|
Time for a proper Armed Forces Ombudsman?
Having just read the Armed Forces Defence Select Committee report, at last, will there be progress or more blocking? Blocking possibly - mainly because the powers that be will be anticipating a surge of complaints because of redundancy and pension changes?
Why the MoD would oppose an effective Ombudsman is beyond me. Sexual harassment and bullying rife in the army - Channel 4 News Soldiers 'powerless' against bullies says Harry's instructor - Channel 4 News New Armed Forces Ombudsman? - Echelon Wealthcare House of Commons - The work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces - Defence Committee |
'Why the MoD would oppose an effective Ombudsman is beyond me.'
Because it takes the power away from the CoC that's why..... |
Possibly more a case of failing to comprehend the needs of those much further down the CoC. Having been in recent contact with some colleagues more closely involved in the Service Complaints system I'm inclined to agree that the time is right for an Ombudsman with sufficient powers to drag the CoC - especially that of the Army - into the 21st C. Their (ab)use of the AGAI67 system is shocking.
|
The Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill got its third reading yesterday and powers of intervention and referral were commented upon. The Secretary of State for Defence said;
In forging our new culture of transparency and openness, we need to not only do the right thing, but be seen to do the right thing. And that is why I say to you we are advertising for a new ombudsman with far reaching powers to help everyday hard working families. Truth be told though, we don't want the Armed Forces Ombudsman to have any powers at all but hey, we have to go through the motions. Lords Hansard text for*20 Oct 2014 (pt 0001) |
Shocking. They want to rebadge the SCC as the 'Ombudsman' whilst ensuring that she cannot investigate anything.
20 Oct 2014 : Column 425 It is evident from those quotes from what the Minister said on Report that the Government’s position is that, while the ombudsman can draw attention to systemic issues that have apparently arisen and recommend that they be investigated, the one thing that the Government are not prepared to allow the ombudsman to do is investigate such issues of concern on his or her own volition unless required by the Secretary of State to do so—and, as we know, Secretaries of State have a track record of not asking the commissioner to do so. Indeed, the Minister made this position clear on Report when he said: “Although we want the ombudsman to address wider issues, including where they have identified systemic abuse, we do not want the ombudsman to have any statutory powers to investigate thematic issues. We do not, for example, want the ombudsman to have any powers to require the production of papers or to question witnesses beyond the powers set out in respect of the exercise of the ombudsman’s primary function of investigating alleged maladministration in the handling of service complaints and whether, as a result, injustice has been caused”. |
It's vital that the ombudsman is given teeth. This isn't just about investigating dodgy accommodation or cold breakfasts.. this is also about preventing families from being given a bum deal by JPA, injured troops being unfairly eased out of the door or SPVA/Defence Business Services bodging or whitewashing pension shortcomings.
The state wants the ombudsman to simply consider whether or not a complaint about either was handled properly and not the underlying issue. That is unacceptable. I hope that the MoD's unwillingness to take genuine steps to look after the troops is exposed because, lets face it, look at what we have currently.. supplicant, obedient and compliant AFPRB and AFPS trustees. The state wants an impotent ombudsman as well. Now, more than ever, a thorn in Michael Fallon's side is needed. Lord Rosser (Lab): One reason for providing those wider powers—which is what this amendment seeks to do—is that, under the present arrangements, the commissioner has never been asked by a Secretary of State for Defence to report on a particular area of concern that she or the Secretary of State may have. It is therefore not credible to argue that the ability of the Secretary of State to call for such reports covers the situation. A situation or treatment of an individual or individuals could be questionable or unacceptable without there being evidence of maladministration—assuming there was a willingness to make such a complaint, which relates to process, and whether a complaint has been conducted in a procedurally sound way. |
Defence Committee has its say.
Forces Ombudsman should have further powers, says Defence Committee - News from Parliament - UK Parliament Chair of the Committee, Rory Stewart MP, says "It is vital that any future Ombudsman is seen by Service personnel as being entirely independent. The MoD's proposals will leave it still too closely involved in controlling the Ombudsman's investigations. We would like wider power for the Ombudsman, and clearer guarantees of genuine independence. This will not undermine the chain of command, it will build confidence in it." |
Wise words, Al.
|
How much influence will the committee have?
The government seems to be on a path to both introduce an ombudsman whilst simultaneously ensuring that she has no powers. The single Services are fighting tooth and nail not to have independent oversight and the Service police forces are not exactly racing to allow any independent complaints system. I fear there will have to be further serious and shameful events before a real change is demanded, but heartened that the committee is at least trying to correct the balance. |
An impotent ombudsman is a politician's dream. Imagine. Another insulating layer of bureaucracy to hide behind.
|
The Canadians introduced a Whistlebrowers' Ombudsman a few years back. The first one was in post for 3 years and 1700 cases, and found exactly zero cases of corporate abuse or malfeasance.
You don't need that. Get a proper one or none at all. |
Would be interesting to know what percentage of the current SCC's cases have found in favour of the individual rather than the Services and how much time and money has been wasted in proving that the guilty b@s***d was guilty all along. :E
|
I'd guess very few as the standard technique is to extend and extend the difficult ones for many years without ever reaching a conclusion. This gives the added advantage of allowing any star ranks to retire and perhaps wear-down the complainant so they give-up or leave.
From the statistics this technique appears to work well from the Service perspective as nobody is held accountable for a case that has not been decided upon for several years. |
I'd guess very few as the standard technique is to extend and extend the difficult ones for many years without ever reaching a conclusion. This gives the added advantage of allowing any star ranks to retire and perhaps wear-down the complainant so they give-up or leave. From the statistics this technique appears to work well from the Service perspective as nobody is held accountable for a case that has not been decided upon for several years. If the complainant decides to pursue it higher, the delaying tactic you mention kicks in until the "offender" moves post, which should be no more than 2 years under current rules. This act of moving post is deemed to close the case. Would be interesting to know what percentage of the current SCC's cases have found in favour of the individual rather than the Services |
Wasn't it ever thus ?
The Service is always right : therefore, accordingly, you must be wrong. You must then just accept that your case is invalid and you don't have a leg to stand on. Which just reinforces the proven fact that the Service is always right. and so on ad infinitum |
SCC wrote in her last annual report.
(JTO - does letter at Appendix 5 explain what you say?) << Dear Secretary of State For the sixth year I am unable to give you and Parliament an assurance that the Service complaints system is working efficiently, effectively or fairly. I am concerned that the goals I set for the end of 2013 have not been achieved, despite additional resources being deployed by the Services. As I have reported previously, the current system is not efficient or sustainable. Nor do I believe that it is working effectively. I am concerned particularly about the apparent increase in bullying and harassment of personnel in the Army, as well as in complaints about such treatment. Whether or not the increase in complaints reflects a growing confidence about speaking out or fully represents the scale of such improper treatment, the Army must now use the Service complaints system effectively to make their zero tolerance policy work in practice. Three case studies in this report give good examples of decisive action in this regard. Delay remains the principle reason for unfairness in the system, in the Army and RAF particularly. Problems remain in the monitoring, handling and recording of Service complaints and this report, like previous reports, contains case studies that show how a slow, ineffective and unfair system can exacerbate the wrong complained about, including damage to mental health. Sadly I am unable to provide an assurance that the data contained in this report provided by the Army and RAF is reliable. I am including an explanation (at Appendix 5) from the RAF as to why the information they provided for last year’s Annual Report was incorrect.>> http://armedforcescomplaints.independent.gov.uk/linkedfiles/afcindependent/newsandpublications/37155modsccreport2013v0.9.pdf |
Al,
The apology from Air Marshal North is justified but I still do not recognise the new figures he has given to the SCC. Some figures I have for the RAF, allegedly official but I still doubt them: New SCs rose from 158 in 2011 to 284 in 2012. In 2012 the RAF had 514 active SCs. Of these cases only 170 were closed, either through withdrawal or conclusion. With far more coming in through the door than being resolved the number of active SCs effectively doubled in just 1 year. By the early part of 2013 the RAF had 294 active complaints, 113 of which were referred by the SCC: 201 @ Level 1 51 @ Level 2 42 @ Level 3 Of the 113 cases referred by the SCC 80% already had or would miss the 24 week backstop. The original target (PI) was to resolve 90% of cases within 24 weeks; the RAF is achieving just under 20%. The formal RAF position is that it us 'unrealistic' to expect an SC to be closed in 24 weeks which demonstrates the lack of vision or resolve to make this internal grievance system work. I am sure the figures for 2014 will be equally grim. Even then I suspect the true number of active but unresolved SCs is much higher as there appears to be a reluctance to log them on JPA. I am aware of cases that have been open for over 3 years before someone actually got around to recording them! This could be avoided if the subject was allowed to annotate the SC on their own JPA account, but clearly this level of transparency is too much for HM Forces and we rely on the single Services to actually log complaints so that their own performance can be monitored. Even when complaints are logged on JPA they are typically entered using the current date, rather than the actual date the complaint was raised at Level 1. The system is rotten to the core and has become an embarrassment to many in the chain of command who genuinely want to see the system work. I do not think a single case has been judicially reviewed either, but with no ombudsman and no effective representation this is hardly a surprise. |
Even then I suspect the true number of active but unresolved SCs is much higher as there appears to be a reluctance to log them on JPA. I am aware of cases that have been open for over 3 years before someone actually got around to recording them! This could be avoided if the subject was allowed to annotate the SC on their own JPA account, but clearly this level of transparency is too much for HM Forces and we rely on the single Services to actually log complaints so that their own performance can be monitored. Even when complaints are logged on JPA they are typically entered using the current date, rather than the actual date the complaint was raised at Level 1. The system is rotten to the core and has become an embarrassment to many in the chain of command who genuinely want to see the system work... My bold. I am very concerned but also surprised if there are delays in recording complaints on JPA on the scale which you appear to suggest. For one thing, how do delays of as much as 3 years in logging the receipt of a complaint relate to the normal 3-month time limit under JSP 831 for the complainant to lodge their complaint in the first place? If what you say is true, I also wonder why more complainants are not themselves drawing attention to the discrepancy, or to the delay itself? It would surely be an open goal for them. And why no-one involved at any stage of the complaint's consideration is pointing out the obvious and glaring discrepancy? Thanks in anticipation of reply. As some will know I have been involved in calls for a real service complaints ombudsman, and I am no defender of faults in the present system, but I cannot act on criticisms unless I am confident that they are factually justified. |
baffman - I'll drop you a PM.
|
Nicola Williams appointed.
Nicola Williams is appointed as Service Complaints Commissioner - News from Parliament - UK Parliament |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.