Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-459)
GENERAL SIR
MICHAEL WALKER
16 FEBRUARY 2006
Q440 Mr Breed: I suppose what we
are getting at really is the resourcing. With the sort of technical
abilities today for all the sorts of evidence-testing and all
the opportunities to carry out a thorough investigation, that
does require quite a lot of resource.
General Sir Michael Walker: Yes.
Q441 Mr Breed: We obviously recognise
that there are budgetary constraints all the way through, but
I think what we really want to hear from you is that you believe
that the resources that are available to them, and we know they
do a professional job, we are happy with that, and, within the
resources they have got, they obviously do the best they can,
but, in your view, is there any constraint, because of resourcing,
which would actually affect the professionalism and the thoroughness
of the investigations that take place?
General Sir Michael Walker: Well,
it is difficult to say. You have got to draw the line somewhere.
The trouble is that we are not a static organisation like many
others. There are demands arising daily really for more people
to do more things. As you probably know, we provide the Royal
Military Police and place protection teams around the world. It
only takes a British embassy in some strange part of the world
to suddenly find itself in trouble for a request to come through
for more people. However many of these people and however many
resources they had, I believe we could employ them all the time,
so we have to make a judgment about what the right level is for
a set of Armed Forces that is broadly around the 250,000, if you
take the Territorial Army, and resource them accordingly, and
I think we do have that now. The other thing, I would say, is
that it is extremely difficult, it is even more difficult, to
conduct an investigation in an operational theatre, as you can
imagine. Trying to get forensic evidence at a scene where there
is an alleged crime to have taken place when bombs and bullets
and things are going off is incredibly difficult and they are
very time-consuming. You could pour as many resources as you like
into that and you could go on building up numbers, but I think,
in terms of where we have got it at the moment, the numbers are
about right and their resourcing is about right.
Q442 Mr Breed: You will be aware
in the UK, as such, there have been occasions when the police
have indicated perhaps that they would have been able to attend
extremely quickly, with the securing of the site, the maintenance
of evidence, ensuring that all that was kept available for scrutiny
and everything else, yet there are criticisms that such procedures
were not undertaken by Service police which has actually thwarted
potential prosecutions.
General Sir Michael Walker: Well,
I do not know the cases you are talking about, but there is, as
you know, a sort of jurisdictional division between what goes
on in terms of the Service police and the home department police
and indeed our own MoD statutory police force. It seems to me
that, in this country, those things should happen much less than
they do overseas because we do have many more resources, including,
if you like, the home department police forces in the areas where
we live.
Q443 Mr Breed: What influence do
you think these higher-profile prosecutions in Iraq have had on
the actions of our Servicemen and women who are out on operational
duties at the moment?
General Sir Michael Walker: I
think that we tend to forget a bit that, in the 35 years or so
that we have been in Northern Ireland, the application of our
yellow card procedures have been widely known to all those who
have served there. This is a set of rules by which you behave.
The training for that part of the world made it very clear that,
if you stepped outside the law, you would be subject to that rule.
I think the notion that you do something that is illegal is widely
understood, it is all part of everybody's training. If you go
down to our operational training advisory groups where we train
people, they are taken specifically through these situations where
they are given an opportunity to make mistakes and so on. I think,
therefore, that people understand absolutely what is the right
side of the law and what is the wrong side of the law. I think,
if you talk to those who are on operations, of course whilst they
see these reports in the press, they do not know the facts of
the case, nor can they, nobody can discuss it, and that is one
of the difficulties, that you cannot go to them and talk about
a specific case, but I think they understand very clearly that,
if you operate outside the law, you are going to be subject to
it yourself, and I do not think there is a member of the Armed
Services who would disagree that that is the right principle to
have. Morale is a funny old thing. Morale is a very complex issue,
and this is clearly one bit of it. If you see pictures of abuse
where it appears there are going to be allegations of the British
Armed Forces being involved, everybody feels ashamed, but it does
not alter their determination and it does not cause a serious
rift and damage to their morale on operations. I have just been
out to places like Iraq and seen our boys out there and I am very
confident that there is an anxiety about all of these things,
but it is not a morale-breaking worry.
Mr Key: The Bill proposes a harmonised
Service inquiry system.
Q444 Vera Baird: Could I really come
to that and the thorny question of whether affected next of kin
should be allowed to attend boards of inquiry, unless there are
exceptional reasons why not, or whether they should normally be
there, unless there is a valid, I suppose, military or security
reason to oust them. What is your view and why, General?
General Sir Michael Walker: I
do not think the next of kin should be at boards of inquiry. A
board of inquiry is to establish the facts. As long as people
are giving the factual statements to the board of inquiry and
they do not feel that this is a court under which they are being
examined, I think you get to the facts much better. After all,
the board of inquiry is then used in subsequent examination at
whatever level it may be necessary, so I certainly do not think
that. The second thing is of course that many of these boards
of inquiry take place where something has happened. The whole
process of including all sorts of other people in those boards
of inquiry would be if it was, in my view, something which delayed
them to the point where you probably would not get to the essential
facts at the end of the day.
Q445 Vera Baird: Actually we are
not talking about all sorts of other people, are we? We are talking
about the relatives of people who may have been killed by this
process who surely, in the interests not only of compassion, but
also of restoring trust in military processes, ought to know as
early as possible and as directly as possible from those involved
exactly what has happened to their family member?
General Sir Michael Walker: I
understand that and it was a use of words, but I still do not
think that it would be sensible to include next of kin in the
initial boards of inquiry because I do not think we would get
the facts clear.
Q446 Vera Baird: What is the procedure
about making available the recommendations and indeed the evidence
of those boards at subsequent inquiries at which next of kin cannot
actually be present when the information first comes out? Unless
there is a very clear channel for that information, completely
unedited and safe for security purposes, to be transmitted forward,
they are not going to get the satisfaction they are entitled to,
are they?
General Sir Michael Walker: I
do not know, is the answer to the question. I do not know what
the channels are, but we have got a team, I think, coming up next
who will be able to give you that answer. My experience is that
most boards of inquiry are made available to the next of kin.
I cannot remember any where, if you like, we have refused to allow
next of kin to see the board of inquiry.
Q447 Vera Baird: I must just ask
you this final question. The reason why you think they should
not be there, just so it is absolutely clear, is that you would
have some fear that, faced with relatives of somebody who had
suffered from this process, people would not be so truthful about
what had happened?
General Sir Michael Walker: No,
I think what you need at a board of inquiry is as fast as possible,
because if you take, for example, an aircraft which has crashed
in some strange part of the world, then actually, if you do not
do it straightaway, immediately, you will find that, for all sorts
of reasons, the evidence begins to disappear. Therefore, I think
that, first of all, it is the speed with which it needs to be
carried out and, secondly, that, if you turn a board of inquiry
into anything that looks like a court of inquisition, you will
find that people will find it a stressful environment and you
may not get to the facts as quickly as you would otherwise.
Mr Key: We would like to turn now, General,
to courts martial.
Q448 Mr Burrowes: Do you welcome
the power in the Bill to establish mixed panels from across the
three Services?
General Sir Michael Walker: Yes,
I have no difficulty with that.
Q449 Mr Burrowes: You would know
the view of General Jackson who would be happy if the presumption
was in favour of a single Service on panels?
General Sir Michael Walker: Well,
it seems to me that one needs the flexibility to do either. There
will be occasions when a single-Service panel, in my view, is
entirely appropriate.
Q450 Mr Burrowes: In terms of the
operation of clause 155, would you want to see some qualification
in terms of specifying in favour of single panels or making it
obligatory—
General Sir Michael Walker: I
am not sure. I am afraid I do not know what the relevant section
actually says.
Q451 Mr Burrowes: In terms of the
mixed panels, it does not specify any qualifications of membership,
but, in terms of the obligatory nature of mixed panels—
General Sir Michael Walker: Well,
I am afraid I come from a sort of background of leaving these
things sufficiently flexible to allow sensible decisions to be
made, so, without actually looking at the thing, I cannot see
whether adding a line to lock us into something would necessarily
be helpful.
Q452 Mr Burrowes: Would you go along
with General Jackson in terms of wanting any kind of presumption
or—
General Sir Michael Walker: I
thought I said I was comfortable already actually. I thought I
said I was very happy with the mixed panels.
Mr Key: General, the Bill to some extent
reduces the role of commanding officers and we would like to explore
that a little, please.
Q453 Mr Howarth: There have been
186 investigations, of which 168 cases were closed.
General Sir Michael Walker: I
think it is 187 now, as of last weekend.
Q454 Mr Howarth: Thank you very much,
General, very much on the ball! So 187 cases, of which 168 have
been dealt with and there have been relatively few prosecutions.
Notwithstanding that, Lord Boyce did say to us last week that
he felt that there was a perception in the Armed Forces, that
the military are under "legal siege", an expression
he used in the debate in the House of Lords in July last year.
General Sir Michael Walker: "Legal
encirclement" I think he talks about, does he not?
