Armed Forces: Local Overseas Allowance

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the rationale for the reduction of the local overseas allowance (LOA) in relation to Operation Kipion.

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

My Lords, local overseas allowance is paid to service personnel serving abroad to contribute to the necessary additional local cost of living in a particular country. Rates are not directly linked to Operation Kipion or any other operation. The most recent review of LOA was conducted during the strategic defence and security review, and the subsequent LOA conventions were implemented worldwide in two phases: on 1 May 2011 and 1 April 2012. Their impact varied with location, depending on the total cost of living differential relative to the United Kingdom. As with all allowances, the Government are concerned to ensure that LOA is managed in a way that is fair to service personnel but also, in a time of austerity, to respect the taxpayers’ need for value for money and financial restraint.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative response in what is a rather complicated area, but I wonder whether I can press him a little further. During a visit to the Gulf this summer, service men and women raised with me the unfairness that they perceived in allowances, particularly for junior ranks. Will the Minister commit to looking again at the local overseas allowance in Bahrain which, as I understand it, has been cut substantially, is much less than that paid in the UAE and no longer reflects the cost of living, making it difficult to go off-ship when alongside? Will he consider including in this year’s budget the hotel allowance, which allows service men and women to spend time away from the service environment with family and friends, to repeat its welcome inclusion in the current budget? Given the Government’s commitment to the key principles of the Armed Forces covenant, does he accept that those cuts have had a real impact on in-theatre personnel?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the delivery of the policy that the noble Baroness mentions lies with the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency LOA team at Gosport. It conducts visits to the main locations, including Dubai and Bahrain, and decides the rates based on the local cost of items that service personnel need to buy. There may be legitimate reasons why rates differ even in postings quite close to each other, but the noble Baroness makes a very important point. We recognise the role that a fair system of allowances plays in keeping morale high. I have therefore asked my officials to look into the whole issue of Dubai and Bahrain to see whether the system is working as it should and will get back to her.

Armed Forces: Personnel

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate and providing us with an opportunity to consider issues of such importance to our Armed Forces personnel. As she has highlighted, our Armed Forces are currently under great pressure. As the report puts it, “operational tempo remains high”. Gruelling tours in Afghanistan, and the Libya campaign, have placed a heavy burden on our services personnel and their families. This summer, there are the added operational demands of providing security for the London 2012 Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee.

These demands are being met with commitment and good will, at a time when our forces are experiencing a two-year pay freeze, cuts to MoD allowances, continuing cost-of-living increases and uncertainties over changes to come from the strategic defence and security review. While the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s 2012 report notes carefully that recruitment and retention are,

“currently acceptable overall against a reducing manning requirement”,

it also highlights a “difficult year” for services personnel and their families. We know that to be true. While the pay freeze affects the whole of the public sector, it is not the case that all those in the public sector risk their lives when doing their jobs on our behalf.

I support my noble friend in contrasting the discomfort of pressures on the cost of living with the unrelenting day-to-day pressures on those we expect to serve us in battle. Those pressures make it vital that we get right anything that influences the retention of experienced personnel in our Armed Forces.

We have been reminded that, since November last year, the principles of the Armed Forces covenant are now enshrined in law. The covenant promises that the Armed Forces community should not face disadvantage because of its military experience. It sets out what safeguards, rewards and compensation military personnel can expect in return for military service. Fairness on pay and pensions, therefore, lies at the heart of the covenant.

The Government’s decision to implement a pay deal for our Armed Forces amounting to a real-terms cut seems to be at odds with the spirit of the covenant. At the very least, the Government should have allowed the pay review body to make its recommendations before deciding to cap pay rises at 1 per cent from next year. This decision cannot but harm the morale of serving personnel, even while they accept their share of austerity, and the PRB rightly makes the point that this will have an impact on recruitment.

However, my key point today concerns pensions, an issue that was raised by personnel of all ranks during a visit I made to HMS “Dauntless” recently under the auspices of the splendid Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. There is real anxiety over the proposed reforms to the Armed Forces pension scheme. The scheme is a highly valued part of the total remuneration package for the services, and a key recruitment and retention tool. Indeed, Armed Forces pensions are hugely important to satisfaction with the forces’ way of life.

