Select committee inquiry
Armed Forces (Services Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“An inquiry into the Government’s proposals for the reform of the Service Complaints system and the establishment of a Service Complaints Ombudsman as set out in the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill. Terms of reference: Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What the government said
The government responded on 19 December 2014.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government states that it is "largely in accord with the Committee's aims" on the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill but does not accept several recommended amendments to the Bill.
- On the Ombudsman's tenure, the government says the first Ombudsman will serve a five year non-renewable term, set out in the appointment letter rather than "on the face of the Bill" because that would "remove all possibility for flexibility".
- It does not agree that the Bill needs amending to bar former service personnel from appointment for five years, saying the Committee's concerns "are unwarranted".
- On consulting the Ombudsman about regulations, it agrees that "a degree of independent scrutiny and input is helpful" but sees no need for legislative provision, noting the regulations will now be made by statutory instrument and so be subject to Parliament's agreement.
- The Ombudsman's recommendations are "not binding", but the government says the Defence Council will have to give "good written reasons" for rejecting one. It will share the findings of its audit of complaint recording with the Committee, scheduled for "the first quarter of 2015".
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 26 June 2014 to its close on 30 March 2015.
- Oral evidence 2 sessions
- Report 23 Oct 2014
- Government response 19 Dec 2014
What it recommended 6 recommendations · 10 conclusions
1Our report proposes a number of amendments to the Bill which we believe will improve...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Our report proposes a number of amendments to the Bill which we believe will improve the Service complaints system while still preserving the integrity of the chain of command.
2The Service Complaints Ombudsman must be clearly independent from the Armed Forces.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Service Complaints Ombudsman must be clearly independent from the Armed Forces. This is essential for maintaining confidence in the Service complaints system. We welcome the MoD’s confirmation that the preferred candidate will in future be subject to a pre-appointment hearing with this Committee; the independence of the preferred candidate will be one of the criteria that we will look to assess during the hearing.
3We recommend that the Bill be amended to state that a person should not be...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend that the Bill be amended to state that a person should not be eligible to be appointed as Ombudsman for a period of five years after leaving the regular or reserve forces. Such a stipulation would assist in underlining the independence of the Ombudsman and reduce the possibility that someone taking up the post could be known to parties involved in a complaint or have been involved themselves with a complaint. We propose amendments to this effect, set out as amendment group A in the Annex to this report.
4We agree with the MoD and our witnesses that the Service Complaints Ombudsman should be...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We agree with the MoD and our witnesses that the Service Complaints Ombudsman should be appointed for a minimum of five years. It is essential that there is sufficient time for the Ombudsman to familiarise themselves with the role and to become fully effective. We welcome the Minister’s statement that the Ombudsman appointment cannot be renewed and agree with several of our witnesses that it would be inappropriate for the Ombudsman to be eligible for reappointment. We believe that these elements of the appointment need to be included on the face of the Bill. Our draft amendment, set out as amendment B in the Annex to this report, provides for the Ombudsman to be appointed for a period of between five and seven years and specifies that they should not be eligible for reappointment.
5We are convinced that there should be a degree of independent scrutiny and input into...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are convinced that there should be a degree of independent scrutiny and input into the content of the regulations for the procedure for making a complaint and determining the admissibility of Service complaints. We recommend that the Bill should be amended to require the Defence Council to consult the Service Complaints Ombudsman, when appointed, before making regulations under this section of the Bill. We propose an amendment to the Bill to this effect, which is set out as amendment C in the Annex to this report. We welcome the publication of draft regulations by the MoD. However, we believe it would be helpful if more detailed draft regulations were published in advance of the Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Commons and for this Committee to be consulted on them.
6While we recognise the differences between, and the uniqueness of, each of the Services, we...
Recommended (the committee's words)
While we recognise the differences between, and the uniqueness of, each of the Services, we call on the MoD to consult the Ombudsman, when appointed, on the establishment of a central tri-service Service complaints unit and to inform this Committee of the outcome of the consultations.
7We call on the MoD to provide us with the findings of the Defence Internal...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We call on the MoD to provide us with the findings of the Defence Internal Audit on the accuracy of the Department’s and Services’ systems for recording Service complaints. We also agree with the Commissioner that the details of the number of complaints withdrawn, the nature of those complaints and the reasons for withdrawal should be provided to the Ombudsman and this should be in a form that disaggregates withdrawn complaints from those informally resolved.
