---

Deepcut Barracks

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and recognise his concern. We have committed to responding to the recommendations, including the ones that he mentioned, within months—we intend to do so within two months. It is important that, when we respond to these matters of deep importance, we have confidence that the implementation plans that we have put in place will be effective. I am therefore sure that the House will recognise our need to ensure that we respond in a way that can clearly demonstrate that the implementation is effective, given that many of the issues are not just matters of principle but of resourcing. The principal reason for our current position—boards of inquiry are not open to the public, the press or family members unless they are called as witnesses—is that a public hearing or one at which family members were entitled to be present, could inhibit the provision of full and frank evidence from witnesses and therefore prevent the board of inquiry achieving its primary aims: to learn lessons and prevent any similar incidents. A board of inquiry is not an inquest and cannot serve the same purpose. However, as Mr Blake has made recommendations concerning boards of inquiry, we will of course examine them and respond fully in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, asked whether the announcement today on the agencies was related to a response to Deepcut. I understand that it is not; it is a separate matter, not related to any response to the recommendations of the Blake review. As I said on 29 March, the review, alongside the other inquiries and inquests into the deaths at Deepcut, sets out with great clarity the circumstances of the four deaths and the context in which they occurred. We now need to move on and take forward the changes required. We welcome the opportunity to address Mr Blake’s recommendations. I will write to noble Lords if I have failed to cover any points raised in the debate.