| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ingram: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the law of administration for the state of Iraq for the transitional period, which has been adopted, refers to the setting up of a national commission for human rights in accordance with the Paris principles issued by the
13 May 2004 : Column 521
United Nations, and that the commission should include an office of ombudsman to inquire into complaints? If that is the procedure to be established once there is a transitional Government or in the period leading up to that in the near future, should we not have been doing something like that ourselves, in order to set the procedures in motion for the future?
Mr. Ingram: Instinctively, I would say no to that, although I notice other hon. Members are nodding in agreement. The implication that can be taken from the question is that there is so much wrongdoing, and potential for so much wrongdoing, that we need some form of independent scrutiny of Her Majesty's armed forces. Our people operate under military and UK domestic law. We have an open and democratic structure; Ministers are answerable for the armed forces and have to answer accordingly to this House. The example that my hon. Friend used has been considered in relation to another matter with which I will deal. I will not touch on the specifics, but I will refer briefly to it later because it relates to some of these issues. I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance later to raise that suggestion.
Inevitably, as we make progress, there will be those who oppose us and the transfer of power to an elected, representative Government—Saddam loyalists, terrorists and others intent on violence for personal gain. These are the thugs who desecrate society. The coalition is committed to helping the Iraqi people to ensure that their prospects are not held hostage. Of course, the UK will play its part.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
I turn now to the issue of events at Deepcut barracks. As hon. Members are well aware, soldiers died at Deepcut as a result of gunshot wounds between 1995 and 2002: Private Sean Benton, Private Cheryl James, Private Geoff Gray and Private James Collinson. Each of the deaths was a tragedy. I offer my sincere sympathies to their families and friends.
I am sorry that official business in Afghanistan kept me from attending the Adjournment debate on this important subject that was secured by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on 27 April. However, I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who accepted that, in some respects, the families had not been looked after to the high standards that we now expect. I have met two of the four families involved and I have listened carefully to what they have had to say.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con):
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has moved on to a different subject but he referred earlier to a dossier from Amnesty International. Page 441 of "Erskine May" suggests that a Minister of
13 May 2004 : Column 522
the Crown may not cite a document without placing it upon the Table of the House. Will the Minister indicate whether he intends to do that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The document is not a state paper, so the Minister may not be required to do so. Obviously if he wishes to do so, it is entirely up to him.
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. "Erskine May" says that
"it has been accepted that a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest."
The Minister offered to read it out. Perhaps he will agree to do as "Erskine May" would suggest.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My ruling was that, as it was not a state paper, it was entirely up to the Minister whether he chose to do so.
Mr. Ingram: I am dealing with the deaths of four young people, and what do we get? We get a point of order from Opposition Front Benchers. Families are outside listening, but the hon. Gentleman is interested only in procedural wrangling from the Dispatch Box. I will deal as best I can with that matter after the debate, but the hon. Gentleman shames his party in what he seeks to do. [Interruption.] If he listened to what I was saying about Deepcut instead of shouting, he might regain some dignity.
I had hoped to be able to respond formally today to Surrey police's fifth report into issues arising from the tragic deaths at the Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, but right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that it would not be appropriate to do so, given the other serious matters that we have had to address today. That is not to say that those deaths are not a serious matter; they are. I therefore intend to return to the issue at an early date. I feel I owe it to the families to ensure that the matter receives the prominence and public scrutiny it deserves. [Interruption.] I hear another quip from the Opposition Front Bench. I hoped that I had explained myself to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). I said that I was not going to refer to the matter in detail, but would mention it in passing. If that has been misunderstood or if I have not explained myself properly, I apologise to him. But I suggest that he reconsider what I said to him instead of sitting and interjecting while we discuss an important matter. He can intervene if he wishes.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD):
I thank the Minister for his clarification of how he intends to handle the very serious question of the four deaths at Deepcut. Does he accept my view, and that of the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), that it is better to handle such an important matter separately from the debate today? Will he accept my gratitude for the fact that the Secretary of State has now written a letter of apology to Des and Doreen James about the poor treatment they received at the time? Finally, will he assure me that the Government have not at this stage ruled out the prospect of a full, independent public inquiry? Will he
13 May 2004 : Column 523
assure me that they are at least considering the benefits of such an inquiry, which, as we all know, is what the parents would request?
Mr. Ingram: I do not want to enter the debate because, by indicating my thought processes, we would begin to deal with the way in which I would have reported today to the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have met two of the families and may meet another one. If that gives me further matters to think about, this extra time may assist in the process. I want to give the matter due prominence and proper public scrutiny because it is right for the families. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
As Minister of State with responsibility for the armed forces, it is my privilege to spend time with our forces in the field and to witness at first hand their endeavours, tribulations and successes. Despite the formidable challenges that our people have endured over the past year and the corrosive effect of the media, they remain in good heart. We owe them and the civilians who work alongside them a great debt.
The global security climate today is complicated, uncertain and challenging. Both now and in the future, we will need flexible, agile and responsive armed forces. They will need to be interoperable with our allies and coalition partners. They must also be able to operate in fluid, concurrent operations. We will also need to maintain the ability to deploy on large-scale operations when the need arises.
That means that we will continue to need our people to be of the highest quality. We accordingly need to have in place the policies to attract and retain high-calibre people and to support them and their families throughout their careers in the armed forces. We will also need to provide them with the training and education to fit them for their role and prepare them for their subsequent careers when they leave.We should never forget that people are the key component of capability, and we must look after them. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us lessons.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): As the Minister is aware, a number of servicemen and women from the Vale of York have served in Iraq and are currently still in situ. How has he addressed the problem of their morale and the concern of the families who will be separated from them for some considerable time, against the background of his earlier comments?
Mr. Ingram: That is an issue that we have to address; obviously, it does not rest only with Ministers. We have a valuable role to play, which is why my ministerial colleagues and I visit as often as we can the various areas in which we are involved, to hear what our people have to say. We pick up issues about morale, and I know just how angry our forces are about the allegations that have appeared in the Daily Mirror. I hope that I have expressed my anger on their behalf, but it is probably a very low level of anger compared with what they feel. We must make sure that we stand by them and speak for them. All the criticisms that some people, even in this House, are prepared to level at our forces should be expressed with great caution, as they do damage.
Our lessons learned process and the reports by the National Audit Office and the Select Committee on Defence have been very useful in helping us to recognise
13 May 2004 : Column 524
where we must improve. We consulted widely during a review of the way in which we dealt with the bereaved. In particular, we listened carefully to what the widows associations told us. We have concluded that we need simpler practices in many areas, including repatriation and casualty reporting. Changes are in hand, and we are keeping this whole area under constant review. We have also reviewed the operational welfare package for our personnel. As a result, we have introduced a family element to the package and are now providing welfare communications for early entry and manoeuvre forces.
There have been wider lessons as well. The Department fully acknowledges that there were shortages of certain items of personal equipment during Operation Telic and that that was bad for morale. The key difficulty was our inability to track assets once they were delivered to theatre. For example, although some 38,000 sets of enhanced combat body armour were sent to Iraq, which was sufficient to equip those who needed it, not all troops received the ECBA before the commencement of hostilities. A package of improvements for logistics material management has been introduced to provide incremental improvements to logistic tracking and visibility.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |