---

Army Barracks (Deaths)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Anderson, on this important occasion. This is a serious debate on a serious issue, and I confirm to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence that I am a great admirer of our armed services and the men and women who choose to serve for our defence. I want our Army to be the best in the world and to reflect the democratic values that we cherish. Yet members of the armed forces who protect our rights are entitled to have their rights protected by us. The Army should be a model of best practice and set a benchmark from which others can learn. That is the context for the debate and we need a dialogue on it. We last had an opportunity in Westminster Hall to debate the subject of deaths in Her Majesty's armed forces on 4 February 2003, when the then Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, Kevin McNamara, highlighted the courage and bravery of a number of families campaigning for a public inquiry into deaths in Army barracks. Three years later, those families are still looking for answers and, as the Deepcut and Beyond families group, they have grown in number and strength. Those families were brought together by the tragic loss of children who died when serving the Crown, most of whom had brothers or sisters and some of whom had children of their own. Those soldiers joined the Army full of optimism, believing in the future, and learned to have pride in their regiments. They knew that they might have to fight for their country but they believed in the future. Somehow, something went terribly wrong. Every family has a different story to tell. Whatever the circumstances of an individual death, each family had cause to doubt the explanation given. It did not make sense. Bereaved families did not feel that they had been told the truth, and they did not believe that those responsible for their children's deaths, whether by action or neglect, had been brought to justice or held to account. While the Army establishment closed ranks and denied there was a problem, the press drew the seemingly obvious conclusion that there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth and to allow perpetrators to go unpunished. The Deepcut and Beyond group has provided support and assistance to Army families who have experienced the traumatic and otherwise lonely upheaval of the sudden death of a child. Setting out the public case for a full inquiry, the group has developed a comprehensive agenda for change. The group is calling for civilian oversight to ensure effective investigation of complaints and deaths. It argues for structural involvement of families to ensure that lessons are learned and measures put in place to prevent future deaths. Through Daniel's Trust, bereaved families have been able to work with the independent forces helpline to give confidential advice to young soldiers suffering bullying, and have engaged directly with the officers responsible for fulfilling the duty of care. Inspired by such positive thinking, I am please to report the formation of the all-party group established on 1 February 2006 with the aim of providing a parliamentary focus on non-combat deaths in the armed forces, and to support the Deepcut and Beyond families group in seeking truth, justice and change. Membership of the group reflects genuine all-party backing for the families and extends throughout the United Kingdom. I was proud to be elected chair of the group, with the support of Lord Ashley as secretary and a fine panel of officers, some of whom are in the Chamber today. I am optimistic that we can assist the Government and the Ministry of Defence in rising to the challenge of Deepcut and beyond. I shall pose a number of questions and seek the support of the Minister for a number of propositions. Do we still need a public inquiry? The Minister has previously addressed that issue and is considering his response to the Surrey coroner and the recommendations of the Deepcut review conducted by Nicholas Blake, QC. The Deepcut families, who have lived with the investigation since their children's deaths, are looking in detail at the report and its findings, but the demand for a public inquiry is not going away. At the conclusion of its investigations into the four deaths, Surrey police outlined the case for a broader inquiry that would"““address the sufficiency of the Army's care regime in respect of young soldiers in training at Deepcut and beyond.””" It was Surrey's summary recommendation"““that the Ministry of Defence considers a broader investigation of””," First:"““Whether the risks identified at Deepcut are replicated across the wider””" training establishment"““and how these may relate to the issues of self-harm, suicide and undetermined deaths””;" Secondly:"““How the Army's care regime may be further improved””;" and thirdly:"““How independent oversight might help the Army define and maintain appropriate standards of care for young soldiers.””" At the conclusion of a three-week inquest into the death of James Collinson, the jury returned an open verdict. Exercising his duty to report on matters where action should be taken to prevent the recurrence of fatalities, Her Majesty's coroner wrote to the Secretary of State, stating that"““because of the limited constraints of an inquest, there has to be some way of resolving the unease that there seems to be abroad about Deepcut.””" Expressing his respect for the armed forces, he said that"““they deserve that these matters be addressed thoroughly and independently so that rumour and speculation can be met head on.””" His personal view was that the MOD should take whatever steps necessary to restore public confidence in the recruitment and training of soldiers at Deepcut and elsewhere. He said:"““I personally believe that they should have nothing to fear from an inquiry held in public””." Although Nicholas Blake does not back the families' call for a public inquiry, he argues for Deepcut families to be given complete disclosure of statements collected by Surrey police, as well as the opportunity to put new evidence before a judicial authority that can order fresh inquests. I welcome that proposal, but it does not address the Surrey coroner's view that an inquest will not satisfy the families or meet the public interest requirement for an effective investigation of these or other deaths. As the coroner has told the Secretary of State, his office does not have the expertise, resources or statutory powers needed to conduct such an investigation, so that alone is not the answer. The Minister knows that the problems that give rise to public concern and drive those pressing for an inquiry do not stop at the perimeter fence of Deepcut barracks. Truth, justice and change go together. Each theme constitutes an aspect of the public interest in holding an inquiry. In order to restore public confidence and rebuild the relationship of trust between the Army and public, the Secretary of State should consider the value of an inquiry that fully involves the families of the victims, and that is independent in character, judicial in authority and open to the public. An inquiry should be able to examine and make recommendations concerning all the agencies that need to be involved for the effective investigation of sudden deaths and all bodies that could help prevent them. It is bold; it is joined-up; it is a profoundly democratic solution. I want to clear up a couple of misconceptions. First, it is claimed that the Deepcut and Beyond families want 1,748 deaths to be investigated. As far back as the Adjournment debate in February 2003, Kevin McNamara pleaded with the Minister to provide statistics that would enable the headline figure of 1,748 deaths from non-natural causes between 1990 and 2003 to be broken down so that the scale of the problem could be accurately assessed. Deepcut and Beyond families repeated the point in evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, pointing out that an inquiry would be remiss if it failed to demand full disclosure of such information prior to conducting its own scoping exercise. I hope that the Minister will consider the statistical information available and see whether a breakdown can be given of the presumed causes of death and their locations. Secondly, I want to address the claim that an inquiry into Army deaths would be a disproportionate drain on the public purse. The Victoria Climbié inquiry, headed by Lord Laming, revolutionised our thinking about child protection. It cost £3.8 million. The Macpherson inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence became the authority on institutional racism and changed the face of modern policing. It cost £4.2 million. By comparison, the Army has responded to criticism of its regime for young recruits by investing an additional £43 million in training. Last year alone, it spent £33 million on recruitment advertising. What price can be put on restoring the confidence of mums and dads? What price can be put on justice? The Deepcut and Beyond families group believes that a public inquiry into Army deaths, headed by a senior judge, would provide the best vehicle for achieving truth, justice and lasting change. They believe that such an inquiry would provide the best vehicle for the Government and the Army to work in partnership with families and learn from their experiences. They believe that such an inquiry, sitting in public, would provide the best opportunity to restore confidence in the Army and they urge the Government not to close their mind completely, but to keep the subject under review. The second question that I wish to address is what kind of independent oversight we need. I am delighted that Nicholas Blake QC placed his proposals for independent oversight at the centre of his recommendations. The review proposes introducing a legal requirement that all sudden deaths of Army personnel be referred to a coroner. It also proposes that the Ministry of Defence make funds available so that bereaved families can be advised and legally represented at inquests. Nicholas Blake has stated that failure to implement his proposals in full would shift the public interest towards a judicial inquiry, and the Minister will no doubt pay due regard to that. The Defence Committee has established the case for independent oversight of the armed services, and the Deepcut and Beyond families cogently put their detailed considerations to the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill. Let me, however, give the Minister some reassurances: the armed services have nothing to fear and everything to gain from establishing a robust mechanism for independent oversight. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is recognised as a world leader in terms police accountability, and the chain of command of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been not damaged by the ombudsman's effectiveness but immeasurably strengthened. The armed forces should set their standards of accountability at the level of a world leader. The effective operation of the armed forces does not require oversight with an independent element—it requires independent oversight full stop. The ombudsman or commissioner must be credible and able to operate without jurisdictional obstacles. His or her powers must be based on statutory authority. The commissioner should be a civilian, selected under an independent appointments procedure, who has independent tenure and their own premises outside the military estate. Legislation should guarantee sufficient funding. The oversight commissioner should be able to investigate any complaint referred to them and to initiate their own investigations, retrospectively if necessary, if they have reason to believe that it would be in the public interest to do so. The experience of oversight bodies in other countries suggests that problems with frivolous or vexatious complaints can be quite easily addressed through rules of procedure. The commissioner would not be in competition or conflict with the regular complaints mechanisms established through the chain of command or with other procedures that have been put in place. The oversight commissioner will require sufficient powers so that their staff can operate effectively, including powers to enter barracks, seize documents and tap phones. Obstructing an investigation should be made a criminal offence. The commissioner should make an annual report to the Secretary of State, which should be laid before Parliament. In addition, they should publish research. The commissioner should be able to establish advisory bodies that involve people with particular expertise and skills. The experience of the Deepcut and Beyond families illustrates the value of involving families of service personnel to supplement the sources of information available to the commissioner. An independent families group could, for example, assist in establishing a lay visitor's panel to undertake inspections of barracks and military facilities. I hope that the Minister will take those comments into account when he examines proposals for the introduction of such a commissioner or ombudsman. How should we deal with deaths overseas? The Deepcut and Beyond families group has highlighted the absence of effective investigation when non-combat deaths occur overseas. The Royal Military Police are not seen as independent and lack the skills to conduct an investigation that would satisfy the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is rarely local civilian police involvement and there is no independent pathologist, no forensic expert and no opportunity for family involvement. Although we would expect an oversight commissioner to investigate deaths overseas when called on to do so, Nicholas Blake also looks, correctly, at strengthening existing mechanisms. Compulsory inquests or fatal accident inquiries would assist families in Scotland and Northern Ireland when the discretion of the procurator fiscal or coroner does not seem to have been exercised in the interests of further investigation. Nicholas Blake's proposal to bring the Royal Military Police under the scrutiny of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary would lead naturally to consideration of further issues, such as the provision of adequate resources and the benefits of a human rights training programme in terms of the effective conduct of investigations into sudden and suspicious deaths. Will my hon. Friend therefore look into the manner in which non-combat deaths overseas are investigated? Will he consider meeting representatives of bereaved families to discuss their concerns and potential solutions? Many feel that the initial investigations, which sometimes took place some years ago, were totally inadequate. How far can we go in improving the exercise of the duty of care? Nicholas Blake misses the opportunity to draw a line under the recruitment of under-18s, but he makes several useful recommendations to assist the Army in exercising its duty of care, and I hope that they will be accepted as soon as possible. The Army should promote understanding and respect for human rights at all ranks, and the fundamental principle of human rights should be part of basic training. Let me mention some suggestions made by the families so that the Minister can consider them and reply in due course. First, there should be a mechanism to ensure parents' ongoing involvement in their children's welfare. Secondly, the Army should consider the means by which the Health and Safety Executive's jurisdiction can be extended to cover overseas bases and help protect against accidents. Thirdly, sustained action is needed to address the culture of alcohol abuse in the armed forces. Fourthly, attention needs to be given to shortcomings in the medical care regime and to its relationship with the chain of command, particularly where confidentiality issues arise. Fifthly, the Army should commission an independent study to monitor the experiences of soldiers who go absent without leave or who seek early discharge, with a view to publishing its findings and recommendations. Can we safeguard children and young soldiers at risk? The closed nature of the military establishment, the strict disciplinary regime and the absence of parental oversight make young soldiers particularly vulnerable to the attention of sexual predators. Deepcut and Beyond families point to the conviction in August 2003 of a former lance corporal and serial abuser, Leslie Skinner, who was initially charged with male rape and later convicted of multiple charges of indecent assault. Those offences were committed while he was employed as a non-commissioned officer trainer at Deepcut barracks in 1996 and 1997. Leslie Skinner's history is well known, and several hon. Members want to participate in the debate, so I shall not go into detail. I note, however, that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, currently under consideration in the House of Lords, provides for an effective checking and vetting regime that could result in practical mechanisms for barring individuals from contact with children. It gives substance to the Government's commitment to ensuring that children stay safe, which is one of the five thematic outcomes of ““Every Child Matters””. Although some recruits might fall outside the target group of children and young people aged between nought and 19, it is already recognised that the age range of the at-risk group might extend to 25 years where there are special or additional needs. Will the Minister take the opportunity presented by the Bill to ensure that young recruits are afforded further protection? In a debate in the other place on 19 April, Lord Ashley of Stoke recalled that almost 20 years before, when the Army's reputation was threatened by brutality, bullying and vicious initiation rites, he had proposed that there should be an independent ombudsman. He recalled how he had argued on 2 November 1987 that that would be"““the best way of transforming the Army ethos and of restoring its reputation.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 April 2006; Vol. 680, c. 1116.]" Lord Ashley explained that the then Minister had responded to such calls with the by now familiar message that bullying is a serious offence, that it forms no part of proper service life and that the Government are clear that it cannot be tolerated. Surrey police, the Surrey coroner, Nicholas Blake and all who have had cause to look into the regime of ““horrendous bullying””, ““foul abuse”” and ““sexual harassment”” at Deepcut barracks have expressed shock that the situation was allowed to persist for so long. The warning bells have been sounded. Proposals have been made. Now is the time for action. The Armed Forces Bill provides a timely legislative opening to introduce a series of reforms demonstrating a commitment to change that will support the armed forces. In spite of all the concerns that I have raised and those that I have read about, our armed forces do us proud. They go abroad in our defence and look after our interests. Now is the time for us to look after their interests as well.