Memorandum from Mrs Lynn Farr, Daniel's
Trust
Daniel's Trust was started in May 2005 after
soldiers and families of young soldiers started to contact myself
and other parents asking for help and advice into the how they
are being treated by the Army.
I realise I will never know the truth of the circumstances
surrounding Daniel's death because eight years is a long time
for people to remember exactly what happened, and because of this
I started the Trust along with Norma Langford, whose son Ian died
in Belize in a noncombat situation in the hope that others do
not have to suffer the same as us.
I also understand the feeling of the Committee that
we do not cover the same ground as the Defence Select Committee
did in 2004, but a lot of the recommendations made by that committee
have impact on what is happening today.
There is a need for a fully independent complaints
panel and oversight of the armed forces. This is proved time and
time again by the requests that we receive from soldiers and their
families. They do not trust the NCOs, the Commanding Officers,
army welfare, padres and whatever other systems are in place at
all. A lot of them that have gone through the chain of command
with grievances find the situation gets worse for them for speaking
out. In some cases they have to initially complain to the person
responsible for the problem in the first place. We have spoken
to and met with some of the soldiers concerned and seen at first
hand what is happening to them. Two we have been contacted by
are now in mental rehabilitation units voluntarily.
The trust of the padres is even less, to them they
are just other officers; we have seen this example first hand
at our visit to Catterick. A question that should be raised is:
Is there a need for a Padre should they hold rank?
I note from evidence given by the WRVS that they
have had around 70 referrals. That is not a lot in my eyes and
I would also question what is meant by a referral. Is that to
say the soldiers were referred to them by their commanding officers
or did they go on their own free will. Daniel's Trust receives
calls from soldiers and their families at their own free will
usually because they do not know which way to turn. In some cases
they have already contacted the army welfare service and nothing
has happened to alleviate the situation, but with our help and
support we have been able to advise and sometimes mediate with
army officers on behalf of them. Not forgetting that Daniel's
Trust is only voluntary and self funding with a limited time for
us to deal with calls because of work and family commitments,
but we can average around two calls a week asking for help and
advice. This in itself should prove a need for an independent
complaints panel.
On our visit to the Infantry Training Centre (ITC)
at Catterick in October 2005 one of the questions asked was if
the army have all these systems in place why do the soldiers contact
Daniel's Trust? No one could answer this but to us it is obvious.
In most cases the senior officers do not know what is fully happening
on camp. As an example we have recently been contacted by a young
soldier, under the age of 18 that was allegedly threatened by
a corporal with a machete at Catterick. When I spoke to the senior
officer about this he said he was aware of the case but a machete
to some people was a knife to others. I assured him it was a machete
and he said he would call be back which he did to say "yes
it was a machete and it would be forming a large part of the inquiry".
The young soldier was immediately given leave and is home at the
moment. So the true story never reached the Colonel of ITC. I
wonder how that inquiry would have turned out if he had not been
made aware of the true circumstances.
One of the other things that came out of the visit
was that the senior officers at ITC acknowledged because of our
independence and our stand on confidentiality was that we get
to know a lot more than they do and would like to consider ways
of working with us to help them with the issues that arose. We
also asked if we could conduct an independent survey funded by
Daniel's Trust among the recruits into bullying on camp. I have
enclosed a copy (not printed). I was told that this could be an
interesting exercise and that some of the questions could possibly
be expanded upon. We left a copy of the questionnaire with them
and they are considering letting us do this. We also left a copy
of our leaflet which they have sent to the Army Recruiting and
Training Agency to see if it is suitable to be distributed to
recruits on the camp. They did however let us distribute our wristbands
but not helpline numbers.
One of the Trusts great concerns is the lack of vetting
around trainers on the armed forces training camps. I am aware
of the submission of Deepcut & Beyond as I am a member of
the group and would like to reiterate all that has been said around
this and the need for a proper vetting procedure to be put in
place without repeating it.
I would like however, to expand a little further
on this because even if a proper vetting procedure was introduced
it would not work effectively unless changes were made to support
this. One of these changes we would like to see made is that anyone
accused under section 70 of the army regulations 1955 has their
case heard in a civilian court, as these are criminal offences.
At the moment I have been led to believe that the commanding officer
makes the decision as to if the case goes to court martial or
not. If the case goes to a court martial then the person concerned
would receive a criminal record and details as such would be held
with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). If the commanding officer
dishes out the punishment instead then nothing else is heard of
the matter, so any checks done would be worthless. Commanding
officers should not be able to exercise this right.
I have also been speaking to some staff at Connexions
and one of the statements made to me more than once was that when
ex army personnel apply to them for job advice and help and they
are told that checks will be made against them for the suitability
of the job their answers are usually arrogant stating "If
you find anything that is." Surely this is not right.
We note also the changes in the Board of Inquiry
(BOI) procedures and the involvement of parents and family members.
This is warmly welcomed and to be fair, Catterick have already
implemented such a procedure. The family of Carl Spottiswood who
was found hung on the Somme Barracks at Catterick was not only
informed of the BOI but was asked to attend and give evidence.
This included the current partner of Carl, his parents and his
ex wife. The MOD also paid any out of pocket expenses. The parents
of Carl were on holiday in Germany at the time and the army arranged
for a video connection to their hotel enabling them to take part.
When a question was raised in parliament about this asking Adam
Ingram when these changes came into effect he said they hadn't.
If it is possible we would be more than willing to
attend a session to answer any questions around the submission
that may arise.
February 2006
| 
