WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004 (AFTERNOON)

MR DES JAMES, MRS DOREEN JAMES, MR JAMES COLLINSON, MRS YVONNE COLLINSON, MR GEOFF GRAY AND MRS DIANE GRAY

  Q1180  Mr Hancock: That is exactly how—

  Mr Collinson: That is exactly what he said to me on the phone. I just could not believe it. When I was informed of James's death, it was like—you have just been told that your son has died, and then we had been asked, you know, "is it going to be a cremation or is it going to be a burial?" You are making choices on your feet when you are still trying to get your head clear, and then you know, all of a sudden, he comes back to something else, and all of a sudden the suggestion is there in front of you, you know: "Don't rip yourself apart inside yourself. You don't know what drives them to do this." That is when you realise that he is telling you that he committed suicide, and it's like Geoff and the rest of them are saying, it is always this target they were putting in the big toe that your son all of a sudden committed suicide; and yet at James's funeral one of his mates actually turned round and says when he was changed over at six o'clock, James was as happy as a lark himself and he was joking with him. Then James was going out on guard duty at nine o'clock. James actually saw his girlfriend and shouted to her—he says, "How are you doing? I have something to tell you. I'll see you when I come off duty." He was dead half an hour later, and yet he was an unarmed officer that night; the only thing James was armed with was a fluorescent vest and a torch.

  Mr James: The most senior officer was a captain. A number of them came in a minibus—a similar experience really. They were pretty well herded from there quite quickly. I think it was really our insistence that they came back for a cup of tea after the funeral, but their reluctance we put down to the fact that they had such a long journey. It was a captain, and again I repeat the Commanding Officer—we did not even know who he was.

  Q1181  Chairman: It has proved distressing for the soldiers too, has it not, as much as the—

  Mr James: For the kids.

  Q1182  Chairman: Just a terrible, terrible occasion.

  Mr Collinson: And at James's afterwards—you know they had tea and that afterwards. It was very much that they were kept in a corner and there were senior officers there, and they were not allowed to even speak. You went up and thanked them for doing a hard job, and they were not even allowed to speak about him, you know. We were just standing there trying to make conversation with them, and it was always that they were feeling very uncomfortable and they were not allowed to say anything.

  Chairman: I am really sorry to ask questions about the funeral, but it is this relationship we are seeking to explore.

  Q1183  Mr Roy: I would like to move to the attitude towards bullying and harassment, and there are a couple of points I would like to put to you. Do you believe that the Army was complacent about bullying at initial training establishments; and to your knowledge has it got better or worse since your own involvement?

  Mr Gray: In Geoff's case, Surrey Police cannot find any indication that Geoff had been bullied at all. The only one very, very strange comment was that the Coroner's officer from Surrey told us that after Geoff's post mortem he had not been sexually assaulted, which I thought was very strange. It is just a very strange thing to say.

  Mrs Gray: But when we did go and view Geoff's body, I pulled back the drapes that were over him, and he was covered in bruises and he had fine lines around his neck. We just looked at each other, and we thought that it must be off the post mortem. It was not until afterwards that you realise you do not bruise after you die.

  Mr Gray: He had a black eye as well.

  Mrs Gray: Yes, he had a black eye. We were told before we went in to view him, that he looks like he has been in a fight.

  Q1184  Mr Hancock: What was the explanation?

  Mrs Gray: There was no explanation really, was there? Before we went in, we were asked to sign the form to say it was Geoff who we had seen. That was before we had gone in. Geoff refused and just looked, and thought, "how stupid!" He just looked, and I think enough was said by the look. The room was filled with officers and the Coroner's officer.

  Q1185  Mr Hancock: Army officers were present?

  Mrs Gray: Yes.

  Q1186  Mr Hancock: Where was this?

  Mr Gray: This was in Frimley Park Hospital.

  Q1187  Mr Hancock: In the military part of Frimley Park.

  Mrs Gray: Yes.

  Mrs Collinson: It is what is interpreted as bullying is what worries me because I remember the only one thing James every told me about at his passing-out parade at Pirbright was that they had been out on a night exercise, and they were tired, hungry and cold, and could not wait to get back to get something to eat and a shower. They had to climb up this muddy embankment, and it was very wet and they kept slipping back down. When James got to the top this particular sergeant had made some comment about him and the amount of time it took him to get up this embankment, and James had made some smart remark back. In return for that the sergeant then kicked him all the way back down to the bottom of the hill. Of course, my reaction as a mother was, "God, who is he? Tell me; I am going to sort this out." He said, "Oh, Mum, don't be silly. This is the British Army; that's what they do." He was not the least bit perturbed about it at all; he just accepted that.

  Q1188  Mr Hancock: How old was he at that time?

  Mrs Collinson: He would have been 16.

  Q1189  Mr Hancock: He was 16 and the sergeant kicked him back down—

  Mrs Collinson: Yes, and that was obviously acceptable. James actually thought it was quite funny—you know, you could tell. He said: "Oh, well, it has taught me a lesson. I will never be cheeky to him again." But like Geoff was saying about their son, again with the black eye as well, it was the same kind of thing.

  Mr Collinson: When James died they did a post mortem on the Wednesday. It was not a Home Office pathologist. There was no forensics to gather at all. It was a simple case of opening him up, removing his organs and putting them back in. There was not a proper post mortem done. There was no evidence gathered to see if he had actually fired that weapon. There was nothing done, and when we actually—after his funeral it was six months later after our meeting with Surrey Police we actually had to get his body exhumed so we could have a proper post mortem; and then we done the second post mortem and they then discovered that he had actually a fractured jaw, because when Yvonne went down to identify James's body, she phoned me up and says, "My God, Jim, it looks like he's . . ."

  Q1190  Mr Roy: Doreen, and Des, can we just move on to the point on the attitude to bullying?

  Mr James: I had an experience where I visited Deepcut for the very first time in June 2003. As a result of the Surrey Police investigation I was in contact regularly with Lt Col Ron Laden, who was the Commanding Officer at Deepcut at the time, and indeed at the time of the deaths of James and Geoff. I found Lt Col Laden to be quite helpful in offering me information, and I have many letters that passed between us, and information that he handed over. Eventually, I had the courage to finally visit the site and see where my daughter had died. Lt Col Laden showed me around together with another officer, and actually pointed out the various initiatives that you referred to this morning, with WI and WRVS and all the posters and all the things. I agree that had I been an inspector, I would have been immensely impressed. Some weeks later there was an article in a newspaper about a boy who was going AWOL from Deepcut. Every time he went back, he was being beaten up. Through that journalist I was put in touch with the boy directly and spoke to him on a number of occasions. The story he told me was quite horrific. So I phoned Ron Laden, and I said: "Ron, remember what you told me—the WRVS, the WI, the Army, reputation—your fellows are just knocking hell out of this lad. What are you doing? Why are you doing it?" "Yeah", he said, "but he's useless; he just keeps running away". I said: "But you keep beating him up." "No, no, no," he said, "he just runs away all the time". I said: "Ron, honestly, I have spoken to the boy and if he is no good send him away from the Army. Why are you doing this?" But the attitude, the mentality—could not get through.

  Q1191  Mr Roy: I can well understand what you are saying. Earlier this year the Committee visited the Army Foundation College at Harrogate, and once we were there in the meal area we were allowed to go and sit amongst recruits on our own without officers present. I went towards a young group of Scots lads and I sat down and I was really, really saddened when I started speaking to them about possibly bullying. One of the young guys from Fife had said, "it's a man's Army and you've got to be able to handle bullying". I really thought, "we have not really learned anything". This young 16-year-old was coming in and the attitude was that bullying was acceptable. "I have to show my manliness by saying that is acceptable and I will be able to accept it; and if I cannot handle it then I am going to be a failure." That deeply saddened me because I thought that we have learnt nothing in the last 10 years from your experience. I just wonder therefore if that is going to change either the attitude of the Army or the attitude of that young guy.

