Conclusions and recommendations
The current Service complaints system
1. We accept that the steady increase in the level of Service complaints made directly to the chain of command or referred by the Commissioner may indicate an increasing level of confidence in the system. However, we are concerned to note the Commissioner's comments regarding a much lower rate of annual increase in contacts about matters that could become Service complaints compared to the first three years that her post had existed. Our concern was heightened by other organisations, such as the Service Families Federations, reporting lower levels of contact from Service personnel, solicitors reporting an increase in the number of individuals approaching them as they felt the Commissioner had no powers, and the increase in the number of people not pursuing matters with the Commissioner after initial contact for the same reason.
(Paragraph 15)
2. We are further concerned that the Commissioner and others are reporting that fears of redundancy among Service personnel appear to be deterring them from making Service complaints. It is unacceptable that Service personnel who believe they have a genuine grievance in relation to redundancy or any other matter are reluctant to seek redress and resolution of the matter through the appropriate channels because they fear the consequences of making a complaint. As a matter of urgency the MoD and the Commissioner should investigate this matter and report their findings to us in response to our Report.
(Paragraph 16)
3. We commend the work that the Commissioner has undertaken with the Services to identify systemic failures that could lead to potential Service complaints and we expect this work to continue so lessons are learned for the future. It is essential that each of the Services continuously learn lessons from the complaints they receive and ensure that appropriate steps are taken to stop the causes of the complaints arising in the future. This will lead to a more efficient system and release resources to deal with other areas in the complaints system. The MoD, the Commissioner and the single Services should undertake further work to improve the way weaknesses are identified and lessons learnt. Attention should be given to the areas that the Commissioner has already identified as demonstrating systemic weaknesses such as pay and allowances, the application of policy and procedure and the relationship between the criminal justice system, the military system and the Service complaints system. The MoD should set measurable aims, objectives and targets for improvements in these areas and these should be included in the response to our Report.
(Paragraph 23)
4. We note the challenges that the Commissioner has identified for the individual Services. We note the large backlogs at the unit level in the Army and RAF and expect action to be taken and appropriate resources identified to clear them. We also note that the RAF required lawyers to be involved at every stage of the complaints process. This had caused difficulties during the Libya campaign as the number of lawyers was capped and they were required for other duties. While operational requirements will always be paramount, the MoD should investigate actions that could mitigate this in the future, for example whether lawyers from another Service could be used or whether lawyers are always necessary at every stage.
(Paragraph 24)
5. We commend the Royal Navy for the way it has approached the handling of complaints and reducing its backlogs but it must guard against complacency. Although each case is different and the complainant must always have the final decision on whether to pursue a formal complaint, the Royal Navy's practice of, where possible, resolving complaints informally is advantageous. We hope that the Army and RAF will follow and adapt this approach to their circumstances.
(Paragraph 25)
6. We note that the number of contacts that the Commissioner receives about bullying, harassment, improper behaviour and victimisation has continued to increase. Although this may indicate an increasing confidence in reporting such matters, it also suggests continuing problems in these areas. We are concerned about the continuing gap between anonymous reporting of incidents in the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey and the Recruit Training Survey and the actual numbers of complaints. Further action is required to address this disparity. We note that the Commissioner has requested that the Adjutant General undertake an inquiry in relation to the serious complaints that she received in 2012 in respect of the Army. The MoD should update us on this as part of its response to our Report and we expect to see the report of any inquiry that the Adjutant General initiates.
(Paragraph 31)
7. We are concerned that the number of sexual harassment and other sexual offences allegations made to the Commissioner remains low. Other evidence, such as the 2006 Equal Opportunities Commission and MoD Survey into sexual harassment in the Armed Forces, suggested that the incidence of such offences was a lot higher than the number of complaints would indicate. We also note that a number of complainants when going to the Commissioner with issues that are not about rape or sexual assaults cite such incidents from their past as contributing to their not trusting their chain of command. We note that the MoD is attempting to produce the most accurate information possible but it is inappropriate for them to fail to provide accurate figures in answers to Parliamentary Questions. Without accurate figures, the MoD is unaware of how severe a problem it is dealing with in relation to sexual offences within the Armed Forces or what measures it is required to take to rectify the offences committed. We recommend that the MoD instigate new research into the level of sexual offences in the Armed Forces and the actions required to tackle it and to encourage possible victims to report such allegations whether to the Commissioner, the Royal Military Police or the chain of command.
(Paragraph 32)
8. We are disappointed and concerned that Service personnel who felt they had been the victim of a behaviour which may give rise to a prescribed complaint did not have confidence to pursue this matter through the chain of command. While it is entirely appropriate and understandable that potential complainants would prefer to make use of the Commissioner, we are concerned that some Service personnel may decide against pursuing their grievance altogether. The MoD and Service Chiefs should commission research into the reasons for the lack of confidence in the chain of command to deal with prescribed complaints. The MoD should also review the systems in place for monitoring the performance of commanding officers in respect of these complaints.
(Paragraph 34)
9. We support the introduction of fee-earning Harassment Investigation Officers (HIOs) to replace the previous system of civilian and Service volunteers who undertook this role in addition to their normal duties which caused delays in dealing with complaints. This should lead to an improvement in the investigation of MoD civilian and Service bullying and harassment complaints. We commend the MoD for recruiting the full operating capability of 50 HIOs by 1 August 2012. We recommend that the MoD continue to increase the number of HIOs to ensure that there is always sufficient capacity available especially if there is a surge in the number of the bullying and harassment complaints. The MoD should also consider similar arrangements for the investigation of other complaints. We further recommend that the Commissioner undertake an analysis of the effectiveness of HIOs at the end of 2013 and this should be included as part of her 2013 Annual Report.
(Paragraph 36)
10. We agree with the Commissioner's warning that as many Service personnel leave the Services over the next few years there is a potential for an increase in Service complaints regarding discharges, particularly as there may be reductions in the personnel and back office functions of the Services and MoD. It is important that the MoD and the Services take pre-emptive action to lessen the impact of this and prevent a possible increase in complaints. A vital part of this will be learning lessons from previous complaints regarding discharge procedures.
(Paragraph 39)
11. We note the rise in 2011 of potential Service complaints in respect of medical treatment and welcome the reduction in the numbers which the Commissioner anticipated for 2012. We welcome the Surgeon General's commitment to a continuous improvement approach to complaints. In response to our Report, the MoD should update us on progress on the review of medical complaints processes used across Defence Medical Services, particularly on lessons that might be learned from the complaints system for redundancy appeals process.
(Paragraph 43)
12. We agree with the Commissioner that the review of the Service complaints system took too long. Given that she had reported in her Annual Reports that the system was not efficient, effective or fair, the review should have been given more urgency.
(Paragraph 47)
13. We are concerned that the Commissioner sees the review of the Service complaints system as a missed opportunity. The changes to deal with issues relating to demand and resources, delay, and appeals while beneficial in themselves are tweaking a system that needed to be fundamentally redesigned and simplified. The MoD must demonstrate to us, and more importantly to Service personnel, that the changes will bring real benefits and lead to a fairer and more efficient system. In response to our Report, the Commissioner and the MoD should set out how they will measure the effectiveness of these changes. If they do not produce the desired effects the MoD should commit to an early and speedy reassessment of them and to further, more fundamental, changes.
(Paragraph 48)
14. We agree with the Commissioner that the Service complaints system is too complex and needs to be simplified. For example, three levels for the resolution of complaints is too many and adds to the length of time taken to resolve them. The MoD should reconsider the Commissioner's proposal that one level of appeal in the system should be removed.
(Paragraph 49)
Future role of the Commissioner
15. In view of the Commissioner's evidence that "some of the Service Chiefs said they didn't quite understand what an ombudsman did, but they were sure they didn't want one", it is clear that discussions between the Service Chiefs and the Commissioner have not been as productive as they should have been. The MoD's wish to preserve the role of the chain of command in investigating and resolving complaints has been accepted by the Commissioner. The 2012 Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report said that there was more benefit to be gained for improving timeliness and tackling undue delay if the Commissioner were engaged whilst complaints were still live rather than her post becoming an ombudsman acting after the event. This contrasted with the Commissioner's view that any Ombudsman model which excluded the oversight function until the conclusion of the internal process would not be effective, fair or be able to drive through the efficiencies that are required. While the involvement of an Ombudsman in cases that have not completed the internal complaints process would not be normal practice in the UK, we see no reason why the MoD and the Commissioner cannot agree a model for an Armed Forces Ombudsman that satisfies both their aspirations and concerns.
(Paragraph 60)
16. While we support the changes to the role of the Commissioner which she has agreed with the MoD, we are disappointed that the MoD and the Services continue to be opposed to changing her role to that of an Armed Forces Ombudsman. We repeat the findings of previous Defence Committees that the Service Complaints Commissioner's role falls far short of that envisaged by them. We recommend that the Service Complaints Commissioner's role should be changed to that of an Armed Forces Ombudsman. In response to our Report the MoD should set out in full its reasons for opposing the establishment of an Armed Forces Ombudsman. The Commissioner has regularly reported that the Service complaints system was not efficient, effective or fair and that the current system was not sustainable and needed simplification and redesign. An important first step to rectifying this would be to resolve the continuing debate on the role of the Commissioner. The MoD, Services and Commissioner should increase their efforts to resolve the differences between them on the Commissioner's role.
(Paragraph 66)
17. We believe there would be value in the Commissioner being able to undertake research and report on thematic issues in addition to her Annual Reports. We appreciate that this would require additional resources but the Commissioner's experience on these issues should be utilised. The MoD should examine whether any legislative changes are required to enable this to occur.
(Paragraph 69)
18. We note the Commissioner's assessment she does not have sufficient resources and that in fact the resources she has are those that she requested in 2008. A sufficiently resourced Commissioner and Service complaints secretariats are essential to an effective and efficient complaints system and raising confidence in it. It is also vital that current resources are used in the most efficient manner. While we accept that in the current economic climate it is not easy to provide additional resources, it is not appropriate that the Commissioner feels "dissuaded" from making bids for resources. She should submit her requests for additional resources and a decision should be made on a case by case basis. In response to our Report, the MoD should inform us of the outcome of the discussions on future resources and the Commissioner should confirm that the additional resources are adequate to allow her to fulfil her tasks.
(Paragraph 72)
19. The Service Complaints Commissioner's work is an integral part in delivering the Armed Forces Covenant. We are surprised and concerned that the MoD did not consult the Commissioner during the development of the Armed Forces Covenant or on the Annual Reports on the Covenant. We welcome the MoD's intention to give the Commissioner an opportunity to comment on statements made about the Service complaints system in future Annual Reports. Given the insight and information the Commissioner receives about the experience of Service life which is often wider than that of Service personnels' treatment by the chain of command, we believe that there would be value in the Commissioner being consulted on the draft Annual Report as a whole and in her joining the Covenant Reference Group.
(Paragraph 78)
20. We would like to thank Dr Atkins for her work as the Commissioner. She has worked ceaselessly to improve the Service complaints system and to make her post a success. We agree with Dr Atkins that the new Commissioner should not come from a military background. It is vital that the Commissioner should bring an outside perspective to the Service complaints system and that Service personnel should have confidence in using the Commissioner's services. We expect the MoD in their response to this Report to give us their reaction to the Commissioner's view that the post should be full time.
(Paragraph 81)
21. We confirm our intention to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the proposed new Commissioner. We expect to be fully involved at every stage and for the MoD to consult us on the process and the job description from the beginning to ensure sufficient time for the recruitment process, the pre-appointment hearing and a smooth transition to the new Commissioner. Most importantly we expect the MoD to take full account of our views on the suitability of the proposed new Commissioner for the post.
(Paragraph 82)
Conclusion
22. The Service complaints system is an important part of ensuring that the duty of care that the nation owes to its Service personnel is carried out effectively. We commend the Government for recognising this in the Armed Forces Covenant. The Service Complaints Commissioner role is an integral part of honouring the Covenant's commitment to the duty of care to the Armed Forces and the opportunity for Service personnel to seek redress when they believe they have been treated inappropriately or unfairly. We acknowledge the progress made in delivering a fair, just and efficient Service complaints system but there is a long way to go. There are too many reports of Service personnel being reluctant to raise genuine complaints and grievances. We are also concerned that complaints are not being raised when they implicate individuals above the complainant within the chain of command. This is a time of great changes in the Defence arena and many of these changes may lead to an increase in the number of Service complaints. The Service complaints system has evolved, as has the role of the Commissioner, but there are still too many instances of delay, inefficiency and lack of resources. These must be dealt with urgently so as to ensure there is confidence in the system and the Commissioner. The Government should change the role of the Commissioner to one of an Armed Forces Ombudsman. This would be an important first step in raising confidence in the Service complaints system and making it more effective and efficient. We will maintain a close interest in the work of the Commissioner and the Service complaints system, particularly in whether the recent changes to the role of the Commissioner and changes to the complaints system prove to be effective. Our Servicemen and Servicewomen deserve a complaints system that is as good as it can be. Not to provide this would be a failure of the nation's duty to them—and a breach of the Covenant.
(Paragraph 83)
| 
