Annex: Establishment of the Service Complaints
Commissioner
The Defence Committee in previous Parliaments has
reported on the Service complaints system and role of the Service
Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces.
Duty of Care Report 2005
In 2004, the Defence Committee, prompted by the individual
deaths of recruits and trainees at initial training establishments
especially the deaths of four young soldiers, between 1995 and
2002, at the Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, Surrey, announced
an inquiry into the MoD's duty of care to Service personnel. In
its 2005 Report, Duty of Care, the Committee recommended
that an independent military complaints commission be established.
The crucial elements of the commission were to be:
- 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.[145]
In July 2005, in its response to the Duty of Care
Report, the then Government accepted that there was a case
for introducing an independent element to the Service complaints
system and undertook to examine the different models for this
and take it forward in the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill.[146]
Armed Forces Bill 2005
An Armed Forces Bill is required every five years
to provide the legal basis for the Armed Forces and the system
of military law which exists in the UK.[147]
The Armed Forces Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in
November 2005 and included provisions to establish a Service complaint
panel, but the Government's response to the independent element
suggested by the Defence Committee appeared to be a single voice
on the panel in certain circumstances. Complaints could either
reach the Service complaint panel once the existing chain of command
process had been exhausted or if requested by the complainant.
Many details of how the panel would function would be set out
in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence.
It was clear that the Government had rejected the main principles
of our predecessor Committee's recommendations—the Bill
did not include provision for a way to deal with complaints that
was truly independent of the chain of command.
Our predecessor Committee published a report on the
Armed Forces Bill in December 2005.[148]
This stated that the establishment of a Service complaint panel
was insufficient, and urged the Government to put forward amendments
to the Bill to strengthen the level of independence in the proposals.[149]
It also urged the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill to
express a clear view on the inadequacy of the Bill. In its response
to the Defence Committee's Report, in March 2006, the then Government
did not accept these arguments. The response said that it was
intended retain key elements of the system for handling service
complaints: its availability to all service personnel; the ability
to raise any grievance related to service; and the opportunity
for the commanding officer to resolve grievances. It was also
planned to modernise and improve the system by: reducing the number
of stages before the matter is considered at Defence Council level;
providing for complaint panels that in most cases would exercise
the functions of the Defence Council, and which should result
in swifter decisions; and by providing for a wholly independent
member to be included on complaints panels in cases that involved
improper behaviour such as: unlawful discrimination or harassment
on the grounds of gender, religion or belief, or sexual orientation;
bullying; or dishonesty and other improper, unprofessional or
biased behaviour. The Government also intended for the new complaints
system to be subject to an annual assessment by an independent
reviewer, who would report directly to the Secretary of State
for Defence. No statutory powers were required to provide for
this appointment.[150]
The Deepcut Review 2006
Sir Nicholas Blake QC, in his 2006 report (The
Deepcut Review) on the deaths of four soldiers at Princess
Royal Barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002 recommended that
there should be an independent 'Commissioner of Military Complaints'
or an 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. He also recommended that
this Commissioner should report annually, in public, on issues
relating to the welfare of soldiers.[151]
In June 2006, the then Government in its response
to The Deepcut Review 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 for an independent commissioner and risked undermining
the chain of command and the independence of prosecution authorities.
The Government agreed, however, to extend the role of the external
reviewer proposed under the Armed Forces Bill, to change the title
to 'Service Complaints Commissioner', and to give the Commissioner
access to Ministers.[152]
Report of the Select Committee
on the Armed Forces Bill
The Report of the Select Committee on the 2005 Armed
Forces Bill was published in May 2006.[153]
The Committee was unconvinced that an Ombudsman or a Commissioner
was the appropriate mechanism to deal with complaints. However
it believed that "scope existed to deal with grievances more
effectively, particularly those involving cases of alleged bullying".
The Committee went on to say that if the MoD proposed to make
further changes to the redress of grievances procedures, as part
of its response to The Deepcut Review, that required primary
legislation but was unable to make them by amending the current
Bill, the Government's business managers should allow time for
the necessary legislation to be considered as soon as possible.
The Report also welcomed the intention to establish an independent
reviewer of the Armed Forces' redress of complaints procedures".
Amendments to the Armed Forces
Bill
In November 2006, during the Bill's Committee stage
in the House of Lords, the Government tabled amendments 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 amendments 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 knew how to make a Service
complaint and was aware of any time limits on this. The amendments
were passed.
Defence Committee Report
Our predecessor Committee published its Report, Armed
Forces Bill: proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner,
on 7 November 2006.[154]
It welcomed the proposal to create a Service Complaints Commissioner:
it concluded that creating an independent office to which people
could make complaints would 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, it also concluded that it
was desirable that Parliament should be aware that the role proposed
for the Commissioner fell a long way short of the investigatory
body proposed by the previous Defence Committee in its Duty
of Care Report. The Armed Forces Bill received Royal Assent
on 8 November 2006.
In its response to the Defence Committee's Report,
the Government said that its proposals in the Armed Forces Act
2006 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.[155]
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. 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.
Service Complaints Commissioner
for the Armed Forces: the first year
In July 2009, our predecessor Committee published
its Report Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces:
the first year.[156]
This was a review of the first year of the work of the Service
Complaints Commissioner. The report reasserted that the powers
of the Commissioner fell short of those envisaged by the previous
Defence Committee in its Duty of Care Report and by Sir
Nicholas Blake in The Deepcut Review, but added that it
was too early to decide whether the Commissioner had sufficient
powers. It stated that the Commissioner would be better placed
to judge the performance of the system in her next Annual Report
and that further evidence should be taken from the Commissioner
on her powers at an appropriate time.
Armed Forces Bill 2010
The next Armed Forces Bill was presented to Parliament
on 8 December 2010. It made a number of minor changes to the makeup
of Service Complaints Panels and the role of the Defence Council
in handling complaints. The Service Complaints Commissioner gave
evidence to the Select Committee appointed to examine and report
on the Bill. The Committee noted, that although real progress
had been made, the concerns of the Commissioner and others remained
concerned that there were areas in the Service complaints procedures
in which further significant improvements could be made, particularly
in relation to the powers of the Commissioner and the complexity
of the system as a whole.[157]
The Bill received Royal Assent on 3 November 2011.
145 Defence Committee, Third Report of Session 2004-05,
Duty of Care, HC 45 Back
146
Ministry of Defence, the Government's response to the House of
Commons Defence Committee's Third Report of Session 2004-05, Duty
of Care, July 2005, Cm 6620, pp 26-28 Back
147
Following its Second Reading, the House of Commons' convention
is that the Bill is examined by a Select Committee established
specifically for this purpose although this does not exclude other
Committees from examining the Bill. Back
148
Defence Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Armed Forces
Bill , HC 747 Back
149
Ibid, para 11 Back
150
Defence Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2005-06, Armed
Forces Bill: Government Response to the Committee's First Report
of Session 2005-06, HC 1021 Back
151
The Deepcut Review, Nicholas Blake QC, 29 March 2006, HC
795; available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0506/hc07/0795/0795.asp
Back
152
Government Response to The Deepcut Review, June 2006, Cm
6851; available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm68/6851/6851.pdf
Back
153
Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, Special Report of Session
2005-06, HC 828-I Back
154
Defence Committee, Fourteenth Report of Session 2005-06, Armed
Forces Bill: proposal for a Service Complaints Commissioner,
HC 1711 Back
155
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
156
Defence Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2008-09, Service
Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces: the first year,
HC 277 Back
157
Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, Special Report of Session
2010-11, HC 779 Back
| 
