Examination of Witnesses (Questions 740-759)
MR JULIAN
MILLER, MRS
TERESA JONES,
MR HUMPHREY
MORRISON, COMMODORE
ROBERT FRASER,
BRIGADIER STEPHEN
ANDREWS AND
AIR COMMODORE
PAUL HUGHESDON
15 MARCH 2006
Q740 Mr Jones: I find it quite amusing
in the sense that the last Defence Committee recommended some
independent oversight. You are trying to go half-way there but
it is like pushing water uphill with you, is it not? You get to
a point where you want to admit you want to do this but you do
not want to break the chain of command. We had evidence from Mrs
Farr, for example, a couple of weeks ago. Clearly she is breaking
the chain of command because her complaints are going straight
to the CO at Catterick, and a very effective service she is obviously
giving to young men and women who contact her. If you create this
plethora of organisations which you seem to be doing in terms
of independence and things like that, frankly, as Jim Sheridan
says, it is going to become a job creation scheme that is not
unknown in the Civil Service. I wonder why you do not go to some
independent person, either the Ombudsman as was suggested, or
a commissioner or somewhere just to look at all these cases. That
would be a far simpler way of doing it but it might mean you have
to save face or back down in terms of having to admit that this
is needed.
Mr Miller: I am sure Service colleagues
will want to offer a response to that. The key point is that,
as you say, preserving the chain of command is very important.
Having someone speak to a commanding officer within that chain
of command does not seem to me to be introducing a system separate
from the chain of command.
Mr Jones: I disagree with you totally
there because the young men and women who are contacting her are
not actually going to the next person up the chain of command;
they are bypassing that completely. That clearly has been a very
effective way of addressing some of these issues.
Q741 Chairman: It is bypassing some
of the steps, is it not?
Mr Miller: I can see the point
that you are making that it is bypassing a step if you like in
a complete hierarchy. The point we are making is that it is important
to preserve that chain of command as a system which deals with
these issues. We have a concern that introducing a wholly separate
system would be detrimental and damaging to that chain of command.
What we propose therefore—and I do not think it is terribly
complex and does not represent a proliferation of new proposals—is
that within that chain of command, while shortening and simplifying
the complaints procedure, there is a panel past the chain of command
with the authority delegated to it from the Service Board at which
an independent person can sit, but that preserves the chain of
command while introducing a degree of independence.
Mr Jones: Mr Miller, do you not realise
that you have a huge credibility problem in terms of this? If
we put forward what has been suggested, and I think we have already
had the list of bullying cases that gets to the Service Panel,
that is very small, frankly, from the evidence that we took in
the Defence Committee and also from what we have heard from the
families. My argument is that quite a few do not actually even
get into the complaints system, let alone be weeded out or sorted
out, as you say. That is not going to satisfy public perceptions
that this is an independent oversight? This person will have to
be superhuman and endowed with some great powers of justice and
freedom and about whom everyone is going to say that this person
is fantastically good. This is really just whitewashing over the
cracks, is it not?
Q742 Chairman: Mr Miller, I wonder
if it might be helpful at this point, because I think Kevan Jones
has put his point in quite trenchant terms, if your Service colleagues
were to comment on that?
Commodore Fraser: The key to all
of this is trust. We must not do anything to undermine the trust
between individuals and the commanding officer in particular.
Going back to the point that you are dealing with, obviously Brigadier
Andrews in some ways can speak as far as the Catterick example
is concerned, but I think the question has to be asked as to what
the CO does with the information when he gets it in that case?
Obviously he puts it back into the chain of command again
down to the appropriate level and deals with the issue. Overall,
the trust is the key. We must not do anything to undermine that,
in my view. If we do, then we stand in danger, I believe.
Q743 Vera Baird: Is not how it is
working at Catterick, the very availability of Mrs Farr's organisation,
which is quite separate role, the very point that you are missing
with these proposals?
Chairman: Brigadier, perhaps you could
address that point?
