Armed Forces Bill |
|
Mr. Burrowes: I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Durham for his motivation to deal with such concerns. I endorse also the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). This serious issue needs to be addressed and no party has a monopoly of concern about the armed forces. That is shared, and we all want a system that has the confidence and trust of members of the armed forces and, indeed, their families. The hon. Member for North Durham sought to go along with compassionate conservatism and to embrace that approach. His proposal, which is very much statutory and legislative, perhaps exposes a distinction: one does not need to legislate for compassion to be able to show it. Indeed, the essence of compassion is to suffer with, and be on the side of, those not necessarily statutory, but voluntary, bodies that stand alongside those making complaints. That brings me to perhaps the main point on dealing with such problems, which we are concerned about, and seeking to restore confidence. I respectfully suggest that the answer is not to have a military complaints commissioner, who would not deal with the problems that we have experienced and the concerns that no doubt will be expressed later today in the House in the statement on the Blake report. The problems at Catterick, as well as those concerns expressed by Deepcut and Beyond and by Daniel’s Trust, need to be addressed more fundamentally than through a military complaints commissioner. They need to be addressed at the lowest level. Those concerned must have access to the appropriate welfare services and have the confidence to speak to them to seek redress. That does not necessarily mean that we need to go down the route of a complaints commissioner. That might make take our eye off the ball with regard to the main concern, which is to have those services in place doing the job that we wish, and might not assist with the timeliness of redress, which can be a problem. I appreciate that hon. Members want to recognise the role of the commanding officer, but, if the service ethos and effective operation of command functions is to be maintained, commanding officers and higher levels in the chain of command should be able to correct situations that have gone wrong during the complaints process. The proposal for a military complaints commissioner suggests the investigation of all serious complaints and that any complaint made to him requires investigation. The commanding officer could be leapfrogged, which could be commendable in relation to what Mrs. Farr is trying to do, but I question whether it is ideal. The new clause would provide the statutory authority for that leapfrogging, which would not be warranted. We need to deal with the issue at a much lower level. Mr. Jones: What I have said about that is on the record. I do not disagree that minor, trivial complaints should be dealt with at the lowest level, but we are dealing here with serious bullying leading to non-combat deaths and other incidents. Under subsection (7)(c) of the new clause, one of the commissioner’s roles would be to
and subsection (8) says:
Therefore, far from bypassing the chain of command, I want to tie it back to the chain of command to ensure that action is taken. In many cases that I have examined in relation to the Defence Committee’s report, that was not done. Mr. Burrowes: I am grateful for those points, but the new clause would involve the chain of command and commanding officers through the report from the commissioner. There must be a process that maintains a balance between recognising commanding officers and higher levels in the chain of command when the process is moved up to the service complaint panels as proposed, instead of automatically going to the commissioner and being referred back, and accepting the need for independence. The Bill provides for an independent member of a service complaint panel and an external reviewer. I want to make some brief comments on that, as the Minister accepted that the external reviewer does not require statutory powers, but will provide the independent review that we all believe is needed, which will then go direct to the Secretary of State. It is noted that such a review will not have the power to reopen cases. Will the Minister say whether any statutory provisions would be required to do that, if it was considered appropriate that the review should have that power? The other concern relates to the Minister’s proposal for his Department to conduct such a review through defence internal audit, given that it will take some time to appoint an external reviewer. It cannot be satisfactory to have that interim position, with the review being conducted under the Department’s own defence internal audit while we wait for the external reviewer to be appointed. How long will it be before the external reviewer is in place? There are concerns that he will not have the capacity and the independence to follow through what we all want—an independent, external review. 11 amMr. Touhig: I acknowledge the laudable intentions behind new clause 6, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and supports redress in relation to grievance procedures. We all want to ensure that service personnel feel free to make a complaint and that all those who do so have it dealt with without any improper interference. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that anything improper or dishonest done by those in the chain of command or by any other service person is already an offence under clause 19. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar referred to stifling a complaint, which would be an offence under clause 19 and would also be an offence of neglect of duty under clause 15 if committed by a commanding officer. Clause 19 deals with actions or omissions that are
