2 Background
3. We begin by setting out the background that led
to the creation of a Service Complaints Commissioner, in which
the work of our Committee played a significant role.
DUTY OF CARE REPORT
March 2005
4. In its Report, Duty of Care, published
in March 2005, the previous Defence Committee recommended that
an independent military complaints commission be established.[2]
The crucial elements of the commission were that:
- it would be independent of
the Armed Forces and the 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.
July 2005
5. In its response to our predecessor Committee's
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.[3]
ARMED FORCES BILL
November 2005
6. The Armed Forces Bill was introduced in the House
of Commons in November 2005. The Bill as introduced to the House
included provisions to establish a Service complaint panel. From
the information on the face of the Bill it appeared that the MoD's
promised "independent element in the complaints system"
consisted of a single voice on the panel. It appeared 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.[4]
Many of the details about how the panel would work were 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. It was clear
that the Government had rejected the main principles of our predecessor
Committee's recommendations—the Bill did not provide for
a mechanism to deal with complaints that was truly independent
of the chain of command.
December 2005
7. Following the 2005 General Election, in our First
Report of Session 2005-06, on the Armed Forces Bill, published
in December 2005, we stated that the establishment of a Service
complaint panel was insufficient and urged the Government to table
amendments to the Bill to strengthen the degree of independence
in its proposals. We also urged the Armed Forces Bill select committee
to express a clear view on the inadequacy of the Bill.[5]
In its response in March 2006, the Government did not appear to
have accepted our arguments, but we welcomed its willingness to
debate the matter further.[6]
THE DEEPCUT REVIEW
8. The March 2006 report, The Deepcut Review was
conducted by Nicholas Blake QC, now Sir Nicholas. It recommended
that that there should be an independent 'Commissioner of Military
Complaints' or Armed Forces Ombudsman, with the ability to receive
unresolved complaints from Service personnel or their families;
to supervise the investigation of such complaints; and to supervise
the response to a complaint including providing advice on any
disciplinary or administrative action to be taken. Its Report
recommended that this Commissioner make publicly available an
annual report on issues relating to the welfare of soldiers.[7]
9. In its response to the Blake Report in June 2006,
the Government argued that some of the functions for the Commissioner
recommended in the Report—the ability to intervene in the
handling of a complaint and to supervise investigations, and to
institute legal proceedings against decisions not to prosecute—were
inappropriate to an independent commissioner and risked undermining
the chain of command and the independence of the prosecuting authorities.
The Government, however, agreed to extend the role of the external
reviewer proposed under the Bill, to change the title to 'Service
Complaints Commissioner', and to give him or her direct access
to Ministers.[8]
May 2006
10. The ad hoc select committee on the Armed Forces
Bill published its Report in May 2006.[9]
It was unconvinced that an Ombudsman was an appropriate mechanism
to deal with complaints (similarly, a Commissioner); nevertheless,
it believed that there was scope to deal with grievances more
effectively, particularly those involving cases of alleged bullying.
It welcomed the proposal to establish an independent reviewer
for the Armed Forces' redress of complaints procedures.
November 2006
11. During the Bill's Committee stage in the House
of Lords, the Government tabled three new clauses to the Armed
Forces Bill providing for a Service Complaints Commissioner with
the power to review the fairness and effectiveness of the military
complaints system and to provide the Secretary of State with an
annual report to be laid before Parliament. These new clauses
also gave the Commissioner a limited role in regard to the investigation
of complaints. The Commissioner was given power to refer allegations
of certain types of wrongdoing—whether made by the alleged
victim or by someone else—to an officer (normally the Commanding
Officer of the alleged victim). The officer would have a duty
to inform the alleged victim about the allegation and to find
out whether he or she wanted to make a complaint about it. The
officer would have a duty to ensure that the alleged victim knows
about how to make a Service complaint and about any time limits
on this.
12. We published our Report, Armed Forces Bill:
proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner, on 7 November
2006.[10] We welcomed
the proposal to create a Service Complaints Commissioner: we felt
that creating an independent office to which people could make
complaints should meet a key concern that Service men and women
and their families are not always willing to raise issues with
the chain of command. However, we wanted Parliament to be aware
that the role proposed for the Commissioner in these clauses fell
a long way short of the investigatory body proposed by our predecessor
Committee in its Duty of Care Report. The Bill was passed
and received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006.
Appointment of the Commissioner
13. In its response to our Report, the Government
clarified that its proposals in the Armed Forces Act struck the
right balance between ensuring that Service personnel could have
confidence in the complaints system while preserving the responsibility
of the chain of command to investigate and remedy wrongs. It provided
an assurance that the Commissioner would be adequately resourced
and said that it intended to establish the post of Commissioner
in advance of full implementation of the Act, for which the target
was the end of 2008.[11]
The appointment of Dr Susan Atkins, formerly the Chief Executive
of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC), was announced
on 7 November 2007 and she took up her post on 1 January 2008.
2 Defence Committee, Third Report of Session 2004-05,
Duty of Care, HC 63-I, para 423 Back
3
Government response to the Committee's Third Report of Session
2004-05, Cm 6620 Back
4 4
Armed Forces Bill, clause 330 [Bill 94 (2005-06)] Back
5
Defence Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Armed Forces
Bill, HC 747 Back
6
Defence Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2007-08, Armed
Forces Bill; Government response to the Committee's First Report
of Session 2005-06, HC 1021 Back
7
The Deepcut Review, Nicholas Blake QC, 29 March 2006, HC 795 Back
8
Government's response to the Deepcut Review, June 2006, Cm 6851 Back
9
Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, Special Report of Session
2005-06, HC 828-l Back
10
Defence Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2005-06, Armed
Forces Bill: proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner,
HC 1711 Back
11
Defence Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2006-07, Armed
Forces Bill: proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner; Government
response to the Committee's Fourteenth Report of Session 2005-06,
HC 180 Back
| 
