In this inquiry the Committee examines the effectiveness of the current Service complaints procedures based on the findings of the Service Complaints Commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins, in her first annual report. It also examines the Commissioner's evaluation of the support given to her by the Ministry of Defence during the year. The report sets out the background to the creation of the role and details the Service Complaints System that is explained to Service personnel in Joint Service Publication 831 (issued December 2008). Finally the Committee considers how the Commissioner has operated in her first year. The Commissioner has set clear aims, values and objectives for her office: 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. The Committee commends Dr Atkins for her 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. Knowledge in the Services of the Commissioner and her role is patchy and more should be done by the Ministry to improve that. Staff resources should also be increased. It is still too early to decide whether the Commissioner has sufficient powers. The next annual report should be presented formally to Parliament.

It is accepted 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, there is concern noting 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. This concern is 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. There is also concern 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. The Service Complaints Commissioner role is an integral part of honouring the Armed Forces Covenant and whilst there has been progress made in delivering a fair, just and efficient Service complaints system, there is still a long way to go

The Committee was tasked by the House of Commons to scrutinise the Bill (Bill 22, session 2010-11, ISBN 9780215557469) which makes various changes to existing Military law. The Committee has taken evidence from a range of witnesses and made several visits to military establishments around the UK. The Report notes the complex debate surrounding the Military Covenant, and outlines the Committee's findings on a range of matters, including the work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces.

The Committee was satisfied that Nicola Williams has the professional expertise and personal independence required for the post of Service Complaints Commissioner and that she will be able to lead the Commissioner's office through the transition of the post to one of an Ombudsman and the introduction of a reformed Service complaints system and recommends that the Secretary of State proceed with her appointment and wish her every success in the post

The current system of military law is based on separate Service Discipline Acts for each of the three branches of the armed forces. This Act contains provisions to update this with a single, harmonised system for military discipline in order to improve efficiency and consistency between the Services, although the key elements of the discipline systems will remain (including the jurisdiction for commanding officers (COs) to deal with less serious offences, with more serious offences being required to be tried by court-martial). The Act has 19 parts and 17 schedules, and measures include: the creation of a standing court martial (to replace the current system where court martials are set up to deal with particular cases) which may sit in more than one place at the same time, and with different judge advocates and service personnel for different trials; and the appointment of a Director of Service Prosecutions to replace the three existing prosecuting authorities.

Armed Forces Bill : Special report of session 2005-06, Vol. 2: Oral and written evidence and official Report

This book discusses the manner in which Britain’s wars, which took place between 2000 and 2015, have interacted with the relevant principles of international law and English law for the purpose, primarily, of considering legal accountability. During a debate in the House of Lords in 2005 a former Chief of the Defence Staff commented that ‘the Armed Forces are under legal siege.’ The book will discuss the major legal issues which have arisen, ranging from the various votes in Parliament to go to war, the constitutional relationship between ministers and senior commanders, the right under international law to use force, the influence of human rights law, the role of the courts in England (including the coroners’ courts), to the legal regime applying to the conduct of UK military operations. It will assess critically whether the armed forces will now have to accept that operations conducted outside the UK are subject to greater legal scrutiny than previously and whether, if this is the case, it is likely to hinder their future military activities. This book will be of great interest to scholars of international law, the law of armed conflict, military studies and international relations, as well as to those with a professional or other interest in the subject matter.