting times are a maximum of 9 weeks for an outpatient appointment; 9 weeks for diagnostic test; and 13 weeks for day-case or inpatient. 7. Training - Working to get Service medical - Working to get Service medical - Working to get Service medical - Working to get Service medical training recognised professionally. training recognised professionally. training recognised professionally. training recognised professionally. 8. Champions - Armed Forces Champions on every - Armed Forces Champions on every - Armed Forces Champions on every The Armed Forces, AFF, VAPC and NHS board. NHS board. NHS board. ex-service charities are represented on the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Armed Forces Liaison Forum (the NI version of the Armed Forces Network). - Champions have been appointed in all local authorities. 9. Dental - Continue to monitor access to NHS - Increased dental service provision in - NHS dental care is generally - Wide availability of NHS dental care dentists. areas with high Armed Forces available to all Welsh residents. to all NI citizens. population. 10. Monitoring - The NHS Commissioning Board will - NHS Scotland are on the Partnership - NHS Wales are on the Partnership - DHSSPS NI are on the Partnership be joining the MOD/UK Departments Board with MOD. Board with MOD. Board with MOD. of Health Partnership Board. - Covenant Reference Group ongoing - Established an expert Armed Forces monitoring of progress. and Veterans Group to track delivery of healthcare commitments. - Scottish Government is a full partner

173 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 121 Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland on the Service-led Firm Base Forum. Housing Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 11. Social housing - High priority for adapted social - High priority for adapted social - High priority for adapted social - High priority for adapted social housing for seriously injured. housing for seriously injured. housing for seriously injured. housing for seriously injured. - Service personnel and Service leavers - Service leavers have an established - Service leavers have an established - No known priority for Service cannot be disqualified because they do local connection in an area. local connection in an area. leavers or veterans as NI Housing not have a local connection in an area. Exec operates a points system based on DHSS benefits and individual circumstances. - Service leavers can apply for social - Service leavers can apply for social housing before leaving Armed Forces. housing before leaving Armed Forces. - Additional preference for Service - Service Leavers less likely to leavers with urgent housing needs. disclose previous service due to security concerns. - Considering whether giving local - Local authorities have flexibility to authorities more flexibility would help prioritise Service personnel. - Guidance issued to encourage local social landlords address the housing - There is no dedicated Service authorities to prioritise Armed Forces needs of former Service personnel. leaver contact in the housing executive Community. for social housing. - National housing guide published. - Service personnel cannot be seen to - Allocations guidance revised to be treated more favourably, as with highlight veterans issues. any other cohort in NI, due to the equality legislation. 12. Government - Top of the priority list for the - Priority access to the Scottish - Priority access to government home Northern Ireland Co-Ownership home ownership Government s 500m FirstBuy scheme Government s Low Cost Initiative for ownership schemes. Housing is available but Armed Forces schemes and all other Government home First Time Buyers (LIFT) shared do not receive preferential treatment. ownership schemes. equity schemes. - Armed Forces Home Ownership - Part-funding a facility in Cahill, Scheme being piloted. Glasgow comprised of 50 housing units with access to outreach support for veterans.

174 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 122 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 13. Council tax - Local authorities have discretion to - Local authorities have discretion to - Local authorities can give a 50% or a - There is no council tax in NI. set a council tax discount on second set a council tax discount on second 25% discount, or no discount at all, on Domestic Rates are charged. Full rates homes between 10% and 50%. homes between 10% and 50%. second homes. are payable on empty properties. Reductions available in certain circumstances (eg low income or disabled). Application may be made where property is incapable of occupation. - Relief may be claimed for those who - For Service personnel who own or - For Service personnel who own or - For Service personnel who own or pay rates in NI when serving on rent a private property, a 50% council rent a private property, a 50% council rent a private property, a 50% council operational deployment overseas tax discount may be claimed from tax discount may be claimed from tax discount may be claimed from (MOD Scheme). their local authority where their main their local authority where their main their local authority where their main job-related dwelling is provided by job-related dwelling is provided by job-related dwelling is provided by MOD in England, Scotland or Wales. MOD in England, Scotland or Wales. MOD in England, Scotland or Wales. - Council Tax Relief may be claimed - Council Tax Relief may be claimed - Council Tax Relief may be claimed when serving on operational when serving on operational when serving on operational deployment overseas (MOD Scheme). deployment overseas (MOD Scheme). deployment overseas (MOD Scheme). Education Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 14. Service - A 3M Support Fund has been - A 3M Support Fund has been - A 3M Support Fund has been - A 3M Support Fund has been children established for State Schools with established for State Schools with established for State Schools with established for State Schools with Service Children. Schools experiencing Service Children. Schools experiencing Service Children. Schools experiencing Service Children. Schools experiencing the effect of exceptional mobility and/ the effect of exceptional mobility and/ the effect of exceptional mobility and/ the effect of exceptional mobility and/ or deployment of their Service or deployment of their Service or deployment of their Service or deployment of their Service community can bid to fund mitigating community can bid to fund mitigating community can bid to fund mitigating community can bid to fund mitigating action to the betterment of the whole action to the betterment of the whole action to the betterment of the whole action to the betterment of the whole school. school. school. school. - Scholarships for bereaved children to - Scholarships for bereaved children to - Scholarships for bereaved children to - Scholarships for bereaved children to study at university. study at university. study at university. study at university.

175 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 123 Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland - Service Pupil Premium fund. - Annual assessment and long term - Annual assessment and long term - Service Pupil Premium, currently monitoring. monitoring. highest in UK. Will only apply to -The revised School Admissions Code - Established a Children of Service - Family can register in catchment area children of families not normally now includes children of UK Service Families Working Group with CEAS, for school on receipt of posting notice. resident in NI and who have been personnel in the list of infant class size local authorities, the Independent posted there for a period scheduled to excepted pupils. Schools Sector and the Services in last no less than two years. Scotland. - Specialist Educational Needs support - Family can register in catchment area will not be interrupted when families - Service Child indicator is listed on for school on receipt of posting notice. move (implementation 2014). the annual census, but not always completed by the parent for security concerns. - A Service child indicator is now part - Family can register with a school on of the Annual School Census. receipt of married quarter address, but the school cannot apply for a supernumerary place (if required) until physically present in NI. - Specialist Educational Needs support - Special Educational Needs will be will not be interrupted when families considered where an existing statement move (to be implemented in 2014). is in place, but may not be exactly the same as the previous provision and the child must be in NI to facilitate assessment. 15. Service leavers Entitled Service leavers get tuition fees Entitled Service leavers get tuition fees Entitled Service leavers get tuition fees paid for a first degree. paid for a first degree. paid for a first degree. Family Life Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 16. Service - Improved portability of CRB checks - Improved portability of CRB checks - Improved portability of CRB checks - CRB checks not recognised in NI. partners within an employment sector. within an employment sector. within an employment sector. Personnel must re-register with AccessNI. - Job Centre Plus does not consider a - Job Centre Plus does not consider a - Job Centre Plus does not consider a - Job Centre Plus does not consider a Service spouse to have given up a job Service spouse to have given up a job Service spouse to have given up a job Service spouse to have given up a job voluntarily if being posted with a voluntarily if being posted with a voluntarily if being posted with a voluntarily if being posted with a partner. partner. partner. partner.

176 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 124 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland -Creation of Jobcentre Plus Armed - Creation of Jobcentre Plus Armed -Creation of Jobcentre Plus Armed -Creation of Jobcentre Plus Armed Forces Champions to assist Service Forces Champions to assist Service Forces Champions to assist Service Forces Champions to assist Service families find employment. families find employment. families find employment. families find employment. - Giving Service spouses early access - Giving Service spouses early access - Giving Service spouses early access - Giving Service spouses early access to the new work programme. to the new work programme. to the new work programme. to the new work programme. - Introduction in Apr 10 of NI credits - Introduction in Apr 10 of NI credits - Introduction in Apr 10 of NI credits - Introduction in Apr 10 of NI credits for Service spouses living overseas. for Service spouses living overseas. for Service spouses living overseas. for Service spouses living overseas. - Easement of rules to Job Seekers - Easement of rules to Job Seekers - Easement of rules to Job Seekers - Easement of rules to Job Seekers Allowance and Employment and Allowance and Employment and Allowance and Employment and Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance to prevent Support Allowance to prevent Support Allowance to prevent Support Allowance to prevent disadvantage for Service spouses who disadvantage for Service spouses who disadvantage for Service spouses who disadvantage for Service spouses who have lived abroad. have lived abroad. have lived abroad. have lived abroad. - Civil service will do all it can to help - Civil service will do all it can to help - Civil service will do all it can to help civil servants return to the same civil servants return to the same civil servants return to the same department after being deployed with a department after being deployed with a department after being deployed with a partner. partner. partner. - More flexible approach to vocational qualifications. Transition Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 17. Employment - Where possible, Service-related - Where possible, Service-related - Where possible, Service-related - Where possible, Service-related training and work skills receive training and work skills receive training and work skills receive training and work skills receive commensurate accreditation by commensurate accreditation by commensurate accreditation by commensurate accreditation by Nationally Recognised UK Awarding Nationally Recognised UK Awarding Nationally Recognised UK Awarding Nationally Recognised UK Awarding Bodies. Bodies. Bodies. Bodies. - Be the Boss Enterprise Support for - Be the Boss Enterprise Support for ex-service personnel. ex-service personnel. - Troops to Teachers scheme being launched.

177 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 125 Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Support after Service Commitment area England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland 18. Injured Service - Continuous automatic entitlement to - Continuous automatic entitlement to - Continuous automatic entitlement to - Same as Great Britain but with people Blue Badges for seriously injured Blue Badges for seriously injured Blue Badges for seriously injured security implications in applying for Service personnel and veterans. Service personnel and veterans. Service personnel and veterans. Blue Badge and concessionary travel pass. - Eased access to concessionary travel - Eased access to concessionary travel - Eased access to concessionary travel for seriously injured Service personnel for seriously injured Service personnel for seriously injured Service personnel and veterans. and veterans. and veterans.

178 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 126 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Supplementary memorandum from the Ministry of Defence During my evidence session on 27 February on the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland (NI), I undertook to write to the Committee on the subject of access to social housing following my visit to 38 (Irish) Brigade. During the visit in late March, I was briefed on the general equities of Defence in NI including the current security situation. I was grateful for this insight, which highlighted the challenges posed and the Force Protection requirements of our personnel based there. The situation is much better than it was two decades ago, but challenges remain and these are being managed appropriately. It is these challenges which shape the lives of the Regular, Reserve and Civil Service community. I witnessed the Reserve and Cadet environments, which are both supported through the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association (RFCA), and by the people of NI, within whom there is evidently a very strong public service ethos. It was encouraging to visit and discuss the potential of the new Royal Auxiliary Air Force unit which is currently being stood up. The Cadets I met were enthusiastic about their experiences and the opportunities on offer to them. I sense that the emphasis on youth development works well and makes a positive contribution to cross community cohesion. The visit also provided an opportunity to discuss a number of the topics that are linked to the Covenant, including the provision of social housing. I am reassured by the approach currently taken towards meeting the needs of Veterans who are an important asset to the wider community. There is still work to be done on the delivery model but there has been progress on coordinating signposting and reducing duplication. In my view, how services for personnel and veterans are delivered is best worked out by the appropriate NI Executive Minister, but perhaps in discrete discussions. As Brigadier Thomson said, it is the outcomes that matter, rather than the ways and means. I had excellent opportunities to meet personnel at Lisburn, Aldergrove and Ballykinler and took away a clear understanding of the individual assets which affect the three locations. The Army Welfare Service is achieving a great deal for families and especially for Service children in NI. I completely understand the pressures that postings and deployments can have on a child s education, and I am reassured that everything is being done in NI to address this. The bespoke delivery of services offered by the UDR and R IRISH Aftercare Service have created a niche capability which I sense has yet to be fully exploited. I suspect that, understandably, pride might have placed a part in reducing the take up of the Aftercare Service and I am pleased that it will continue to be funded until 31 March 2016, subject to a review before then. This will not result in an expansion of the Aftercare Service per se. However, this is now a pilot project involving wounded, injured and sick Service personnel under the care of the Personnel Recovery Unit at 38 (Irish) Brigade. In summary, I was encouraged by the discussions which I had during my visit to NI. The work being directed by 38 (Irish) Brigade together with the support offered by the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, the Aftercare Service and the very many Service charities and third sector organizations is, I believe, deliver a good service in the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant. This model, although different to that in use elsewhere in the UK, is working well to support our personnel and veterans whilst generally remaining away from the political spotlight. I believe this is the right approach and I am grateful for the continued support of the Minister of State for NI in ensuring that this remains the case. Finally, on a separate point, the Committee asked about the Minister of State for NI taking the lead on these issues and whether a decision was taken in Downing Street. In fact, there was no formal decision that the Minister of State for NI should take the lead, rather an acknowledgment that that would be the most sensible approach, given our respective areas of responsibility. In line with this, I am copying this letter to the Minister of State for NI. The Rt Hon Mark Francois MP June 2013 Memorandum from Combat Stress 1. Summary Combat Stress is a 93 year old UK wide charity. We have supported almost 100,000 ex-service men and women of every campaign that British Forces have been involved in since the First World War. We have a current caseload of more than 5,000 Veterans, including 637 who served in Iraq and 284 who served in Afghanistan. 750 of Combat Stress case load of 5,000 active Veterans live in Northern Ireland. For Veterans resident in Northern Ireland Combat Stress provides: Access to residential clinical treatment (delivered at our Hollybush House treatment centre in Ayrshire, Scotland) and Community Outreach clinical and welfare support for ex-service men and women who suffer from mental health problems, including psychological trauma, which might be attributable to or associated with their service in the Armed Forces, Merchant Navy or allied forces.

179 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 127 A dedicated 24 hour Helpline for those seeking help. In addition: Combat Stress is a strategic partner of all four UK Departments of Health and the Ministry of Defence. Combat Stress is a partner with the Royal British Legion in a Department of Health Third Sector Strategic Partnership. The Charity has developed excellent relationships with a large number of other ex-service and national charities. Combat Stress is commissioned by the National Commissioning Group (NCG) to provide a six-week intensive Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) rehabilitation programme in a residential setting for Veterans resident in England. Evidence Links between the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland and Departments of the NI Executive 2. Combat Stress enjoys a warm relationship with the Aftercare Service, which provides support to those who served in the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment (previously known as the Ulster Defence Regiment before 1992). This support includes assistance in finding employment, help with any physical disabilities or mental health issues. The Aftercare Service does not provide support to those who served in the Army (including Veterans from the regular battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment), Navy or RAF. 3. Combat Stress Director of Strategic Planning & Partnerships Lieutenant Colonel Peter Poole has also previously met with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to discuss Combat Stress signing up to be involved in the Commission for Victims and Survivors, a meeting of which Lieutenant Colonel Poole subsequently attended on behalf of Combat Stress. Barriers to progress, statutory or otherwise, in implementing the Covenant 4. Combat Stress understands the desire to provide equality of access to treatment for psychological trauma to civilian victims of terrorism, as well as ex-service men and women. However, Combat Stress charter means that the charity can only treat ex-service men and women who suffer from mental health problems, including psychological trauma, which might be attributable to or associated with their service in the Armed Forces, Merchant Navy or allied forces. If Combat Stress was mandated to provide treatment to civilian victims of terrorism, it would therefore effectively prevent the charity from operating in Northern Ireland. The level of co-ordination between the NI Executive, the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and other relevant UK Government Departments 5. Combat Stress is a strategic partner of all four UK Departments of Health and the Ministry of Defence, and we therefore know that the level co-ordination between those bodies is extremely high. We would of course welcome any strengthening of the co-ordination between the NI Executive, the Northern Ireland Office and other UK Government Departments, as that can only ever be a good thing. The absence of NI representation on the Covenant Reference Group 6. Combat Stress would be very supportive of Northern Ireland representation on the Covenant Reference Group. 750 of Combat Stress case load of 5,000 active Veterans live in Northern Ireland. It strikes us as important in ensuring that there is equal coverage across all four nations of the UK, that there is equal representation on the Covenant Reference Group. Whoever was chosen to represent Northern Ireland on the Covenant Reference Group would of course have to be someone who commanded respect from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, something that Combat Stress is very conscious of and sensitive to. February 2013 Introduction Written memorandum from the Democratic Unionist Party The DUP is proud of the contribution made by men and women from Northern Ireland who have served the United Kingdom in many theatres of conflict across the globe and especially here in Northern Ireland and we salute their sacrifice. With an increasing proportion of armed forces personnel from the province being deployed on operations in Afghanistan, including from reserve units, the number of personnel and veterans requiring welfare support is on the rise again. With the ending of Op Banner, many of the military healthcare facilities previously available in Northern Ireland such as the Duke of Connaught Unit at Musgrave Park hospital have been removed. This has created a greater reliance on NHS and personal health and social care services in Northern Ireland and sometimes means that personnel have to travel to facilities on the mainland for treatment. The Military Covenant is designed to assist armed forces personnel and veterans to access these services

180 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 128 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence without being disadvantaged by virtue of their service. There is evidence that this is not working as well in Northern Ireland as it is in other parts of the UK. Context A recent report published by the World Health Organisation on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) found that Northern Ireland had a higher incidence of PTSD and trauma-related illnesses than any other conflictrelated country in the world. That included places such as Lebanon and Israel. It was remarkable that the study found that nearly 40% of people in Northern Ireland had been involved in some kind of conflict-related traumatic incident. The survey estimated that violence had been a distinctive cause of mental health problems for about 18,000 people in Northern Ireland. Against that backdrop, the health and social care services in Northern Ireland seek to provide a service to members of our armed forces and veterans from Northern Ireland. There is already a huge demand on these services from across Northern Ireland as a result of trauma-related illnesses arising from the conflict. Before remarking on current deficiencies in the service, we want to acknowledge that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), within the constraints of devolution, has made efforts to ensure that a degree of assistance is given to members of the armed forces and veterans in Northern Ireland when providing health and personal care. The Health Minister, Edwin Poots MLA has stated that he is determined to ensure that our service personnel and veterans receive the level of support they require when they need it. His Department has established an Armed Forces Liaison Forum linked to the armed forces protocol, which has done valuable work in seeking to co-ordinate the health and social care response to the needs of service personnel and veterans living in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Department has worked with the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association and military charities to examine how services can be improved in line with the objectives of the military covenant. Additionally, the Department for Social Development with Nelson McCausland MLA as Minister has sought to ensure that the housing needs of those leaving the armed forces are taken into account under the housing selection scheme operated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. We also want to praise the work of the aftercare service put in place specifically for those who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service Battalions. The DUP fought hard to secure this service in the period leading up to the disbandment of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. We worked with the previous Government towards the establishment of the service, because we recognised that one of the legacies of the troubles were the many people who had served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland over a prolonged period as part of Operation Banner, the longest-running military operation in the history of the British Army. These men and women had served constantly. It was not a matter of spending six months on operational deployment in Northern Ireland and then maybe not coming back for another two years. Rather, the Royal Irish Regiment, and the Ulster Defence Regiment before it, served continuously on military operations in Northern Ireland for a very long time from the early 1970s through to the disbandment of the home service battalions and was recognised for its service with the award of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross by Her Majesty the Queen. The aftercare service provided to veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment makes an important contribution towards ensuring that those who have served in Northern Ireland are provided with the care and support they need. We believe that the Royal Irish Aftercare Service can be a model that other parts of the United Kingdom might seek to implement. It takes a hands-on approach, not just responding to the needs of soldiers with medical issues or welfare problems, but proactively engaging with people to ensure that their needs are met. We Hope That The Government Will Continue To Fund And Resource The Service Properly And It Is Our Objective That It Should Be Expanded To Include Other Veterans And Service Personnel Living In Northern Ireland. The Problem Whilst recognising the aforementioned measures that are already in place in Northern Ireland, the DUP, together with others, has a concern about the full implementation of the military covenant here and the fact that there are service personnel and veterans who are not getting the support they need. We could cite a number of examples of individual cases where veterans and armed forces personnel resident in Northern Ireland are not receiving adequate support under the Covenant but we will focus on just one at this stage, for which family consent has been given. James Burns is a young man from County Antrim who was, until recently, a Lance Corporal with the RM Commando. After a period of operational service in Afghanistan, he returned to his family in Northern Ireland and developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Sadly, as a result of his illness he turned to alcohol. The result of this lethal combination of alcohol and his medical condition meant that James developed violent behaviour and got into trouble, harming himself and those around him. Only a few months after his military career ended, he is sadly now in prison serving a sentence.

181 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 129 There is something wrong with a system in which a soldier comes home from operational deployment to his family and, within months, finds himself serving a prison sentence for behaviour that he and his family would argue may have been beyond his control because of his medical condition. Neither his family nor we seek to excuse what James has done. The point is this that James returned from military operations, developed PTSD and did not receive the welfare and support that he undoubtedly needed to cope with his illness. We are convinced that this is due, at least in part, to the fact that the Health Service, in line with the requirements of the covenant, did not deal adequately with his case. The military authorities also failed to offer him adequate support, perhaps because he lived in Northern Ireland and was deemed to a certain extent to be out of sight... There is clearly more that we can do to help young men like James and, indeed, young women who develop post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the traumatic experiences that they have had to endure while on operational deployment. In August last year, we wrote to the Minister for the Armed Forces, Andrew Robathan MP at the Ministry of Defence to raise this case. We understand that, owing to issues relating to data protection legislation, he was unable to respond in as much detail as he might have wished. His advice was that James should contact the welfare service at the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency. The Minister provided a helpline number for that service. He went on: I would also strongly encourage James to raise any medical concern with his GP. James may also wish to consider contacting the charity Combat Stress. Whilst we acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with that advice per se, our point is that there should be someone in the system who can get alongside people like James and to help them and their families gain access to the level of care that they need and in this case, before they end up in prison. Consequently, we believe that the model for the Royal Irish Aftercare Service could be expanded to cover service personnel and veterans like James. As a starting point, we would like to see it expanded in Northern Ireland to incorporate those service personnel and veterans who have served or continue to serve in our armed forces, whether in the Royal Irish Regiment, the Irish Guards or any other armed forces unit, and who reside in Northern Ireland and perhaps also in the Republic of Ireland. Why should Northern Ireland get such special treatment? We should do so because we have a special problem when it comes to the full implementation of the military covenant. That special problem is section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 the equality legislation that formed a key element of the Belfast agreement. Section 75 places a statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality when carrying out their functions in relation to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, officials in various Government Departments in Northern Ireland who might be able to offer support to veterans and service personnel say they are unable to give any form of preferential treatment in line with the objectives of the Military Covenant, because of the restrictions placed upon them by this legislation Let us bear it in mind that the Military Covenant requires only that action should be taken to ensure that a veteran or a member of the armed forces should face no disadvantage as a result of serving or having served in the armed forces. In other words, they should be placed in the position in which they would have been, had they remained a civilian. Unfortunately, however, section 75 is being used in a way that can prevent full implementation of the Military Covenant in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly we have a problem, but there are a number of ways in which that problem could be overcome. In a submission to the House of Commons Defence Committee, it was made clear by the current Northern Ireland Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Edwin Poots, that there was a problem. In a letter dated 12 December 2012 to the Member of Parliament for Lagan Valley Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson MP, Mr Poots also stated: The position I inherited in taking up my position as Minister for health, Social Services and Public Safety is that in Northern Ireland patients are treated on the basis of assessed clinical need with no priority being afforded to any particular group of patients, including armed forces veterans. This arises from the obligations placed on public bodies under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which requires my Department, in carrying out its functions, to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity across a number of specified groups. (See Annex A) Paragraph 36 of the Defence Committee report, The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 1: Military Casualties, states: The provisions of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) and the Health and Social Care (HSC) sector in Northern Ireland in providing war veterans with priority over other individuals with respect to healthcare treatment. As far as implementation of the Covenant in Northern Ireland is concerned, the Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant of September 2010 stated that Service personnel based in Northern Ireland: are disadvantaged more than their contemporaries elsewhere For example, Service families in the province are prevented from identifying themselves as such due to the security situation. This can cause difficulties for partners in explaining their career history to prospective employers and for Service children in obtaining the necessary support in schools, among other issues.

182 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 130 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Extending the Aftercare Service The Military Covenant Task Force Report, in reviewing implementation in Northern Ireland alluded to a key recommendation that states: One possibility currently under consideration is to extend the Northern Ireland aftercare service to cover all veterans based in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The DUP would like to see all service personnel and veterans of the UK armed forces who reside in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland covered by the aftercare service, so that they get the help they need when they need it. Therefore, we hope that the Committee and the Government will give careful consideration to the proposition that the aftercare service should be extended to include, not only veterans living in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but serving members of the armed forces who live in either part of the island and whom, for whatever reason, may require treatment or access to other services for themselves or their families. The proposed expansion of the Royal Irish Aftercare Service might also be combined with addressing the need for some kind of treatment and respite facility for the armed forces in Northern Ireland. At present, a veteran or current member of the armed forces living in Northern Ireland who is suffering from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and needs recuperation may go to Hollybush House in Scotland. We recognise that a locally based respite centre will not be appropriate for all cases and there are personal sensitivities and needs that will continue to be met at facilities in other parts of the UK. Nevertheless, the DUP should like the Government to work with the military charities, the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, and other stakeholders in Northern Ireland to find a way of resourcing a respite centre here. Whilst responsibility for resourcing such a centre would rest partly with Government, it is worth noting that the people of Northern Ireland are very generous when it comes to military charities. Year on year, Northern Ireland consistently gives more to the poppy appeal than any other region of the United Kingdom, and other charities such as Help for Heroes are well supported here. Northern Ireland receives a share of that money, and we do not in any way criticise the military charities. Indeed the work of the RBL, SSAFA, ABF the Soldiers Charity, Combat Stress, AAVS etc. as well as various Regimental Associations and Benevolent Funds is vital in supporting veterans and service personnel. However, it would be good to see those charities unite with the Government, the RFCA and others in considering what enhanced facilities we might provide in Northern Ireland. That would constitute further recognition of the generosity of the people here who support such worthy causes. Community Covenants in Northern Ireland In recent comments to the Welsh Affairs Committee on the 30 October 2012, the MOD Minister Mark Francois MP highlighted the particular challenge in Northern Ireland of implementing the community covenant. Some local authorities in Northern Ireland are controlled by Sinn Fein and, unfortunately, there seems to be some reticence on the part of the SDLP when it comes to implementation of this aspect of the Military Covenant. As the Minister pointed out when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, some local authorities in Northern Ireland seem reluctant to support the full implementation of the covenant. There is a need to explore other ways in which community covenants can be implemented throughout Northern Ireland without being impeded by certain elements in local government. Consequently, the key issues that the DUP wishes to raise concerning full implementation of the Military Covenant can be summarised as follows: The existing pressures on health and social care services in Northern Ireland as a result of the legacy of over 30 years of the troubles. The particular problems faced by armed forces personnel and veterans in having to access some services on the mainland. The specific issues that arise from section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the impact this has on full implementation of the Military Covenant. The need to expand the work of the Royal Irish Aftercare Service to incorporate all armed forces personnel and veterans living in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. The need to consider the establishment of a treatment and respite centre for armed forces personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland. Finding a way to ensure the establishment of community covenants in Northern Ireland. Key Recommendatons The DUP urges the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to consider recommending that the Government implement the following measures to ensure that veterans and armed forces personnel have access to adequate treatment and support under the Military Covenant:

