Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what definition they use for "family members" in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The full definition of ‘relevant family members’ for the purposes of this Bill will be included in secondary legislation. This is being done to mirror the approach taken elsewhere in legislation relating to the Armed Forces.
A draft of the definition of ‘relevant family members’ will be shared with Peers as part of Committee Stage in the House of Lords, scheduled for 19, 24 and 26 March 2025.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the value of the Defence Gateway in enabling communication with and the work of the active and strategic reserve.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Defence Gateway remains a valued digital portal which enables effective communication, information sharing, and system access to users across the Defence community. Work to address its contracting is underway, due to commercial sensitivities I am unable to disclose further detail at this time.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to extend or replace the contract for the Defence Gateway.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Defence Gateway remains a valued digital portal which enables effective communication, information sharing, and system access to users across the Defence community. Work to address its contracting is underway, due to commercial sensitivities I am unable to disclose further detail at this time.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what conditions (1) regular members of the British Army, (2) members of the Army Reserve, (3) members of the Regular Reserve, (4) members of the recall reserve, and (5) civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence are subject to under service law; and what conditions immediate family members of each of these groups are subject to under service law.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Armed Forces Act 2006 (AFA 06) sets out the conditions under which different categories of individuals are subject to service law. Section 367 of the Act sets out the conditions for (1) Regular members, (2) members of the Army Reserve and (3) members of the Regular Reserve as follows:
(1) Every member of the regular forces is subject to service law at all times.
(2) Every member of the reserve forces is subject to service law while—
(a) in permanent service on call-out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c. 9) or the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c. 14) or under any other call-out obligation of an officer;
(b) in home defence service on call-out under section 22 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980;
(c) in full-time service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;
(d) undertaking any training or duty (whether or not in pursuance of an obligation); or
(e) serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.
Individuals liable to recall (4) are not members of a reserve force under the Act and would only be subject to service law if they were recalled.
Civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence and immediate family members (if they are civilians) (5) would not be subject to service law under the AFA 06. In certain circumstances they could be subject to service discipline under Section 370 of AFA 06 and these circumstances are set out in Schedule 15 of the Act, such as when they are on an HM aircraft in flight or on a HM ship afloat or they are living or staying with someone who is subject to service law outside the UK.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government which government departments currently employ people on zero-hour contracts.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The number of (a) civil servants and (b) contractors employed on zero hour contracts is not held centrally by the Cabinet Office.
Zero hours contracts are not the normal practice or a recommended approach within the Civil Service. Departments may use them in very limited circumstances to help meet exceptional or fluctuating demands on the business.
The flexibility offered by zero hours contracts, zero hour arrangements and low hour contracts can benefit both workers and employers, but without proper safeguards this flexibility can become one-sided, with workers bearing all the financial risk. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill will end one-sided flexibility, ensuring that jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability so workers can better plan their lives and finances. We will consult extensively on the implementation of the legislation to ensure it works for workers and employers alike, and anticipate this meaning the majority of reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026. Government understands that adjusting to these new reforms will take time and is committed to ensuring that all stakeholders receive appropriate time to prepare for these changes ahead of their commencement.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Coaker on 14 February (HL4757), what assessment the Service Complaints Ombudsman has made, if any, of (1) the average to time required to process a service complaint, and (2) how many different transfers between individuals a single complaint may pass.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
Statistics regarding the timeliness and average time taken to close a Service Complaint can be found in the annual statistical tables published by the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF). The tables can be round below.
Whilst the SCOAF has not made a specific assessment on the transfers that take place between individuals during the course of a Service Complaint, the implementation of a new Service Complaints Case Management System and the introduction of regular workshops between the Services and the SCOAF will ensure that working practices are standardised.
