---

Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 66: Before Clause 338, insert the following new clause- ““SERVICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER (1) There shall be a Service Complaints Commissioner (““The Commissioner””). (2) Schedule (Service Complaints Commissioner) makes further provision about the Commissioner.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I gave notice to the Minister that I would wish to return to the detail of the Service Complaints Commissioner once we had had time to absorb the amendments, which came very late in Committee. We tabled amendments at that stage but we are now in a complex mix of the Government’s proposals and the question of how we fill out some of the detail. I am most grateful for the Minister’s letter of 24 October, which gave some further information. But, as he said in that letter: "““This is very much work in progress and will continue to be developed in consultation with the single Services and others over the coming months””." Time, of course, is very short as regards getting this provision into the Bill in a satisfactory structure. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us who are the others to be consulted, as mentioned in his letter, apart from the Children’s Commissioner. A question arises over whether the roles of the Children’s Commissioner and the Service Complaints Commissioner are exactly parallel. However, I am aware that the Ministry of Defence has a history of thinking of members of the Armed Forces as children needing appropriate discipline and needing to be kept in order. The Minister’s letter outlines a timescale for implementation—which, again, is helpful—with selection beginning next year for appointment by the end of 2007. It would be useful to have in the Bill a schedule of what is required for a person to be a service complaints commissioner. That is what my amendment attempts to do. As I said, it has been tabled in some haste because the Government’s amendment came late and we had little time in which to respond. It is important that this new post should be defined in the right direction. Specifically, can the Minister tell us whether it will meet all the requirements of the Blake report, which considered the need for such a commissioner? For example, paragraph 12.101(iii) of the report states: "““In an important case, the Commissioner should be able to institute legal proceedings to set aside legally flawed decisions not to prosecute””." Is that the sort of commissioner that the Minister is proposing? I beg to move.