Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1280
- 1299)
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 2004
RT HON
ADAM INGRAM
MP, COLONEL DAVID
ECCLES AND
MR MARTIN
FULLER
Q1280 Chairman:
You have almost answered this question but the reason I am asking
it again is that people are going to pore over every sentence,
every word, every syllable, every piece of punctuation, and if
there is anything over and above what you have already said then,
Minister, please say so. Does this new review mean that you have
ruled out any wider review/inquiry into the allegations of bullying
at Deepcut or deaths and allegations at other training establishments,
and will Mr Blake be able to recommend such a review if his current
investigations lead him to do so?
Mr Ingram: He will make a report
and his recommendations are a matter for him. I have said that
we will then publicly respond to that. I do not know what his
conclusions to this will be. Clearly, they can go from no further
action required to what many are campaigning for in that specifically
he is looking into Deepcut, because other lines of inquiry may
lead him elsewhere. As I said in my opening statement, I am not
yet over-convinced of the merits of this but that is not me closing
my mind down. It is just that I view it from a slightly different
perspective. I do not know whether you want me to share my reasoning
in this with you, but when you look at a public inquiry, whether
it is into those events of 1995-2002, given the fact that 12,000
troops went through that establishment at Deepcut in that period,
if all of them were to be interviewed the inquiry would never
finish. You can then slice it down however you want but if a substantial
number came forward then how long would that inquiry take? Others
are out there saying that it should be into all non-combatant
deaths across all of the training establishments, and this includes
even road traffic accidents. When all of that is added up, and
these are places where there are adult workers, not just trainees,
the figure out there is 1,700, and that is the figure which is
out there as part of a campaign strategy. If there was a public
inquiry into that, 1,700 cases, and if each was, let us say, interviewed
for one day, you can then see how long that inquiry would take.
Therefore, I have to say that I would rather get to the heart
of this and then deal with it. I am dealing in this case with
the past, the 1995 period, of which I have no experience or involvement
in, and when the sad events of 2001 and 2002 occurred I then immediately
put in place all that examination to trawl over all of what we
were doing and, if there were failings within the system, correct
those failings as best we could.
Q1281 Chairman:
But if Mr Blake recommends it, it is an option that you are then
going to have to—
Mr Ingram: We have to consider
it. I think it is wrong at this stage to say that that is an inevitability
and I know that is what many people want and I fully appreciate
that. I am not dodging that question but I have to wait to see
what he recommends.
Q1282 Chairman:
Minister, you know as well as I do, and I have learned from hard
experience, that there are people who would say that what you
are doing is a side show, that you are avoiding a public inquiry,
but are you prepared to say that if Mr Blake recommends that his
methodology was inadequate and there is a requirement, this then
is a serious option?
Mr Ingram: I think we live in
a climate, no matter what government does, where there will be
cynics, and I am not talking about the families; I am talking
about those so-called commentators who want to create news, who
will cynically view anything that is done and immediately diminish
the sincerity and integrity because that is how they want to play
it. We just have to live with that. This is not a side show and
I have tried to explain the rationale, the way in which we have
tried to handle this. Everything we have done, and this is important,
and you have recognised this, has been published. We have exposed
all that we do within those training environments. There is nothing
out there that is not available to people to look over. It saddens
me, when I read and hear some of the comments from people who
are trying to analyse this, that they have not even examined the
quality work that has been done which has identified shortfalls
across the range of our training establishments and also looked
at ways of solving some of those shortfalls. Some of them are
probably not solvable because we have to live in the real world
as well, resource-determined, and also because of the impracticalities
of some suggestions.
Q1283 Chairman:
You may be interested to know, Minister, that some of us went
to Hendon Police College yesterday and they went through exactly
the same process in parallel of an enormous influx of trainees
at around the same time, and we were listening to ways in which
they dealt with the problems of what the consequences were, because
what we have been trying to look at in our inquiry is any sort
of parallel organisation and there is no parallel to the Armed
Forces, but at those who are closest to see how they dealt with
some of the problems that you have been dealing with.
Mr Ingram: I think that is important.
