Proceeding contribution from Liam Fox (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 June 2006. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Deepcut Review.
Deepcut Review
I am sure that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that we wish profoundly that the tragic deaths of four young people had not made this report necessary, but I am grateful to the Minister for his response and his courtesy in making the statement available to us in advance. As I said the last time that we discussed this subject, the social trends in our country today mean that an increasing number of recruits come from broken family backgrounds, have poor academic achievements and are often deficit in basic skills. The fact that the Army can transform them into world class soldiers is something of which we should all be justly proud. We also need to remember that the cases that we are discussing today are very much the exceptions, and I am sure that the Minister would want to underline that. Let us remind ourselves of some of the basic facts of this tragedy. Of the four young victims, two had previous, clearly recorded episodes of self-harm in their medical notes prior to recruitment. One of the others had clearly documented episodes of self-harm while in the Army. Another was about to be forced to leave the Army against his will. These vulnerable individuals were not only given loaded guns, but put on solitary guard duty in remote locations. They were given both means and opportunity and, as the Minister said, the Government accept that that represented a failure in duty of care. The Blake report found that there was bullying, but that it was by no means endemic nor clearly linked to any of the four deaths. However, it also said that there were too few non-commissioned officers to supervise training properly—a fact that the Army had pointed out already. What can we learn from the Government’s response to the report, and how can we ensure that the tragedies cannot be repeated? To begin with, we must make sure that there is a comprehensive system for assessing a recruit’s medical history. That means more than merely having sight of medical notes: there must be a proper investigation into the medical history of all recruits. Will the Minister confirm that that has been happening in all cases since 2004? What about the ratio of NCOs to recruits? The 2002 report by the Deputy Adjutant-General found that the level of supervision"““was wholly inadequate and greatly magnified the level of risk.””" What has been done to improve that ratio? The Minister spoke about phase 2 training, but the problem went beyond supervision. The indeterminate length of that training was a factor that exacerbated the unhappiness of many recruits, so what has been done to ameliorate that? The Minister was right to talk about the inquests system, but merely amending the forthcoming Bill is not good enough. At present, 59 inquests into the deaths of servicemen killed in Iraq remain outstanding. There needs to be a change in how the system is operated or funded. I know that the Secretary of State is looking at that, and I hope that the Minister will say where the Government have got to in respect of dealing with the backlog and with the current failures in the inquests system. I am pleased that the Government have not caved in to the arguments for introducing a full-blown ombudsman, and that the Minister said that the chain of command’s primary responsibility for welfare should not be undermined. The Opposition completely agree, but how will the relationship between commissioner and commander work in practice? What will the interface be? Who will select the commissioner, and according to what criteria? What sort of background will the commissioner have? We would much prefer it if he had a military background, and therefore an understanding of the pressures in the chain of command. I am grateful to the Government for their response. We shall look constructively and in detail at what they propose. We need a training system that is nurturing and without harassment or bullying, yet robust enough to prepare youngsters for the sort of tasks that they face in the brutal realities of Iraq or Afghanistan. We want the Government to ensure that there is a duty of care, but all hon. Members are fully aware that, in the end, we are training soldiers.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 447 c640-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Death Army Coroners Families Misconduct Monitoring Military police Military bases Public inquiries Training Young people Suicide Government responses Deepcut Barracks Benton, Sean Gray, Geoff James, Cheryl Deepcut Review
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:13:17 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329643
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329643
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329643