Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, there can be no doubt that this is a very necessary measure. The Service Complaints Ombudsman, which has limited powers, has called for an effective and independent process, as have others.

The level of morale goes to the heart of the success of all the activities of the Armed Forces. There has tended to be a tradition of families joining up: my uncles, my brother and, more recently, two of my nephews served in the Army. There has also been a tradition of friends encouraging one another to embrace a career in the services. However, that becomes to some degree dependent on the overall quality of the experience of the Armed Forces by those serving today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, in her excellent maiden speech, focused on the low morale levels among those serving today. We know that morale has decreased for a third year in a row, with low morale reported as running at 58%, up from 42% in 2021.

On general welfare issues—I thank the Library for its help in this matter—we know that housing, maintenance, catering et cetera have levels of satisfaction lower than 30%. That would not be accepted in the private sector and it should not be accepted for those who serve in our Armed Forces.

Regrettably, we have to place those statistics within the wider context of satisfaction with processes dealing with conduct complaints and the appalling reality of some of the reports of criminality, particularly physical and sexual abuse. The suicides, departures from service, and the traumatised and ruined lives which are the product of bullying and harassment of all kinds, are all part of this picture. As the Government have observed, there is a very clear correlation between these matters and difficulties in recruiting and retaining personnel.

The functions of this commission are limited. The general function of promoting the welfare of persons subject to service law and improving the public’s understanding of these matters could result in an enhanced experience for serving personnel. Thematic examination of matter such as the incidence of violence and harassment, the circumstances that enable such behaviour, the adequacy of the protections currently provided, the nature of equipment provided to officers and the suitability of housing can be very helpful.

As Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, we agreed a process by which, if an officer received three complaints, this was treated as a management issue in addition to dealing with the complaints. Such management intervention can result in the identification of groups of officers who serving singly do not get into trouble, but who serving in a particular group fall into behaviour that is totally unacceptable. It can also identify health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, alcohol and substance abuse, which can result in behaviour that would not normally occur.

One thematic report on the use of force by the police in Northern Ireland resulted in a dramatic decrease in the incidence of force used. Among the contributing causal factors were inappropriate and unavailable equipment, and lack of management. The results, when the recommendations were implemented, were a dramatic decrease in the number of incidents of use of force, a decrease in the number of claims made against the police for assaults, a decrease in the number of claims made by officers for injuries on duty and a decrease in the level of sickness among officers. Thematic research can undoubtedly be very valuable in identifying issues which materially affect welfare.

I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in relation to the requirement in subsection (3) of the new Section 340IB inserted by Clause 4 to notify the Secretary of State in advance of any occasion on which the commissioner proposes to enter Armed Force premises, subject to the limitations. Perception is enormously important, and I hope that the Minister will find a better way to take care of national security and protection of life issues in the Bill.

The exclusion of particular service complaints matters that were or are the subject of service inquiry, criminal investigation et cetera, very clearly limits the functions of the commissioner. The creation of this office may generate an expectation that the commissioner will be enabled to deal with individual service complaints. However, the commissioner will be at the periphery of the proceedings, able to adjudicate on whether a service complaint should have been admitted and to review a decision by the Defence Council that an appeal cannot be proceeded for various reasons. Once a matter has been determined by the Defence Council or its appointed panel, the commissioner will have only ombudsman powers to review the process by which the complaint was determined in terms of delay and maladministration and the ability to refer a matter back for further consideration. No further powers are accorded on the commissioner in the Bill than those held by the ombudsman.

The role will be particularly challenging given the complexity of the delivery of Armed Forces activities across the world. Flexibility and creativity in delivering and devising systems and protocols for the operation of the office will be absolutely necessary, as will the co-operation of those in command with whom the commissioner engages in the exercise of his or her functions. There is a vast range of issues, as noble Lords have said.

The limitations on the powers of the commissioner must be spelled out, or rejected attempts to raise issues with the new commissioner will be damaging to the reputation which the commission will have to build. There should be no space for assumptions about the ability of the commissioner to understand the realities of life in the armed services or for preconceptions that the commissioner will be naive or lack understanding of service law. There should be no hostility, and no unwritten policy to wine, dine and welcome the commissioner but give them little more, but rather genuine acceptance that the new system will operate for the benefit of all, and hence for the benefit of the Armed Forces and the security of the country.

The greatest tool for generating trust by the new commissioner will be the communications that are enabled. It will be difficult, and the commissioner will need adequate resourcing to be able to meet face-to-face with personnel, to explain what they can do and the limits. The processes must be publicised and limited, so that officers and members of the Armed Forces can examine the integrity and effectiveness of the new system and decide whether they will use it or, in the most difficult of circumstances, walk away from the service altogether. Above all, if the Government really want to make this work, it will be necessary to enhance the powers of the Armed Forces commissioner.

Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I support the amendment to the Motion as tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth, in the hope that it will indeed give space for further reflection and reconsideration of the tax credit proposals. I believe that it has the potential to do that.

First, I want to record my appreciation for the welcome rhetoric in recent months from members of the Government saying that employment, not least hard work, merits fair pay and some recognition in the national minimum wage. It is this, rather than buttressing from the state, that should provide the income of working people. It follows from this that rising wages and salaries will, of their own accord, not least from the Government’s own national living wage proposals, reduce the use of tax credits in due course without the introduction of the draft regulations before us.

The diocese which it is my calling and privilege to serve covers most of south London and east Surrey—I have the honour of several of your Lordships living within it. It is a large and populous area, encompassing significant pockets of urban deprivation alongside considerable wealth. The unsustainable cost pressures in the property rental market, as well as rapidly rising house prices, already threaten the balance of many communities. I fear that the introduction of these regulations will push a significant number of hard-working although low-earning families to breaking point. A reduction in the threshold for families’ earnings before credits are withdrawn from £6,420 to £3,850 is a very dramatic change, which will adversely affect all but the poorest members of the communities we serve. Families that strive, struggle, aspire and hope to advance their well-being will be thrown back, since few have the sort of margin between income and expenditure to cushion them from the blow that is coming. In the London Borough of Southwark alone, whose 50th anniversary was commemorated in my cathedral this past weekend, it is estimated that some 20,000 families are in receipt of tax credits and, further, that even making allowance for the mitigating factors being introduced by the Government, some 4,000 will remain worse off by these changes. That is in just one London borough.

The sort of wage rises that would mitigate this and the extra hours worked to catch up will be taken away by the loss in other benefits, even if there were enough hours in the day. The rise in personal allowances which benefits a far wider group of people, including Members in this Chamber, will not compensate for this shortfall. By these regulations, we are in fact asking parents to make their children bear a significant adjustment in their economic circumstances—an adjustment that some children will not understand, which in itself will be an added stress to their families. We risk stripping our fellow citizens of their dignity by these provisions, even though the Government’s stated intention with a whole range of economic and fiscal measures is to do the opposite. We should take this opportunity to counsel Her Majesty’s Government not to seek to add to the burdens of those working hard for their families, and to reconsider in detail the impact of these regulations and the need for more fully worked-out transitional arrangements. I therefore support the regret Motion as tabled by the right reverend Prelate.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

Before right reverend Prelate sits down, could I just ask him why, if he believes that this will cause such difficulty, harm and distress to so many children and their parents in our community, he is telling us to vote for this Motion?

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

I was persuaded by listening to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, explaining the other day the constitutional differences that exist between the two Chambers .

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

—the traditionally worded fatal amendment is that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, got good advice—the best advice there is—but what we are looking at is what would happen if her amendment were carried. I am saying that it would frustrate the Government’s intent.

[Baroness O’Loan]

Does the Minister think that it would be impossible, if either of these two amendments were passed, for the Government to bring back regulations in the form of a statutory instrument to this House?

Armed Forces: Long-Term Care

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. I have seen some of the excellent work that Combat Stress and the other charities that help with mental health issues do and I have enormous respect for it.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the number of members of the Armed Forces coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from life-changing levels of post-traumatic stress disorder? Is he aware that in Northern Ireland anyone who has served in the Armed Forces and who is seriously ill in this way is not able to avail themselves of the services offered by Combat Stress—that applies only in England—since it will not deal with a person who is regarded as too unstable, following repeated hospital admissions? For those former soldiers, there is only very limited treatment available on the NHS, with no appropriate therapeutic interventions. I raised a case three years ago of a former soldier who was hospitalised repeatedly for very long periods over three years, was self-harming and had no therapeutic help. Is there nothing Her Majesty’s Government can do to assist such former soldiers in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. I was not aware of this issue. I will look into it and get back to her on this very important point.

ETA: Ceasefire

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness O'Loan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking within the European Union to support the governments of Spain and France to secure peace following the declaration by ETA of a definitive cessation of all armed action.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, all EU member states including the United Kingdom agreed a statement at the October European Council welcoming ETA’s announcement of a definitive ceasefire as a victory for democracy and freedom and supporting Spain’s long struggle against terrorist violence. This is primarily a sovereign matter for Spain, but the UK Government would, of course, respond to any requests from Spain or France for further action.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful response. I declare my interest as a member of the International Contact Group on the Basque Country, which was present at last month’s international conference that culminated in the declaration by Kofi Annan and others calling on ETA for this definitive ceasefire. British Governments have had extensive experience. I ask the Minister, in the light of that experience in the conduct of dialogue leading to peace and in particular to normalisation and more beneficial outcomes for victims, as well as to decommissioning, verification and monitoring, will the British Government respond positively to this situation?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we have supported the Spanish and French Governments in their efforts to secure a peaceful and democratic future for the Basque Country, free of terrorism. Should we be asked for support, we would respond in any way that they would find helpful. We are aware of the work that the noble Baroness is doing as a member of the International Contact Group, and my noble friend Lord Howell is very grateful for her update last month.

Armed Forces: Post-service Welfare

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for tabling today’s debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the serious issues involved.

First, I declare an interest. I am the aunt of a young TA soldier who was 18 years old when he was seriously injured in Iraq in 2007. I know that it was the treatment that he received in the American military hospital in Basra, in Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham and in the rehabilitation offered at Headley Court that gave him the life that he has today, as is the case for many others. I pay tribute to those working so valiantly to help the wounded and disabled, including the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association, Help for Heroes and the British Legion.

The Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant states that there needs to be a coherent national approach to trauma research to develop new technologies, particularly in,

“acute trauma, repair, reconstruction and long-term rehabilitation”.

That is important, but equally important is the issue of mental health, on which all previous speakers have focused. I am talking about the mental health of veterans returning from conflict zones, whether or not they have been injured.

Provision for the care of veterans with mental health problems is fragmented and patchy. There have been various initiatives. In November 2006, the MoD launched the reserves mental health programme, but by 2008 84 per cent of GPs were unaware of its existence. It is of limited application and does not address all the needs. There are particular problems for the early service leavers who are discharged, for whatever reason, and who may carry the mental scars consequential on or consequent to their military experience into their civilian life. Those scars may have catastrophic consequences.

The Murrison report recommends an increase in the number of mental health professionals to one per two mental health trusts. Their role is only to identify cases and to refer them to veterans’ organisations and other professionals. There is no evidence that such identification has been carried out effectively and we do not know the extent to which veterans who are identified as suffering from mental health problems actually receive the care that they need. They are a forgotten and, possibly in some people’s minds, less important group. They do not carry the scars in the same way as those young men and women like my nephew, but the consequences can be equally life-limiting.