Improper conduct that “undermines or stifles” the redress of a complaint is fully captured by that clause. The proposed new clause reflects the concern that colleagues have shown that service personnel feel intimidated about making formal complaints because of the repercussions that may occur from within the chain of command or from those who are the subject of the complaint. The Committee has noted on several occasions that the number of complaints of harassment or bullying that reach service board level is extremely low. Introducing a new offence would not address the issue as a serviceman can already be charged for any activity that the new clause seeks to cover. In any event, the new clause is too vague and broadly based. It could make an offence of the legitimate actions of those within the chain of command or others involved in processing a complaint who need to be able to advise the complainant about it, including by advising him that his case might fail. If they were to advise, for example, that something could not legally be the subject of a complaint, or that the redress sought could not be granted, that could be interpreted as “undermining or stifling” a complaint. It is legitimate action as the complainant needs to be given an honest appraisal by those who can help him of how best to prepare his complaint. We need to reassure complainants that their complaints will not be subject to the behaviour in question, but a new offence is not the way to do it. We rather need to instil in service personnel a culture that encourages appropriate behaviour and does not necessarily see a complainant as a threat. The offence in clause 19 will be used as necessary. Turning to new clause 24, I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham about the dignity with which the representatives of Deepcut came here and gave evidence. They did so in a way that impressed everybody, movingly and with feeling. We fully understand their concerns and what they were going through. My hon. Friend proposes in the new clause that there should be a military complaints commissioner. I acknowledge the very serious background to the new clause and I have listened carefully to his comments and those of the hon. Member for Salisbury and others. As I have said, we all want to ensure that all service personnel feel free to make a complaint and that those who do have it dealt with quickly and fairly. It is also important that the public are reassured that the complaints system works effectively. New clause 24 proposes fundamental changes to the complaints system by the establishment of a military complaints commissioner, as my hon. Friend has outlined. In his remarks he touched on redress and referred to the huge number of complaints about bullying. It is true that the number of cases of bullying that have to go all the way to the service boards has been very small. However, Mrs. Farr’s evidence made it clear that that does not mean that complaints of bullying are not being dealt with. Commanding officers take such complaints seriously, and it is right that they should be dealt with by the CO or a higher authority. Colleagues will be aware that our proposals for redress of complaint are aimed at balancing the competing needs of improving confidence in the system by introducing independence from the chain of command and preserving its authority. I think that all parties have agreed to that. We suggested that that could be achieved by appointing an independent member to the service complaints panel in cases dealing with harassment or bullying, for example, or other improper behaviour. We have suggested appointing an external, independent reviewer who will assess the complaints system by focusing on the effectiveness, timeliness and fairness of the system and report to the Secretary of State. We have also suggested various means of improving support for those making a complaint, including the provision of additional civilian welfare workers for the Army, the development of joint standards for welfare and greater use of mediation services. I hope that colleagues will understand, from the few remarks that I am about to make, that I am not able to go much further at this stage in respect of the Committee’s consideration of the new clauses. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said that the external reviewer has no powers to reopen cases, and asked whether he would need statutory power to do so. The hon. Gentleman is right; the external reviewer is a non-statutory appointment and he would not be able to reopen a case himself without a statutory power to do so. Colleagues will be anxious to get into the Chamber later. They will be aware that Nicholas Blake, QC, who has conducted a review of the deaths of service personnel at Deepcut, will publish his report today. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will make a statement on the report to the House this afternoon. I understand that Mr. Blake’s report may make some recommendations on the issues covered by the new clause on the military complaints commissioner. Clearly, the Government will have to examine in detail the recommendations contained in that report. I am sure that colleagues will understand that I am not in a position to say much more about that until the report is published and the statement is made, but I give an undertaking that we will review the proposals in the light of Mr. Blake’s report. I recognise that the Committee is due to end its deliberations on the Bill this month, but I am afraid that I do not expect to be able to return to this subject before it reports to the House. However, I have no doubt that we will need and want to return to this matter on Report. I hope that colleagues will bear with me. I might have had different words to say, but I am being rather circumspect as I await the publication of Mr. Blake’s report and the statement by my right hon. Friend. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will not press the new clauses. I have no doubt that we will return to this matter on Report. Mr. Burrowes: New clause 6 was, in essence, probing. I have noted the Minister’s response, but I am not wholly convinced that the new clause is not necessary. Although it is recognised that other clauses could deal with the problem, it is also recognised that there is a civilian offence of perverting the course of justice. However, from a practical point of view, I am not aware of cases involving civilian complaints procedures that have come to fruition by way of an offence of perverting the course of justice. Indeed, such prosecutions are rare. There is still value in having a clause in the Bill that sends out a signal that complaints have to be properly followed through and makes it clear that in such cases grievance procedure is involved. However, at this stage, I do not wish to press the new clause. Mr. Jones: Clearly, politics these days is very confusing. I still cannot get my head round where the different parts of the new Conservative party come from. The hon. Member for Salisbury is a completely signed-up member of the new Conservative cause, going by his comments on the Bill, but I am saddened that a new Member such as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate is not joining the new, compassionate conservatism. A word of advice—he should possibly stick to his instincts rather than listen to the hon. Member for Aldershot. Also, I am saddened that in this important debate, which is going to get a lot of airtime later today, there is not a single person on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Throughout the deliberations of the last Defence Committee, we had a lot of light and heat from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. No doubt, he will tell us later today what we should and should not be doing, but the fact that the Liberal Democrats cannot even turn up to listen to the new clause or to get involved in our debate is very sad. I have listened closely to what the Minister said. I understand the difficult position that he is in, with a statement on Nicholas Blake’s report being made to the House in just over an hour’s time. Clearly the Minister would not want to pre-empt that in the Committee. I also appreciate the sincerity of his contribution today. He has given a commitment to consider seriously what comes out of Blake and to take on board what was said today by the members of the Committee and the spirit in which the new clause was put down. With that assurance from the Minister, I will not press the new clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 330 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 331 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 332 Composition and procedure of service complaint panels Vera Baird: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 332, page 166, line 41, leave out subsection (1). The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 161, in clause 332, page 167, line 4, at end insert—
Vera Baird: I can put this shortly, because the principle is analogous to the one just talked about and has been discussed in our deliberations a number of times. The statutory right of complaint exists because there is no employment law in the military. Because the armed forces are without a contract of employment, rights to legal remedy for matters arising from service are limited, so an internal statutory redress system is massively important. At the moment, the system is cumbersome. The provisions in the Bill are wisely intended to speed that up. The idea is that if a complaint is not capable of resolution by the command chain, it should go to a service board. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm my reading of the Bill that there is a power for the Secretary of State to decide that there should be an independent member on a service board. According to the explanatory notes about the relevant clauses, that would be used when complaints are going to involve bullying or harassment—exactly the kind of thing we have been concerned about here. The issue raised by my amendment—making it automatic that there is an independent member on a service complaint panel—is a narrow one. In cases of bullying and harassment that are likely to evoke the Secretary of State’s power, would that be sufficient protection? Or is not the position that the chain of command can appear to the soldier to be his adversary in exactly that kind of case, which involves bullying and harassment and cannot satisfactorily be dealt with through the chain of command? Would it not be appropriate that a soldier in that position should have a right to an independent member on the panel, rather than depending on the discretion of the Secretary of State—exercised down the line somewhere—to allow that to happen? At this stage, I am happy to listen to the Minister and am not thinking of pressing the amendments to the vote. However, it is a cause of concern that there will not be a right to have an independent person on a panel and it would be better to put that right in the Bill. 11.15 amMr. Touhig: Clause 332 sets out the eligibility criteria for, and the composition of, a service complaint panel. It permits the Secretary of State to make further provision in regulations about its composition, on which my hon. and learned Friend has just spoken. In particular, the clause allows for the appointment to a panel of an independent member who is not a member of the armed forces or a civil servant. My hon. and learned Friend’s amendment would require there to be an independent member on every service complaint panel. I am grateful for the opportunity to address that matter, as the role of the panel is such an important part of the service complaints system for which the Bill provides. We have proposed that an independent member be appointed to consider certain types of case. Those include cases relating to unlawful discrimination or harassment on racial grounds or on the grounds of sex, religion, belief or sexual orientation. The same would apply for bullying. An independent member would serve on a panel where matters of dishonesty and other improper, unprofessional or biased behaviour might be involved. That might include taking steps to prevent unauthorised activity from coming to light; behaviour that is based on a predisposition or prejudice against, or in favour of, a person; and treating a person less favourably than others on improper grounds other than those prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation. All those matters relate to improper behaviour of some kind. We considered a number of factors carefully before concluding what would be a relevant category of case for which an independent member should be on the panel. A principal factor must be the value that the person can bring to the decision-making process. I think that we would all agree that value is a subjective element in this context. However, for the independent member, I believe that we should consider what experience and knowledge would be helpful, and the injection of a fresh but informed perspective on a case. That said, a service person or a civil servant will contribute with specialist knowledge and experience built up over a number of years and in a wide variety of situations. We therefore analysed the types of complaint submitted by service personnel, and examined which categories of case would benefit from an independent member being on the panel. Cases break down broadly into the following types: those involving improper behaviour, to which I have referred; those involving career and employment matters, such as appraisals, promotions and appointments; and those involving matters relating to regulations and entitlements, such as pay, travel, housing and medals. We concluded that cases relating to career matters and regulations or entitlements would not, in the main, benefit from the contribution of an independent member. Such cases would benefit much more from the knowledge and experience of service personnel or perhaps civil servants. They would bring a particular value in listening to such a case. Indeed, an independent member might find himself or herself unable to contribute without an understanding of regulations, career and trade structures and so on. Independence from the services is not a critical factor in cases relating to interpretation of regulations and entitlements. Improper behaviour as the ground for a complaint, however, is a concept that does not rely on the service context or specialist knowledge to anywhere near the same extent. Therefore, an independent member would not be at a disadvantage in dealing with such a case. In respect of improper behaviour, independence from the services would be a positive measure to demonstrate to complainants and others, both within and outside the services, that we do not fear transparency and openness. That will come out in the statement and discussion in the House later today. Finally, there would be a practical point to consider in requiring an independent member to be part of each panel. A much larger cohort of independent members would be required to deal with all the cases, because people might wish to have independent members with different experience or knowledge to deal with different types of case. Such an increase in their number would not only have financial implications, but could result in delay if we were not able to obtain a suitable member for a case in a timely fashion. We have talked at different times about delays in procedures across the board. We would not want to fashion a new delay in this context. I do not want to detain the Committee for much longer, because I know that colleagues want to get to the Chamber. I have already mentioned the report that is being published today by Nicholas Blake. We may need to review the role of the service complaints panel in relation to any recommendation that he might make, so we will have to return to the subject, and I hope to do so on Report. I hope that, as a result of my remarks, my hon. and learned Friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment. Vera Baird: I am very grateful to the Minister for having displayed the depth of analysis that has gone into the clause. I am satisfied that he has made a clear case that there is a certain kind of panel to which no value would be added by an independent member. Consequently, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 332 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 333 and 334 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. Alan Campbell.] Committee rose at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o’clock till Thursday 30 March at half-past Ten o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 8 May 2006 |