4 The Service Complaints Commissioner
28. Finally, we consider how the Service Complaints
Commissioner has operated in the first period since her appointment.
The Service Complaints Commissioner's
Role
29. The Commissioner describes her role as two-fold
i) to provide rigorous and independent oversight
of how the Service Complaints System is working and to report
annually to ministers and Parliament; and
ii) to provide an alternative point of contact for
Service men and women who do not feel they can raise a complaint
with their chain of command without the Commissioner's oversight.
Also, someone acting on a Service man or woman's behalf such as
member of their family, a friend or MP, can raise concerns with
the Commissioner.[14]
30. The post of Commissioner is a statutory appointment
made by the Secretary of State for Defence. The Commissioner provides
an alternative point of contact for individuals (either Service
personnel or a third party—who wishes to make an allegation
on behalf of a Service person) who feel unable to approach the
chain of command to make an allegation that a Service person has
been wronged. If that Service person has been wronged in terms
set out as "prescribed behaviours" then the Commissioner
has the statutory power to refer such allegations to the chain
of command for action—usually the CO (Level 1) of the complainant.
The chain of command is obliged to inform the Commissioner of
decisions made with regard to the complaint.
31. The Commissioner may also decide to refer the
matter if the allegations are not related to the matters of prescribed
behaviour to the chain of command. However, in such cases there
is no statutory obligation for the chain of command to inform
the Commissioner of decisions made regarding the allegation. The
Commissioner must be informed of decisions taken on referred matters
not related to prescribed behaviours. It is not sufficient that
the chain of command has a statutory obligation to inform the
Commissioner of decisions taken on referred matters relating to
prescribed behaviours.
The Commissioner's Objectives
32. The Commissioner's first year has been about
taking stock and establishing a baseline on how
the Services are handling complaints, what is being done well
and what needs to improve for complaints to be dealt with fairly,
efficiently and effectively.[15]
33. The Commissioner has set clear aims, values and
objectives for her own office, including: understanding the environment
of the three Services, delivering good customer service, ensuring
widespread knowledge of the new system, establishing a reliable
recording system for complaints, ensuring effective integration
of the SCC and Tri-Service systems, establishing expectations
and requirements, and delivering her annual report on time.[16]
We were impressed with the Commissioner's thorough approach to
developing her own role and setting realistic, yet still challenging,
targets for her office.
DELIVERING OBJECTIVES
Understanding the environment of the three Services
34. Over the year the Commissioner has spent around
a quarter of her time visiting personnel across all services in
England and on operations in Afghanistan to understand the nature
of military operations and the differences between the Services.
We commend Dr Atkins for her decision to undertake regular
and frequent visits to military bases and to operational theatre
to gain an understanding of the environment of the three Services,
and how the complaints system operates in practice. We hope she
will continue to visit Service establishments and operational
theatre regularly.
Designing and delivering a communications campaign
35. The Commissioner expressed some disappointment
that, despite the distribution of an easy-to-read summary of the
new complaints system by the MoD and a leaflet from her own office
on the Service Complaints Commissioner's role, very few personnel
in some of the establishments she visited in the second half of
the year had heard about her powers and purpose.[17]
In her supplementary memorandum to us, the Commissioner stated
that
Last year the MoD distributed the Joint Service
Publication 831 and an explanatory leaflet on the service complaints
system, both of which covered my role, as well as arranging for
a note about the SCC to be included on the pay packet of every
member of the Armed Forces and assisting me to distribute to Units
my leaflet on the Service Complaints Commissioner role. I do know
that attention has been drawn to the role by my visits—for
example soldiers have told me that leaflets went up on notice
boards the day before I arrived.
Following the recommendations in my annual report,
the Chief of Defence Staff is asking Service Chiefs to ensure
that information about my role is cascaded to all Service personnel
through the regular channels and attention drawn to the need to
ensure that any information, for example the new leaflet that
is designed for trainees and junior ranks, reaches its intended
audience.[18]
36. Some work has evidently been undertaken to
advertise and explain the Commissioner's role. However, we believe
that it is essential that the attention of Service men and women
is drawn more comprehensively to the Commissioner's role by the
MoD and that regular communications are made to maintain this
attention. We hope that the MoD and each Service will continue
to support the Commissioner's work in this area.
Relations with key MoD and Military Personnel
37. The Commissioner has been supported by MoD Central
Secretariat staff in liaising with each Service Secretariat. This
support included an induction programme in which she met a wide
range of Service personnel, Service legal branches, inspectorates,
support agencies and the three Service Family Federations. In
her supplementary memorandum to us she stated that
The MoD arranged for me to meet key personnel
early in 2008, individually and by arranging visits across the
Services. Those I met were generous with their time, information
and advice.
Like me, the MoD and Services have made it a
priority to ensure that I meet new post holders as personnel change.
That my induction involved a wide range of Service Chiefs has
meant that I have established good working relationships with
incoming post holders. However this will remain a priority for
me.[19]
38. We consider the Commissioner's access to key
Service personnel to be of vital importance to her duties. The
Commissioner has stated that it will remain a priority for her
and we recommend that the MoD continues to encourage regular communication
between the Commissioner and key Service personnel and Service
agencies.
The Commissioner's Powers
39. The Commissioner has not been granted the powers
envisaged in our predecessor Committee's Report, Duty of Care,
or in Sir Nicholas Blake's Report issuing from the Deepcut Review.
She does not have the power to intervene in the handling of a
complaint or the investigation of or response to a complaint.
Nor does she have the power to re-open cases.
40. In her oral evidence to us, the Commissioner
stated
what I have said in the report is that if I believe
that the powers are insufficient, I will say so, but at present
I do not believe the strength and the extent of my powers have
fully been tested.
I think I will be in a much better place at the
end of the year to come to a view to say whether the system of
the chain of command, buttressed in those cases with an independent
member, is providing that degree of rigour of investigation and
fairness that the system is intended to provide, or whether in
fact the system needs to be enhanced.
41. The powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner
fall short of those envisaged by both our predecessor Committee
in its Duty of Care Report, and by Sir Nicholas Blake in
his Report following the Deepcut Review. It is still too early
to decide whether the Commissioner has sufficient powers. We agree
that the Commissioner will be much better placed to judge the
performance of the system in her next Report. We recommend that
our successor Committee takes further evidence from the Commissioner
on this particular matter of powers at the appropriate time.
NON-COMBAT DEATHS
42. At the end of 2008 the Commissioner requested
that she be kept informed about non-combat deaths, particularly
in training establishments across the three Services. This request
was granted by the MoD and the Commissioner receives, as Ministers
do, confidential reports on such incidents. During the oral evidence
session, we asked the Commissioner about her relationship with
the Coroners' Service.[20]
In her supplementary memorandum she told us that
This is an evolving area and one on which I will
continue to reflect. I now have a role in relation to notifications
of unexplained deaths, as explained in more detail in my response
to Q44. This system started in December 2008 and my role is still
developing. My initial thoughts are that the information I receive
will enable me to ask questions about wider issues and systemic
concerns, which will be complementary to, but separate from, the
work done by the Coroners' Service. The issues I consider will
also include the involvement of and communication with families.
I will keep this aspect under review as my role develops.[21]
43. We support the Commissioner's request that
she receive reports on non-combat deaths, and find the MoD's initial
compliance encouraging. However, we are concerned that the Commissioner
does not have a statutory right to receive such reports, and we
expect the MoD to continue to keep the Commissioner informed systematically
of any such deaths in the absence of such a right. The Commissioner,
in having sight of confidential reports on the circumstances surrounding
any non-combat death, will be much better placed in helping to
prevent the recurrence of such circumstances in future.
Joint Personnel Administration
(JPA)
44. The Commissioner believes that having reliable
complaints recording system, which is being used correctly and
in which everyone has confidence, is a precursor to an effective
Service Complaints System. The chain of command, Service HQs and
the Commissioner need a system from which to spot trends and areas
of concern and that can be interrogated to find best practice.
Without this, the capability of the system to promote organisational
and operational improvement may be very limited.[22]
We agree with the Commissioner's view that having a reliable
complaints recording system is an essential foundation for an
effective Service Complaints System.
45. In 2007, the Navy and the Army joined the RAF
in recording all Service complaints on the Joint Personnel Administration
(JPA) Service Administration system. The Commissioner's early
discussions with MoD and the Services revealed that problems with
consistency and reliability of JPA Service complaints statistics
could impact on their use in her annual report. Checks revealed
that there were omissions and inaccurate recording of data present.
We commented on the failure of JPA in our recent Report on the
MoD's Annual Report and Accounts.[23]
The Commissioner requested that the JPA Service complaints process
be audited by the MoD's Defence Internal Audit team. The audit
found that each Service continued to use the systems they had
in place before JPA was introduced and this double handling meant
that JPA was seen to be an additional burden. The audit also found
that users perceived the JPA complaints module difficult to use.
A JPA "refresh" in November 2008 helped to remedy some
of the issues, including the addition of new Service complaints
terminology which was previously absent. The MoD has accepted
all but one of the audit's recommendations. MoD Defence Internal
Audit (DIA) team's fifth recommendation was rejected on the grounds
that asking units to produce a paper return in addition to entering
cases on JPA would be counterproductive to the goal of having
a single, effective, end-to-end system that efficiently provides
reliable management information
Units should be required to provide returns for
general complaints similar to those provided for Equality &
Diversity (E&D) cases, including 'nil returns'. This would
reduce the risk that Stage 1 complaints are not recorded on JPA,
and provide statistical information to MOD, the SCC and the Services
themselves.[24]
46. The Commissioner has accepted that implementing
the Defence Internal Audit recommendation on providing returns
for general complaints would be counterproductive at this stage.