183 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev That the Aftercare Service currently operated by the Royal Irish Regiment is extended and resourced to provide welfare support to all veterans and armed forces personnel resident in Northern Ireland. Consideration should also be given to including veterans and personnel who have served or continue to serve with the UK Armed Forces and who reside in the Republic of Ireland. 2. That the Government cooperate with the military charities to establish and fund a treatment and respite centre in Northern Ireland for veterans and armed forces personnel. Conclusion The DUP believe that Her Majesty s Government has a duty to support the armed forces and the veterans who have served this country so well, and our Party is happy to work with Ministers in pursuing this vital work. No political obstacle and no political party should get in the way of full implementation of the covenant in every region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. APPENDIX CORRESPONDENCE FROM EDWIN POOTS MLA, MINISTER FOR HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, TO JEFFREY DONALDSON MP, 19 DECEMBER 2012 Thank you for your letter of 13 November on behalf of your constituent [redacted] a former member of the armed forces, who is awaiting treatment for injuries to his shoulder. Firstly, allow me to say how sorry I am to learn about [redacted] condition. It is fully understandable that he should wish to ensure that he avails of the best treatment which the health service can provide, and in a timely manner. The position that I inherited in taking up my position as Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is that in Northern Ireland patients are treated on the basis of assessed clinical need with no priority being afforded to any particular group of patients, including armed forces veterans. This arises from the obligations placed on public bodies under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which requires my Department, in carrying out its functions, to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity across a number of specified groups. This remains as the current policy position. My Department does however recognise the need to hear about the concerns of members of the armed forces and in 2009 we established an Armed Forces Liaison Forum which meets regularly and provides opportunities for representatives from the armed forces and veterans organisations to discuss healthcare issues with departmental representatives and service commissioners and providers. With regard to access to treatment generally in Northern Ireland I find it unacceptable that patients should have to wait longer than is necessary for treatment and that is why I have set challenging performance targets follows for the Health and Social Care providers. I am sorry to hear that [redacted] has waited over a year to have an MRI scan. We have checked the latest position with the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust and the Trust has advised that [redacted] was seen on 1 November 12 and was added to the waiting list for surgery. He can expect to receive a date for surgery in June However, I am concerned about the time taken to reach this position and I have written to the Chief Executive of the Belfast HSC Trust asking him to respond directly to you on this matter. I hope that you have found this reply helpful. March 2013 Memorandum from the Army Families Federation 1. AFF is an evidence based organisation that lobbies for change when families feel that there is an issue that needs addressing. At present AFF have little evidence from families outlining that they feel disadvantaged whilst serving in Northern Ireland specific to the absence of a covenant. AFF would always welcome any extra support serving soldiers and their families may receive due to the implementation of a covenant within Northern Ireland. 2. Families have a strong support network within the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland and many are aware that their needs can be addressed and dealt with on their behalf by the Chain of Command and agencies that are currently in place. 3. Evidence bought to the attention of AFF would suggest that security issues remain a concern for those living in military accommodation in Northern Ireland. Families based in NI experience a unique set of issues whilst living there and bring many of these issues to the attention of AFF. 4. AFF has no evidence on which to base an opinion on the level of co-ordination between different Government Departments. 5. AFF would welcome NI representation on the Covenant Reference Group, especially if the needs and support of military families in NI was highlighted as an issue to be addressed now and in the future.

184 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 132 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 6. Any concerns highlighted at present would be directed through 38(Irish) Brigade. April 2013 Memorandum from SSAFA Forces Help, Northern Ireland Branch I am writing to give an overview of the work of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, Forces Help (SSAFA) and to put in context the work of the Branch in Northern Ireland. The Association was established in 1885 under Royal Charter. SSAFA s mission is to relieve the need, suffering and distress of those who serve in our Armed Forces, those who used to serve, and the families of both. On the in-service side we provide Family Health and Social Services under contract to the Ministry of Defence, in Germany, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Brunei and the Falkland Islands. Additionally, Service Committees and Community Volunteer groups work within military establishments worldwide supporting those serving and their families. There is one such Service Committee in Northern Ireland covering the four bases of Aldergrove, Lisburn, Holywood and Ballykinler. SSAFA s Branch network delivers casework through over 6,000 volunteers across the UK, Ireland, France Germany and Cyprus, mostly, but not exclusively, to veterans and their families, dealing with approximately cases per annum. SSAFA also provides a range of other services and facilities. We have a mentoring pilot scheme underway in which we pair trained volunteers with a wounded, injured or sick serviceman or woman transitioning out of the Army. This is operating in Northern Ireland. We have a Victim Support Scheme and a Supporting Witnesses in Court service. We have residential homes for disabled and widows; we have homes providing free accommodation for the families of our badly wounded enabling them to visit their loved ones; an adoption service; Family Support Groups; a Children s Short Break Scheme; a confidential telephone service called Forcesline ; and the Military Wives Choir Foundation. None of these are Northern Ireland specific but they demonstrate the range of services SSAFA provides across the whole forces family. SSAFA is also a leading member of COBSEO, the Confederation of Service Charities ( but is not a campaigning or lobbying charity, focusing instead on delivering support to clients. The work of the SSAFA Branch in Northern Ireland is never ending. Specifically our purpose is to help serving and ex-service men or women and their wives, husbands, partners and dependent family members whenever they need friendship, advice or assistance, at any time from the day their service starts and for the rest of their lives. We do not sit in judgement; we simply try to help people to sort out problems in agreement with them and as fast as possible. We have 25 fully trained caseworkers doing just that in Northern Ireland, trained volunteers who give their time freely, and we deal with some 500 cases per year, distributing around 100,000 of assistance. It is important to note that SSAFA does not give money to individuals seeking assistance. Where we believe the case is justified, we will pay for goods and services on proof of receipt, and we will pay the supplier, not the person supplied. At the same time, often we act as signposts to other providers. Our remit extends to the Reserves and to qualifying officers and adult instructors of the Cadet Forces. With the changes currently underway we anticipate an even greater focus on the TA forces requirements. The assistance we distribute is a combination of funds we have raised locally and, more importantly, the funds we almonise from other benevolent sources (eg umbrella service charities, Regimental funds etc). The majority of cases with which we deal are those seeking benevolent or financial help. A growing number of those approaching us need debt counseling, but we are not legally qualified to deal with this and refer them to CAB sources. In Northern Ireland, we have only one, part-time, employee, otherwise depending entirely on volunteer time and effort. The funds we are able to raise locally go to meet the costs of running the Branch the office, volunteer training and expenses and the surplus goes towards the benevolence we can contribute to our welfare cases. The areas which appear to raise the most concern about the implementation of a Military or Community Covenant are not so readily apparent from the cases which come forward to us. We do not experience issues of lack of school places. We do see those who have left the services asking about housing. Our advice is always that they should register straight away with the Housing Executive knowing that without points, they will most likely be then advised to go down the private rental route. This will in turn require a month s rent deposit and the first month in advance. This may well be when they approach us. Replacement or purchase of furniture, white goods, and supply of heating oil are amongst the other most common requests. SSAFA s commitment nationally to the Armed Forces Community Covenant is a matter of record. In Northern Ireland we are well aware of the problems, perceived and real, which combine to have delayed or

185 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 133 dismissed its implementation to date. As a first step towards bringing some co-ordination to improving the awareness of and by veterans in need, a Veterans Forum is seeking to address initially the whole question of available resources. An initial meeting was held under the auspices of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association and was jointly chaired by myself, the SSAFA Branch Chairman and the Director, Aftercare Service. It was agreed to publish a comprehensive guide to charities and organisations in Northern Ireland offering help and assistance to veterans and to ensure the widest possible distribution in publicly available locations. April Introduction Memorandum from Help for Heroes 1.1 In keeping with Help for Heroes charitable objectives this evidence focuses on the care of the wounded. 1.2 Help for Heroes is committed to providing the best level of support for all wounded personnel, serving and ex-serving, regardless of colour, creed, nationality or geographical location. It does not differentiate between the different services. 1.3 To date, Help for Heroes monies have been used to provide individual support to Northern Irish serving personal, veterans and their families. This support is provided both individually (eg. through our Quick Reaction Fund (QRF)) and via the Defence Recovery Capability (DRC), in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Royal British Legion (TRBL). 1.4 Help for Heroes is working with the MoD and TRBL on the creation and management of regional Personnel Recovery Centres. These centres provide, in partnership with the Services and other Service charities, ongoing training and support for the wounded after Headley Court. These are, and will be, used by Northern Irish serving and ex-serving personnel where capacity is available. The centres are in Edinburgh, Colchester, Catterick, Tidworth, Plymouth, and Germany. 1.5 Help for Heroes does not determine where the Recovery Centres are located the MoD decides the best geographical location. 1.6 Help for Heroes is in ongoing discussions with MoD, NHS, the Department of Health, and the Department for Work and Pensions to develop an enduring support structure for our wounded veterans. 2. How H4H are Supporting Northern Irish Tri-service Personnel and Veterans 2.1 In Northern Ireland: Quick Reaction Fund (QRF): Help for Heroes have committed 6m to the Quick Reaction Fund which provide ready money to injured, wounded or sick personnel who need it to make their life easier. Funds will be administered through the Services own charities and within 72 hours of the grant application. Already, c 50,000 has been granted to Northern Irish wounded serving and veterans. Some examples of these include: Electric bikes. Hand bikes. Accommodation fees. Laptops Restricted funds: The Charity does not currently have a restricted fund for NI but is planning to set one up in Nationwide Facilities and Funding Available to Northern Irish Serving and Veterans a few examples: The Help for Heroes Gym and Swimming Pool complex at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court: Help for Heroes funded 8.5million for this complex, which is used by all serving personnel treated at Headley Court Combat Stress: Help for Heroes gave Combat Stress 3.5 million allow then to increase and extend the facilities and service offered to veterans suffering from a psychological condition related to their service Battle Back: Help for Heroes has so far funded over 1 million to the initiative which uses Adaptive and Adventure Training and Sports Rehabilitation to help those who are seriously wounded gain confidence and return to an active life Individual Recovery Plans (IRPs): Help for Heroes have committed 15 million through to September 2014 across the UK to support those transitioning to a new role in the Services or to civilian life by enhancing the existing resettlement package.

186 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 134 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence 3. The Personnel Recovery Centres (PRCs) 3.1 The Recovery Centres are available for all service personnel and veterans where capacity is available. Therefore, if a Northern Irish service personnel is wounded in action they are typically cared for initially at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham before moving to Headley Court, Surrey for rehabilitation and then to their Personnel Recovery Unit (PRU) which is located where their regiment is based. They will then have access to both residentially and as a day visitor the Personnel Recovery Centre that is the most appropriate for them. 3.2 To date, 20 wounded, injured and sick personnel (WIS) have attended courses at Tedworth House recovery centre. Nationwide, approximately 4% of those using the Recovery Centres are from Northern Ireland. 3.3 The option to return to the Recovery Centre where they are initially treated will be there for life, even once they have left the services, offering continuity of care as well as giving veterans (who may have left service because of their injury) the opportunity to return to the military community where they were based and enjoy the camaraderie and life that community offers. Grants may be available for transport and we have family as well as individual facilities. April 2013 Supplementary memorandum from the Commander of 38 (irish) Brigade TRANSITION Introduction 1. Around 12,000 members of the Army leave each year and the Army has a duty to ensure that these soldiers and their families make the Transition to civilian life as successfully as possible. In Mar 12 the Adjutant General (AG) produced a paper Transition: Soldiers into Society which considered preparations for Service Leavers (SL) transiting out of the Army. The paper highlighted that the current resettlement provision concentrated heavily on employment and recognised that Transition should cover all aspects of returning to civilian life. It defined the purpose of the Transition process to produce a settled veteran, who makes a positive contribution to society and acts as an advocate for the Army. While making it clear that the responsibility for Transition rests with the individual, who must plan early in order to make their transition a smooth and successful one. Policy 2. Transition policy 27 is designed to equip individuals and their families to successfully transition back to civilian life. All aspects of that journey are considered, focussed on the following outcomes: Education, Employment, Housing, Health and Welfare (E2H2W). The challenge is to introduce the idea that all Army personnel need to start thinking about transition earlier in their career and empowering them to take ownership and plan accordingly. Delivery 3. HQ Sp Comd. HQ Sp Comd was tasked with the facilitation and coordination of the transition capability across the Army. Direction was issued to the regional Bdes across the UK to ensure that each element of E2H2W was addressed in the appropriate regional context. Critical to the coordination of this approach was the establishment of a dedicated staff officer in each of the regional Bdes and at Sp Comd to act as a focal point to coordinate and facilitate Transition activities for all who are leaving the Army. 4. Regional Brigades. The regional Bdes were directed to set up a Transition Delivery Working Group (TDWG) to deliver an effective and measurable Transition service for all SL planning on resettling within their regional area. Working closely with the Career Transition Partnership (CTP), the Bdes have sought to expand existing links with local government departments and employers; notably through Transition Fairs and Employment Fairs which enable individuals and families to have direct access to, local authorities, veteran s charities and potential employers. 5. Units. Unit Resettlement Officers provide the information and guidance needed to start planning for transition. To make the most of the opportunities and resources available, individuals must take ownership of their own transition. For those with a specific identified need there may be a requirement for a bespoke plan that allows individuals to draw on additional advice and support until they achieve full independence or will be signposted to the appropriate support organisation post discharge. Summary 6. The introduction and development of Transition across the Army will greatly improve awareness of E2H2W amongst the service community. While wishing to maintain a common approach SP Comd has given 27 Transition policy is not a single document. Specific areas are held and maintained by various Army HQ staff branches. The Policy areas are consolidated in the Transition Booklet owned by PS4, DPS(A).

187 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 135 each of the regional Bdes the latitude to take into account local political, social, geographical and economic conditions. In Northern Ireland the modus operandi has been to build on and develop existing relationships using a bottom up and private rather than top down and public approach. June 2013 Memorandum from Bureau Insurance Bureau Insurance was established in 1997 with the aim of providing Insurances for difficult to place risks. It is a member of the British Insurance Brokers Association. We have worked with Ian Paisley and Oliver Letwin for the last couple of years to introduce to the Armed Forces a whole range of Insurances at substantially below market prices. These schemes will be launched, in the House of Commons, in October Because we cover the uncomfortable, as well as standard risks, we are able to offer affinity groups the full range of Insurances ie: we don t exclude anybody on the basis of pre-conceived prejudices. We have met, several times, with Lindsay Farrell at Stormont to discuss Insuring people who have hungover convictions from the troubles. We solved the problem. The Armed Forces etc. as an affinity group represents over 1 million people: Armed Forces. Civilian Workers of the MOD. TA. Cadets. Veterans. Spouses/Parents/Children. The aim is to provide a fairer and more cost effective way for the Armed Forces (including civilian workers of the M.O.D, reservists, veterans, cadets and their families) to purchase Financial Products. The plan is radical but in no way will it affect the security of the Financial Products offered. There were three separate proposals within the plan. (1) Insurances to Individuals Our last report to Oliver Letwin outlined 3 areas where we (the Insurance Private Sector) could reduce costs: To reduce Insurance Premiums for Military Personnel (as identified above) to take out voluntary insurances such as Motor/Home/Kit/Life/Travel/Personal Accident/Gap/Yacht/Pet/Weddings and Caravan Insurance. Once an income stream has been established the objective is to create an Insurance Company which has been provisionally titled Military Insurance Services Ltd. This will be akin to a co-operative in so much as it will be not-for-profit making and be owned by its members (ie those who use its facilities to Insure). By removing commercial interest, allowing members a say in the running of the company, adhering to principles and best business practices and employing ex-military (where possible); then the Insurer can offer products substantially cheaper than otherwise obtainable and to use profits to reduce premiums further. (2) Administration of the MOD s Current Compensation Scheme To allow the Insurance Industry to tender for the administration of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme to cut costs and use their knowledge with regard to lawyer led inflated injury claims. To reduce administration costs when compiling, quantifying and paying Military Personnel under the M.O.D. s own compensation scheme. In addition, to bring to bear the Insurance industry s expertise with the rise in litigation concerning lawyer led claims. (3) Banking To provide subsidised house purchase deposits. Also, offering better than market rates for credit cards and loans. General Under the Insurance side for members read Military Personnel who have taken out their own insurances. Under the Banking side the members would be HM Government.

188 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 136 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Under the Administration of the M.O.D Compensation Scheme it is believed that the Insurance industry would do this more economically, in the event it would be working for a fixed fee. This is only a brief outline of the main report I provided. It should be noted that under the Insurance proposal and to obtain the necessary level of experience, it is envisaged that the Insurer will offer job opportunities to a number of ex-service personnel with the clerical nature of the work being particularly suited to those who may have been invalided out of the services. It is the priority that the Insurer is genuinely being operated for the benefit of military personnel this is not something that can normally be achieved within the constraint of the normal commercial market. June 2013 Supplementary memorandum from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Northern Ireland Thank you for the dated 29 April 2013, from Edward Faulkner, Senior Committee Assistant for your Committee, requesting further information on two points raised in the written evidence submitted to the Committee in respect of the dates on which the Armed Forces Liaison Committee has met since its establishment and how funding for advanced prosthetics is provided. Armed Forces Liaison Forum The forum first met on 1 September Since then the forum has met on three occasions: on 18 April 2011; 12 September 2012; and most recently 30 April The Secretariat will be making arrangements for the forum to meet again in October Funding for Advanced Prosthetics My officials are in ongoing contact with senior staff at the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, NHS England and MOD, about the steps and actions that are required for MOD to formally recognize that the Regional Disablement Service, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, is Northern Ireland s Disability Services Centre of Excellence. This is important as only those centres that are given such status will have access to MOD funding for advanced prosthetics provision. In the interim, and given that Northern Ireland has to date relatively few veterans, any costs will be met by the Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Board. I trust that this is helpful. Edwin Poots MLA Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety June 2013 Memorandum from the Northern Ireland Office ARMED FORCES COVENANT AREAS OF DIFFERENCE IN NORTHERN IRELAND REQUIRING FURTHER WORK Repair and Replacement of Prosthetics We are working to provide veterans with repairs and replacement prosthetics that match the quality of prosthetics that are provided to serving personnel. At February s MOD and UK Departments of Health Partnership Board, all three Devolved Health Departments re-stated their ambition to provide prosthetics services that specifically cater for military amputees. All three Devolved Health Departments are working through how they can take this forward. There are fewer than 20 identified veterans in NI with prosthetics and only 3 have resettled in NI since 2006 so the number is small. Proposed Next Step: Partnership Board to Continue to Monitor Implementation by Devolved Authorities Provision of IVF Service personnel are offered up to three cycles in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham regardless of where they reside in the UK. For veterans who wish to have IVF treatment because of service related injuries there are differing levels of provision across the UK. In England all those with Service related genital injuries are entitled to up to three cycles. The same provision applies in Scotland. In Wales, two cycles are guaranteed but in NI only one this is the same as is offered to civilians. The NI Assembly passed a motion calling for all couples in NI to receive three cycles but the Executive Health Minister rejected this saying his Department would require more funding. Each cycle costs the NHS

189 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 137 around 3,500. The numbers of veteran couples across the UK requiring IVF as a result of Service-related injuries are likely to be small. Proposed Next step: If the fewer number of cycles in NI proves to be an enduring problem, officials will explore if provision can be funded/provided elsewhere, for example private treatment funded by a charity or exceptionally, for a veteran, treatment at the MOD facility within the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham. Priority NHS Treatment for Wounded, Injured and Sick Veterans Subject to the clinical needs of others, wounded, injured and sick veterans are entitled to priority NHS treatment in GB for conditions that are attributable to their service in the Armed Forces. Priority treatment is not available in the same way for veterans in NI and a significant issue circumscribing this is that veterans are often reluctant to declare previous Armed Forces service to medical practitioners on security grounds. The bespoke UDR & R IRISH Aftercare Service has in place physiotherapy and psychological therapies contracts which the 63,000 eligible veterans are able to access. The Aftercare Service has dealt with 632 psychotherapy referrals to date, with 29 currently in treatment, and 534 physiotherapy referrals with 27 currently in treatment but this does not cover all veterans or all conditions. That said, charities are not reporting concerns that a lack of priority subject to the clinical needs of others is really resulting in different outcomes in different parts of the UK given that provision in NI is generally good. Proposed Next Step: Work is being undertaken with the Service charities to ensure a sustainable signposting service is available to all veterans and ensure widespread coverage is achieved to provide assistance at the point of first contact. Government Home Purchase Schemes Serving personnel are granted priority access to Government home ownership schemes in England, Scotland and Wales. Similar schemes are available in Northern Ireland but Armed Forces personnel are not given any priority access. However, whilst there are strict limits on who can apply to Home ownership purchase schemes in GB, the schemes in NI are open to all. Proposed Next Step: none required there is currently no quota in operation and anyone in NI can apply for a Home Purchase Scheme immediately (unlike in GB). Priority for Social Housing Local Authorities in GB are required to consider Service leavers as if they have a local connection and be given points accordingly. In addition further priority is often given to veterans on the waiting list for social housing in GB, although this varies between different Local Authorities. This is not the case in NI because of section 75 of the NI Act That said, the local connection is less of an issue in Northern Ireland and service charities are not reporting cases of homeless ex-servicemen in NI. Proposed Next Step: None Proposed Homelessness Of Ex-Servicemen/Women is not Considered an Issue Waiving of Domestic Rates for unoccupied property In GB most Local Authorities offer a discount of 50% on Council Tax in respect of empty properties owned by service personnel who live in MOD property elsewhere as a result of serving in the Armed Forces. In NI there is no similar discount in respect of rates (NI has domestic rates not council tax as in GB). A case could potentially be made in NI to waive rates for absent homeowners on the basis of the existing exclusion the empty home cannot be occupied due to the actions of a public body but no applications have been made do far on these grounds so this would need to be tested and again many servicemen may not wish to declare their employment in the armed forces in order to benefit. Proposed Next Step: none recommended at this stage an exemption potentially exists but is unlikely to be taken up on perceived security ground Further and Higher Education Commitment Scheme The Further and Higher Education Commitment Scheme pays the tuition fees of Service leavers living in GB when they study for a first full Level 3 qualification, a first undergraduate or foundation degree, or a first HNC or HND. No provision is made at present in Northern Ireland. Proposed Next Step: Official level contact between the MOD and the NI Department of Employment and Learning suggest that this matter is under consideration by the DEL Minister