You are right: we are the single largest training establishment
in Europe, I think. If you look at any other uniformed structured
organisation, the Police Service or the Fire Service or Prison
Service, they are bringing adults into their training environment
and sometimes mature adults, some of whom are from a military
background. They are not dealing with the young people we have
to deal with, and you have examined some of the characteristics,
of those young people: the numbers we have to deal with, the type
of people that we draw from that particular pool and the educational
abilities of them, and the way we have to do a lot of pre-screening
and vetting to try and work through to try and get the best out
of all of that. I think you will find it hard to get a comparator
other than against some other Armed Forces and best guesstimates,
and we will be doing this. I make this point about the Adult Learning
Inspectorate. They of course are working assiduously through all
of the examinations of all the training establishments and they
are bringing that experience in as well. They are putting a spotlight
onto what is best practice and best standards, some of which may
not be truly applicable to the Armed Forces, but they will have
to work that through.
Q1284 Chairman:
We were also looking at a number of foreign military examples,
some of which are very good and some of which would make you take
off in rapid pace towards the skies, but we will show you some
of these options later on. My last question, and I apologise to
my colleagues, is this: will the representations you refer to
in your statement be submitted in writing or through personal
interview with Mr Blake or a combination of both?
Mr Ingram: It is a matter for
him. It is really down to him how he wants to do this. He will
want to get to the truth. He will have the ability to be able
to discern whether he is getting to it or not, I would guess.
Q1285 Mr Roy:
Minister, can I just clarify on the terms of reference and the
remit for Nicholas Blake, would he feel that he is able to make
a statement on the deaths outside Deepcut, ie, Catterick and Edinburgh
or elsewhere and abroad? If it is not in his terms of reference
then surely he is not able to take any evidence, so how can you
expect him to be able to say that we should look further, at Catterick
and beyond? I understand the reason why you are having an investigation,
but I would really be very disappointed if I thought the terms
of reference ended up so tight that he was not able to look at
evidence elsewhere and open it up.
Mr Ingram: The reason behind this,
as I have set out in my statement to the House, is that it is
important to get that qualitative analysis done, not quickly but
done within quite a tight time frame because I think we need to
get all of this ventilated, but the specific concerns, and I am
not diminishing all the other issues that have been raised about
elsewhere, have been on those four tragic deaths at Deepcut. I
had no knowledge of what he was going to say and that is why I
have shared with you something that he has only said today. He
did not pre-release the statement to me. What he says is, "However,
it may be that fresh lines of inquiry will emerge from an analysis
of the material". I do not know what he means by that. I
could read it in a number of ways, but if he says he is then looking
at other areas because of representations he has taken, whether
written or oral, I do not think he could ignore substantial information,
but that is a matter for him. He will have to distil all of that
and then report. I make this point again: I am not being prescriptive
of the man in the definition of the terms of reference because
I want that spotlight on that particular period at that particular
depot in relation to those four tragic deaths. I think that is
an important aspect of this. This will give an impetus to perhaps
what we need to do.
Q1286 Mr Roy:
I accept all of the Deepcut analysis that you have commissioned
but I would be really disappointed if in a few months' time Nicholas
Blake were to say, "Because of the terms of reference I was
given I cannot comment", or, "I am not able to ask for
any further investigation into Catterick". I know what you
are saying and I know it is very important.
Mr Ingram: Not by me. He will
not be restricted by me.
Q1287 Mr Roy:
I know it is very important to the Deepcut families but I know
you will agree that it is equally important to the Catterick families
and to all these other folk over the last few months and there
would be deep anger and disappointment if we thought what is this
very good idea, actually, I very much agree with it—I would
really hate it if in a few months' time he were to turn up at
the very end and say, "Because of the narrowing of the terms
of reference that I was given to Deepcut I cannot comment on elsewhere".
Mr Ingram: Okay. My best guess
would be that this will not put it to rest. If I were guessing
on this, I do not think he will say, "No action; I have found
nothing", but that is a matter for him. Let us just wait
and see. As a baseline understanding I think that he will say
things because other people have said things. The Surrey Police
have said things out of their examination of the knowledge base
that they have The ALI, although they are not looking into the
past; they are looking into the way in which it is done at present,
are making comments about the training establishments across all
three Services, remember, and some of the past must impact upon
the present and the future. All of that examination is taking
place. If Mr Blake says, "I cannot go there because I have
not been allowed to do so", that will not be a remit. It
is not that he has not been allowed to do so, because he himself
has identified fresh lines of inquiry. I do not know what that
means but I would not encourage that wider examination personally
for the very good reason that with that wider demand of all non-combat
deaths I cannot have that quick analysis.
Q1288 Mr Roy:
Okay: you are not encouraging him but you are not debarring him?
Mr Ingram: I cannot. He is free
to do what he thinks is necessary.
Q1289 Mr Viggers:
The families of those who died made their position very clear.
They feel that the background and circumstances of the deaths
at Deepcut between 1995 and 2002 fully justify the setting up
of a public inquiry. What is the government's reason for refusing
a public inquiry?
Mr Ingram: I think I have set
them out. We have had—and this is what sometimes is missed
by people, and I know the families come at this from a different
direction and I am very sensitive to their approach on this—others
who have analysed this, who have to be objective (and that is
supposedly one of the roles that Ministers can play in this, to
seek to be objective), and who say, "What would this mean?",
and that is why I have said this would be long-running, probably
open-ended. In announcing this inquiry to the House on 30 November,
I made it clear that the worry is that what you get are people
who then come forward with allegations which become lurid headlines
and are then not substantiated. What we do not get are equal headlines
saying, "Mr X—a liar". What we get is that out
there, and it could well be a lot of substantial material which
is saying something was wrong, but also a wide range of allegations
which do not add up to anything. The Police have said that in
terms of what they have. They have 900 witnesses, 1,500 statements,
so they have really examined it, I would say, in quite considerable
depth and yet they still say they cannot bottom out this issue.
That leads me to the conclusion, what else would a public inquiry
alight on? That is part of the objective analysis: time, and would
anything new come out of this and the damage which would be done
during all of that to our recruiting capability I believe could
be quite immense. I then set that against the quality that comes
out of those establishments. We could not have the finest Armed
Forces in the world if it were not for those training establishments.
Anything that damages that is something I have got to protect.
If it is legitimate criticism we must address it; we must get
to the bottom of it, we must find the truth, and we must bring
wrongdoers to justice. All of that work is in place. That is why
the Police are conducting an ongoing criminal investigation while
we want to get the names of those people so that we can carry
out appropriate investigations to see if there is any substance
to them at all. We are working against that knowledge and I am
not so sure a public inquiry would lead us down a better route.
I know I speak from a different point of view, but you have asked
the question and I am setting out my rationale on this.
Q1290 Mr Viggers:
The parallel question is that the relatives of those who died
at Catterick feel there should be a wider inquiry taking in training
establishments other than Deepcut. Can I ask your response on
that?
Mr Ingram: You then enter the
all non-combatant deaths area. I know you are being specific on
Catterick but then you can say that if there has been a death
it could be a suicide or an open verdict; it could be a road traffic
accident, and I know that people say that road traffic accidents
should be included in this. I keep making this point because there
are those who are arguing that this should be as wide-ranging
as it possibly can be. We have a duty of care to everyone, as
we do, and with any death there has to be an element of suspicion
as to why that happened or a failure on the part of the MoD as
a prerequisite. That is not the real world. That is not to say
that there are no failings within the system; unquestionably there
are. If you then go down the road of Catterick you have to include
every other establishment and that is why I say let us just use
our analytical capability. That is part of what we are all seeking
to do. If it is into that wider inquiry demand, then where would
it end and what damage would be done in between time because of
unsubstantiated allegations, in amongst which may be some grains
of real truth that we have to deal with?
Q1291 Mr Havard:
I am trying to unbundle a number of things that often get conflicted
together. You have announced an inquiry about four particular
incidents and as I understand it the review will look at the circumstances
surrounding those, so that is fairly basic as far as these particular
things are concerned. One of the elements within that would be
to me how the Police themselves conducted the particular inquiries
when each incident came along, both the Military Police and the
civil Police, and then, for example, the Coroner's Service and
a number of other agencies which were related in that process.