However, she believes that systemic weakness in the recording
of complaints remains, as does the need for good management information
on all Service complaints to support proactive management at unit,
as well as higher, levels. The work by the MoD and Services on
upgrading JPA should include the ability to meet this recommendation
without these adverse consequences.[25]
We support the Commissioner's view.
Resources available to the Commissioner
47. The Commissioner was contacted by 193 people
in 2008. The expectation is that the number of initial contacts
will increase as awareness of her role and confidence in her place
in the complaints procedure grows. It is vital that the Commissioner
is given the resources needed to cope with the expected increase
in initial contacts. We intend to follow with great attention
the extent of the resources placed at her disposal by the MoD.
48. We were surprised to learn that for much of her
first year the Commissioner was supported by just two full-time
members of staff, and that recruiting two additional members of
staff was delayed due to uncertainties arising out of MoD restructuring.[26]
In her oral evidence to us, the Commissioner stated
The MoD has agreed that I shall have two extra
staff: I have got one of those people in temporarily and the interviews
for the third person happen next week. So I am being provided,
or will be provided with the resources I need; I am afraid it
is just taking rather a long time.[27]
49. We are concerned that staff resources requested
by the Commissioner in order to undertake her statutory duties
were seemingly not given proper priority by the MoD. As a result,
the Commissioner's plans to undertake a sample audit of complaints
had to be shelved. We recommend that the MoD offers more generous
support to the Commissioner in future, in assisting her to minimize
the impact of any delays in recruiting staff and to ensure that
she can carry out effectively the tasks entrusted to her.
50. The Commissioner has produced a detailed and
comprehensive annual report. The fact that she had such a small
number of permanent staff available for this task highlights the
hard work involved in its production and we pay tribute to all
of those involved. We were told by the Commissioner that her office
received assistance only with design and production.[28]
It is imperative that individuals who contact the Commissioner
initially feel confident in her and in her place within the Service
Complaints System. The MoD should provide the Commissioner with
the resources which she feels are necessary to achieve good customer
service.
51. In her first annual report,
the Commissioner has laid down solid foundations to her work and
her future role within the Service Complaints System. The Commissioner
summarised her key findings in the form of eight conclusions;
under each conclusion recommendations have been set out for the
MoD and the Services.[29]
The Commissioner has, having consulted with the Services and the
MoD at senior and operational levels, also set several objectives
for 2009. The Commissioner intends to base her second report on
progress against those objectives.[30]
It is not our intention to comment on each conclusion, recommendation
and objective set down by the Commissioner. We support the
general thrust of the Commissioner's conclusions, recommendations
and objectives and expect the MoD to consider carefully each recommendation
in its response to the Commissioner's report. We consider that
she has made an impressive start.
The status of the Commissioner's
annual report
52. The Commissioner, as required, submitted her
annual report to the Secretary of State for Defence. The Armed
Forces Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State to lay the Commissioner's
reports before Parliament.[31]
The Report was deposited in the Libraries of the House of Commons
and House of Lords on 4 March 2009, but it has not been laid formally
before Parliament. This is a serious oversight which must not
be repeated. To ensure that the Commissioner's work is brought
properly to the attention of all Members of Parliament, and to
comply with a statutory requirement, the Secretary of State must
lay the Commissioner's next annual report formally before the
House as an Act Paper. We hope that the failure properly to lay
the first annual report of the Commissioner before Parliament
is in no way indicative of the low profile accorded to the work
of the Commissioner by the MoD.
14 Service Complaints Commissioner - Annual Report
2008, Chapter 1, p 7 Back
15
Service Complaints Commissioner, Press Release, 9.3.09 Back
16
Service Complaints Commissioner - Annual Report 2008, Chapter
7, p 87 Back
17
ibid., Chapter 3, p 20 Back
18
Ev 11 Back
19
Ev 12 Back
20
Q 8, Q 44 Back
21
Ev 12 Back
22
Service Complaints Commissioner, Annual Report 2008, Chapter
3, p 26 Back
23
Defence Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2008-09, Ministry
of Defence Annual Report and Accounts, HC 214 Back
24
Service Complaints Commissioner, Annual Report 2008, Chapter
3, p 26 Back
25
ibid., p 27 Back
26
Service Complaints Commissioner, Annual Report 2008, Chapter
3, p 23 Back
27
Q 45 Back
28
Q 55 Back
29
Service Complaints Commissioner, Annual Report 2008, Chapter
7, pp 85-86 Back
30
ibid., p 87 Back
31
Armed Forces Act 2006 (c 52, 339) Back
| 