Pensions can be taken at 55. Generally, people stay on longer if they believe that they have a good chance of getting promoted. Many do not, and there are several early-departure payment schemes whereby an individual can get some pension on leaving. As Major-General John Moore-Bick, general secretary of the Forces Pension Society, said, the unique nature of military service and employment patterns means that service men and women generally need to draw their Armed Forces pension for longer than they draw their pay. The average length of service is nine years; only 2 per cent of personnel serve to the age of 55; 34 per cent will earn an early-departure payment; and 64 per cent will not serve to the age of 40.

Service men and women rely on these small payments to see them into civilian life. I know this from what they told me on “Dauntless”, and from the experience of a friend whose father came out of the Army and returned to the UK aged 40, with two small children, no job and no house. The EDP housed and fed them for many months until he found work. These payments matter enormously. Therefore it is essential that the new pension scheme being designed by the MoD should protect and preserve the interests of service personnel. Confidence in their pension is crucial to morale—but it was not what I saw on HMS “Dauntless”.

If the Armed Forces fear that they are being stitched up, there is a desperate need to stem the tide of doubt. The commission on public sector pensions, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, recommended a switch to options based on average earnings over a career. The noble Lord acknowledged that in the Armed Forces the switch would take longer than the expected target date of 2015, and stressed that Armed Forces schemes should be tailored to the unique requirements and hazards of military careers. He also recommended that accrued rights for those in existing pension schemes should be protected. This was accepted by the Government, yet widespread uncertainty remains. As the review body report noted, this is not least because the Government made clear commitments to other public sector groups but so far have not offered similar clarity on how the commitments will apply to services personnel. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the MoD and HM Treasury will undertake to resolve any outstanding issues on accrued rights as soon as possible, and end the uncertainty over the protection of earned pension provision?

Rumours spread like wildfire in the services. Good communications are essential. The PRB stresses the importance of clear, jargon-free messages. I would like reassurance from the Minister that the MoD has a communication strategy to ensure that whatever it proposes in this complex area is explained and thus understood at all levels. The PRB asks, too, that in the absence of trade union representation, the MoD will ensure that service men and women are enabled to express concerns about pension changes, and to articulate priorities for future provision.

My final point concerns the importance of the role played by the AFPRB. The review body's independence is vital. It is right that it should question plans for further pay increases and should challenge the MoD to show more flexibility on military wages. Service men and women trust the AFPRB as an independent, honest broker, and rely on it to make their case on pay and remuneration and to keep in mind its remit to take account of the particular circumstances of service life. Those circumstances, and the risks that service men and women take on our behalf, should be kept in mind by us all.

Armed Forces: Post-service Welfare

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for introducing this timely and very important debate. I do not pretend to speak from any great knowledge of the military. Although my uncle and grandfather were military men, they died when I was a child, and national service, which meant that most families knew someone close who was in the services, ended when I was a teenager. In other words, I am one of that greater part of British society who have had no exposure to, and little understanding of, military life or the commitment, loyalty and sacrifices that, today, our young women and men who join the armed services make on our behalf.

I have one redeeming feature that makes me want to take part today. I have a beloved god-daughter who chose the Navy as her career. Her experiences, commitment and enjoyment of the service, as well as the maturity and wisdom she has gained, made me realise how much I needed to learn. I have also had the great advantage of taking part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, which aims to give parliamentarians such as me who have had little exposure to our armed services the chance to get some hands-on experience. I cannot commend the scheme too highly. It is run by the redoubtable Sir Neil Thorne, and it is a no-holds-barred opportunity to get under the skin of one of the services, as well as to gain an understanding of the generic issues that affect the Ministry of Defence and the services as a whole. I spent 22 days, over a year, with personnel at all levels and in a range of locations, including on board HMS “Liverpool” in the Falklands, listening and learning. I was impressed with the leadership, professionalism and care for the “Navy family” that I witnessed.