The same things will be true of all the cases right across the
piece. We heard evidence, for example, from people who had relatives
at Catterick where the Coroner's process, for example, seemed
to be rather sparse in one or two areas. Set aside a public inquiry
into outside, but it seems to me that there are a number of government
departments and inter-related agencies involved in this, not just
the Ministry of Defence, so I am wondering what review there will
be. For example, if I were in the Lord Chancellor's Department
(God forbid) I would be asking questions about how it is that
there is prima facie evidence that the Coroner's Service
might need looking at and how, for example, if you were in the
Home Office you might say, "What exactly are the relationships
between the civil Police and the Ministry of Defence?", and
the Ministry of Defence might say, "How are the Ministry
of Defence Police investigating this?". All these interface
areas I am interested in and I am interested in whether or not
there is any governmental review of how these relationships should
take place, of government departments examining themselves, not
just the Ministry of Defence, so that we end up with some sort
of process where a death or a serious incident or whatever has
a proper set of methodologies, a proper set of inter-related arrangements
that everyone understands the interface for, has concordats to
support it, however you want it. I am not going to write it for
you, but however you invent it, and within all of that how the
families are involved in the process. The other thing that we
have seen is how they are not involved by any one, or perhaps
partly by some, of the agencies that I have just mentioned. There
is a review that you have announced which it seems to me as far
as all the cases across the piece are concerned, that is, not
necessarily each individual case themselves, is useful. You say
it is a huge undertaking, but certainly the processes, the procedural
aspects, it would seem to me ought to be looked at in this way
as well, not just by your department but by a series of other
government departments.
Chairman: That will take you about 10
years.
Q1292 Mr Havard:
I do not agree.
Mr Ingram: In terms of the other
agencies, I suppose the nub of your question is, are things done
perfectly in government?
Q1293 Mr Havard:
No, that is not my question at all. My question is, why is it
I do not see—I see the Ministry of Defence doing its best
to try and deal with the situation put in front of it, but there
are other government departments it seems to me who ought also
to be asking themselves questions about how their arrangements
are working because these things are not exclusively yours.
Mr Ingram: It is not my job or
responsibility to answer for the inquest system, or indeed for
the Police, but the probable interface in this case was the Police.
If you read, as I am sure you have, the fifth report of the Surrey
Police they do identify their failings. They should have had primacy
in the first two deaths and they did not have. They have accepted
that. They have an overview examination of the way that they conducted
themselves. That was carried out by the Devon and Cornwall Police.
I do not know where that will go or what will be said about it
because the Surrey Police have already said that was wrong. We
have apologised and it should have been done at the time and it
was not. In retrospect other Ministers and myself, the Secretary
of State, have apologised for the mishandling at that time. We
were not on the case at the time; we were not there at the time,
but, as we have found out, those were bad anomalies. Surrey Police
have also apologised for the way that was done. In terms of the
Coroner's inquest, and I have been trying to encourage—there
is one inquest still awaited into one of the four deaths. I have
been trying to say that that would be helpful because by my definition
that is a public forum; it is a public inquiry. It will go into
all of these areas. People have the right to legal representation,
witnesses can come forward, they can examine all of these issues.
That is a matter for the Coroner. Ministers cannot intrude into
the judicial process of this country. We cannot direct. We have
been criticised for criticising sometimes. We have to be very
careful how we approach this. I take the point. If you think there
should be a better linkage and that is something you unearth then
that may be the conclusion you reach, but we cannot solve that.
We may share your concerns but we cannot solve it.
Q1294 Mr Havard:
All I am saying is that there is investigation that is done by
the immediate agencies and the one thing in the British justice
system, in the Coroner's system, is that that is the inquisitorial
bit; that is not the adversarial bit in the rest of the justice
system. I quite agree with you but it does seem as though there
were deficiencies in individual cases, so there was the opportunity
for proper inquiry but proper inquiry prima facie did not
seem to be done. That is not totally under your control and I
wonder how you are relating to the agencies under whose control
it is.
Mr Ingram: If things have not
been done properly people have legal recourse in this country.
They can go to judicial review. They are hopefully properly legally
advised about their entitlement under the human rights legislation.
Some of these cases pre-date that and some of the inquests therefore
may be fall outwith the ambit of it, but it is up to the legal
profession to find an argument that perhaps can reopen that if
there are weaknesses. I think there are well-founded abilities
within our structures to take that forward. It may not be to the
satisfaction of the aggrieved person because they do not get the
conclusion that they want.
Q1295 Mr Havard:
I understand that.
Mr Ingram: That is always a problem
with any judicial process, that it can only deal with the facts
in front of it, but I say this: if people are making those criticisms
of the judicial process aspect of it—and I am not talking
about the Police but in terms of the Coroner's inquest—they
may well have legal remedies. It is not for me or for any government
department to advise them.
Q1296 Chairman:
It has been arranged, Minister, that we are meeting the MoD Police,
the Royal Military Police, the RN Police and the RAF Police, looking
at their powers and responsibilities. I would like to clarify:
did you say, and if you did not I apologise, that the Royal Military
Police would investigate allegations of incidents, not the civilian
Police?
Mr Ingram: Yes, because the threshold—and
the two people beside me will correct me if I am wrong here—is
that if there is rape and above it falls to the civil Police.
If it is below that it falls within the Military Police and therefore
goes through that process. Let us remember the Military Police
are evaluated by the Home Office. This is not some hick operation.
This is a professional policing organisation, with all the strengths
and failings of a civilian Police structure but nonetheless it
matches up to the high standards that the civilian Police have
to meet, but that is where the threshold is.
Q1297 Chairman:
Are you satisfied that they have had sufficient scarring in the
light of their investigations earlier to tighten up their procedures
so that when they do this kind of civilian investigation they
are not going to be the subject of the kind of criticism that
they have had over the last few years?
Mr Ingram: Again, I would slightly
hesitate. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Home
Secretary or a Home Office Minister to be micromanaging the Police.
That is why there is an inspectorate of the constabulary, to set
those standards, to keep that scrutiny going, to ensure that things
are properly done. It is why they have peer review, why it has
happened to the Surrey Police in terms of Devon and Cornwall in
terms of that peer review to make sure that they did everything
correctly. Similar standards apply to the Military Police. Where
there is a reporting mechanism in this, in the same way that it
would be inappropriate for Ministers to involve themselves in
the judicial processes of a Court Martial, equally they should
not be micromanaging the conduct of the Police. If failings are
there and they become known then we have to address them, and
it may be on resources, it may be on other issues. It may be matters
which Ministers then have to take on because they are accountable
ultimately for all this.
Q1298 Chairman:
I understand the delicacy, Minister, but you know what I am talking
about. We are not inquiring into the events at Deepcut but the
Royal Military Police did not come out with spectacular flying
colours in those investigations. We are merely seeking your reassurance
that the lessons have been identified and the changes have been
made so that the likelihood of botched investigations or inappropriate
measures taken in investigations are not going to be replicated.
I will not carry on further with that but before we give you our
report you know exactly what I am talking about, to provide reassurance;
otherwise you might be embarrassed.
Mr Ingram: I make this point,
that with regard to the qualities of the Military Police it is
not a case of the Minister attesting to this. It is Home Office
standards that they have to meet and that is how it is applied.
Q1299 Chairman:
As long as, when you read the documents, Minister, you are perfectly
happy that everything is operating satisfactorily.
Mr Ingram: Obviously, if any investigation
or inquiry or examination of any bit of the Armed Forces, including
the Military Police, alights on failings and weaknesses, we then
have to address them. We have to say, "This has to be fixed".
That is then a matter for the appropriate structure within the
MoD to make sure that is delivered and we then have to be satisfied.
I make this point again: this idea that everything can be perfect
in this world—it cannot be. The minute you say something
is working correctly, precisely and well, along comes tomorrow
when it is not. You then have to learn the lessons and that applies
across every aspect of government delivery. We cannot be perfect.
No government has ever been able to be so, nor will any in the
future. We can only be as good and as determined as we can be
to ensure best and high standards.
|