Brigadier Andrews: Could I address
the central issue that Mr Jones raises? Public perception of course
is important, but the public should have trust in the way that
we do things. Most important of all of course is that our young
people are prepared for all the stresses and strains and human
pressures of military operations and that they have faith in those
who command and lead them to deal with things if they do not go
well. On military operations there can be no suggestion that the
commanding officer is not in command. There is in some sense some
independent person over there to whom the young—
Mr Jones: I am sorry, that is absolute
rubbish and I shall not talk about that.
Q744 Chairman: I would rather you
did not use the expression "rubbish". Obviously there
are grounds for disagreement, but I think to use terms like that
is not appropriate in these circumstances.
Brigadier Andrews: I take it,
Mr Jones, that you do not agree with my analysis, but the fact
is, as the Commodore said, all this works on the basis of trust.
Therefore, those who have authority to set matters straight when
things go wrong are actually corporals, sergeants, sergeant majors
and officers. Of course they need to make properly informed decisions.
I do accept that there are those who are not directly involved,
who have an experience perhaps in other aspects of all the human
pressures that young men and women are under who can help those
junior and more senior commanders to make properly informed decisions.
The important thing is that matters are set straight as close
as possible to the point where they go wrong.
Q745 Mr Jones: What if they are the
problem? What if the corporal or the sergeant is the problem?
Brigadier Andrews: In that case,
we have to make sure that the person who feels they have been
wronged has the confidence in their more senior officers or warrant
officers to go to them. I have to say to you that in my experience
they do. I have not met many soldiers who do not have the confidence
to speak up when things go wrong and their officers know them
well enough to see when things are going wrong.
Chairman: A number of colleagues wish
to contribute to this section. I propose to take those now and
then come back to Robert Key.
Mr Touhig: Just touching briefly on the
last point that was made, and we are short of time of course,
the training programme is very good. I witnessed some of this
in Catterick on Monday. If colleagues had had the opportunities
to see a bit more of that, it might have allayed some of the fears
that I know Kevan Jones has and his general worries. On the wider
issue that Robert Key started off in terms of welfare and support,
again I was hugely impressed by what I saw on Monday. Not just
the chaplaincy but the whole welfare support comes together at
a particular point, which is accessible to all the young recruits
there. Breakfast was served and they can play pool and all the
rest of it. The support is there at a particular time. I felt
it was hugely reassuring, from talking to the youngsters as well,
that they know, whether they have a religious belief or not, that
there is somebody they can talk to if there is an issue. The environment
of the building was such, and it was an old building, that it
had little corners where people could have a discreet discussion
about some issue. I am not suggesting that this is universal but
certainly it was a good model. We could see that, hopefully, expanded
elsewhere.
Q746 Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Going back
to the independent oversight we have been discussing, can I ask
you your view of the definition in this context of independence?
Are we talking about it being independent of the chain of command
or independent of the military context?
Mr Miller: In the context of the
independent member of the panel?
Q747 Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Independent
oversight, independent reviewer?
Mr Miller: This would be someone
appointed by the Secretary of State to provide him with an annual
report on the processes that have been taken through by complainants.
Q748 Sarah McCarthy-Fry: You view
that independent person as being totally outside the military
context?
Mr Miller: Yes.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Then it would not
be a job for the boys.
Q749 Robert Key: Finally, from time
to time I receive complaints in my own constituency from young
men and women who have joined up and, with the best will in the
world, they find that the military life is just not for them.
It can sometimes be very hard for them to disengage. There must
reach a point where it is actually in the interests of the military
to discharge somebody who is clearly not appropriately on message
for the military. I just wonder if you feel that there are improvements
that could be made to the system of discharge—there is a
difference of course between discharge and other kinds of dismissal—of
a young person who has a bad experience, wants out, and then finds
there are too many blocks in the way. It is expensive and it is
time-consuming. Could you do it better?
Air Commodore Hughesdon: I think
we talked last time about how we try to make sure that when people
are recruited they understand the commitment they are signed up
for. Those under 18 have a very easy exit out if they so desire.
