The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Bottomley,
Peter
(Worthing, West)
(Con)
Burden,
Richard
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
Burns,
Mr. Simon
(West Chelmsford)
(Con)
Crabb,
Mr. Stephen
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Duddridge,
James
(Rochford and Southend, East)
(Con)
Farrelly,
Paul
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Lab)
Hewitt,
Ms Patricia
(Leicester, West)
(Lab)
Hodgson,
Mrs. Sharon
(Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab)
Howarth,
Mr. Gerald
(Aldershot)
(Con)
Jenkins,
Mr. Brian
(Tamworth)
(Lab)
Mitchell,
Mr. Austin
(Great Grimsby)
(Lab)
Rennie,
Willie
(Dunfermline and West Fife)
(LD)
Roy,
Mr. Frank
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Russell,
Bob
(Colchester)
(LD)
Stoate,
Dr. Howard
(Dartford)
(Lab)
Twigg,
Derek
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Defence)
Vis,
Dr. Rudi
(Finchley and Golders Green)
(Lab)
Mark Etherton, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 20
November
2007
[Mr.
Joe Benton
in the
Chair]
Draft Armed Forces (Redress of Individual Grievances) Regulations 2007
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek
Twigg):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Redress of Individual
Grievances) Regulations
2007.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to consider the
draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Commissioner) Regulations
2007.
Derek
Twigg:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Benton. Both statutory instruments were laid before the
House in October and are being made under the powers of the Armed
Forces Act 2006. As hon. Members will know, that Act represents the
first complete overhaul of the service justice system in more than 50
years, but as well as providing a single system of service law, it
introduces a number of other important
changes.
Historically,
service personnel have had few enforceable rights in relation to their
conditions of service. For that reason, there is a system that allows
service personnel to submit complaints related to their service. The
system is designed for the individual; there is no provision,
therefore, for group
complaints.
The
key features of the new service complaints process are these.
Complaints will be resolved at one of three levels. At the highest
levelthe Defence Councilcomplaints may be dealt with by
a service complaint panel, which for certain categories of complaint
will include an independent person. Also, a service complaints
commissioner will be appointed. I shall say a little more about each of
those aspects.
The
three levels at which a service complaint may be resolved are the
prescribed officer, who will usually be the commanding officer unless
he is implicated in the complaint, in which case the complaint will be
made to the commanding officers immediate superior; the
superior officer; and the Defence Council, whose function in
considering complaints has been routinely undertaken by the single
service boards, but will now include service complaint
panels.
When the
commanding officer receives a complaint, he has three options. First,
if he lacks the power to deal with it, he may refer it to the superior
officer or the Defence Council. Secondly, if he decides to deal with
the complaint and it is well founded, he will decide what redress
should be granted. Thirdly, he can reject the complaint. The superior
officer has the same
options as the commanding officer: to deal with the complaint, refer it
to the Defence Council or reject it. It is important to note that, if
the complainant is not satisfied with the redress to be granted or a
complaint is rejected, he can have the complaint referred to the next
higher level for
consideration.
Against
that background, the regulations will establish a number of important
improvements, including procedural changes to ensure greater fairness
and consistency across the services and to reduce the time taken to
resolve complaints. They will exclude some types of
complaintfor example, where there is an established alternative
system to deal with such
complaints.
Above
all, the regulations will introduce two elements of independence and
transparency into the system. First, they establish independent members
on panels, which at the highest level will normally deal with
complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination and other types
of inappropriate behaviour. Secondly, they provide for the appointment
of a service complaints
commissioner.
The
regulations on redress of individual grievances begin by excluding
certain matters from the redress system where an alternative system
exists, as I mentioned. For example, complaints about pensions and
compensation are excluded, as are judicial and prosecutorial decisions,
because they are subject to judicial review and it would not be
appropriate to allow lay interference in judicial or prosecutorial
processes.
Each
service complaint considered by the single service boards, acting on
behalf of the Defence Council, involves significant time and effort
spent by senior staff in reaching decisions. That imposes a heavy
administrative burden and risks causing delay. The 2006 Act therefore
provides for the Defence Council to delegate cases to service complaint
panels. It also provides that a panel must have at least two members,
one of whom is at least of the rank of brigadier or equivalent,
although it is our intention that panels will normally consist of two
officers of at least that rank, normally from the same service as the
complainant.
Service
complaint panels will operate with the full delegated powers of the
Defence Council that are relevant to the case under consideration. The
regulations will ensure that complaints by or about senior officers
will be dealt with by a panel that contains at least one officer of the
same rank as, or of a higher rank than, the officer
involved.
The
regulations will ensure that, in the interests of fairness, certain
people are excluded from being members of service complaint panels,
including members of the Defence Council, the single service boards and
chaplains of the three services, as well as any officer who may have
been involved in any way with the complaint being
considered.
Mr.
Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I am interested in the
specific exclusion of military chaplains. Given the extraordinary,
special role that they playoften mediating between soldiers and
commanderstheir exclusion seems rather odd. Their inclusion
might not be appropriate in every circumstance, but I know a number of
Army chaplains, and they are rather well placed to help. Can the
Minister enlighten us?
Derek
Twigg:
I know quite a number of service chaplains and talk
to them regularly. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, they often have
concerns brought to them and often end up mediating, too. They would
not, therefore, be the right people to be involved; nor do I think that
they would want to be. However, I will be happy to explore that a bit
later if the hon. Gentleman will let me continue. As I said, the
regulations will ensure that certain people are excluded in the
interests of fairness, and I hope that I have explained why that is the
case for chaplains.
The normal expectation is that
complaints reaching the highest level will be dealt with by service
complaint panels. However, there will be exceptions because the service
boards will always retain some cases, including complaints about
security vetting, decisions or actions by a senior officer of three or
four-star rank and the termination of an officers
service.
The service
boards may also decide to retain cases where the normal expectation
would be to delegate them to a panel. That is an important aspect of
the system, which allows the single service boards to exercise their
stewardship of the services and influence decisions that have an effect
across the whole service. Such cases may include a complaint about
changes to specialist pay or an allowance, a challenge to a job
evaluation outcome for a particular branch or trade or a complaint
about the policy, for instance, of not allowing women to serve in
submarines or the infantry. Decisions by panels that exercise powers on
behalf of the Defence Council will, of course, be final.
In line with the Act, an
independent member will be added to the service complaint panels that
deal with complaints that relate to the following: bullying, harassment
or discrimination; dishonest, biased or other improper behaviour;
allegations of failure in clinical care; allegations of the misuse of
service police powers; and the rejection of a complaint following the
referral of an allegation by the service complaints
commissioner.
The
introduction for the first time of an independent element into the
redress process is an important change, which will give service
personnel much greater confidence in the system. The independent
element also recognises the recommendations made by the Select
Committee on Defence and by Nicholas Blake, QC, in his Deepcut review.
Both stressed the importance of demonstrating that bullying, harassment
and other forms of inappropriate behaviour have no place in the armed
forces and underlined the importance of dealing with such things
effectively and
openly.
Independent
panel members are being recruited using the normal public appointments
process. We have stipulated that they cannot be members of the regular
or reserve forces, but that they should bring experience and expertise
relevant to considering and deciding cases relating to bullying,
harassment, discrimination and the other types of inappropriate
behaviour about which we are particularly
concerned.
Before I
move on, I should add that, at present, an officer has the right to
require a report on his complaint to be referred to the Queen if he is
not satisfied with a decision at the Defence Council level. That right
will still exist under the new system, except where any decision on a
complaint is made by a service complaint panel.
I turn now to
the service complaints commissioner. Hon. Members will recall the
recent announcement of the appointment of Dr. Susan Atkins as the
service complaints commissioner. That statutory appointment was made by
the Secretary of State for Defence, and Dr. Atkins comes to the post
having previously worked for the Equal Opportunities Commission and set
up and run the Independent Police Complaints
Commission.
The
Defence Committee and Mr. Blake recommended the appointment
of a commissioner and envisaged the role as being similar to that of an
ombudsman. We said then, and I reiterate now, that we welcome this
further independent element to the service complaints process. However,
we could not agree to the commissioners role including the
ability to intervene in the consideration of complaints, to investigate
complaints or to reopen cases. Such actions would undermine the chain
of command, which we have properly placed at the heart of ensuring the
effective discipline and welfare of members of the armed
forces.
Under the Act
and the secondary legislation before us, we will provide a commissioner
with real powers to make a difference. The commissioner will provide an
alternative point of contact for service personnel, their families and
friends and any other member of the public who wishes to make an
allegation that a service person has been wronged in relation to their
service. It will be particularly helpful to those who do not feel
confident approaching the chain of command
directly.
James
Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): In a
private employment relationship, an employee can leave the
relationshipliterally walk out of workand claim
constructive dismissal. Will that type of procedure apply? Will people
who feel that their situation is so bad that they do not just express a
grievance be able to remove themselves from employment and claim the
grievance
retrospectively?
Derek
Twigg:
The answer is
no.
The regulations
provide that any communication received by the commissioner alleging
that a member of the armed forces has been wronged through bullying,
harassment, discrimination or any other form of improper behaviour may
be referred to the chain of command for action. It is important to
convey that point. Such an allegation will normally go to the
commanding officer of the individual alleged to have been wronged, but
will go to another officer if the commanding officer is the subject of
or is implicated in the complaint.
A referral
from the commissioner places certain duties on the commanding officer,
including checking whether the person allegedly wronged wants to make a
service complaint, whether they know how to go about it and what time
limits apply. The commanding officer must also notify the commissioner
of the individuals decision whether to make a complaint,
whether the complaint is excluded under the redress of individual
grievance statutory instrument or whether it is not allowed to proceed,
for example, because it is outside the time limit for a service
complaint. The commanding officer must also inform the commissioner if
the complaint is withdrawn by the complainant or referred to a superior
officer or the Defence Council, as well as informing the commissioner
of any decision relating to the redress sought.