  Mr James: This is a senior officer. I think it is so important for this Committee to realise that. These are the people you will talk to. I do not believe for one second that all the people in the Armed Forces are bad people—of course I do not; that would be ridiculous. However, I can tell you that up until that conversation—and it was close to a year that I had been talking to this officer—he had continually told me (a) all four deaths at Deepcut were suicides, no question, no debate; that is the way it was; and (b) about these fantastic learnings that had come. He told me, "we have sorted it out". All the things that are being now sold to you, please, please, do not accept that at face value at a high level. These people are not down on the floor talking to the people that it is happening to. It is like talking to the MD about theft on the shop floor: he does not have a clue.

  Q1192  Mr Hancock: Tell us what the boy said to you, Des.

  Mr James: The boy was unhappy. He was being bullied. It was well covered in the press. I do not have direct contact with—

  Q1193  Mr Hancock: Tell us what he said to you as opposed to what he said to the journalist.

  Mr James: He told me that he was being bullied and that every time he ran away, when they got him back they just beat him up again and made his life a misery, and so he ran away again.

  Q1194  Mr Hancock: Was this his fellow soldiers or was this—

  Mr James: Yes—well, it was the corporals and the RMPs. He was just—his punishment for running away was beating him up. His response to being beaten up was running away. He was in a circle, and he was a kid. I could not understand why they did not just get rid of him then, because if you believe he is no good, why do you keep him there? The most important point is that this officer is not somebody from 1974; this is an officer who believed in the new Army, what is being sold to you remember.

  Mr Hancock: Do you think he knew what was going on? Do you think the Lt Colonel in charge of that barracks—

  Q1195  Chairman: Honestly, I think—he is not here. We have heard it and I think it is not fair to carry on.

  Mr James: Chairman, could I end with one question then? I do appreciate—I really do—that this inquiry was never intended to be about Deepcut, but we do have three out of four parents who lost their children at Deepcut, and the one thing that we are looking for is accountability; and the one thing that necessitates accountability is a balanced debate. Can we assume with any confidence that both the Commanding Officers who were commanding the camps when our children died will come before this Committee? Is that intended?

  Q1196  Chairman: No, that is not intended, I am sorry, but—

  Mr James: Are we taking a one-sided view, then?

  Q1197  Chairman: But please do not draw the conclusion that we are indifferent. We have heard about this specific case before; so it is not the first time it has come up. We tried to explain. We are looking backwards in a way, because we have to look backwards to know what recommendations were made by various organs within the Ministry of Defence, and see what happened to them. Quite clearly, a lot of the recommendations just disappeared in several puffs of smoke. What we cannot do is take either the role of the Surrey Police or of the Ministry of Defence. I am restraining the limits of our rules of engagement in going back the way we are, but the reason we are doing it—I do not want you to think that we are just appointed by the Ministry of Defence to reflect their interests. That is not the case. The fact that we are not going to call these guys and do our own personal inquiry is because of our rather tight rules of practice. It does not mean to say we are indifferent to that, but we cannot investigate that.

  Mr Gray: Can we not see what went wrong at Deepcut with regards to Mr Skinner? Obviously, the camp CO must have been aware of Mr Skinner's previous record, and allowed a sexual predator to be in contact with 700 young vulnerable recruits. Surely the camp CO should be brought—

  Q1198  Chairman: If not before us, because we had this from the Surrey Police, and we were just incredulous when we heard. If I remember correctly, they did say that the Skinner case took place after the circumstances surrounding your children's deaths, a repugnant, repellent individual—and I wish the sentence had been 10 times longer. Surrey Police told us it was not a material fact. He was not there.

  Mr Gray: Is it not a duty of care issue that a Commanding Officer has allowed a sexual predator to be in contact with young recruits?

  Q1199  Chairman: It is, in my view, and it is absolutely appalling, and I cannot say any stronger than that. The MoD know that we are aware of that, and they know our views, but we cannot replicate the role of the Police in calling people to account: this is not the role of a Select Committee. We are deriving the lessons from the Police.

  Mr James: With respect, Chairman, and at the risk of labouring the point, I am not convinced that taking evidence, even regarding the duty of care issues, simply from the parents and not taking evidence regarding duty of care issues from the Commanding Officers, is not a very one-sided view.