| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
22 Apr 2009 : Column 84WH—continued
That argument could be developed further. I mentioned earlier the tragic deaths of 10 servicemen in a Hercules XV179 in Baghdad in 2004 or 2005. A High Court case is pending. The families are suing the Ministry of Defence, because it did not fit foam suppressant in the wing tank of the Hercules aircraft. That is a matter for the High Court, and we cannot discuss it here. The coroner reviewed the case very carefully and came out heavily against the MOD. However, the notion that the commissioner might act on behalf of those families would seem to cut across the High Court, which is considering the matter, and the coroner, who produced an extremely critical report and said that the MOD was
badly at fault. There was a similar case involving a Nimrod. For a third authority—a lady with no particular back-up or support—to throw her twopence worth into such an extremely complicated and difficult inquiry would be plain wrong.
Establishing an independent ombudsman to do precisely what the coroner ought to be doing, merely because the hon. Lady has a number of complaints about the way in which the coronial system works, would seem to be a diversion of effort. The Coroners and Justice Bill is being considered in the other place, where I hope the point about barristers at inquests will be taken into account. There is something to be said for that. Surely, however, if there is something wrong with the way in which families are handled in the coronial system—I made this point during Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill—that is an argument for improving the coronial system. The notion of introducing a third organisation—the commissioner—to make up for perceived deficiencies in the coronial system or regimental chain of command seems administratively complicated.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman apparently fails to understand that the coroner is not a detective. The coroner establishes the cause of death, but that does not mean that the coroner’s report can identify why that cause of death occurred. Does he not understand that those of us who believe that young recruits were murdered at Deepcut Army barracks do not expect the coroner to be able to prove that point? That was explained by Nicholas Blake QC, when he called for either the full disclosure of the Devon and Cornwall police report into the Surrey police handling of those death, or a full independent public inquiry. Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with Nicholas Blake?
Mr. Gray: I have difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on two fronts. First, he is quite wrong: the coroner’s job is indeed to establish the cause of death. That is precisely what the coroner is required to do under law. However, let us imagine that he is not doing his job. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the complaints commissioner should become what he describes as a “detective”, but the 2006 Act did not establish the complaints commissioner as a detective to look into the facts. The hon. Gentleman does not like not only what the coroner did, but what the police did—he says that they had looked into the matter and also got it wrong. He seems to be proposing that the Service Complaints Commissioner should say, “You, Mr. Coroner, are no good. I did not like your conclusion. You, the police service, are no good either. I now set myself up as a new kind of detective. I will look into the complex series of reasons behind the deaths, and I want my voice to be heard above both of yours.” [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman waves his hands in the air in a charming way as only he does, but I said a moment ago that we should put Deepcut to one side. We are not discussing Deepcut, but whether or not the commissioner can do a useful job today in investigating complaints by servicemen who are alive. By talking about whether or not the commissioner should be an alternative coroner, we have diverted the debate away from its extremely important subject.
Mrs. Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will finish my point first. We are a bit short on time.
In the report, which I have read only lightly, the commissioner does not ask for the ability to set herself up as an alternative coroner. Her job, and the job clearly laid down in the 2006 Act, is to scrutinise the way in which the complaints system within the armed services is working. In other words, if the complaints system is not working well, it is her job to scrutinise that. If we, in this debate or in other discussions, were led to a sort of generalised belief that somehow neither the coronial system nor the chain of command system were working and that we had to set up an alternative to both, we would be doing the complaints commission system itself a disservice.
Mrs. Humble: The hon. Gentleman misinterprets what I said. I thought that I had clarified my point in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). I am not asking for the commissioner to be a separate investigating body. I am pointing out deficiencies in the existing system, some of which are being addressed through the Coroners and Justice Bill. Questions relating to boards of inquiry and their link to the coroners’ system have not been properly addressed. The Government have already said that the complaints commissioner should be notified of a death; I am simply asking that she be kept informed of the progress of the investigation of that death. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that if a pattern is emerging across a series of deaths of which the commissioner and the armed forces should be aware, she should report on that. Not all road traffic accidents are the same: some might have a cause of which she and the Army should be aware and on which they should act.
Mr. Gray: I have obviously touched a raw nerve. I was not answering the hon. Lady’s intervention, but that of the hon. Member for Pembroke—
Lembit Öpik: For Montgomeryshire.
Mr. Gray: I knew it was a place in Wales. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we are not asking here for extra powers for the commissioner. Plainly, we are not. We are not seeking to find some way to investigate deaths. The commissioner’s main job must be to investigate the complaints of living servicemen—that is plainly laid out in the 2006 Act—about harassment, discrimination and bullying. That is the problem we face. We need to know whether or not there is an endemic problem of that sort in the armed services today.
In that context, I congratulate the hon. Lady on calling this important debate. I congratulate and thank the commissioner for her outstanding work in her first year of operation. I enjoin the Government to encourage her in what she is doing and to find a way to allow her to report directly to Parliament—perhaps through MOD Ministers or something of the sort—in future years, and not to be tempted by calls for the widening of her powers.
Mr. Greg Pope (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), may I remind hon. Members that it is customary for us to begin the winding-up speeches at half-past 10?
10.24 am
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I accept and acknowledge your guidance, Mr. Pope.
I am standing here because, for about seven years, I have been trying to clarify why Cheryl James, the daughter of my constituents Des and Doreen James, died at Deepcut barracks. I am left in little doubt that she was murdered and that there has been a systemic cover-up of her murder and probably the murder of three other recruits at that Army camp.
My frustration with the situation arises from the fact that, at every turn, it seems that the Army and, to an extent, the police have been quite happy to conspire to cover up the circumstances of those deaths. My direct response to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is that no coroner would be able to get to the heart of the matter as an independent and effective Service Complaints Commissioner could. He fails to understand that a coroner is not able to exercise the authority to establish whether systemic bullying, or nefarious practices that lead directly to the death of recruits, are going on at an Army barracks. The coroner is simply required to establish the cause of death, and not why the victim suffered those causes. It is for that reason that we need to examine the reach of the powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) has said.
I am astounded that, after all these years, we still have not got full disclosure of the facts pertaining to the Deepcut deaths. The only reason that we have made any progress at all is that we have persisted in trying to expose the murders. I remember the day I was attempting to force the Government to respond to an urgent question regarding the deaths at Deepcut when, lo and behold, the MOD Minister, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), decided to make a statement to launch the Nicholas Blake inquiry. Naively I thought that the inquiry would be objective and would lead to progress, but, sadly, it seems to have been as big a sham as the rest of the process. That is why it is necessary that we look closely at the powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner and decide whether those powers are sufficient to get to the heart of cases such as those at Deepcut. In my last exchange with the Minister, he brushed me off by saying that it was not necessary or appropriate for him to respond in detail to the question that I asked on the Floor of the House. He implied that I was a conspiracy theorist. Well, I am a conspiracy theorist because I believe that there has been a conspiracy to cover up four deaths at Deepcut Army barracks. [Interruption.]
The Minister for the Armed Forces is clearly entertained by this, but I can tell him that the parents are not. Des James is one of the most reasonable and circumspect individuals whom I have had the honour to represent. I am sorry to tell the Minister that Des James has no faith in the state’s ability to investigate itself when individuals are murdered within state structures. Mr. James recently saw a play at the Tricycle theatre that covered those very points. When the Minister’s predecessor was invited to attend the play, he sent a message to Des James that said:
“I have no wish to see the play because I believe it will not be balanced and will reflect an all too painful analysis.”
In another e-mail, he said that he believed the play would be
“strong on polemic and weak on objective analysis.”
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I did not say that.
Lembit Öpik: I can show the Minister the text that was sent to Des James. Is that the sympathy that we can expect from the Government? How on earth is there any consistency between the alleged empathy with the plight of parents who have lost their offspring within the military system that the Minister expresses and comments such as those are sent directly to one of the parents of a deceased child?
I have two specific requests to make. Will the Minister tell me whether he is certain that the four who died at Deepcut Army barracks were not murdered? Will he tell us on the record that they were not murdered? Secondly, why on earth is it that, so much time after the Nicholas Blake inquiry, we still have not had an independent public inquiry into those deaths? The Minister will recall that Nicholas Blake said that if the Devon and Cornwall police report into Surrey police’s handling of the deaths at Deepcut Army barracks was not made public, we should have a full, independent public inquiry. That is on the record, but the report has not been published, nor have we had the inquiry. When will the Minister ensure that one or other of those takes place?
I have tried time and again to use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to have the Devon and Cornwall police report released, but it has not been released. It is in the public interest to get to the heart of why the four recruits died at Deepcut. Unless the Minister is willing to make progress today, the matter will go to the courts. That will lead to yet another embarrassing series of revelations, when the Government and the Minister could simply put right something that has been very wrong for 14 years.
10.30 am
Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on the way in which she introduced the debate. As she said, this is the first occasion on which we have such a report to debate and the first opportunity to make a judgment on how the new system is performing. She tangled with some difficult and emotive issues in an even-handed and level-headed way and I agreed with a number of the points that she made.
