---

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend raises two important issues. He raises first the ALI's role and implies that it will be interested only in the training modules that young people will undertake. That is not the case. It will look at care and welfare aspects, too. It is not for me to direct the ALI on how to do that—my role is only to establish the mechanism by which it can be done—but I am sure that it will approach it on the basis that, for people to be best trained, they need to have a roundness of environment. Again, those in the armed forces are in unique circumstances. That is why they will bring in specialists to assist them in their understanding of all that.

My hon. Friend is right about the better treatment of families. We have recognised that the Deepcut families were not well treated. We cannot rewrite history but it sits heavy on us that those things happened and that certain things were said that should not have been said. What I have tried to do in terms of this is to meet with the families. We have learned in the recent past—this is
 
24 May 2004 : Column 1318
 
the approach that we now have—that we need to have a better and quicker system of communicating with families and a more sensitive way of dealing with them and that we need to give them the best support we can. They have given their loved ones into our care and we have a duty of care to them as well.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey) (LD): As another supporter of the armed services, may I say that people will be grateful for the Minister's constructive suggestions, but they have not gone any way to answering the questions about the recent past? Two of the three inquests have returned an open verdict. I would be grateful if he considered looking over the history of the Stephen Lawrence case, where the Home Office resisted an inquiry, saying that there was a prosecution option and an inquest option, but eventually gave in and there was great benefit from the public inquiry. In the Marchioness case, the responsible Department resisted an inquiry, saying that there was an inquest option and a prosecution option but gave in, to the great benefit of everyone The case and demand for the inquiry will not go away until the families have their chance in public to put the questions that they want to put and those responsible have the obligation in public to answer those questions.

Mr. Ingram: I recognise that, but we should not take one given set of circumstances and say that, when something goes wrong anywhere within government, we should automatically proceed to a public inquiry. I think that we are moving inexorably towards that—people are arguing for that. It has been reported to me that, in the "Today" programme this morning, there were three items relating to the MOD and what was the request on each of those issues? It was for a public inquiry.

We cannot run the Government on the basis of public inquiries. They may be good for lawyers, but they are not for the good governance of this country.

I remind the hon. Gentleman about the Surrey police report. He will have read it and know how exhaustive it is. He will also know that the evidence gathered is not for Ministers. I have not seen the evidence; it is a matter for due process. If a coroner has decided that one case is still to be determined through an inquest, let us wait and see what comes out of it. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it may not go away may be right, but he may be wrong. It may, in that particular case, be resolved.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): The case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) raises an important question: how can we enable troops facing abuse from their colleagues or superiors to become whistleblowers to the adult learning inspectorate? Will the process be restricted to training? In the past, I have had to put anonymous complaints to the Minister because my constituents did not want their details revealed. I realise that, when complaints are anonymous, it makes it more difficult to do anything about them. It is easier for my right hon. Friend to deal with cases when he knows what the information is, where it applies and to whom it
 
24 May 2004 : Column 1319
 
relates. It is important for complaints to be followed up and for troops to be assured that their complaints will be dealt with independently.

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend misses a fundamental point. The adult learning inspectorate is not the only organisation that will be doing this and it has a much bigger remit in the day-to-day care of individual trainees. In each and every establishment, young people will have access to welfare services—to the chaplaincy and other ports of call—and be able to report any matters that concern them.

I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we have zero tolerance towards bullying and harassment, but I must make the point that that will not stop bullying. It will not stop it in the Army, any more than it will stop it in the BBC, the health service or other walks of life. Bullying goes on out there; what we must do is put in place mechanisms that encourage people confidently to raise their concerns and take them forward. My hon. Friend mentioned the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), but I have already answered his question. We will find out exactly what happened there. If those events did occur as recounted, they are unacceptable.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South) (LD): Can the Minister give an assurance that the ALI will be given every support and resource to enable servicemen and women who have left the armed services because of problems that they experienced during their recruitment to provide evidence. It should be done through a confidential phone line or another process whereby they are actively encouraged to present their experience.

I echo the views of many hon. Members in expressing my disappointment about the fact that a public inquiry is not being established. It was apparent throughout the Deepcut activities that a duty of care applied to the armed forces in respect of those young people and their parents—and they failed miserably to exercise that duty. Is the Minister certain that what happened will never occur again—that a 17-year-old who might later be found to have a psychological disorder that made him
 
24 May 2004 : Column 1320
 
unsuitable for work in the armed forces will not be given a loaded weapon with live ammunition and sent out on guard duty alone?

Mr. Ingram: The ALI will be given every support and resource. The screening of trainees is one of the issues that are being considered. However, it is not an exact science and that applies to all walks of life—even, I would suggest, in this place. It is not easy to identify people who cannot take stress and who may react in a particular way under pressure or because of other factors. We cannot screen out everyone through those processes. The hon. Gentleman is asking for the impossible.

In terms of singleton guard duty, that will not be the case for young 17-year-olds.

Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): I associate myself with the remarks made about Iraq and with the Minister's comments—and the dignified response of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—about the tragic events at Deepcut.

How will the Minister ensure that efforts to improve the care of young men and women at a very vulnerable stage in their career do not impact on the Army's ability to deliver relevant and tough training—precisely the sort of training that attracts thousands of people to the armed forces and, critically, saves lives on operations afterwards?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has an intimate knowledge of these matters. He is right that a fine balance must be struck. We cannot run the armed forces in a politically correct way, to use the jargon. The situation is unique, because we put people in harm's way and expect them to kill on our behalf. We have to train them in very particular ways. I am not an expert in that, but I have every confidence in those who perform that role on our behalf. I repeat that many thousands of the young people who go through the training are of the highest quality. Some may not make it in life, but many have been given opportunities that they would never have thought of had they not joined the armed forces. I pay tribute to all that is done within the training regimes, to all the commanding officers, the instructors and everyone involved in the process.
 
24 May 2004 : Column 1319
 

 
24 May 2004 : Column 1321
 

Points of Order

4.25 pm

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the Daily Mail has a report under the title "Watchdog to combat the Army bullying", which accurately predicted the content of today's statement. One of the good things about the campaign as a whole has been the trust among parents, MPs and the Department in maintaining confidentiality, so that disturbs me. May I ask, through you, that the Minister—I do not believe that he leaked or spoke to the press himself—ensures that there is no prospect of any such leak from those in the know, because wherever we stand on the specifics of the case, such leaks are detrimental to the overall spirit of trust that we have in general enjoyed among all the parties?

---