The commissioner will also
provide the Defence Secretary with an annual report on the efficiency,
effectiveness and fairness with which the complaints process has
operated. The report will also cover the commissioners exercise
of the function of referring allegations and other factors that the
commissioner or the Defence Secretary consider appropriate. The reports
will, of course, be laid before Parliament. The Government believe that
an annual report written by an independent service complaints
commissioner and made available to Parliament and the public will make
a significant contribution to the overall effectiveness and
transparency of the system.
The changes
that we are discussing have the potential to affect every service
person. We take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that our
service personnel are briefed on such changes, so significant effort
will go into ensuring that all service personnel are made aware of the
changes under the new system. A new joint service publication about
redress of individual grievance will be published and made available
electronically to all service personnel, a defence notice will be
issued to publicise the changes further and leaflets will provide
service personnel with a clear explanation of their rights and how to
use the complaints system. All three services are making arrangements
for their personnel to be briefed in detail nearer the introduction of
the
changes.
I
should like to make a final observation about the statutory instruments
that we are considering. The Government have given an undertaking that
Ministers moving instruments subject to the affirmative procedure will
tell the House whether they are satisfied that the legislation is
compatible with the rights provided in the European convention on human
rights. I am pleased to confirm that the statutory instruments before
us are compliant with the European
convention.
4.43
pm
Mr.
Howarth:
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr.
Benton, for our debate on these important statutory instruments. It is
one of Parliaments opportunities to hold the Government to
account and scrutinise what is being done in the name of the people and
Parliament. Of course, as our armed forces are so heavily engaged in
military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq as we speak, it is
important that we should do them the courtesy of ensuring that we
scrutinise carefully new measures likely to have an impact on how their
lives are organised.
The Minister outlined the
background to the regulations as well as the wider issue of complaints
procedures available to members of the armed forces. I think that the
Committee will agree that he spent rather more time talking about
matters of grievance redress, which are outwith the regulations, than
matters that are within them. I do not criticise him for that, because
he drew the Committees attention to the comprehensive range of
remedies available to members of the armed forces through the chain of
command to ensure that their grievances are dealt with. The Minister
missed out one such remedymembers of the armed forces may also
approach their Members of Parliament. In Aldershot, when I find that I
have a complaint referred to me by a soldier, I refer it to the
Minister, which
means that the soldier will get top-quality attention from him. I shall
not continue in that vein for too long, but I believed that it would be
fair to make that observation at the
outset.
The
regulations are specific and flow from issues that we have discussed on
many occasions, so I should like to make the following observations.
First, there is no doubt that the loss of young lives at the Army
training establishment at Deepcut served to undermine public confidence
in the Armys ability to respond to a spate of unexplained
deaths and to investigate them satisfactorily. The Minister referred to
the report by Nicholas Blake QC, Surrey police produced reports, and
the Army produced around six internal reports, so those matters have
been subject to considerable debate and scrutiny.
What has been the pattern of
suicides in Army training establishments in the past couple of years?
Perhaps the Minister would like to answer that question later as I did
not give him any notice, but I have been unable to obtain figures from
either official publications or from the Library. Given that the matter
is of public concern, it would be helpful if he could tell us whether
there has been an improvement. I suspect that there has been an
improvement. Surrey police recognised that from 2002, the Army have
done a tremendous amount to respond to the tragic loss of life and to
the public concern arising therefrom. The investment that means that
there can be a better ratio of instructors and supervisors to recruits
has been beneficial. Perhaps the Minister could write to me if he is
unable to answer the question
now.
Secondly, the
Blake review supported the call by the Defence Committee for an
independent ombudsman and described the establishment of a commissioner
of military complaints or armed forces ombudsman as
an essential step in improving
confidence, transparency and
justice.
However,
Mr. Blake went on to
say:
The full
role of such a Commissioner may require further reflection but, for the
Review, it is essential that soldiers and their families have access to
an established authority who understands the military and its ways of
working, but stands outside of the chain of command and beyond its
influence, in order to ensure best practice is adhered
to.
I
emphasise the words,
an
established authority who understands the military and its ways of
working
because the
Opposition sought to persuade the Government last November to ensure
that the appointee as commissioner
should have a military
background.
Indeed, not
mincing my words, I said that
given the huge importance of this
appointment, I commendwith all the power at my
disposalto the Minister the idea that the appointee should have
a military background.[Official Report, 7
November 2006; Vol. 451, c.
811.]
The Canadian
forces ombudsman, Mr. Yves CôtÃ(c), came to his
post at least familiar with the armed forces having started his career
as a military legal officer. One may quibble at just how much
experience that gave him of the military, but he was at least in the
military. Most regrettably, the Government would not accept the
advice either of the Blake review or of the Opposition, and opted
instead for the nebulous qualification of an appropriate
person.
