2 AN INDEPENDENT MILITARY COMPLAINTS
MECHANISM
5. In the Armed Forces, complaint and redress procedures
are based firmly on the chain of command. Generally, complaints
are dealt with at the lowest level possible, and progress, if
not resolved, up the chain of command. If a complaint is not resolved
at the level of commanding officer it may progress to a Service
Board.[7]
6. Evidence to our predecessor Committee during its
inquiry into Duty of Care suggested that the existing system was
failing some Service personnel. That Committee was told that,
particularly in the Army, officers were not considered approachable.
That reluctance to discuss issues with officers, including officers
specifically tasked with providing 'pastoral' care, reduced the
likelihood that complaints would be made. The Committee also noted
that in some cases Service personnel would wish to make a complaint
against their superiors and this further reduced the likelihood
of a complaint which would be heard in the first instance by the
chain of command.[8]
7. Our predecessors' inquiry considered duty of care
issues, such as bullying and harassment. The Committee made it
clear that it did not envisage its recommendations relating to
grievance mechanisms applying beyond those types of complaint.[9]
MoD is proposing a package of measures to improve the Services'
response to duty of care issues.[10]
Few of those measures appear in the Bill as they do not require
primary legislation.
8. In its report on Duty of Care, the previous
Defence Committee recommended the establishment of an independent
complaints commission and set out the general responsibilities
and powers of such a commission. The crucial elements of the commission
are that:
- it is independent of the Armed
Forces and MoD;
- its recommendations would be binding;
- it would have the power to look at past cases;
and
- it would have access rights to all documentation
and persons.[11]
9. In response to our predecessors' report, the Government
stated:
[We] Accept that there is a case for introducing
an independent element to the complaints system: there are different
models for this, in this country and abroad, and their implications
need detailed examination. We will carry out this work ahead of
the introduction of the Armed Forces Bill planned for later this
year.[12]
The Bill as introduced to the House by the Government
includes provisions that establish a service complaint panel.[13]
The panel would consider a "service complaint", which
is defined as a complaint made by a current or former member of
the Armed Forces, who believes that he has been "wronged
in any matter relating to his service".[14]
A service complaint panel's powers are derived from the Defence
Council, which will appoint the panel's members except in certain
cases when the Secretary of State for Defence may appoint an independent
member. From the information on the face of the Bill it appears
that MoD's promised "independent element in the complaints
system" consists of a single voice on the panel. It appears
that complaints could either reach the service complaint panel
once the existing process through the chain of command has been
exhausted, or if requested by the complainant.[15]
10. Many of the details about how the panel would
work are to be set out in regulations to be made by the Secretary
of State for Defence rather than being on the face of the Bill.
For example, regulations will set out:
- the definition of a service
complaint; and
- the time limits imposed on making a complaint;
and
- the circumstances in which an independent member
would be appointed to the panel.
Although MoD provided some detail relating to the
service complaints panel, such as suggesting that an independent
member would be appointed when the panel considers a complaint
relating to bullying and harassment, it remains very difficult
to judge at this stage the full effect of the Government's proposals.[16]
But it is clear that the Government has rejected the main principles
of our predecessor Committee's recommendations—the Bill
does not provide for a mechanism to deal with complaints that
is truly independent of the chain of command.
11. The establishment of the service complaint
panel may introduce, in limited circumstances, an independent
voice in the consideration of complaints but we do not believe
that is sufficient. We urge the Government to table amendments
to strengthen the degree of independence in its proposals and
to meet the requirements of the previous Defence Committee's recommendations.
If it does not, we urge the Armed Forces Bill select committee
to express a clear view on the inadequacy of the Bill as introduced
and to amend the Bill accordingly.
12. We recommend that MoD publish the secondary
legislation relating to the Armed Forces Bill, in draft if necessary,
to inform the select committee's scrutiny of the Bill.
7 A complaint will formally pass to the Defence Council,
whose functions in this respect will usually be discharged by
the Service Boards (the Admiralty Board, the Army Board and Air
Force Board). Back
8
See for example HC (2004-05) 63-I, paras 169-184, 278-284, 288-309
for discussion of the difficulties surrounding Service personnel,
particularly trainees, making complaints. Back
9
HC (2004-05) 63-I, para 425. Back
10
See the Government's response to The House of Commons Defence
Committee's Third Report of Session 2004-05, Duty of Care, Cm
6620. Back
11
HC (2004-05) 63-I, paras 423-427. Back
12
Cm 6620, para 3. See also "MoD Signals Cultural Change in
Armed Forces Training" Ministry of Defence Press Release
138/2005, 12 July 2005. Back
13
Armed Forces Bill, clauses 331 and 332 [Bill 94 (2005-06)] Back
14
Ibid, clause 331 Back
15
Ibid, clause 330 (4) Back
16
See Appendix, letter to the Chairman from the Secretary of State
for Defence. Back
| 
