Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
26 MAY 2004
LIEUTENANT GENERAL
ANTHONY PALMER,
REAR ADMIRAL
SIMON GOODALL,
COLONEL DAVID
ECCLES AND
MR JULIAN
MILLER
Q100 Mr Roy: What does he do if the mother
or father phones someone and says they have a problem because
their son is coming home at the weekend and this young man they
sent to you at 18 is changing and he is becoming very inward-looking
and he has told them he is being bullied? What then happens once
that phone call is made? Who does that person take it to? Do they
go to the person who is doing the bullying, do they go above it?
General Palmer: The first thing,
if there is an allegation of bullying, is that there would be
an investigation by the Special Investigation Branch. That is
absolutely standard. If there is an allegation of that which comes
in from a parent, then there would be an independent investigation.
Q101 Mr Roy: Presumably the person against
whom the allegation is made then knows straightaway that allegation
has been made.
General Palmer: Well, but—
Q102 Mr Roy: Just yes or no.
General Palmer: Then everybody
else will know that if anything happens to the person who has
made the allegation—
Q103 Mr Roy: It is very, very important.
I have constituents who were let down and within seven days their
son was dead. If that allegation had been made now against a corporal
or a sergeant, or indeed against another colleague, because there
was also an allegation in this case, and then you subsequently
found out that the other colleague was actually on bail for attempted
murder when this bullying was going on, what would happen? Tell
me what would happen to that person against whom the allegation
of bullying had been made? Would he be separated from that chain
of command to that soldier?
Rear Admiral Goodall: May I just
interject one point? When I took the first MPs' visits around
the training estate we went down to Lympstone. This is just an
example. On that day we were greeted by the CO, who said that
he was briefing us on training but he had just had to announce
that today he had suspended a training team. He had to make a
fine judgment, because of the visit, but he came straight out
and said he had had allegations of bullying, he had a short investigation
to see whether these were founded, unfounded and so forth and
he found there was sufficient evidence on short exposure to take
that training team out of the system and review this completely.
We take that team out. It is not just a case of the individual
it is the team and then a further investigation.
Q104 Mr Roy: That is done within what
period?
Rear Admiral Goodall: I shall
have to check the facts but my belief is that on that particular
occasion it was done within 48 hours.
Q105 Mr Roy: Lastly, on a point I really
need to get cleared up, if Jim and Helen Mckenna went through
the same trauma now that they went through eight or nine years
ago, would someone from that regiment turn up at a fatal accident
inquiry into the death of their son?
Colonel Eccles: We have learned
an awful lot over the last few years and I think it is absolutely
fair to say that we recognise that on occasions in the past we
have been less than supportive and we should have done better.
We are resolved, absolutely determined, to do better in the future.
I cannot guarantee that it will always happen, but we certainly
shall endeavour to make sure that no circumstances like the ones
you describe will ever happen again.
Q106 Mr Roy: You can guarantee that where
there is a fatal accident inquiry somebody from the regiment will
take the trouble to turn up.
Colonel Eccles: Yes; absolutely.
General Palmer: You made a comment
about us being detached, and of course to a certain extent we
are in that we are in the MoD, but the chain of command starts
with the corporal, the sergeant, the officer and then the company
commander. There is a whole raft of people in there and of course
I visit but I know that a recruit is not necessarily going to
talk to a general.
Q107 Mr Roy: No, he is not; absolutely
not.
General Palmer: But I have had
very interesting conversations with young people in the first
two weeks of their training who have sat down and talked to me
about how I felt about my training and I have detected that they
are far less reticent about coming forward and they are quite
happy to engage with a general if the general makes himself available.
That is not the point I was going to make. If you wish to reassure
yourself, it is much more likely that they will talk to you. So
when you go on the visits we give you complete access and—
Q108 Mr Roy: Let me tell you, I would
not go on a visit if I did not think I was going to get complete
access.
General Palmer: Sure and you will
and you can ask the same question to the recruit as to whether
he feels that he understands that he can actually make these complaints.
I clearly cannot reassure you that it is all in place. It is up
to the feeling of the recruit himself as to whether he feels it
and his family feel it—it is not whether I feel it—and
the only way we can do that is by visits, which is why I have
been desperate to invite everybody to come and visit and talk
to the young people.
Q109 Mr Roy: It is not just me and this
Committee which have to be reassured, there are hundreds and hundreds
of Jim and Helen Mckennas throughout this country who would tell
you that they need to be reassured.
General Palmer: I would not dream
of bandying statistics with you, but the vast majority of parents
I have met, and I have met many of them, because I have been a
training platoon commander, a training company commander and I
am not denying that there have been horrific incidents that we
are all very ashamed of but they have had a very positive experience.
The only thing I can cite in my favour is the people you meet
who have actually been through the training operation and you
cannot sit here and tell me that an organisation which is full
of bullies and harassers who do not look after their young people
can somehow overnight be translated into people who are achieving
fantastic things in the cities of Iraq, because the two are
completely incompatible.
Q110 Mr Roy: I never said that.
General Palmer: I know you did
not, but I am just saying that—you accuse me of being defensive
but I feel very passionately about our young people.
Q111 Mr Roy: And I too about my constituents.
General Palmer: You do, of course
you do. On the whole they do a great job in very difficult circumstances.
Chairman: May I say General that it is
too early after one session to draw conclusions, but what is absolutely
certain is that by the time we have finished we will have been
round this subject from every angle on numerous occasions and
at the end of the day we will all have to be satisfied that whatever
has happened in the past, the likelihood of it happening again
will be enormously reduced. Thank you for responding, but we shall
obviously come back to this repeatedly.
Q112 Mr Cran: Still on the subject of
assessing and managing risk, may I take you to this whole question
of recruits' access to firearms. My colleague Rachel Squire referred
to that document by the Institution of Occupational Safety and
Health. You do not have it in front of you, but I will read a
quote and after that I have a question. It says "We note
from the Occupational Safety and Health Journal (October 2002)
that of the approximately 1,000 deaths that have occurred in non-combat
over a 10-year period, around 100 resulted from gunshot wounds.
Whilst it is necessary for initial training to prepare recruits
adequately for the rigours and challenges of military life and
therefore to be reasonably realistic, trainers must take measures
to minimise risk". Therefore the question is: how do you
minimise risk and how do you manage that risk?
Colonel Eccles: We analysed this
situation very carefully and have a lot of experience in how we
should control access to arms and ammunition. More than that,
we have a great deal of experience in how to train youngsters,
recruits, in the use of those weapons and the circumstances in
which they operate. I can go through the process, if you like,
but, for example, no recruit may draw a weapon from the armoury
unless he is accompanied by an NCO. Before he goes on any range
period or has any opportunity to fire the weapon, he has to undergo
a rigorous series of tests and training, we call them weapon handling
tests, in order to demonstrate he is competent and safe to do
so. My own son is just involved in this process at the moment
and I cannot tell you how many hours he has spent doing this before
he is even allowed to fire a little air rifle pellet. There is
a huge expectation that we must get this right and manage it very
carefully.
Q113 Mr Cran: I think we really would
need to see a document from you and I do not know how we get the
similar document for the Air Force and the Navy, which would mirror
what you are all doing. Does this come from you, Admiral?
Rear Admiral Goodall: These are
the single service appraisals but which can be co-ordinated by
me. I can get hold of those and present them to the Committee[14]
Q114 Mr Cran: We do need to have those.
Rear Admiral Goodall: There is
commonality across the services.
Q115 Mr Cran: The IOSH talks about the
adequate control of live ammunition and you say you do that. ".
. . using simulation wherever practicable".
Colonel Eccles: We do that.
Q116 Mr Cran: It is therefore best if
we wait for this document. One last question in this whole area.
It is our information that recruits who are not yet fully trained
are nonetheless used for armed guard duty at these initial training
establishments.
Colonel Eccles: Absolutely not.
Q117 Mr Cran: Is that incorrect?
Colonel Eccles: Absolutely not.
In Phase 1 training no soldiers who are in Phase 1 training undertake
guard duties. Those who undertake guard duties in Phase 2 training
do so only if they have completed the mandatory tests and those
are still in date and they are carefully supervised under a regime
which we will describe to you.
Q118 Mr Cran: So who does do the armed
guard duty? Regular soldiers?
Colonel Eccles: At Phase 1 establishment
they are normally provided by the Military Provost Guard Service
(MPGS), which is an Army institution, normally of retired soldiers
who are re-engaged in order to conduct armed guard duties on our
gates, in conjunction with the MoD Guard Service.
Mr Cran: I know there are a lot more
questions but it is very important that we get that document from
you and it is very important that we get the document from the
Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
Q119 Chairman: I said that we are not
conducting a Surrey inquiry, certainly not. What would worry me
would be a case of a young man or woman, a little disturbed, problems,
then somebody prevails upon them to undertake their guard duties—and
I have yet to know any organisation where the formal structure
of operations is actually adhered to, because the informal structure
is usually far more effective than the formal structure. So even
though they may not be permitted to, are you aware of any instances
where that task of guarding could be sub-contracted to somebody
who has not gone through the training process? I could not imagine
a greater recipe for disaster than a potentially pressured young
man or woman, out in the night, on their own, potentially disturbed,
with a gun in their hands and there for hours at a time. In the
course of this inquiry, we shall need assurances that you are
absolutely certain that scenario, which I accept probably does
not exist formally, does not exist informally either.
Colonel Eccles: We do have a very
rigid system. No system is absolutely foolproof and occasionally
mistakes will happen, but this is about as tight as we can get,
particularly with recruits. For example, those who are being discharged
from training and are therefore about to leave are not permitted
to go on guard. Armed sentries must always patrol in pairs. We
are very rigid on those rules. Occasionally it may go wrong; particularly
in the light of all we know about in recent months and years we
are very aware of that.
14 Ev Back
| 
