WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004 (AFTERNOON)

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

  Q1240  Mr Hancock: That decision that it was suicide must have been taken so quickly, because all these things happened not over the space of days but over a space of hours—

  Mr Gray: Eight hours.

  Q1241  Mr Hancock: Someone somewhere had to take the responsibility of saying, "this is suicide; get rid of the evidence; do not let us do any thorough search".

  Mr Gray: I would never sort of accuse a person of murdering my son.

  Q1242  Mr Hancock: No.

  Mr Gray: But I am convinced that that has happened; somebody has murdered my son. It could be that people do know exactly what has happened and it has been covered up, or it could be a simple fact of, "oh God, there is a death here, we will just not bother with it and we will just shove it to one side". It could be one of those.

  Mr James: My wife and I have kept our counsel on this. As you are probably aware, we have never said that we thought Cheryl was killed by anyone; but one thing I will say to you is that over the past two years I have become increasingly convinced that there is not compelling evidence anywhere that either we or Surrey Police have been made aware that she took her own life either, so it is something we are going to have to live with. Because of this, we will probably never know how she died. There are those who believe there was third-party involvement, but until we have the evidence we personally are not that kind of people. We need to be convinced because it is not something, quite honestly, that we want to have to face at the moment.

  Q1243  Mr Hancock: Jim, it would be unfair to ask you to say that now because the inquest has not been held, and I do not want to prejudice that.

  Mr Collinson: One thing I could say is that, sadly, Geoff died six months before James, and it was only three days after Geoff's inquest that James died; and yet there were still no alarm bells ringing that there was something wrong at this camp. We were then just told hours after James died that—you know, "don't rip yourself apart; we don't know why he did it"—so it was the suicide tag again. Is it easier just to sweep things underneath the carpet and keep it happy and make, to my opinion, the way I see it—or maybe I am wrong—as one of the senior officers came on the telly a year after Geoff's death, on the first anniversary, saying, "we have 700 happy chappies here learning all new trades". Surely it is time to take this attitude away and investigate—

  Chairman: Mike, I have to say that we have to be really careful.

  Q1244  Mr Hancock: Can I ask you three—and please do not answer if you do not want to, but I asked the same question of the four ladies who were here this morning about what was said to them about their children after their deaths, by the Army, as putting some rationale behind why they might have committed suicide. Can you tell us what the Army said to you about what they believed the state of mind was of your child prior to death?

  Mr James: In our case, the Army did not tell us anything—my wife has just reminded me. They made a phone call to a barracks at Wrexham 200 miles from Deepcut, and some poor officer, part-time chap, had to trot over and tell us, but tell us quite specifically that Cheryl had taken her own life—a matter of hours after the event.

  Q1245  Mr Hancock: They told you, not that Cheryl had died of a gunshot, but they actually came to you and said she had committed suicide.

  Mr James: Yes.

  Mr Collinson: It started off as an accident at about a quarter to eight in the morning when I first got the knock at the door, and by half past ten, quarter to eleven, as we were sitting in the living room, that is when they said he had committed suicide.

  Q1246  Mr Hancock: Did they ever say to any of you that they might have been psychologically disturbed at this stage for any reason? No-one has ever raised that with you.

  Mr Gray: Surrey Police did do psychological profiles on all four kids. I do not know how you do a psychological profile on a dead person—it is beyond me. They were all found not to be suicidal.

  Mr Collinson: No reason to commit suicide.

  Mrs Gray: With the second investigation, the Police got two sets of ballistic teams to look at the evidence that was there, and the ballistics team said it was not an accident, and there is no evidence of it being a suicide. To me, that only leaves one thing. But Surrey Police are very careful in how they choose their words to the public, and have to say, "We do not find any evidence of third-party involvement". That is because all evidence has been lost, but Surrey Police will not admit to that.

  Q1247  Chairman: Has there been any testing of the German ballistics evidence and the ballistics evidence that was compiled by the person who volunteered to help you?

  Mr Gray: We cannot get any disclosure on that matter. As I said earlier, there is no disclosure of the Police investigation, so we cannot test that.

  Q1248  Mr Crausby: On the issue of a public inquiry, I have a fairly open mind on a public inquiry because I do not think you can make up your mind and decide whether or not that is useful until you see the terms of reference. The term "public inquiry" is something that is much misused by politicians in order to seek some publicity sometimes, and then to sometimes call it a full public inquiry is even more so. Really, if you are going to have a public inquiry, in my view it must be a useful one. I just wondered if you had any views on that, and whether you had any ideas what the terms of reference should be. Obviously, I think you should have the opportunity to send that on to us if you need to think about it, but do you have any initial thoughts about what you would see a public inquiry achieving?

  Mr James: I am sorry to labour the point, but everything comes back to accountability and confidence that whatever corrective actions are in place as a result of a suitable inquiry—let us put it that way—do everything that we are all capable of to prevent a recurrence. I am not convinced that without a suitable inquiry that we can get to that point. I think that Surrey Police did the very best they could as far as protocol allowed in calling for a broader inquiry, an inquiry that had the authority to call both individuals and organisations to account. Whether that is a public inquiry or not, I bow to the experience of this room, but personally I think that there should be a judge suitably appointed with the authority to call organisations and individuals to account; and only when that transparent and thorough review and examination of what happened at Deepcut has completely been covered can we all relax. What you must remember is that the dithering over this issue over the past two years has done far more damage to the Army and recruitment figures than any of us families. It is not us who is dithering about this. This could have been put to bed two years ago. I think there has been a tremendous case made up to deny any inquiry, on the basis that the inquiry would be too grand and too great. I have absolutely, categorically, no doubt whatsoever that there are suitable cases both at Catterick and in other camps and in other areas—maybe even some deaths overseas—that require a suitable inquiry; but I do not think it is acceptable in the 21st century in a society that we have, that we can refuse an inquiry into the deaths at Deepcut simply because there are other cases. I would be quite happy if there was an inquiry into the deaths at Catterick tomorrow, but I do not believe that we can any longer go on and refuse an inquiry generally because there are so many deaths. Surely that is a reason for having one?

  Q1249  Mr Crausby: Do you think any public inquiry should be separated, that there should be a specific public inquiry into Deepcut?

  Mr James: I certainly do, yes.

  Q1250  Mr Crausby: And effectively a series of public inquiries if that is necessary.

  Mr James: If it is necessary, yes, I do.

  Mrs Gray: Can we not do what the Australians have done? They have set an example. We have had this 1,800 deaths—not all of them are suspicious and some parents do accept what happened to their child. Not every parent has come forward. We have only had about 40 families come forward with concerns. Can we not do what the Australians did and give a time date—"if you feel there is something wrong, you must apply before a certain time and it will get looked into"; and if you do not apply before that time, then obviously other parents are quite satisfied with what has happened with their children's deaths and accept it, but only for the people who are not content in the way the deaths have been dealt with can come forward within that time. As I say, there is only 40 families have come forward to our organisation; it is not many.

  Mr Gray: The public inquiry is there to satisfy the public that everything has been done to find out the truth about a certain situation. We feel that not everything has been done. We feel that there must be a public inquiry to satisfy ourselves, Parliament and the British public. We are backed by Amnesty International on this. There have been various early-day motions that have gone through the Houses of Parliament, where we have had 200 MPs say there must be a public inquiry. Last week the United Nations Committee on Torture said that they had concerns about bullying within the British Army and they said that there should be an inquiry into deaths within the British military. What more do we need? How many more people do we need to come forward and say this?

  Mrs Gray: How many more inquiries do we need? We have Adam Ingram saying, "we will have this inquiry" but will that satisfy the public? I do not think it will do.

  Q1251  Chairman: We will have to see the terms of reference.

  Mrs Gray: Yes.

  Q1252  Mr Crausby: I cannot understand why you would want an inquiry if you think some aspects have not been looked into.

  Mr Collinson: I think the aspects are that you have Surrey Police's inquiry into the deaths, and they spent a year and a half and £1.5 million, and they cannot come to—

  Mr Gray: There are three points why we want a public inquiry. We want the truth to be known about how our children died. That is the main thing. We want justice because, as Des was saying, people have to be held accountable for why our children died. I am not bitter and twisted, but somebody has to pay the price for that. Something has gone wrong somewhere. The third point is that we need change. We need a public inquiry to make recommendations to change the duty of care for our children and for parents in our situation.

  Q1253  Mr Crausby: As you say, you will probably never know how they died. No end of public inquiries will change that, and it probably will not change.

  Mr Gray: You have got to be given that opportunity.

  Q1254  Mr Crausby: Right.

  Mr James: There is a point here, is there not, that we have four deaths on the same site over a relatively short period of time? Had these deaths happened on the high street in Croydon, we would not even be having this discussion. You must remember that we are just ordinary people, parents who have lost their children, and when we see, as we have this week, an inquiry at the drop of a hat because of the alleged indiscretions of a Minister, for instance, purely and simply to avoid embarrassment, that is quite galling. We have lost our children and whether it is a public inquiry or judicial review I am not qualified to say, but there must be an independent and transparent inquiry that allows the public as well as the parents to feel confident that this thing is being sorted out. We cannot just do what we have done before—have the review, have a chat—file it all away and hope it does not happen again—because that is what we are doing at the moment. With every respect to this Committee, that is what we are doing.

  Q1255  Mr Jones: Like David, I am open-minded about a public inquiry, and I listened very carefully to what Geoff said. I do not think we or anybody else can put ourselves in your shoes—it is impossible to do that. But I do not think you are ever going to get to the truth, even at a public inquiry because, as you referred to Geoff earlier on, the investigation was flawed from the start. You have been let down not just by the MoD but by a number of bodies, and trying to get at what you say is the truth would be impossible. I understand why you want those answers, and you should have got them 10 years ago when your kids died. It is easy to say, "I support an inquiry" but it is harder to think at the end of that whether you will get the answers you want. As I said to the ladies this morning, what you need on all of this is closure. I think the hard truth is that you are never going to get closure, and that is an absolute tragedy. I think the system has let you down.

  Mrs Collinson: At least we would see we have done everything possible.

  Mr Jones: Exactly. You want to be satisfied that you have tried to do everything you can to get to the truth. Can I also ask you whether you have considered this as well, because our terms of reference were not about re-investigating Deepcut, and I was one that did not want that personally. I will tell you why: I do not think we could pre-judge the Police inquiry. We do not have the resources in terms of doing the in-depth detail which you obviously want, but what we can do is make recommendations, and the MoD has made it quite clear that it will take our recommendations seriously. What do you want us to recommend—hard decisions so that we can say to the MoD, "this is what we want you to do"? To come back to your last point Geoff, about change, what are the things that you really want to do? If you cannot answer now, let us have them afterwards so that we can take them on board before we come to the conclusion. I think there is an opportunity here for you to get some of that change, Geoff, that you want.

  Chairman: You have submitted a document, but if there are other things you wish to do, we will look at them very, very carefully.

  Q1256  Mr Roy: I have two families who have lost their children, and none of them were at Deepcut, and therefore as a constituency Member of Parliament I would find it very, very difficult to ask for a public inquiry into Deepcut and then go and look those people in the eye and say that there was a difference between you people who have lost children at Deepcut and my constituency. Geoff, you did speak clearly, but if at the end of the day the report comes out—and I am not giving an opinion on how it should read at the moment—are you saying you would be looking for a full public inquiry into the whole sphere, whether it be Deepcut, Catterick, Edinburgh or abroad; or are you asking that it should only be a public inquiry into the deaths at Deepcut?

  Mr Gray: I personally think that we should have the same system as they had in Australia, where a notice is put out saying that if you have concerns about how one of your loved ones were killed within the British Armed Forces, then come forward and it can be investigated. Adam Ingram said yesterday that some people do not want their children's deaths investigated, and I quite understand that, and that would give those people the opportunity to or not to have an inquiry.

  Q1257  Mr Havard: My questions might seem a little bit irrelevant in the sense that we have just covered some of them, and that is in relation to how the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Services trying to capture your experience and learn from it and build on it. I know statements have been made and there is a deal of scepticism, if not bordering on cynicism, about lessons that have been learned from various reports that have been written from 1998 through 1995 and currently, the DOC report and so on. Whether they are acted on, and how well they are applied is the sort of questions that we have got to ask and continue to monitor. There are ideas like, for example, the Adult Learning Inspectorate as an outside agency trying to ensure that standards are applied and processes properly done. That is one idea. It is not for me to defend it because it is not my idea. Have you been approached by any of these agencies, by the Adult Learning Inspectorate, by the Ministry of Defence, by all the agencies that are now supposed to be involved in the process, to see what lessons they can learn and what suggestions you can make? I appreciate Geoff that you have given us a load of stuff, which I have only just seen this afternoon, and you have been asked if you have any other experience; but it would be interesting to know what these agencies have done in trying to capture your experience.

  Mr James: Geoff Hoon, in an adjournment debate some months ago, stood up and said he could not see what questions any inquiry would answer that had not already been answered. I wrote to him and sent him 17 questions, and he did not reply. I wrote again and he still did not reply.

  Q1258  Mr Havard: What?

  Mr James: I do not know why—because he does not need to, I guess. I am just a member of the public. He delegated it to Mr Ingram who took another goodness knows how many weeks, but I can quote it or give you the copy. He eventually replied but did not answer the questions either. Currently, it takes me five weeks to get a reply from the officer and Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Whatever we decide, whatever you come up with, whether we have an inquiry or not—you are quite right; you will not convince me that anything has changed, and the reason it has not changed is because all authorities refuse point blank to take a look at what happened properly and thoroughly. While that goes on, you will not change anything, gentlemen: I am sorry, but you will not.

  Chairman: But, Des, I must say if the MoD takes—

  Q1259  Mr Havard: Can I just pursue what the other people's experience is first before you try and defend the situation and do anything else?

  Mr Collinson: When we had a meeting with Mr Ingram and we spoke about this—"how do you want to go about having a public inquiry?"—he was quite blase« about it because it was like—"do you want to forget about the rest of the families and just have a Deepcut one?" I said that our argument was that we have had the Police investigation into the deaths at Deepcut and have gone so far into that. I said: "Maybe it is a starting point for the Government just to get a little bit of public confidence going". It would be like an exploding star, if you like, because if you are going to start off at Deepcut, the rest of the camps are going to be pulled in because there is four people went from Deepcut to Catterick that were maybe involved in something, and one small star of a public inquiry could lead the way to all camps in Britain. It could be just a starting point. When you speak to Mr Ingram, he is, like, "I do not want to look into the past; I am not interested because it will alter my recruitment figures".