3 Other provisions
Independence and powers of Service
police
13. We took detailed evidence on the proposed new
powers for Service police from the three Service Provost Marshals,
and the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police. In
addition we received written evidence from the Defence Police
Federation.[12] We also
visited the Military Court in Colchester on 14 February and had
the opportunity to meet the Judge Advocate sitting that day, with
whom we were able to discuss the provisions of the Bill on an
informal basis. This supplemented the written evidence received
from the Judge Advocate General.[13]
On the basis of these various sources of evidence, we
support the provisions in the Bill in relation to the independence
and powers of Service police.
Drug and alcohol testing
14. The vast majority of our witnesses supported
the provisions of the Bill relating to a bespoke drug and alcohol
testing scheme for the Armed Forces.[14]
We sought clarification from the MoD on a number of matters, most
notably in relation to concerns raised by the British Medical
Association regarding the taking of blood samples by doctors providing
care for patients[15]
and to differences between the requirements for blood and urine
samples under this legislation and existing civilian Road Traffic
legislation.[16] We were
satisfied with the responses to all queries and therefore we
support the provisions in the Bill relating to drug and alcohol
testing.
Service complaints procedures
15. Our predecessor committee looked in detail at
Service complaint procedures during the passage of the Armed Forces
Bill 2006. It is a subject that also attracted the attention of
the House of Commons Defence Committee[17]
and significant other scrutiny in light of Sir Nicholas Blake's
inquiry into Deepcut.[18]
The changes that were made in the 2006 Act, including the introduction
of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces,
have now been implemented. This Bill makes a number of minor changes
to the makeup of Service Complaint Panels and the role of the
Defence Council in handling complaints. We thought it appropriate
therefore, to take evidence from the Service Complaints Commissioner,
Dr Susan Atkins, both on the Bill and more widely on the success
of the 2006 Act and the scope for further improvements to be made
to Service complaints procedures. On the basis of her evidence
and comments from MoD officials, we
support the provisions in the Bill which aim to provide greater
independence of Service Complaints Panels, where circumstances
demand.
16. However,
it was clear from Dr Atkins' evidence and comments from other
witnesses, notably from the Families Federations and written evidence
from the British Armed Forces Federation,[19]
that
despite the real progress that has been made, there are areas
in which significant improvements could be made, particularly
in relation to the powers of the Commissioner and the complexity
of the system as a whole. Dr Atkins also had concerns about the
handling of complaints made by veterans. She noted that she would
be commenting on all these matters in greater detail in her forthcoming
Annual Report.[20]
17. We
welcome the work of the Service Complaints Commissioner thus far,
and note her view that improvements could still be made to the
complaints procedures. We recommend that the MoD review these
procedures and the powers of the Commissioner in light of her
evidence and her forthcoming Annual Report to ensure that the
system is as effective as it can possibly be.
12 Ev 82 Back
13
Ev 93, paras 5-7 Back
14
Qq 43-48, Q 130, and Ev 84 Back
15
See BMA briefing paper, available at:http://www.bma.org.uk/lobbying_campaigning/westminster/armedforcesbill.jsp
See also Q 47 and Q 130 Back
16
Qq 43-44, 48 and Ev 109 Back
17
House of Commons Defence Committee, Third Report of Session 2004-05,
Duty of Care, HC 63-I, para 423 and House of Commons Defence
Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2005-06, Armed Forces
Bill: proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner, HC 1711 Back
18
The Deepcut Review, Nicholas Blake QC, 29 March 2006, HC 795 Back
19
Qq 362-364, Qq 396-402 and Ev 121, paras 2-12 Back
20
Ev 90, para 2.2 Back
| 