190 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 138 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence CRB checks Criminal Records Bureau checks undertaken in GB are not valid in the same way in NI and last year s announcement by the Home Office that employees and volunteers in England & Wales would no longer have to apply for a criminal records check each time they apply for a new position does not apply in NI. This is a disadvantage for partners frequently changing employment to accompany their service person. It is intended that an update service will be introduced in NI at a later stage. In the meantime, volunteers will still be able to obtain criminal record checks in NI free of charge. When the Update Service is introduced in NI it is intended that these will be free of charge for volunteers here also. Proposed Next Step: Minister of State to Discuss the Timetable for this with the Justice Minister Community Covenant Grants Community groups in NI are not able to apply for grants under the Community Covenant Grant Scheme because of a lack of any signed Community Covenant agreements. In GB an agreement must be in place with the local authority before a grant can be applied for. An alternative system has been established under which HQ 38 (Irish) Brigade in Northern Ireland would consider grant applications and, if they meet a set of published criteria, submit them to the MOD for consideration without the need for a Community Covenant to be signed. Proposed Next Step: No further action is required. June 2013 Supplementary memorandum from the Northern Ireland Office When I gave evidence to the Committee Ian Paisley asked to know the basis of the 93% figure that I mentioned at the start of my oral evidence to the Committee on 26 June. The figure was derived from an assessment of all the commitments that successive Governments have made (and which are published in each annual report) and the number of those commitments which for one reason or another are not being fully delivered in Northern Ireland. As further information on the commitments that are not being full delivered in Northern Ireland, the Veterans Minister provided as part of his written evidence a table setting out some of the areas where delivery was different in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and I set out in a memorandum shortly before my evidence session the areas of difference in Northern Ireland that require further work. Lady Hermon also raised the matter of grants to repair war memorials. This important work is undertaken by the War Memorials Trust whose web site address is Mike Penning MP Minister of State for Northern Ireland July 2013 Dear Laurence Correspondence from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister Thank you for your letters of 24 April regarding the draft Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. We are unable to attend the evidence session scheduled for Wednesday 5 June at 2.30pm in the House of Commons. We understand that Minister Poots and Minister McCausland attended a session on 24 April and gave evidence on our behalf. Your sincerely Rt Hon Peter D Robinson MLA First Minister Martin McGuinness MLA deputy First Minister May 2013

191 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 139 Memorandum from the Ulster Unionist Party We thank the Committee for their interest in the Armed Forces Covenant, which we consider to be of critical importance. With your indulgence, we will offer our observations from two viewpoints: the pragmatic and the principled. Before that, we wish to comment upon evidence given by Northern Ireland Office Minister of State, Mike Penning MP, to this inquiry, regarding the input of Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive. The impression was created, at least in certain media reports, that Executive Ministers had failed to accept an invitation from Mr Penning to engage with the grouping he has established in Northern Ireland to discuss the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant. Our Executive Minister, Danny Kennedy MLA, is unambiguous that he received no such invitation; he and my Party are equally clear that such an invitation would have been most welcome. Background The Ulster Unionist Party has a long and unbroken tradition of serving our country in uniform. Northern Ireland s first Prime Minister, James Craig, later Lord Craigavon, served with the Royal Irish Rifles and Imperial Yeomanry; one of our current MLAs, Danny Kinahan, held commissions with the Blues & Royals and Black Watch. Innumerable members of our Party in the hundred-odd years in between served with the Army, Navy, Royal Air Force and with the Ulster Defence Regiment during Northern Ireland s Troubles. In recent history, several senior members took a specific interest in the Armed Forces Covenant and its nonadoption in Northern Ireland. At a briefing at the Party s 2011 Annual Conference, we were challenged by a modern military hero to give proper meaning to our support for the armed forces and veterans. We accepted that challenge and set about our research. The Pragmatic We have spoken to a wide range of stakeholders concerning the desirability of introducing the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland. These discussions include: multiple meetings with Minister of State Penning; a briefing hosted by Brigadier Thompson at Thiepval Barrack, Lisburn, to which he invited an impressive range of armed forces support services; testimonies from injured veterans; our own call for evidence; a number of other planned engagements; accepted invitations to others events, eg Army Benevolent Fund engagements. The message we have received is that our interest is, frankly, not universally welcomed, especially at some levels. Officials argue that over 90% of the services afforded by the Covenant are already in place in Northern Ireland; indeed, it is further posited that in some ways, Northern Ireland is ahead of Great Britain in provision. On that basis, we have been encouraged to back off. On the one hand, the Ulster Unionist Party has no desire to disadvantage any member of the armed forces or any veteran by making an intervention in a manner that would do damage to this state of affairs. It is, however, a short-term position, with no underpinning legislative safeguards and consequently, on the other hand, we are determined not to be guilty of failing to take a strategic view. We mention one specific regarding current provision: we understand the UDR & Royal Irish (Home Service) Aftercare Service is unique within the Ministry of Defence family in its provision for qualifying veterans. We commend the Aftercare Service as an exemplar, but also challenge your Committee to assess the impact on provision for both qualifying and non-qualifying veterans should the Service be wound up in the future, be that after the current budgetary period, the next one, or the one after that. The Ulster Unionist Party believes the impact would be potentially catastrophic without the underpinning legislative support of the Armed Forces Covenant. The Principle Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once famously described Northern Ireland as being as British as Finchley. The Ulster Unionist Party accepts the spirit of that assertion. The statement does not negate our belief in, and support for, a devolved legislative administration; neither does it do away with the need to recognise certain basis equalities, not least the fundamental belief that a citizen of the United Kingdom who volunteers to serve his or her country as a member of the Armed Forces deserves equal treatment, be they in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Personnel put themselves in harm s way; the chances of being harmed, and the degree of that potential harm, are not dictated, or influenced, by their home country within the United Kingdom. Why then, should they be denied access to the Armed Forces Covenant on the arbitrary consideration of where they happen to be stationed? Remember, the absence of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland does not mean Northern Ireland-born personnel are denied access to the Covenant. It means Northern Ireland born personnel are denied access to the Covenant only when they are resident in Northern Ireland. Equally, personnel from England, Wales and Scotland who may have enjoyed a lifetime of access to the Covenant may find that comfort cut off by the simple fact of being billeted in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is the case that personnel of the same

192 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [ :48] Job: Unit: PG09 Ev 140 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee: Evidence Regiment, with camps in Scotland and Northern Ireland, for example, have experienced apartheid within the United Kingdom. Matters may be in hand at present. But it is our clear impression that this is due to back channels, based on relationships developed on a one-to-one basis between those promoting the interests of Armed Forces personnel and veterans, and those supplying statutory services who are not negative to the concept of supporting a back channel. The Ulster Unionist Party does not accept that back channels and back doors are suitable routes for those among our citizens whom we should value as peerless for their service, commitment and sacrifice for our country. In short, unless it is acceptable to dismiss the Armed Forces Covenant in Tewkesbury, Blaydon, Bootle, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Jarrow, Vauxhall, Filton and Bradley Stoke, Amber Valley, Brigg and Goole, then it is essential to adopt it in North Down, North Antrim, Upper Bann, South and East Belfast. Mike Nesbitt MLA Leader, Ulster Unionist Party July 2013 PEFC/ Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 07/