Service Complaints Ombudsman For the Armed Forces Annual Statistical Tables
Table 1.13a: Average¹ time taken² to complete³ ⁴ ⁵ an investigation, | |||||||||
by case type and year closed, 2018-2023 | |||||||||
Year | Admissibility Decision | ADM_RevChk | Undue Delay | DEL_RevChk | Maladministration | MAL_RevChk | Substance | SUB_RevChk | |
2018⁴ | 6.1 | ʳ | 5.7 | ʳ | 60 | ʳ | 58 | ʳ | |
2019⁵ | 3.7 | ʳ | 3.7 | ʳ | 78 | ʳ | 75 | ʳ | |
2020⁵ | 3.4 | ʳ | 3.7 | ʳ | 81 | ʳ | 82 | ʳ | |
2021⁵ | 3.8 | ʳ | 4.2 | ʳ | 52 | 52 | |||
2022⁵ | 3.9 | ʳ | 4.1 | ʳ | 34 | 34 | |||
2023⁵ | 3.2 |
| 3.5 |
| 28 |
| 28 |
| |
% annual change 2023 | -18% |
| -15% |
| -18% |
| -18% |
| |
ʳ revised from Annual Statistical Tables 2022 | |||||||||
1 Mean. | |||||||||
2 Number of weeks. | |||||||||
3 Includes the time an investigation is delayed by when it is unallocated to an investigator. | |||||||||
4 Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review. | |||||||||
5 Excludes investigation applications declined at triage. | |||||||||
Source: SCOAF casework | |||||||||
Table 1.13b: Average¹ time² a caseworker had spent on a (completed) investigation³ ⁴ ⁵ | |||||||||
by case type and year closed, 2018-2023 | |||||||||
Year | Admissibility Decision | ADM_RevChk | Undue Delay | DEL_RevChk | Maladministration | MAL_RevChk | Substance | SUB_RevChk | |
2018³ | 3.7 | 3.4 | 56 | 54 | |||||
2019⁴ | 2.7 | 2.7 | 39 | 33 | |||||
2020⁴ | 2.5 | 2.9 | 25 | 24 | |||||
2021⁴ | 2.6 | 3.2 | 20 | 20 | |||||
2022⁴ | 2.5 | 2.7 | 17 | 17 | |||||
2023⁴ | 2.1 | 2.6 | 14 | 14 | |||||
% annual change 2023 | -16% |
| -4% |
| -18% |
| -18% |
| |
1 Mean. | |||||||||
2 Number of weeks. | |||||||||
3 Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review. | |||||||||
4 Excludes investigation applications declined at triage. | |||||||||
Source: SCOAF casework | |||||||||
Table 1.13c: Average¹ time² a completed investigation³ ⁴ ⁵ | |||||||||
had spent unallocated to caseworker, by case type and year of closure, 2018-2023 | |||||||||
Year | Admissibility Decision | ADM_RevChk | Undue Delay | DEL_RevChk | Maladministration | MAL_RevChk | Substance | SUB_RevChk | |
2018³ | 2.4 | 2.3 | 4 | 4 | |||||
2019⁴ | 1.0 | 1.0 | 39 | 42 | |||||
2020⁴ | 0.9 | 0.8 | 57 | 58 | |||||
2021⁴ | 1.2 | 1.0 | 32 | 32 | |||||
2022⁴ | 1.4 | 1.4 | 16 | 17 | |||||
2023⁴ | 1.2 |
| 1.0 |
| 14 |
| 14 |
| |
% annual change 2023 | -14% |
| -29% |
| -13% |
| -18% |
| |
1 Mean. | |||||||||
2 Number of weeks. | |||||||||
3 Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review. | |||||||||
4 Excludes investigation applications declined at triage. | |||||||||
Source: SCOAF casework | |||||||||
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government how long, on average, it takes (1) the Army, (2) the Royal Navy, (3) the Royal Air Force, and (4) Strategic Command, to process a service complaint; and what estimate they have made of the cost of each complaint.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
This information is available in the public domain. The average time required to process a Service Complaint is contained within the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Annual Report statistics which are available at the following link: https://www.scoaf.org.uk/annual-statisticals-tables.
The information you have requested on the average time required to process a Service Complaint is shown in Annex A, below.
No information is held about the cost of each complaint. This information is not routinely recorded and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Annex A
Average¹ time taken² to close a Service Complaint, by Service and complaint category, 2023 | |||||
Service | Career management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other | All closed Service Complaints |
Royal Navy* | 20 | 37 | 22 | 23 | 23 |
Army | 18 | 34 | 30 | 24 | 24 |
RAF | 16 | 22 | 14 | 19 | 18 |
Tri-Service | 18 | 29 | 20 | 22 | 22 |
* includes Royal Marines | |||||
1 Median. | |||||
2 Time taken is measured in weeks. | |||||
| |||||
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many service complaints have been received by (1) the Army, (2) the Royal Navy, (3) the Royal Air Force, and (4) Strategic Command, in each of the last five years; and of those, how many have not been upheld.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
Information regarding how many Service Complaints have been received, and how many have not been upheld, is publicly available and can be found in the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Annual Report statistics available at the following link: https://www.scoaf.org.uk/annual-statisticals-tables. Please note that the most recent year for which information is currently available is 2023.
The data you have requested is shown in Annex A, below, by Service. Please note that Complaints are recorded by Service and not Command and therefore no data is available for Strategic Command.
ANNEX A Number of Royal Navy Service Complaints*, by complaint category, 2019 - 2023 | |||||
Year | Career management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination1 | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other1 | All complaint categories |
2019 | 69 | 24 | 32 | 37 | 162 |
2020 | 49 | 37 | 22 | 37 | 145 |
2021 | 56 | 36 | 21 | 36 | 149 |
2022 | 77 | 59 | 20 | 42 | 198 |
2023 | 95 | 55 | 43 | 90 | 283 |
% annual growth | 23% | -7% | 115% | 114% | 43% |
* including Royal Marine Service Complaints | |||||
1 Prior to 2022, victimisation Service Complaints were recorded under category "Other", rather than under "Bullying, harassment or discrimination" | |||||
Source: Tri-Service Joint Personnel Administrative System |
Number of Army Service Complaints, by complaint category, 2019 - 2023 | |||||
Year | Career management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination1 | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other1 | All complaint categories |
2019 | 171 | 131 | 55 | 100 | 457 |
2020 | 179 | 130 | 46 | 76 | 431 |
2021 | 129 | 135 | 27 | 76 | 367 |
2022 | 191 | 128 | 39 | 124 | 482 |
2023 | 204 | 147 | 50 | 213 | 614 |
% annual growth | 7% | 15% | 28% | 72% | 27% |
1 Prior to 2022, victimisation Service Complaints were recorded under category "Other", rather than under "Bullying, harassment or discrimination" | |||||
Source: Tri-Service Joint Personnel Administrative System |
Number of RAF Service Complaints, by complaint category, 2019 - 2023 | |||||
Year | Career Management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination1 | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other1 | All complaint categories |
2019 | 44 | 39 | 27 | 37 | 147 |
2020 | 63 | 31 | 24 | 35 | 153 |
2021 | 73 | 61 | 36 | 63 | 233 |
2022 | 96 | 40 | 25 | 94 | 255 |
2023 | 129 | 60 | 53 | 86 | 328 |
% annual growth | 34% | 50% | 112% | -9% | 29% |
1 Prior to 2022, victimisation Service Complaints were recorded under category "Other", rather than under "Bullying, harassment or discrimination" | |||||
Source: Tri-Service Joint Personnel Administrative System |
Number of Royal Navy* closed Service Complaints, by outcome and complaint category, 2023 | |||||
Outcome | Career management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other | All closed Service Complaints |
Complaint fully/partially upheld | 27 | 25 | 13 | 28 | 93 |
Complaint not upheld | 36 | 19 | 9 | 27 | 91 |
Other outcome | 36 | 14 | 12 | 21 | 83 |
Total | 99 | 58 | 34 | 76 | 267 |
% fully/partially upheld in favour of complainant | 27% | 43% | 38% | 37% | 35% |
% not upheld | 36% | 33% | 26% | 36% | 34% |
% other outcome | 36% | 24% | 35% | 28% | 31% |
* includes Royal Marines | |||||
Source: Tri-Service Joint Personnel Administrative System |
Number of Army closed Service Complaints, by outcome and complaint category, 2023 | |||||
Outcome | Career management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other | All closed Service Complaints |
Complaint fully/partially upheld | 104 | 70 | 29 | 75 | 278 |
Complaint not upheld | 50 | 61 | 11 | 47 | 169 |
Other outcome | 79 | 42 | 14 | 46 | 181 |
Total | 233 | 173 | 54 | 168 | 628 |
% fully/partially upheld in favour of complainant | 45% | 40% | 54% | 45% | 44% |
% not upheld | 21% | 35% | 20% | 28% | 27% |
% other outcome | 34% | 24% | 26% | 27% | 29% |
Source: Tri-Service Joint Personnel Administrative System |
Number of RAF closed Service Complaints, by outcome and complaint category, 2023 | |||||
Outcome | Career management | Bullying, harassment or discrimination | Pay, pensions and allowances | Other | All closed Service Complaints |
Complaint fully/partially upheld | 28 | 17 | 17 | 24 | 86 |
Complaint not upheld | 62 | 22 | 13 | 29 | 126 |
Other outcome | 20 | 19 | 13 | 23 | 75 |
Total | 110 | 58 | 43 | 76 | 287 |
% fully/partially upheld in favour of complainant | 25% | 29% | 40% | 32% | 30% |
% not upheld | 56% | 38% | 30% | 38% | 44% |
% other outcome | 18% | 33% | 30% | 30% | 26% |
Source: Tri-Service Joint Personnel Administrative System |
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many extra posts have been recruited to process service complaints under Volunteer ex-Regular Reserve contracts or other reservist terms and condition of service by (1) the Army, (2) the Royal Navy, (3) the Royal Air Force, and (4) Strategic Command, in each of the last five years.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The following information details how many extra reservist posts have been recruited by the single Services in each year in order to process Service Complaints. The data has been provided by the three Services, who manage the Service Complaints process. Service Complaints are managed by the single Services, not by Commands, and thus Strategic Command is not included.
Royal Navy
Army
Royal Air Force
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many more service complaints they expect to receive following the enactment of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill and its provision for families to submit such complaints; and what estimate they have made of the budget uplift required to deal with any such increase.
Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
While the Armed Forces Commissioner will absorb the functions of the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, the Bill does not make any substantive changes to the Service Complaints System. Families will not be able to access the Service Complaints system, which is specifically designed for serving personnel. The Bill focuses instead on the additional powers and functions the Commissioner will have to launch and report on investigations into general service welfare matters.
The Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for service families, providing a route for families to raise concerns on matters which could form the topic of a service welfare investigation. The financial implications of establishing and maintaining the office of the Armed Forces Commissioner, with their additional functions, are estimated to be within the range of £4.5 - £5.5m per year. This is only an initial estimate and represents a significant uplift on the annual running costs of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The 2023 expenditure for the Service Complaints Ombudsman was in the region of £1.8m.