We see today
that the Government have chosen someone who appears to have no
connection or knowledge of the armed forces in complete defiance of the
Blake recommendation. We are not surprised, because the
Governmentparticularly, the Prime Ministerhave
consistently demonstrated their abject failure to understand the armed
forces and the ethos that drives their achievements.
Each successive internal
military report testifies to the fact that the armed forces are being
ground down by a Government who will only be convinced that the optimal
level of funding has been reached when they have broken the
organisation. Meanwhile, politically driven prosecutions have served to
undermine morale.
It would be
interesting to know how widely the post of commissioner was advertised,
whether the advertisements were limited to The Guardian, how
many people applied, and the Ministry of Defence criteria on which the
candidates were assessed. I emphasise that we have no animus whatever
against the Governments announced appointee. I have never met
her, and my inquiries have not adduced any more information than has
been provided by the Government. Nevertheless, we are concerned at her
lack of knowledge of the military, which has been confirmed to me today
in a written answer from the Minister for the Armed Forces.
In the answer, the Minister
sets out at length the commissioners qualifications in the area
of equality and discrimination, but admits that
she
does not have any
direct knowledge or experience of the armed
forces.
Apparently, in
order to make good what the Government clearly recognise as a
deficiency, the commissioner is to
undergo
a comprehensive
induction and orientation prior to assuming her duties in January
2008.
Perhaps the
Minister will elaborate on the initiation procedures to which Dr.
Atkins is to be subject. Perhaps 9G aerobatics in a Typhoon, an assault
course with the Paras or Royal Marine Commando training in the Arctic?
Will the Minister enlighten us on how this lady is, in a very short
space of time, to become familiar with the armed forces?
I do not know whether I am
allowed to mention Lord Draysons nameI know that it
causes pain in some quarters. In a special report of 12 October 2006 he
said:
Our
starting point is that, at the heart of the relationship between
service personnel and the chain of command, is that the chain of
command is responsible for investigating wrongs and remedying
them.
Sadly for the
defence community, that most able of Defence Ministers has had enough
and has quit to go fishing.
[Interruption.] In fact, he has gone
motor racing, but that is the equivalent of putting up a sign saying,
Gone fishing. The entire defence community is
distressed at his Lordships departure, and I personally thought
that he did a tremendous job. In a short time, he acquired an
understanding of what the armed forces are about, and I want to place
on record the fact that I believe he made a major contribution, not
least in the speeding up of the supply of vital
equipment to the front line. I salute him for that. The armed forces
have lost a good friend, and, if I may say so, so have his ministerial
colleagues.
What he
said a year ago was right. Together with the distinguished noble and
gallant Lords in the other place, the Opposition have always been
concerned at the risk to the authority and integrity of the chain of
command that is implicit in the creation of this new post. In our view,
that risk is potentially compounded by the appointment. The concern
appears to have resonated with the Minister, who was quoted in a BBC
news item yesterday as
saying:
We
dont want to erode the position of the chain of
command.
The Opposition
would welcome an indication from him as to how he sees that protection
to the chain of command being applied.
We hope that
the new commissioner will rapidly come to understand that which
Ministers have so often failed to grasp: the unique nature of the armed
forces and the extraordinary capacity of the military training system
to deliver professional, competent and courageous soldiers, sailors and
airmen. We recognise that the current remit of the commissioner will be
limited to the area defined in the regulations: discrimination,
harassment, bullying, and dishonest, improper or biased behaviour. I
have two key concerns, however. First, the scope for complaints is
potentially immense. What calculations has the Minister done on how
many are likely? The regulations do not define discrimination or biased
behaviour, and it does not take a rocket scientist to imagine how
easily a disaffected soldier, sailor or airman will avail themselves of
the new facility. As Lord Astor said during the debate in the other
place a few moments ago, our fear is that this arrangement may turn out
to be no more than a troublemakers charter. Furthermore, as the
Minister explained, aggrieved friends or family can use the facility to
lodge a complaint on behalf of a member of the armed forces, and they
may have even less understanding of the military than those serving who
are the subject of the complaint.
The second issue is how to be
sure that the commissioner will bring the necessary robustness to her
assessment of the cases referred to her. How will she temper the
undoubted expertise that she brings from the Equal Opportunities
Commission with the need to understand service ethos and discipline? I
remind the Minister that the Surrey police force, which first reported
on the Deepcut issue, was the first to recognise the need for military
training to be robust. In its final report, in which it called for an
inquiry, it
said:
Such an
inquiry should consider the need for independent oversight of Army
recruit training to support the Army in striking the right balance
between tough training and the control of avoidable
risk.
The
Minister and I had the privilege this morning of listening to General
Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, and his team. They gave us an
insight into todays Armyhow they train and work, and
their role and the job that they do on the nations behalf. One
could not help but leave that gathering with ones sense of
pride in our armed forces, particularly our Army, being hugely
reinforced by all that we heard. The Army consists of a fantastic bunch
of people; but as the General said, they are trained to engage in
high-intensity warfighting with violence.
Much was made by a number of the
military commanders who spoke todayI note that the hon. Member
for Colchester was with us this morningof the fact that it is
close-quarter combat. It is fighting with bayonets. We were told that
250 Taliban had been killed in a couple of days, with no loss of life
to our troops. To get men to do thatthe infantry is men
onlyrequires a quality of training that is robust. If they are
not trained robustly, they will not go into such high-intensity
situations prepared to meet such dreadful challenges. It is important
that the commissioner understands the need for training to be
robust.
I believe
that the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place. The
Minister has been at pains to point out the other avenues open to
military personnel for the redress of grievances, but he does not want
to be seen to undermine the chain of commanda point made by the
Minister in the BBC clip that I mentioned earlier. That reflects the
concerns expressed by former serving officers in the other
placeconcerns that I suspect are fairly widespread in the
military.
The
Minister will remember that throughout our debates on the Armed Forces
Act 2006 I was determined to do whatever I could to assess the
legislation against the way in which it would impact upon the chain of
command. He heard of the problem from the military, which is why he
comes to the Committee to tell us that he is keen to ensure that the
chain of command is properly protected. I have asked him to tell us
how, and I have no doubt that he will do so. However, he is under
pressure from his backwoodsmen, who want to see much more. They want to
see trade unions in the armed forces, with more opportunity for
independent investigation. The unions do not really like the officer
class, so they are putting the Minister under pressure to have a more
independent examination, preferably from people who have no connection
with the military.
I
sympathise with the Minister. He is clearly between a rock and a hard
place, and I am trying to help him. He may not think so, but I am
trying to help. [
Interruption.
] I hear the
Minister saying that he always welcomes my help. In that case, he is a
very sensible man. There is greater joy in heaven over the one sinner
that repenteth than the ninety and nine that have no need of
repentance.
When the Government sought to
give effect to the Blake recommendations, we acknowledged that public
concern meant that we needed some independent oversight. However, given
the Governments refusal to accede to our call for the post of
service complaints commissioner to be offered to a person with some
understanding of the armed forces, especially at a time when they are
feeling hugely overstretched and beleaguered, the only way in which we
can register our anger at what we consider to be their failure to
honour the military covenant is to vote against the second of the
regulations before us. I accept the first, but I am sorry to say that
the regulations dealing with the commissioner do not meet those
requirements that we have consistently called for over the past 12
months. That is what I shall recommend to my hon. Friends,
unless the Minister can tell us that the commissioner will acquire from
somewhere the military experience that, by the Governments own
definition, is lacking at the moment.
5.1
pm
Bob
Russell (Colchester) (LD): It is a pleasure,
Mr. Benton, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the
Minister for the way in which he presented his case, and I sympathise
with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Aldershot, although I
distance myself from some of his more colourful comments. However, they
are genuineI have known the hon. Gentleman for 10 years, and I
know that they are not made up for today. He thinks and speaks like
that all the time.
What we are
debating is the logical extension of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Those
hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered that
legislation will remember that we went through it in considerable
detail and with much discussion. I believe that the Act is relevant to
the 21st century, bringing together the separate disciplinary
procedures of the three services in a meaningful way. Only time will
tell whether we got the balance right. It made sense to bring the
disciplinary codes of the three services together, but we did our best
to retain and maintain the distinctive ethos and separateness of the
three services. I believe that that has been achieved, but only time
will tell.
I record
my appreciation for all involved in the back-room deliberations, as
well as for those hon. Members who served on the Committee. We need to
proceed with what has evolved. However, I have one or two questions.
Like the hon. Member for Aldershot, I was puzzled about why the
chaplains of the three services were deemed not to be appropriate
persons to serve.
Dr.
Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): I would never
turn to a chaplain, as I am not a religious person. It is sometimes
forgotten that other channels are necessary for those who are not
religious. We either include chaplains and others, or we include
neither. I agree with that bit.
Bob
Russell:
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point,
but it is one classification from which people are deliberately
excluded, whereas the very people to which he refers would be included.
The point is valid, but, with respect, he presents the argument the
wrong way around.
The
regulations will bring in independent members for the first time. That,
in itself, is worthy of appreciation; it is something that society
would recognise. However, I have considerable sympathy for the point
made by the hon. Member for Aldershot that the person appointed as the
commissioner has no knowledgenone that we are aware
ofof Her Majestys armed services. I made a note of the
need for the commissioner to familiarise herself with the military
ethos. I am not sure how that will be done, bearing in mind the fact
that the regulations come into effect on 1
January.
There would
have been an ideal opportunity for the commissioner to gain such
experience last week, for example. If she had joined members of the
armed forces parliamentary scheme, she could have spent four
days alongside me and three other colleagues on a
NATO exercise in Germany to meet soldiers and a few sailors and airmen
who were also part of the exercise, to find out what it is all about.