However, particular issues came to my attention that I feel are relevant to this debate. During that year, I was able to see for myself the reciprocal relationship that lies at the heart of the military covenant, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord King, and which I have no doubt will be explored in greater detail in a debate later today in your Lordships’ House. Under the military covenant, the Government expect the Armed Forces to carry out their duties in defence of the state to the best of their ability, up to and including the possibility of death in action. In return, the Armed Forces expect that they and their immediate dependants will be cared for and supported both during and after service, and it is the importance of that two-way expectation and understanding which prompts my remarks today.

Given our country’s continuing role in the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is right that there should be a high level of public, media and political interest in the welfare of both serving members and veterans of the Armed Forces. That interest is frequently focused on the level of support that many veterans receive for physical and mental health problems once they have left the services. While focusing in this debate on veterans, I pay tribute to those currently in the service who give so much of themselves on our behalf. Too often, we, the public, realise only in times of conflict what they do for us, yet I know from my talks with serving men and women how much they feel that out of sight means out of mind.

There are currently some 5 million veterans in the UK with 8 million dependants. Of the 24,000 servicemen who leave the Armed Forces each year, most transfer seamlessly to civilian life, but a significant minority do not. Common mental health problems affect about one in four service personnel and veterans; alcohol abuse affects about one in five; and post-traumatic stress disorder one in 20. Other problems follow from this. Estimates suggest that around one in 10 homeless people in the UK are former members of the Armed Forces. A 2008 Prison Officers’ Association survey found that 8,500 veterans were in custody at any one time in the UK following conviction of a criminal offence. A further survey in 2009 found that 12,000 former armed services personnel were under the supervision of the probation service in England and Wales on either community sentences or parole. At that time, therefore, twice as many veterans—some 20,000—were in the criminal justice system as were serving in military operations in Afghanistan.

Noble Lords will be aware that many initiatives have been instigated to address these issues and to improve mental health services for our veterans. As the noble Lord, Lord King, affirmed, the previous Government had a strong track record, with the Armed Forces Bill in 2006, ensuring forces’ pay increases and investing in rehabilitation facilities. There was the £2 million package of measures, announced in April last year, which included the employment of 15 community psychiatric nurses to work in mental health trusts alongside existing specialist teams, the creation of a 24-hour helpline, and improved education and training of GPs to help them to identify veterans suffering mental health problems.

These initiatives will involve the veterans’ mental health charity, Combat Stress, and the Royal British Legion. I welcome these moves, which are clearly very much needed, and I express my admiration and support for the work already being done by these and other bodies, such as the Mental Health Foundation. I also warmly welcome the MoD’s excellent 2010 Fighting Fit report on the provision of mental health services for veterans and service personnel. I welcome, too, the endorsement in the other place by the Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, of the report’s key recommendations, including the creation of a Veterans Information Service to ensure follow-up of veterans after 12 months.

I refer also to the December 2010 report of the Taskforce on the Military Covenant. This comprehensive and eloquently argued document also supports the Fighting Fit report, and I hope that, in his response, the Minister will be able to indicate the Government’s response to the report’s recommendations. Clearly, much is now being done to improve access for veterans to support, but much more needs to be done both to understand the origins and range of mental health problems that veterans may have and to provide accessible and appropriate services.

It is that last point that greatly concerns me. On leaving the services, the healthcare of veterans moves from being the responsibility of the MoD to that of the NHS, where they are treated alongside the rest of the UK population. However, many reports cite a lack of knowledge among GPs about the particular needs—especially the mental health needs—of our veterans, leading to a lack of referral to such specialist mental health services as are available. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the reorganisation plans for the NHS, which rely on GP decisions, will take this into account, as they must if veterans are to get proper treatment?

There is currently tremendous public sympathy for veterans who find themselves in difficulties in civilian life. As the Report of the Taskforce on the Military Covenant report suggests, it is vital that we turn that sympathy into empathy. Our service men and women have given their all for our country; it is only right that we should reciprocate that support and provide the services that they need. We must play our part to ensure that they do not fall between the gaps.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I apologise that this debate has been cut to two hours. Perhaps I may encourage all other Members to emulate the excellent example just set and sit down when the Clock is still saying seven minutes.