Q455 Mr Howarth: I think it is "legal
siege" as well, but "legal encirclement", I think,
amounts to the same thing. Can I ask you what you have done, as
Chief of the Defence Staff, to give so many personnel confidence
that they will not be prosecuted if they adhere to their rules
of engagement and follow their commander's orders?
General Sir Michael Walker: I
do not think it has been necessary for me particularly to take
specific action because our system has done just that. The whole
purpose of our training is to explain to people that, if they
operate within the bounds of the law, they will not be prosecuted
and they will be protected. What I did do, after the initial public
scrutiny of many of these cases, was initiate a review into the
support mechanisms that surround people who are facing an allegation
of some sort. There is no doubt that once, as I am sure is the
same in civilian life, an allegation is made against an individual
and he is under an investigation, he feels hugely under stress.
What we wanted to do was to make sure that the processes and the
systems in our military world were there supporting him in areas
that he needed support, in legal terms, in immediate terms and
in welfare terms.
Q456 Mr Howarth: I understand all
that, and I think that that point has been made frequently, but
I think it is more a question of what the perception is of the
military, as Colin Breed was asking you, and you said that you
felt that morale was still high. I can tell you that, when I went
to visit the Coldstream Guards in my own constituency, Aldershot,
just before Christmas, there was a palpable feeling in the sergeants'
mess that they were, if not exactly under siege, certainly more
nervous than they had been and than they should be entitled to
be. Is there anything you feel, not as Commander-in-Chief, but
as Chief of the Defence Staff, to reassure the men and women of
our Armed Forces? What are you doing, for example, in doing the
rounds and assuring people that they will not be let down because,
as I said last week, the chain of command is a two-way street
and, if they do not feel they are getting support from their commanders,
they will not obey the orders that they are given?
General Sir Michael Walker: Well,
we have not had any examples of that, of people not obeying their
orders. There is no doubt that on the question of public scrutiny,
and this is where the term "legal encirclement" becomes
a bit blurred because of course it is not just this area, but
it is the whole business of the other areas where we have to be
compliant with human rights, with the European Court of Justice,
with all the reports of the activities that surround the Armed
Forces being under such an intense public scrutiny, actually aided
and abetted by the media and questions in Parliament, there is
an anxiety about reputation and there is an anxiety about, as
you say, the sort of legal pressures on people. The only way,
I think, that we make sure that this does not happen is (a) to
make sure people are absolutely clear what the boundaries are,
and (b) there is, if you go to each of the Services, a piece of
paper which tells people what those are and tells them where they
stand in the context of any allegation which has been made against
them. I think, therefore, it is important that people understand
the process; it helps to aid this belief that the system is going
to support them and it is very clear that that is what is needed.
Q457 Mr Howarth: In respect of last
weekend's headline news about those graphic pictures which clearly
were alarming to everybody, there is no doubt that, in the course
of the week, the comment has changed and the word "context"
has been repeatedly used. In respect of the point I made earlier
about the note sent by the Adjutant General to the CGS and C-in-C
Land, can you give us an assurance that, in investigating this
case and all future cases, the independent prosecuting authority,
whether under the existing APA or under the new one, will not
be subjected to the kind of mindset that was demonstrated by the
Adjutant General's remark about "offering up for prosecution",
that these guys will not be offered up for prosecution to satisfy
a tabloid newspaper, but they will be dealt with properly and
as severely as necessary in strict accordance with military law?
General Sir Michael Walker: Remember
that the Army prosecuting authority is an independent person,
so I can give you my belief as that assurance, but he must make
his own decisions. It is not for me to make his decisions, nor
am I allowed to influence them.
Q458 Mr Jones: Clearly Mr Howarth
wants to try and perpetuate this myth that somehow our Armed Forces
are under siege, which Lord Boyce said as well, but I put it to
Lord Boyce last week: could he quote me any examples of where
this has led to a diminution in operational effectiveness? It
is easy for people to get headlines in newspapers about this and
retired generals and others to spout forth, but when you pin them
down and say, "Can you back it up by examples?", they
cannot, like Mr Howarth cannot. Have you got any examples of where
the so-called culture that is being portrayed has led to operational
effectiveness not being what it should be?
General Sir Michael Walker: No.
If you ask me to give you a physical concrete example, I cannot;
you are right.
Q459 Mr Jones: So why do people keep—
General Sir Michael Walker: To
be fair to Mr Howarth, for example, if you go down to talk, to
the 600 or so officers down at the Defence Academy who are there
doing a year's further training, they will talk about this. Again,
they will not give you examples but there is this feeling that
is running around at various levels.
|