Those of us who were members of the Committee that considered the Armed
Forces Bill also went to Iraq, and other hon. Members have been to
Afghanistan. A serious point has been made that the commissioner has no
knowledge of the armed services. That is what we are led to believe,
and I cannot understand how that lack of knowledge will be put right in
the next six weeks or so, so the Minister needs to explain
that.
As
the Minister said, the 2006 Act represents the first complete overhaul
of the service justice system in more than 50 years, and it harmonises
practice and procedures across the armed forces. I shall cite an
example. When we were in Basra, we met the Combined Helicopter Unit,
and the helicopter pilots were drawn variously from the Royal Navy, the
Royal Air Force and the Army. If there had been a misdemeanour or a
serious military incident involving one pilot from each of those three
services, they would have gone down three separate disciplinary routes.
These regulations make common sense. They bring together a common
route, yet still retain the ethos and the separateness of the various
services.
I should
like to end by endorsing the points made by General Dannatt, both today
and in recent weeks, and by drawing the Committees attention to
the fact that the Honour the Covenant campaign by the
Royal British Legion has manifested itself in the House of Commons in
the form of early-day motion 1, which has already been signed by more
than 100 right hon. and hon. Members. That is an indication, on which I
hope the Minister will draw, that there is a lot of good will in the
House towards Her Majestys armed forces. Unfortunately, the
perception is that the covenant is not being
honoured.
I
hope that the Minister can give an assurance that the Government take
very seriously the Royal British Legions campaign and the
comments by the head of the Army and that, in time, when we return to
the regulationswe have been told that there will be an annual
report to Parliamentwe will be able to say that the
commissioner has done a good job and that the lack of a military
background has not been a disadvantage. However, will the Minister give
an assurance that, if experience shows that that is a disadvantage,
appropriate action will be taken to make
amends?
5.8
pm
Dr.
Vis:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Benton. I will be brief. I did not serve on the
Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill, so I presume that it
is all in good order. I heard my hon. Friend the Minister say at one
stageI think that I am quotingthat bullying and other
things had no place in the armed forces. I served long enough in the
Dutch armed forces to recognise that bullying is the most often used
means of so-called communication in the armed forces. If that were to
be admittedthe hon. Member for Aldershot alluded to
thisthis minor matter before us would be the most important
change in the armed forces, with enormous costs possibly attached.
Therefore, I think that we ought to be very careful. My question is
whether the regulations will apply in the case of a declared
war.
5.9
pm
James
Duddridge:
I have nine brief questions or points. First,
does the grievance procedure that has been outlined apply to grievances
solely within the Royal Military Police, or is that subject to a
different grievance procedure? Quite often, grievances brought before
the military police are early indicators of much broader, more systemic
problems. Secondly, what provision in the grievance procedures has been
made for grievances across the three services, rather than in an
individual service? Thirdly, the Minister mentioned time limits for
grievances. I did not hear the details of those time limits, and I
should welcome more information, as I am sure would the
Committee.
Fourthly,
my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot discussed the number of
grievances expected. It would be unrealistic to expect the Minister to
have an exact figure, but presumably the commissioners office
will be resourced for a predicted number in the first year. On what
basis are those numbers predicted by the Ministers office, and
what predicted volumes is the commissioners office developed to
handle?
Fifthly, I
recently returned from Afghanistan, having visited Camp Bastion and
Lashkar Gah. What differences exist in the grievance arrangements for
officers serving in a field of conflict, rather than back at their home
base, whether Aldershot or, to a lesser degree,
Colchester?
Bob
Russell:
A lesser
degree?
James
Duddridge:
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but it is
my understanding that there is a significant police contingent and a
military prison in Colchester, and I suspect that the grievance
arrangements for prisoners might be different from those for serving
officers in
Aldershot.
Sixthly,
the Minister will know, because he recently visited my constituency,
that I have an interest in QinetiQ and the relationship between private
service organisations and the military. What will happen when
grievances relate to private contractors such as QinetiQ that operate
on site with the military? Has any provision been made in the grievance
procedure for that
eventuality?
Seventhly,
the commissioner and independent members may not have current military
or Territorial experience, but are they debarred if they have historic
military or Territorial experience, even a short-term, three-year
commission 20 years ago? That would be somewhat unfair. Eighthly, is
the commissioners appointment time limited? If it is, can the
appointment be renewed, or is it felt that a new person should take
over after a certain
period?
Finally, there
was discussion of family and friends bringing complaints. I have
certainly received complaints about service conditions from the
families and friends, particularly the families, of young serving
soldiers. When I have written to the Minister or the Department, they
have quite rightly replied, We need a bit more
detailthe name of the serviceman and so
forthand permission to correspond with you on these
details. The servicemanit has been men in all
caseshas said, No, I dont want to continue this
complaint. What provision has been made for situations where the
families and friends feel that they have just complaint and grievance
but the serviceman or woman does not want it taken
forward?
5.13
pm
Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): I did not intend to
intervene in this debate, and I shall not speak for long. I ask the
Minister to intervene on me to answer a yes-or-no question: is the
proposed commissioner the sister of the hon. Member for Staffordshire,
Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins)?
Mr.
Burns:
I am grateful to the Minister, and I do not wish to
say any
more.
5.14
pm
Derek
Twigg:
I shall try to answer as many questions as I can in
the time available. I shall write to hon. Members if I cannot answer
them all. I did not want to get into a wide general debate about how we
treat the armed forces, but it was mentioned a number of times; the
hon. Member for Aldershot started on that subject. I reject the idea
that the regulations suggest something about how we treat our armed
forces. In fact, they are a positive step forward. If we had the time,
I could discuss the very good equipment that we are providing, which we
heard about today from one of the battle group commanders at the Army
presentation; the increased funding for accommodation; the improved
health care and mental health support; the best pay rise in the public
sector, which occurred this year; or the 9 per cent. rise for the most
poorly paid soldiers, sailors and airmen and women. I do not want to go
down that track, because the debate is about a specific issue, but I
wanted to start by putting that on record, as it has been
mentioned.
The hon.
Member for Aldershot made a number of important points about suicides.
I cannot give him the figure for the training establishments today,
but, overall, the number of suicides in the armed forces has
decreased. I will be happy to confirm the actual figure
later.
The hon.
Gentleman made several points about the suitability of Dr. Atkins and
about the chain of command, and I will take them in reverse order. In
respect of the chain of command, the commanding officer will remain at
the centre of the process; the complaint will be made to the CO, and if
it relates to the commanding officer, it will be made to his or her
superior. We have the usual Defence Council, service boards and so on
and the service complaints panels. There are sufficient safeguards to
ensure that the CO remains at the centre, and it is important to
reiterate that complaints will go to the CO in the first
instance.
I was asked
what the commissioner will not be able to do, which, I think, has not
been discussed. The commissioner will not have the power to instigate
or to reopen service complaints; to do so would risk undermining the
chain of command, which has the responsibility for the welfare and
discipline of its
people. The commissioner will not have the right to be consulted on
disciplinary matters or have the ability to intervene to institute
legal proceedings against decisions not to prosecute, as was
recommended by Blake, as that would undermine the role and independence
of the prosecution
authorities.
The
commissioner will provide the best solution for service personnel, who
need to have confidence in the systemwe have to accept as a
fact of life that some do notand for the chain of command in
looking after the welfare and discipline of those under command. That
is the right way for the armed forces to operate, and it meets the
overall objective underpinning Mr. Blakes
recommendations in the Deepcut review. I want to make it absolutely
clear that a number of things cannot be done in respect of the chain of
commands responsibility.
Dr. Atkins was selected in an
open competition, in which 100 people applied, and the normal civil
service rules and conditions for recruitment applied. She has vast
experience of issues such as harassment, bullying and inappropriate
behaviour from her time in police service complaints and in equal
opportunities. A point was made about her lack of service experience,
but she will be going out to visit units and establishments to talk to
a cross-section of people throughout the services and, of course, to
the chain of command, to enable her to understand the issues. She will
also visit the operational theatre. Those opportunities will give her a
better understanding of the services, the chain-of-command issues and
the reviews of service
personnel.
Mr.
Burns:
The Minister told us about the capabilities of the
proposed commissioner. Her curriculum vitae is very detailed about what
she has done since the early to mid-1990s. Could the hon. Gentleman
share with the Committee more of her experiences before that period, so
that we can get a more rounded view of
her?
Derek
Twigg:
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with
further details, as I do not have that information to hand. I have
tried to make it clear that Dr. Atkins has vast experience from her
time in police complaints and equal opportunities of the issues that
she has been asked to look at. I have explained clearly that she will
make an effort to talk to as many service personnel as possible and to
visit units and bases in operational theatres, as well as talking to a
range of people who have an interest in these matters. She will get a
well-rounded view of the issues involved. The person who has just been
appointed should be given every opportunity to get on with the job and
deal with it in the best interests of those making the complaints and
of the services. We should let her get on with the job. It is important
for her to take account of the points that have been made in the
debate, and I am sure that she will do
so.
The hon. Member
for Colchester mentioned chaplains. I thought I had explained that
chaplains impartiality is important because of their personal
involvement. They have to listen to complaints from service personnel,
and they should not be involved in the process because of their
independence.
The hon. Gentleman also
mentioned the British Legion covenant campaign. We welcome the covenant
campaign as a way to highlight the issues and to support our armed
forcesI believe that the Government are doing more and that
they have made many improvementsand the wider issues of
societys role. We welcome the event and are engaging with the
British Legion and other services charities. As the hon. Gentleman will
know, we have just announced the Command Paper on personnel and welfare
issues, which will look across Government. That project is about to
start and will report next year. Again, that has been welcomed by the
British Legion. We will involve the service charities, as well as the
chain of command, in that important process. I believe that we are
addressing and dealing with the
issue.
Mr.
Howarth:
I asked the Minister what criteria the Ministry
of Defence set out against which the 100 applicants were judged.
Perhaps he has at his fingertips the criteria or a job advert like the
one that appeared in
The Sunday Times for the head of the
Defence Export Services Organisation before it was scrapped 10 days
later. I wish to make it clear to the Minister that I do not for one
second impugn the integrity of this lady, but it is important that we
understand what she brings to the party. That is a legitimate matter of
objective debate.
Derek
Twigg:
I do not mean to go over old ground, and I have
made it clear that Dr. Atkins has experience of issues such as
discrimination, bullying and harassment and inappropriate behaviour.
Her curriculum vitae is quite extensive in those areas, as I have
explained. She will ensure that she goes out and talks to service
personnel, visits bases and units, and it is important that she does
so. I could read out my notes for the record, but I shall be happy to
write to the hon. Gentleman on the details of the job description,
because I am conscious of the number of questions that I have yet to
deal with.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green asked whether the
rules apply in war. They apply equally in war and in peacetime. The
regulations also apply to the military
police.
Bob
Russell:
Is that the Ministry of Defence police or the
military
police?
Derek
Twigg:
The military
police.
On time
limits, the redress of individual grievances regulations stipulate that
complaints should be made within three months of the event occurring,
or within three months of the latest in a number of incidents over a
period. The three-month period may be extended if the officer who
receives the complaint judges that it would be just and equitable to
allow the complaint to proceedfor example, if a service person
had been away on operations and did not have access to the information
or people required to make a complaint within the three-month time
limit. The three-month period generally reflects the time limits in
similar civilian
regulations.
The hon.
Member for Rochford and Southend, East made a point about the number of
complaints, as did the hon. Member for Aldershot. I cannot predict what
the number of complaints will be. On one hand, as the hon.
Member for Aldershot argued, we could take the view that there will be
more complaints because of the introduction of the system; on the other
hand, perhaps people who do not have confidence in the system might
feel that, if something happens, the new system will enable them to
complain. We should not forget that the commanding officer, rather than
the commissioner, will investigate complaints, which is the key
element.
In the past
three years, 233 service complaints have been raised by Army personnel.
In the past year, 73 of the complaints made in the Navy have been
referred up from the commanding officer. In the past two and half
years, 220 service complaints have been made in the RAF. Of those,
around 100 each year have gone to the highest level to be dealt with
single service boards. I hope that that clears up the history of
complaints, but I do not know how many complaints will be made in
future.
A point was
also made about families and friends making complaints, but it is still
for service personnel to decide whether to make a complaint after it is
referred by the commissioner. It can be referred to the CO, but it
still a matter for the individual concerned to make the complaint. That
is the key point. I am happy to write to hon. Members about any other
points that I have not answered.
5.26
pm
Mr.
Howarth:
Although we have discussed the two sets of
regulations together, Mr. Benton, may I propose that we have
separate votes, so that I can invite my hon. Friends to vote against
the second?
[
Interruption.
] I appreciate the
spirit of co-operation that occasionally extends across Committees; the
hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) and I happen
to be rather good
friends.
For all the
reasons that we have given, we are concerned that, although the way in
which the appointment was made may give confidence to those outside,
the risk is that it will do so at the expense of those in the services.
It is an important appointment. As I said at the outset, we have no
animus whatever against Dr. Susan Atkins, but we know no more about her
than has appeared in the information provided by the Government.
However, it has been our consistent view throughout that a person with
at least some military knowledge ought to have been appointed. We have
not seen the criteria against which the appointment was made, and we
feel that the Government have not listened to us or to others concerned
about the potential risk to the chain of command that could result from
the appointment, notwithstanding everything that the Minister has
said.
I understand
that Dr. Atkins was once engaged in the Prison Service. That service
was inspected by Sir David Ramsbothamnow Lord
Ramsbothamand there is no doubt that he brought fantastic
expertise to it. I happened to see him in action, and I thought that he
was magnificent. Someone like thatnot necessarily with that
much military experience, as it might not satisfy those who take a
different viewis essential in the role that we are discussing.
That is why I invite my hon. Friends to oppose the second set of
regulations.
The
Chairman:
Just for the record and for future
reference, I can tell the hon. Member for Aldershot that, although the
regulations were discussed together, they could have been put to the
vote separately in any
case.
Question put
and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Redress of
Individual Grievances) Regulations
2007.
Draft
Armed Forces (Service Complaints Commissioner) Regulations
2007
Motion
made, and Question put
:
That the Committee has
considered the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Commissioner)
Regulations 2007.[Mr.
Twigg.]
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
4.
Division
No.
1
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Committee rose
at thirty minutes
past
Five
o'clock.