Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-264)
MR GILBERT
BLADES, MR
JUSTIN HUGHESTON-ROBERTS,
MR JAMES
MASON AND
MR GEOFFREY
SALVETTI
1 FEBRUARY 2006
Q260 Mr Jones: I am suggesting for
the more serious cases, in terms of bullying and other things.
Could I ask another question about the prohibition of bringing
group complaints.
Mr Salvetti: That is mutiny! You
used to be shot for that, I think.
Q261 Mr Jones: Do you consider that
prohibition is a serious problem?
Mr Salvetti: On several occasions
I have been approached by people representing groups of organisations,
particularly because of terms and conditions of service, pay problems,
and where there were allegedly misrepresentations by the Ministry
of Defence in relation to terms and conditions of service. For
example, in the guards service, when people were discharged from
their full-time service and then re-employed back for an extended
period of time, there were clearly big problems with lots and
lots of people not having the correct terms and conditions told
to them at the time, and certainly not having them put down in
writing—which is a fundamental problem within the terms
of service of all service personnel. There were clearly groups
of people who had exactly the same problem, and of course they
could not do anything other than put their complaints in individually.
That presented a problem to them because, on their own, as individuals,
they were very nervous about dealing with the matter—apart
from the fact that they could not afford to deal with it privately
as there was no funding to deal with it. As a group, they probably
could have dealt with it, and I think it could have worked, but
of course it goes against the ethos of the fact that if two or
more people complain then that is a military offence.
Mr Hugheston-Roberts: Mr Jones,
both you and I are fully aware -and it is touched on by Mr Salvetti—that
the real problem in today's services is the lack of knowledge
by the individual servicemen of their ability to make a complaint.
That is a real worry for us. They just do not know they can do
it.
Q262 Ben Chapman: I understand that
it is against the ethos, but to a layperson it seems to be administratively
unfair and basically unjust.
Mr Salvetti: There are a number
of things within military employment scenarios which are, if you
compare them with the civilian scenario, without doubt very different.
They disadvantage people. There is a real reason, of course, for
there being some difference in terms and conditions of employment
for members of the military. For example, we do not have, as I
have encountered in Denmark and other places where I have soldiered
in the past, unions—and if they wanted to strike on an exercise
I have seen them actually down tools and stop soldiering for a
period of time. But that was abroad. From our point of view, we
have taken a different perspective. Perhaps, having soldiered
myself, I can understand the reason why that is appropriate. But
at the same time there is clearly a situation where individual
members of the Armed Forces are either unaware or they are subject
to various pressures or they do not want to challenge on their
own what the real problem is within the unit.
Q263 Mr Jones: You have highlighted
the issue, quite rightly, that people do not understand the redress
system. I met some Dutch marines last year who explained to me
the trade union system they have.
Mr Salvetti: I have served with
them.
Q264 Mr Jones: Would you advocate
an independent body or trade union for servicemen? They were amazed
that it did not happen in this country.
Mr Salvetti: Personally—and
this is a personal view—I do not think a trade union is
appropriate. I speak as a lawyer who acts for trade unions as
well, so I understand the ethos. I think they need better knowledge
and better representation in terms of what they are doing, and
better access to legal advice—which of course is what we
in our network try to provide through advice clinics. But of course
the advice clinics themselves are not mandatory. They are purely
discretionary, with the approval of higher authority in certain
places, and some places will not want them.
Mr Jones: That is very helpful.
Chairman: You have agreed to give us
a note on at least one point, which was Mr Howarth's earlier question.
We look forward to that. We apologise for burdening you with these
additional requests. On behalf of the Committee, could I thank
you very much for the clarity of your answers and for your patience
with us while sometimes exploring the highways and byways of some
of these issues with you. Thank you very much.
| 