There then becomes a slightly more difficult balance about ensuring
that the money spent on training is contributed back to the Armed
Forces. Depending on the Service, there is an early exit, but
it is at about the three-year stage. I recognise entirely that
some people will become administrative burdens in that regard,
and we spend more time on those people to ensure that we do have
some form of process that actually looks at helping them through
the process and, if necessary, giving them early release. Whether
or not we could do better, I suspect like most learning organisations,
we probably could. There is that fine balance there.
Commodore Fraser: There are a
number of different reasons people might leave. They may want
to do so and go in the normal way of giving their notice and 12
months later, off they go and so on, or it may be that we want
them to leave, in which case inevitably we have a process for
that as well. I agree; I am sure we can always learn. Certainly,
I am not aware of any particular difficulties we have at the moment.
Q750 Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Can we move
on to the Board of Inquiry? I think this is an interesting point
and my opinion was changed during our visit. We had previous witnesses
who sat here and I could understand no reason why next of kin
should not attend Boards of Inquiry. When I actually went out
and spoke to a couple of people who had been involved in Boards
of Inquiry, they came up with some quite cogent reasons as to
why they felt that next of kin should not attend. I want to make
clear here that I was worried when people said it might inhibit
witnesses but what they meant was that they would not tell the
truth. I think, with the evidence I heard, I now understand some
of the reasons behind that. However, when we had Mrs Farr, she
said that in Catterick it has almost become normal practice that
next of kin attend Boards of Inquiry. Is there not a problem now
that we have a position in the Bill that there is a presumption
that they do not attend. However, in practice they are attending.
How are we going to resolve that discrepancy?
Air Commodore Hughesdon: I think
it is important to split out the terms there. Certainly in cases
of suicide or a death or something like that family members and
next of kin are often called as witnesses to the Board of Inquiry
and are involved in that process because quite often they have
very important information to share with the Board. Certainly
it is my Service's policy that next of kin will not be included
unless the President considers there to be exceptional reasons.
Clearly, I cannot speak for Catterick. I think it is important
to draw those two bits out. We talked through some of the reasons
previously. There is a practicality issue. In terms of honesty,
I would agree entirely that it is not about people not being honest;
it is about the fullness of the evidence that they give. It is
the openness with which they can express their views, the degree
of danger that might be involved, the bodily injury that might
have occurred. The granularity of that can really help the Board
understand what went wrong perhaps in a way that a clipped version
or 95% of that might not actually provide to the Board, and so
therefore they do not get the greater understanding of really
what it is all about. The other point is making sure that if we
were to allow next of kin to observe that somehow we do not build
up an expectation of their contribution to the Board of Inquiry.
If they are not giving evidence, what can they actually give to
the Board of Inquiry? Clearly, they will gain from it. We hope
that, in the processes that we have put in place over the last
few years and continue to develop and enhance, their understanding
of what went on, how it occurred and so on has helped enormously,
certainly from some of the earlier instances that we have heard
about in previous sessions. I hope that helps you in your thinking.
Q751 Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I still
think that we are left with an inconsistency, where some people
say, "These next of kin are allowed to attend an inquiry,
and these next of kin aren't allowed to attend an inquiry".
There are valid reasons on either side. I am not saying that it
is an easy thing to answer. Do you think that video-link would
help? You would not have next of kin face to face with someone
whose fault it may have been that their next of kin had died—which
would be an incredibly difficult situation for people to deal
with. Do you think that a video-link would help?
Brigadier Andrews: We have not
thought of that and I would need to think about it. I do need
to be clear that, as the Air Commodore said, there is a difference
between people attending as witnesses and contributing evidence
to a Board of Inquiry and those simply sitting there, observing.
That is not Army policy, and I am told by the branch in my organisation
that deals with Boards of Inquiry that that is not the case. However,
I will personally investigate precisely what the facts are and,
if I may, I will come back and let you know precisely what the
facts are. The Army's position on allowing the next of kin to
attend is as we have set out before, but we do recognise how important
it is to keep families very well informed about significant developments
in the inquiry process and what is going on. In the last two years
we have put a great deal of effort into the timeliness of Boards
of Inquiry and the whole process of making sure that those who
are affected are kept in the picture. I think that that system
now works very well indeed. We go to great pains that we did not
go to before, to make sure that people are kept in the picture.
We understand full well that they do want to know and, when there
is a significant development in an inquiry, we make a point of
telling them and we do keep in touch with people. That is a major
improvement which we have put in place over the last couple of
years.
Q752 Mr Burrowes: Is there a way
to involve the next of kin in terms of being part of the final
hearing? To distinguish it in terms of a timing, between the investigative
side to it—which is more akin to the investigation, trying
just to find out what has happened—the time when you are
being open to the public about the results and recommendations
you have come to, and the involvement of the public and the next
of kin at an early stage in that kind of hearing, when you have
come to a view. So that it does not simply come out in a drip
feed, from information that is being filtered out.
Brigadier Andrews: We always make
sure that, when the Board has finished its work—its findings
are established, it has made its recommendations—those findings
and recommendations are personally briefed to families. I am sorry,
perhaps I am misunderstanding your question?
Q753 Mr Burrowes: I am not suggesting
a change in terms of the Board of Inquiry. I recognise that you
are often keen, as quickly as possible, to try to find out what
has happened—and that is more of an investigation-type of
process rather than a hearing as such, in the inquest form—and
whether there is justification then to crack on without the next
of kin present. However, is there some point when you are going
to come to the point of saying, "This is what has happened",
in a forum where the next of kin are present—at that kind
of hearing, as such?
Commodore Fraser: I see what you
are saying. The problem is that in a lot of these cases—and
I looked back, for example, over the last three years in terms
of naval Boards of Inquiry—it is quite interesting that
a number of them, for example at the beginning of Telic, where
we had two helicopters crashing and so on—
Q754 Mr Burrowes: Yes, we spoke to
someone earlier.
Commodore Fraser: You may well
have heard of that. It is quite interesting because in those cases
you do them both together effectively, the investigation and putting
the report together, because you produce it so quickly. Because,
for as long as you do not know what has happened, you are grounding
aircraft in an operational situation, and it is absolutely vital
that you get an answer as quickly as possible, and that report
is produced. The thing is so compressed in terms of time that
it would be difficult to split it out, I think.
Q755 Vera Baird: I am interested
to know from you, Brigadier, how you have done that process you
describe, to which you have committed resources and a lot of thinking.
How do you keep the families who are not going to go to the Board
of Inquiry closely in touch with what is happening? Do you delegate
a particular officer, with access to the officer? How does it
work?
Brigadier Andrews: We have an
Army aftercare and incident support cell, and it is part of my
Directorate of Personal Services. There would be a nominated officer,
usually a civil servant, who will maintain close contact with
the family that has been affected by an incident of death or serious
injury. Those links are very well forged. The visiting officer
also plays a very important part in this. It may be that a family
prefers to deal with the visiting officer—somebody they
know, face to face, and can see regularly, really as often as
they like—and that they would prefer the information to
come through that visiting officer. Those are well-established
links. If you want to know more about the work of that particular
cell, we would of course be delighted to provide a short note.
Q756 Mr Jones: When was that established?
Brigadier Andrews: The cell itself
has been formally established since April last year, but that
was because at that stage each of the Services had their own separate
casualty and compassionate cells. Perhaps I can just explain for
a moment. Since April last year we have had what is called a Joint
Casualty and Compassionate Cell so that, when drama strikes, next
of kin are informed as quickly as possible and any compassionate
travel arrangements are put in place efficiently, quickly and
without delay. It is a system that works extremely well. When
the single Services did it on their own it worked extremely well;
it works extremely well now that it is done together. Previously,
the work of the cell that we put in place last April was undertaken
by the Army's Casualty and Compassionate Cell; indeed some of
the staff are the same staff.
Chairman: It might be helpful, Brigadier, if
you could give us some more information about that in written
form.
Brigadier Andrews: Yes, of course.
Chairman: We do need to press on a little
now.
Q757 Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have
a Bill that is very thick, and obviously it is at a very top level.
Much of the practical implications of how it will work will obviously
be in secondary legislation. Certainly everyone I spoke to last
week said that we underestimate the task of trying to bring three
separate bits of legislation in together. From our point of view,
however, when we are trying to work out how it is going to happen,
we are—certainly I am—a bit concerned. How much information
will we have about the secondary legislation that is going to
come before we get to the Report stage?
Mr Morrison: As I think I have
mentioned before, there are many areas of the Bill in which what
we will be providing in subordinate legislation is essentially
a tri-servicing of existing separate regulations. However, I happily
acknowledge that, because of the numerous changes we are making
in the details of the system, we will be examining every aspect,
every detail, of all the existing statutory instruments to decide
exactly what changes are necessary. The Committee stage itself,
and the whole of the parliamentary stage, affords us a vital opportunity
for examining our developing proposals. For example, we have discussed
this morning what we should be saying in the SIs when we have
an independent member on redress. We have discussed what the SIs
should say about membership of Courts Martial on a single or a
Tri-Service basis in different circumstances. The parliamentary
process itself is, if I may say so, vital to the development,
particularly of those parts of the subordinate legislation where
we are having to think afresh: either they are under new powers,
or ones where the Bill represents a change of direction and creative
and policy thinking is necessary. Obviously we would be happy
to try to keep the Committee informed of progress. However, this
task is so massive that it will inevitably be the case that the
main work on the most difficult statutory instruments starts and
is continued during a period of two years or so after the main
parliamentary procedure is over. Obviously if there are particular
areas—we have discussed, say, what we are going to do on
redress or membership of Courts Martial—on which you would
like our current thinking about what will be in the SIs, we would
be very happy to try to provide as much information as we can.
The most immediate task in terms of subordinate legislation, which
is very heavily underway at the moment, is actually the production
of transitional regulations, as it were to get us from A to B,
to get us from the existing position to the final position. Those
are being handled between us and Parliamentary Counsel. Unusually,
Parliamentary Counsel are extremely helpfully doing the drafting,
so that you can get a process more like a legislative process
involved for looking at the development of the transitional provisions.
Those will be developing over the next few months, and I think
that before the end of the parliamentary process there will be
quite a clear picture of how the main transitional arrangements
will work. On that area, therefore, we will certainly be able
to give Parliament a lot more information during the parliamentary
stage.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Given that answer,
I think you have made an excellent case for retaining annual reviews,
seeing as it is going to be so complex. If we are to keep on top
of it at all, I think that we will have to look at it every year.
Chairman: That is a very strong point.
Can I emphasise that if we could have as much information as possible
it would put us in a position to make better decisions, knowing
what the consequence was of them.
Q758 Mr Burrowes: Dealing with the
Director of Service Prosecutions and the key role they will play
under the Bill, and the sentiments expressed by senior officers
that, ideally, they would have to have some Service experience,
do you now support that view and would you suggest that it is
written on the face of the Bill?
Mrs Jones: The Committee has heard
quite a lot of evidence about the importance of Service experience
in that position. Our difficulty with actually putting that on
the face of the Bill is in defining what you mean by "Service
experience". There are provisions in the Bill about the legal
qualifications of the holder of that post, but how you define
Service experience could be a great deal more difficult. Are you
talking about somebody who held a short Service commission 20
years ago? That counts as Service experience. Are you talking
about somebody who has been in the front line on operations? Not
many lawyers are in the front line on operations, although they
visit operational theatres. So our view was that, rather than
find ourselves in difficulty in putting that on the face of legislation,
we would deal with the issue in relation to the recruitment of
the individual; and the qualifications of candidates would be
a much better way of narrowing down what sort of experience we
are talking about. The danger is that, if you put something as
general as "has Service experience" on the face of the
Bill, you expose yourself to people who have very limited Service
experience indeed. If we draw it up too tightly in primary legislation,
we could find ourselves excluding the person we are really looking
for, which is the best person for the job.
Q759 Chairman: The classical way
round that usually is, "to have regard to". Is that
a possibility?
Mrs Jones: I do not think we have
thought of that. I do not know whether there will be an objection
to "have regard to".
| 