The new commissioner has made herself available to Members of the House and everybody else with whom she interacts. She has been very open and I commend her on it. I met her to discuss her work and it is clear that she is setting about her role within the terms laid down by Parliament with determination. She has a clear vision of where she is going. I am impressed by her general approach and encouraged by some of the things that she told me. She said that in some instances, initially, she found some resistance to her involvement in inquiries, and some scepticism and suspicion of her role. However, she said that even in the short time in which she has been in post, there has been a thawing of some of the hostility towards her and a willingness on the part of the armed forces to interact with her, which is welcome.
None the less, at this stage, she is only beginning to scratch the surface of the problems, based on the surveys to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood referred when she introduced the debate. The experience, impressions and belief of armed service personnel is that the problem is more widespread than the scale of the cases with which the commissioner is dealing would imply. I am not suggesting that all cases ought to end up with the commissioner; it is hoped that the chain of command will be capable of dealing with the lion’s share. However, I believe that there is a bigger problem than she has yet begun to tangle with. It is her first year of operation. The 193 cases that she has considered do not constitute a large number, but I expect that when we debate such things in future, the number will have increased.
For the first time probably, the debate gives us the opportunity to consider whether we believe that the system that has been created has given adequate power and independence to the commissioner. My party colleagues and I wanted the commissioner to have a stronger role and preferred the proposal for an ombudsman, which the Defence Committee and others suggested. Nothing so far has given me occasion to change my view that we need an official with greater powers than we have given to the commissioner. I noted with interest some of the proposals that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood made, particularly her suggestion that the role should be vaguely analogous to that of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons and that there should be a role for lay visitors. Both proposals are interesting. We must give it time, but I believe that we have not given adequate powers to the commissioner.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) made an excellent speech in the defence procurement debate on Monday afternoon and I found myself heckling him, in a sympathetic fashion, from a sedentary position. I am rather less in agreement with what he said in this debate. He started off by correctly reminding us that young personnel new to the armed services must learn to accept military discipline. They are going to be put into theatres of war, where complete military discipline is essential to their survival and the successful prosecution of their objectives. It would therefore be no great kindness to young recruits to treat them with kid gloves or to avoid the need for them to accept those harsh realities from the outset. However, precisely because it is their duty to obey the chain of command virtually unquestioningly, it is all the more important that there is a separate, independent avenue to go down if they have a genuine grievance that they do not feel able to raise with the chain of command.
I fundamentally disagree with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. In particular, I do not agree that allowing a commissioner to have a power of investigation—at the moment, all she can do is monitor the investigations that the armed forces carry out—would somehow cut across what other people do. The role of the police is to examine whether the law has been broken and whether there has been any criminality. That is all—their role does not go beyond that. The coroner’s role is to establish the cause of death. Coroners have slightly more latitude than the police to go beyond that. They often look at some of the background, and they may make recommendations, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood said, based on
what comes to their attention in the course of their inquiries. However, even the coroner’s role is limited. Many aggrieved service personnel and their families want more investigation into the nooks and crannies, beyond that which the police or the coroner have a duty to undertake.
I disagree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that court action would cut across any investigatory powers given to the commissioner. I would compare the situation with what happens when there is a death or maiming in a hospital. In that case, the police are called in to investigate potential criminality and the coroner looks at the cause of death, but an aggrieved patient or their family might wish to take the matter either to court or to the health service ombudsman. Many ombudsmen exercise their powers only as long as court proceedings are not taking place, but it is perfectly common for them to go over the same ground that the police or a coroner might go over to learn more and to determine whether there has been any systematic failure, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood said. I am not persuaded that we will not need to come back in future and extend further powers to the commissioner to create something more akin to an ombudsman.
We ask an awful lot of our armed services personnel. The bullying and harassment about which we have heard a lot this morning are undoubtedly unacceptable. I am quite convinced that there are the beginnings of a shift in culture, but there is further to go. Nevertheless, armed forces personnel may wish to raise matters other than bullying and harassment. They might want to raise the inadequacy of their kit, for example, on which one coroner has commented. I should have thought it preferable for people to make complaints before the event rather than looking at things in retrospect.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that many people die in road traffic accidents. Some years ago, a constituent of mine was maimed by a collision with a vehicle while on physical training. To this day, he blames the Army for what happened, but he has never had the opportunity to have his case looked at. That was a question not of faulty equipment, but of faulty procedure. There is a lot more to come. The commissioner’s reports in future years will give us further opportunity to judge whether we have given the office adequate powers. I am not convinced that we have done so and I believe that we will have to return to the matter in future to extend the commissioner’s role or something akin to it.
10.39 am
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): May I start by declaring my interests in the Register? I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on securing this debate and on the excellent way in which she presented it. The debate has been excellent, but slightly odd in that the meat of the Service Complaints Commissioner’s first report has been set to one side as we have debated wider issues relating to Deepcut. However, Deepcut is important, as it underpins the creation of the post.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |