Westminster Hall
Wednesday 22 April 2009
[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]
Service Complaints Commissioner
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr. Watts.)
9.30 am
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope, and to introduce a debate on the first annual report of the first Service Complaints Commissioner. Dr. Susan Atkins was appointed in the late autumn of 2007 and assumed her full responsibility to receive and monitor complaints from 1 January 2008. During the year of her office, Dr. Atkins has made herself available for discussion and dialogue with Members of Parliament, attending meetings of the all-party group on Army deaths and appearing formally before the Select Committee on Defence.
The commissioner describes the process of establishing an office that should remain independent of the Ministry of Defence, while gaining trust and building confidence in the positive role of independent oversight. Dr. Atkins has shown considerable energy in bringing together a team of newly recruited staff and developing a mechanism for handling complaints that is sufficiently robust and demonstrably fair.
As chair of the all-party group, I hear the anger of families who have lost loved ones, not only at Deepcut barracks but at barracks throughout the UK and overseas. Those families have experienced the inability of the armed services to deal with sudden death and the failure of all the systems that should be in place to guarantee an effective investigation.
When the father of Cheryl James, who died from gunshot wounds at Deepcut barracks, heard that I was introducing the debate, he said that
“the only real question is why Sir Nicholas Blake QC told families he would support our call for a public inquiry if the Government did not appoint a truly independent Armed Forces Ombudsman with the power to investigate complaints: They didn’t and he didn’t.”
Families feel very bitter, angry and let down because they have not had answers to the questions that they need answered about the deaths of their loved ones.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): It is interesting that the hon. Lady has been talking about Deepcut. Could she explain how she thinks that the independent complaints commissioner could become involved in an event in which, tragically, the servicemen involved are dead? In other words, does part of her remit say that she could look into not only things that are going wrong today in the armed services, but things to do with the ways in which servicemen, tragically, have been killed or have died?
Mrs. Humble:
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point and I will come to it, because I want to explore the existing role and remit of the Service Complaints Commissioner and where I think it could and should be
extended. The commissioner herself, in her inquiry, makes it clear that this is her first year and first report and that she will be considering in future years whether her position should be extended. I have one or two ideas on that.
Dr. Atkins sets out the role and responsibilities of the commissioner defined by the Armed Forces Act 2006. She describes the role as twofold:
“firstly, to provide a rigorous and independent oversight of how the Service Complaints System is working and to report annually to ministers and Parliament...secondly, to provide an alternative point of contact for Service men or women who do not feel they can raise a complaint with their chain of command without her oversight.”
The commissioner may also receive representations submitted on behalf of a serviceman or woman, whether from friends, family members or anyone else with legitimate concerns. The 2006 Act specifically refers to cases being raised by a Member of Parliament.
The commissioner’s role is not that of an independent ombudsman, and I regret that the Government did not feel able to accept the considered conclusions of both the Defence Committee and the Deepcut review conducted by Nicholas Blake, QC. In my view, the services have suffered from the absence of independent oversight and require a system of institutionalised checks and balances equivalent to those established to assist the police service and the Prison Service. The modern approach would be to welcome an independent ombudsman or commissioner with powers to initiate inquiries and conduct investigations where he or she regards it as appropriate to do so. Without acceptance of such a policy change, the oversight system is structurally flawed. As a result, confidence in the armed services is undermined and will continue to be an issue of public concern.
I think that protection of the lives of service personnel would also benefit from the establishment of an office that is equivalent to that of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and police and is responsible for offering external advice on shortcomings and possible improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. I also believe that the services should, wherever possible, establish lay visitor panels to carry out inspections of military facilities, particularly training camps.
However, in Dr. Atkins we have a Service Complaints Commissioner who has expressed her determination to see the complaints system working effectively and fairly. That objective has merit, regardless of the outcome of the wider debate. Dr. Atkins has approached her job with an open mind, and I respect the way in which she has produced the report and liaised with Members of Parliament, families and service personnel.
Having said that, I am genuinely mystified by Dr. Atkins’s conviction that she has no legal authority to handle the complaint of a relative or next of kin that relates to the circumstances of a death in the armed services or how such a death was handled. Outside the field of combat, the civilian police should have primacy in the investigation of the death, but that does not absolve the military of all responsibilities that arise from the duty of care. Failure to address the concerns of a bereaved family cannot be justified on the ground that the subject of the complaint is no longer a member of the armed services. That was not discussed in the passage of the Bill that became the 2006 Act and does not seem to assist the purpose of the legislation.
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that there should be no barrier to the commissioner’s receiving a complaint regarding a death, the circumstances of that death, its effective investigation or measures taken to draw lessons in the public interest?
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. I understand the point that she is making, which is interesting, but does she not think that if the commissioner were allowed to go down the track that she is advocating, there would potentially be a conflict with the role either of the coroner or of the military? One thinks, for example, of the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre or the Hercules XV179 crash. Would the commissioner be authorised to investigate those cases that have perfectly properly been looked into by other authorities?
Mrs. Humble: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, on many occasions I have raised questions in the House about how families obtain answers to the questions about how their loved one died and on every occasion I have been told by Ministers from the MOD that they obtain their answers through the inquest system, but sadly the way in which the inquest system works has not given those families the answers that they deserve.
I am not casting any aspersions on coroners. I am on record as praising the coroners of Wiltshire and Oxfordshire, who have built up a great expertise in dealing with Army deaths. However, the coroner system, because of the way in which it has been set up, is an inquisitorial system that has limits. The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this issue in the past. Families usually do not have legal representation in a coroner’s court where the MOD does, so they feel at a disadvantage from the start. In the case of many of the families who come to me—I am referring to the Deepcut and Beyond families group—their loved ones died several years ago. When I speak to them, they often tell me about the most appalling circumstances at inquests where the coroner’s court met for 15 minutes and dealt with the issue, so they have not had answers.
I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has not made an important point. He has, and the issue needs to be clarified.
Since December 2008, the Service Complaints Commissioner has had a role in the notification of unexplained deaths, so the Government have recognised the issue. What I am looking for at this first stage of the debate on Dr. Atkins’s role and responsibilities is for us to examine the complexities of such issues and consider how her role can be better used, without, of course, trespassing on any criminal investigation, the operation of the coroners’ courts or any other court proceedings that might come into effect following the death of someone in the armed services.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): My hon. Friend is going into these issues in great detail, but she has just told the Chamber that the MOD usually has legal representation whereas the families do not. That is not so. The MOD usually does not have legal representation and is not represented legally in the majority of cases at coroners’ courts.
Mrs. Humble: I hear what the Minister says. The families that come to the all-party group—they are part of the Deepcut and Beyond families group—tell me of their experiences. In their experience, the inquest can, as I outlined, be a very brief affair, although that tended to be more the case some years ago. More recently, the MOD has been represented by an array of barristers, while the family has not been. When families have sought legal aid funding, they have found themselves in a difficult position because they have been means-tested, as anyone else in the legal aid system would be. They feel disadvantaged, and we need to equalise that situation. Where there is an unexplained death, and there may be article 2 implications under the Human Rights Act 1998, the MOD needs to look seriously at the support that the families receive, to ensure that they feel that the inquest system gives them answers. Increasingly, coroners are giving narrative verdicts, which lay a duty on the MOD to provide answers.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The hon. Lady’s description matches the experience of my constituents Jim and Yvonne Collinson—they lost their son James at Deepcut—at their public inquest just a couple of years ago. However, families are being failed not just by the inquest system, but by the Ministry of Defence’s own boards of inquiry. Ten years after their son’s death, Jim and Yvonne Collinson are still waiting for the board of inquiry into what happened to him. That is incredible, given that boards of inquiry are established to look at precedents to see whether lessons can be learned. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has a view on the issue, but is it something that the Service Complaints Commissioner could also look at?
Mrs. Humble: I agree that there are serious delays with some boards of inquiry. There is also concern about how evidence that is given to a board of inquiry can then be used in a coroner’s inquest. Above all, however, we have to put the families at the centre of this. They need answers about what has happened to their loved ones. As the Service Complaints Commissioner makes clear in her report—I shall go on to speak about this—she wants lessons to be learned so that they can be used to improve the delivery of the duty of care to our service personnel, as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of our armed services. This should be a win-win situation.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): The hon. Lady mentioned the difficulties and limitations of the inquest system as it stands. She will be aware that Des and Doreen James, whose daughter Cheryl was, I believe, murdered at Deepcut barracks, were told before the inquest even took place that she committed suicide. Is the hon. Lady aware that there was a perfunctory inquest, which Des and Doreen James were able to attend only part of, and which simply confirmed the Army’s claims? Is she also aware that people such as Des and Doreen James have had their faith in the state entirely shattered, not least because, in the 14 years since Cheryl’s death, they have been unable to have the police inquiry into the previous police inquiry released so that they can find out what went wrong?
Mrs. Humble: Before the hon. Gentleman arrived, I quoted his constituent Des James. Out of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I will repeat what I said. The father of Cheryl James made the important point about today’s debate that
“the only real question is why Sir Nicholas Blake QC told families he would support our call for a public inquiry if the Government did not appoint a truly independent Armed Forces Ombudsman with the powers to investigate complaints: They didn’t and he didn’t.”
Mr. James is understandably angry about that. One thing that I want to come out of the appointment of the Service Complaints Commissioner is that families feel that they can approach her and that she has a responsibility to look into unexplained deaths. As I mentioned, the MOD has recognised that she should have a role, but it relates to the notification of unexplained deaths. I urge the Minister to ensure that Dr. Atkins is kept in touch with the progress of Royal Military Police and civilian police investigations, the service inquiry and the coroner’s inquest.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about respective responsibilities, and I am urging not that the commissioner become involved in the investigation process, but that she be kept informed. We can then learn from experience what role, if any, she should have. Again, however, my touchstone is making sure that the families get answers to their questions.
Mr. David Crausby (Bolton, North-East) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend accept that the original reason why the Defence Committee recommended an ombudsman was not so much to make things easier for a subsequent inquest and inquiry, but to prevent bullying and deaths? As Dr. Atkins says, one problem with the present system is the lack of confidence in it. It is vital that service personnel and their families can confidently make complaints and take up issues, not so that we can resolve problems after someone has died, but so that we can prevent bullying and deaths.
Mrs. Humble: My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. I will talk later about the importance of a culture change in our armed forces. Families that have lost loved ones in non-combat circumstances want answers about what happened to them, but they also want lessons to be learned—they want our armed services to respond differently and to prevent incidents wherever possible. Clearly, some accidents will not be preventable, but there are ways in which our armed services can deliver better on their duty of care to individuals.
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): I hope that nothing that the hon. Lady says will be taken as a vote of no confidence in the advent of the coronial service’s involvement in proceedings into the deaths of servicemen, and I am thinking particularly of deaths outwith the United Kingdom. The coronial service has done the armed forces community a great service in the way in which it has proceeded in recent years, and I am thinking particularly, in a partisan way, of the coroner who sits in Trowbridge. I have to say that I share the concerns that have been expressed about the confusion that the system advocated by the hon. Lady may introduce into the investigation of serious complaints about the treatment of people in the armed forces.
Mrs. Humble:
I fear that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what I have said. I am on record in this place as praising the efforts of our coroners. I am making it clear that the coronial system and inquests
have failed some families in the past. Within the operation of the existing system, in spite of the good work of many coroners, many families who seek proper answers about why their family members died still do not get them. The point that I am making is that when we debated the 2006 Act and considered the role of the proposed ombudsman or Service Complaints Commissioner, there were comments about how important it was that the office should have a role in listening to complaints from families about deaths of loved ones. I was therefore surprised and taken aback when Dr. Atkins came to the first of two meetings of the all-party group on Army deaths that she attended, and made it clear that she had no role in the system. Since then the position has changed and Dr. Atkins is notified of deaths.
I am being very careful about what I am saying and do not propose anything that would trespass on the proper responsibility of either the coroner’s court or the police or, indeed, of the board of inquiry, in making investigations. I am, however, saying that the families who come to me highlight serious concerns about all of those. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) spoke in an intervention about serious delays in a board of inquiry. There is concern that some individuals who have given evidence to boards of inquiry cannot be questioned when a coroner’s inquest is called on the same death.
I welcome some of the proposals in the Coroners and Justice Bill, such as the charter for bereaved families, which will be an excellent move forward, and the change in rule 43 of the coroner’s rules, enabling the coroner to send a narrative verdict to the appropriate Department, which must respond within 56 days. Things are moving ahead.
The point that I am making now, in my consideration of the responsibilities of the Service Complaints Commissioner, is about her new role of being notified of unexplained deaths: what is the purpose of notifying her, and can that purpose be taken further? It seems that she is simply notified, full stop; but will families have an opportunity to contact her, as they can about complaints that concern living members of the armed forces? In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), I am not suggesting a new process; I am drawing attention to the fact that whereas previously the commissioner had no role in relation to deaths, she now has a role and is notified of them. I am asking what seems a perfectly sensible question: can and should that role be expanded, and if so, how can it be expanded without trespassing on the perfectly proper current arrangements for investigation?
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): I congratulate my hon. Friend on the strong leadership that she gives with respect to the tragic events affecting the Deepcut and Beyond families. Surely the point of Dr. Atkins’s appointment is to bring transparency and clarity into the process. Perhaps something could be done together with Daniel’s Trust, which is an organisation set up by Lynn Farr and Norma Langford, a constituent of mine, the death of whose son in Belize was said to be suicide, although his parents claim that that would have been totally out of character. Surely that is what we should aim for: to improve the situation and to support families who have tragically lost sons and daughters.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |