Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1080
- 1094)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004 (MORNING)
MRS LYNN
FARR, MRS
JANETTE MATTIN,
MS JUNE
SHARPLES, MRS
CLAUDIA BECKLEY-LINES
AND MR
JUSTIN HUGHESTON-ROBERTS
Q1080 Mr Roy: Do you think there
is a danger to yourselves that because this inquiry has been announced
in the last couple of days into the circumstances—it was
announced yesterday on the floor of the House—of what we
have read about Deepcut, the general public could perceive that
it is now being looked at and they have this final inquiry because
I have absolutely no doubt that none of the points you have been
raising as Catterick families would be—
Mrs Mattin: It is not just us.
We are under a big umbrella. There are more than Deepcut.
Mrs Farr: It is not to be used
as a final report. If it were used as a final report, then, yes,
it would endanger other camps being looked at and it must not
be. Let them do the report but it does not have to be a final
one, it has to be a great deal broader and a great deal wider
and not just Catterick. There are other camps.
Mrs Beckley-Lines: I thought the
Deepcut Barracks issue has helped us. I was very happy when I
heard about it.
Q1081 Mr Roy: There is a perception
out there that all the problems are Deepcut and that is what makes
the headlines for some of the public. I am very wary that Catterick
is forgotten but, to be honest, it is not just Catterick and Deepcut,
it is in other places. I know from my own constituency.
Mrs Farr: It is overseas.
Q1082 Mr Jones: Lynn, you have been
very clear in what you would want to come out of the public inquiry.
We have been criticised that this inquiry we are undertaking is
not just into Deepcut and it was never meant to be just into Deepcut
because certainly I felt that it was important to look at the
wider issues in terms of death and I think it was important to
look at not historically but what is happening now. The MoD has
said—and the Minister said it again yesterday—that
it would take on board our report in terms of recommendations.
If, let us suppose—and do not draw any conclusions because
we have a great deal more evidence to take—we came up with
a suggestion, for example, about setting up an independent ombudsman
or situations like that and that was in our report and the MoD
and the Government actually agreed to that, would that help? Would
that be what you are looking for? Would you still then want to
have a public inquiry in terms of looking at what has happened
historically?
Mrs Farr: I think so, yes. That
would be a start but I think that it needs to go a lot further.
Q1083 Mr Jones: You have been quite
clear what you want. If we were to suggest that—and I am
not saying that we will come to that conclusion—in our report—
Mrs Farr: I do not really think
it is fair for just one person to comment on that. We are a group.
Q1084 Mr Jones: I appreciate that
you have to consult other people as to what you actually want
but you are quite clearly saying that you want independence and
I think that has come out very clearly from all of you but, if
you think about something afterwards or somebody else in your
group thinks of something, could you let us know because that
would be helpful.
Mrs Farr: That is fine. There
are 50 families in this group and I do not think it is fair that
I answer that point.
Mr Viggers: I would like to put something
on the record which may be helpful. I am advised that no consolidated
list of public inquiries exists. An inquiry can take many forms
including planning inquiries, inquiries into Boundary Commission
proposals and so on. Presumably we are looking at inquiries set
up by the Government into specific one-off subjects or events
rather than those more frequent inquiries. There is actually no
specific definition of public inquiries as various means might
be found to inquire into a particular subject. So, I respect very
much the fact that you are proposing to write to us with your
thoughts on this subject but, as has been put to you by my colleagues,
if you can spell out the characteristics that you would wish to
see in such an inquiry, I think that would be very helpful for
us in reaching a conclusion.
Q1085 Mr Hancock: I think Kevan's
point about the possibilities/solutions that we can come to as
to what happens in the future is very interesting. There are two
issues really: what lessons can we learn from this and what can
be put in place for the future? The independent ombudsman idea
of carrying out a review into the Armed Forces, similar to what
other Armed Forces have elsewhere in the world, is part of the
solution for the future and for new instances. To get to the bottom
of where you are going—and this is Peter Viggers's point
about the different types of inquiry—a full judicial inquiry
with all of the paraphernalia to be able to request information
and subpoena witnesses is what you really require, is it not?
Mrs Farr: Yes.
Mr Hancock: What did it cost for the
Bloody Sunday inquiry—tens of millions of pounds?
Mr Viggers: Fifty-two million pounds.
Q1086 Mr Hancock: Fifty-two million
pounds for 13 deaths. We are talking here possibly 100 deaths
a year in these difficult circumstances which need to be investigated
in this way. I think you need, as Peter has requested you do,
to tell us what your view is on that, but it needs to be whether
it is just into the issue of what leads up to someone's dying
in these circumstances or is it into individual deaths. Deepcut
is different and I think that your situation is different to Deepcut
and that is why I think there needs to be a separate judicial
inquiry into what happened at Deepcut, but I think you have to
give us what you feel is the solution to Catterick because the
circumstances are so different.
Mrs Beckley-Lines: They are the
same.
Q1087 Mr Hancock: No. The similarity
is that all of the deaths at Deepcut occurred on the site.
Mrs Beckley-Lines: It is the same
with us.
Q1088 Mr Hancock: No. The circumstances
leading to death all happened at Catterick but the deaths did
not all occur there and there were different circumstances and
that is where there has to be your view about what happens for
the Catterick families and what happened there. Lynn, I think
your point about what happened in Germany is horrendous, so it
is not just UK based, is it?
Mrs Farr: No, it is not. If there
were a public inquiry into Deepcut, would we not get the same
scenario, "We have had a public inquiry into Deepcut—"?
Mr Hancock: No because I think you have
to clearly define the difference.
Q1089 Mr Jones: Can I be honest with
you as to why I am pressing you and it will be interesting to
see what your terms of reference are and also I think in terms
of what you actually want out of it. I am still not clear in my
mind what you would get out of a public inquiry and I have not
come to the conclusion about whether we should have one or not
in these investigations we are undertaking. Do you think there
is a danger that the call for a public inquiry will lead to a
situation whereby you will go through the motions, you will get
evidence called and everything will happen but you, as individuals,
will not get the closure which clearly you want? Do you think
that in some ways, at the end of that process, you will perhaps
feel cheated that the system has let you down yet again because
clearly it has let you down up to now disgracefully?
Mrs Farr: Personally, I never
expected any answers for Daniel. It has gone on too long. Within
18 months of Daniel dying, there were four or five deaths at Catterick
and I was screaming then that there were too many. Time has gone
on and people's memories are not as fresh. I let it go for quite
a while and then what happened was that Catterick held this memorial
service for all the soldiers who had died on ITC and that is how
we all met and, in six years, there have been 19 deaths. I thought
that if my son died, he died for a reason and, if this is the
reason that I get to the bottom of this, then that is what I am
going to do. I honestly think in my case and in my Daniel's case
time has gone on. I do not think we will ever get answers for
our sons but if we can stop other families going through the same
thing as we have gone through, that would be a fine result for
me.
Q1090 Chairman: We have not reached
the end of our report, so we are in no position to make any recommendations
of any description at this stage but, by March, we will be. I
have just a few more questions. Frank mentioned a number of organisations:
the Adult Learning Inspectorate which are undertaking to oversee
the training establishments. Have any of them contacted you?
Mrs Farr: No.
Q1091 Chairman: They are just beginning
and I was just wondering if they had sought your advice.
Mrs Farr: Can I ask a question
about that because the Adult Learning Inspectorate have a duty
of care into training and it is usually around training issues.
What about the other side? It is not just training, it is the
social and the welfare. The Adult Learning Inspectorate deal with
colleges, universities and things like that. How can they have
an insight into the structure of the Army and the social side
of it? I have concerns about that.
Chairman: With a member of staff, I went
along there and looked at their methodology and was reasonably
satisfied. They are doing trials; they have not really begun yet
but their presence and their arrival has been noticed by the military
and I think this will be a very good continuous process of observation
and evaluation to ensure that the training regimes meet the standards
that need to be set and have been set. Frankly, at this stage,
although they have not been functioning in the role in which they
will be functioning, the signs are reasonably optimistic that
this is one of the consequences of what you and your sons had
actually gone through. We do have three or four more questions
and then we will let you return.
Q1092 Mr Hancock: You have answered
most of the questions that I wanted to ask but there is just this
one question about the independent oversight that has been carried
out. I would suspect that, Lynn, on behalf of all of you, you
would welcome the opportunity to give evidence to them and to
try and help them in coming up with a way of involving parents
in that initial period of training. You all said early on that
it would be enormously helpful if parents were given some guidance
and, in return, it might be helpful if parents gave something
back to this group who are looking at that. Would you support
that view?
Mrs Farr: Yes.
Q1093 Mr Hancock: Perhaps one of
the things you could again do is to write to us on behalf of the
Catterick families asking for that involvement in this process.
You genuinely believe that it should not be just a one-off, it
should be an ongoing process that parents of serving recruits
would be a very good sounding board for them to find out what
their children's reactions were to Army life in those first few
days and their first reactions when coming home. Would you have
wanted to play a part in that?
Mrs Beckley-Lines: Yes.
Ms Sharples: Yes.
Mrs Farr: Yes.
Mrs Mattin: Yes.
Q1094 Mr Hancock: You would have
liked to see a process in place where the Army had asked you regularly,
"Could you tell us if this has affected your son in any way"?
Mrs Farr: Yes.
Mr Hancock: I think it would be helpful
if you could also, on behalf of the group, write to us and, through
us, maybe we can then pass it on to the Inspectorate and suggest
that that should be an ongoing thing for them, not just a one-off
talking to you. Other than that, I think this has been a very
moving experience.
Chairman: Ladies, thank you very much
for coming. It cannot have been easy for you and you have spoken
with quiet dignity. Some people who appear before us are really
very anxious, almost frightened, but you do not display any signs
of that. What you have said will be immensely helpful. As I said
earlier, we are not the Surrey Police, we are not qualified to
do that and we have never set ourselves up as an alternative to
some form of commission of inquiry. Our task is limited to finding
out what lessons have been learnt and our major role as the Defence
Select Committee is to seek to ensure not just the efficiency
of the Armed Forces but how it deals with its personnel and the
strength of the military is not just in its equipment and its
leadership but in the quality of its personnel. We are not just
around to give some bland reassurance. That is not our job. Our
job is to satisfy ourselves that lessons have been learnt and,
although this Committee will cease to exist at the next election,
whenever that is going to be, such has been the magnitude of what
has happened and the fact that we are putting more effort into
this inquiry in terms of number of sessions, number of visits
and the number of advisers, this is not an issue that will cease
following the termination of this Parliament and the establishment
of a new Committee. It is something that has to be ongoing because
what you are doing as parents is loaning the military your kids
and you have to be absolutely confident that, when you do that,
the military looks after them and, if they cannot do it and if
we are not able to reassure mothers like you, then neither the
military nor ourselves have done any good. I think your kids would
have been proud of you. Thank you very much. [4]
4 Note from Janette Mattin: Thanks for listening.
We are beyond help-our children died. Please do what you can so
that you, or future Committees don't have to listen to any more
mothers. Back
| 