8We agree with the Commissioner that the Ombudsman should be able to investigate and report...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We agree with the Commissioner that the Ombudsman should be able to investigate and report on “any maladministration” that might have taken place during the handling of a Service complaint, not just that alleged in the application to the Ombudsman. We also welcome the clarification by the MoD and the Service Complaints Commissioner that examining maladministration in the handling of a Service complaint would include consideration of whether an injustice had resulted or could have resulted from the way the complaint was handled.
9However, we believe the Ombudsman should also be able to investigate the substance of the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
However, we believe the Ombudsman should also be able to investigate the substance of the original complaint, once the Service’s internal process has been completed, and see no reason to believe that this would undermine the chain of command. We have drafted amendments to address both these points, which can be found as amendment group D in the annex to this report.
10We note the Commissioner’s evidence to us that delays in dealing with complaints are the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We note the Commissioner’s evidence to us that delays in dealing with complaints are the main reason for unfairness in the system and that such delays could give rise to a finding of maladministration by the Ombudsman. We also note her comments that it would be unjust and an abuse of the system if Service personnel were deliberately not being allowed to make complaints about wrongs that had been done to them because they were being ruled out of time without the individual circumstances being looked at, or there was delay, or people were not being told about their rights and that again this could lead to a potential finding of maladministration. The chain of command have a duty to their personnel to deal with complaints in a timely and fair manner. We consider these matters sufficiently important to be included on the face of the Bill as matters that the Ombudsman can investigate. We have drafted amendments to address these points which can also be found in amendment group D in the annex to this report.
11We call on the MoD to ensure that the processes set out in the Joint...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We call on the MoD to ensure that the processes set out in the Joint Service Publication for the new Service complaints system are as straightforward as possible. The new Ombudsman should be consulted during this process and this Committee informed of the outcome.
12We are concerned that, as currently drafted, the Bill does not make it clear that...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We are concerned that, as currently drafted, the Bill does not make it clear that the regulations are intended to set out the parameters for the Ombudsman’s investigative process whilst the detailed procedural rules will be a matter for the Ombudsman. This has the potential to undermine the independence, or the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill 27 perception of independence, of the Ombudsman. We propose amendments to clarify the position in this regard which can be found as amendment group E in the annex to this report.
13In response to our report we call on the MoD to explain whether it believes...
Recommended (the committee's words)
In response to our report we call on the MoD to explain whether it believes that the existing provisions of the Data Protection Act are inadequate for the purpose of maintaining the privacy of complainants. We also note that the MoD told us that it did not envisage imposing any other obligations, apart from those of confidentiality, under new Section 340(7)(c). We have drafted an amendment to limit the right of the Secretary of State to impose obligations of confidentiality, in respect of the Ombudsman’s reports, to matters of national security or where the safety of any person may be jeopardised. This is set out as amendment F in the annex to this report.
14We welcome the MoD’s clarification that any findings of the Ombudsman relating to maladministration or...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the MoD’s clarification that any findings of the Ombudsman relating to maladministration or injustice are binding on the Department. However, we are concerned that, as currently drafted, new section 340M does not adequately reflect this intention. We also recommend that the Ombudsman’s recommendations should be binding on the Defence Council. We are confident that the Ombudsman will be ready to consult to identify what is feasible when framing his or her recommendations and we are therefore not convinced by the MoD’s objections in this respect. We propose amendments to clarify both these points, which can be found as amendment group G in the annex to this report.
15We are disappointed that the MoD has so far rejected our recommendation that the Service...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We are disappointed that the MoD has so far rejected our recommendation that the Service Complaints Commissioner should be able to research thematic issues and produce reports. We believe that the Ombudsman would on many occasions be best placed to identify patterns of complaints that are poorly handled or types of complaints that are not being handled properly. Rather than undermining it, the identification and resolution of these matters would increase confidence in the chain of command.
16We accept the Ombudsman will have powers to draw attention to thematic problems with the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We accept the Ombudsman will have powers to draw attention to thematic problems with the system in their Annual Report or in communication with Ministers. Whilst these options would be appropriate in many cases they may not be sufficient in all. We believe it is inappropriate that the Secretary of State will have the power to ask the Ombudsman to report on a thematic issue but that the Ombudsman will not be able to do so of their own volition. We do not envisage the establishment of a bureaucratic inspectorate for the Armed Forces, but do believe there are benefits to be gained by giving the Ombudsman the authority to undertake thematic reviews. These could contribute to identifying potential areas to be improved in the MoD’s and the chain of command’s responsibility of a duty of care towards Service personnel. We propose an amendment to this effect, set out as amendment H in the
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 2
- 15 Jul 2014No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗
- 8 Jul 2014No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