The maximum level of compensation for mental health disorders appears to be fixed under the review of Armed Forces compensation at £2,888. That is not a large sum for someone who may be incapable of permanent employment for the rest of their live. The report acknowledges the fact that mental health services do not always fully address the needs of veterans. Pilot schemes have been established, but there is simply neither the level nor the quality of mental health provision that is needed.

These issues have been thought about at length. There is clearly some recognition of the problems faced by veterans with mental health needs, but they come low down the list of priorities in general health service delivery. Of course, there may be a reluctance among veterans, particularly men, to identify themselves as suffering from service-related mental health problems. The DoH’s New Horizons mental health strategy states that the prevalence of mental disorders in serving personnel and veterans is broadly similar to that of the general population, yet the research done by the Mental Health Foundation found that the risk of suicide in men aged 24 years and younger who had left the Armed Forces was approximately two to three times higher than the risk for the same age group in the general and serving populations—and the risk for this age group is high. Research also shows that reservists who served in Iraq were almost twice as likely to have mental health problems as those who have not served in Iraq—26 per cent compared to 16 per cent. Reservists who served in Iraq are twice as likely to have PTSD as those who have not served in Iraq. I am sure that there will be similar figures for Afghanistan.

We know that there are high levels of alcoholism, suicide and mental health problems. This is not unique to the UK, but it is a fact of military life. Post-traumatic stress disorder is not uncommon among those who have been affected in any way by conflict. The triggers can vary and the symptoms are now well identified. The triggers can be very simple. I think of the young man I know who was part of a patrol sent to search a village. Passing children playing on the road, they threw a bottle of water to a little girl of five who was waving to them. They accomplished their task and were driving home when they saw her little body hanging from a tree, her throat cut, a warning to others not to collaborate with the troops. I think of others who have seen their colleagues blown to bits or who have tried to carry out immediate first aid on colleagues who are suffering from major traumatic injuries and who have died. I think of those who should have been in the patrol that never came back but for some reason were not and who suffer survivors’ guilt. I think of those who survived explosions, only to face the flashbacks, night terrors, sleeplessness and fear of crowds et cetera that are so symptomatic of trauma. Research also shows that subsequent traumatic experiences can cause flashbacks to the original experience, thus compounding the suffering.

PTSD and the various mental illnesses consequential on involvement in armed conflict are well identified. However, the reality on the ground is that people are naturally reluctant to present with mental health problems and may well delay until the condition becomes too serious. When they do present, the services are not as accessible or as available as they should be. It is not enough in many cases to take people in for a week’s group and individual therapy and send them home. There is a well identified and serious risk that exposure to brief therapy can retraumatise the traumatised, leaving them to face their terrors alone.

What happens in reality is that people go into a lottery of available mental health care. People can often end up in psychiatric hospitals, heavily medicated to keep them compliant and hence unable to make any journey towards recovery from their trauma. There are limited services offering cognitive behavioural therapy or therapy for PTSD and they are often located at too great a distance for those incapable of individual travel. I think of one young man I know who cannot travel alone but faces a four-hour journey for one hour’s therapy and a four-hour journey back.

My questions for the Government are: can we find out the extent and geographical incidence of mental ill health consequential on armed service? Can some more attention be paid to the difficulties faced by those with serious mental health problems in accessing treatment and to the fact that such treatment is so scarce?

One of the things about trauma is that it can lie dormant for 25 or 30 years and then manifest itself suddenly. As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, we are talking not just about Iraq and Afghanistan, but about Korea, Northern Ireland and all the other conflicts. The reality is that many of these people end up in prison. Veterans are disproportionately represented in the prison population. We do not need more research to tell us that there is a problem; we need more planning for a future in which those who are currently struggling can keep going. Many of those who will be afflicted by PTSD in the future will need care. Those who have served in locations as diverse as Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea and who subsequently suffer the trauma of mental ill health in its various manifestations deserve our care.