The investigations into the deaths of soldiers at Deepcut Barracks and other cases do not go far enough to ensure justice, writes Jeff Zindani

The ongoing investigation into the causes of the deaths at the Deepcut barracks, the search for the causes of Gulf war syndrome and countless day-to-day accidents involving military personnel mask the real debate that should be taking place over the accountability of the Ministry of Defence for the health, safety and welfare of service personnel.

What is not widely appreciated is that while the MoD falls within the auspices of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, there can be no criminal action taken against the department.

More importantly, the armed services are explicitly excluded from the plethora of modern health and safety regulations, making an already toothless tiger, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), even more impotent when investigating the reasons why an accident or fatality has taken place.

We have seen in recent months the publication of an accord with the MoD and the HSE.

Liaison arrangements have now been agreed between the two, with the aim of improving health and safety.

However, instead of ordinary enforcement action being taken, if there are breaches, the HSE has the power to 'censure' the armed services.

But consultation must take place between the parties before this power is invoked.

Putting aside the real concerns about the scope and efficacy of the power to censure, we also have no reporting system that equates even remotely with the Reporting of Dangerous Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995.

These regulations force employers, with appropriate sanctions, to notify the HSE.

The object is to allow the executive to investigate what has happened.

Not so for the MoD which is under no legal duty to do so.

The creation of an army board of enquiry to investigate an occurrence will still continue.

As personal injury practitioners know full well, the disclosure of such reports are shrouded in secrecy, with disclosure requests challenged based on Crown privilege.

Without this basic information about the pattern and scale of accidents among army personnel we cannot look systematically at how improvements can be made.

But tracking past occurrences may prevent future injuries and deaths.

It is axiomatic to say that operational activities and combat cannot be regulated by a civilian agency, but the reality is that most accidents and deaths occur during peacetime activities.

We know from published statistics from the MoD that the death rate for non-combat action is approximately 140 for the year ending 2001.

This is almost half the number of deaths reported to the HSE, making the armed services the most hazardous work in the UK.

Emergency events occur but even emergencies can be planned for.

If the British police service is regulated by ordinary health and safety regulations then why, in peacetime, are British servicemen and women denied basic protection? The position is made even more unpalatable by the fact that protection is given to 100,000 civilian workers but denied to more than 200,000 non-civilian workers.

We have the absurd situation of a soldier working alongside a civilian employee, with the soldier being ignored by modern health safety law.

This is neither just nor right.

It is time to bring the armed forces under the umbrella of health and safety legislation.

Accountability and responsibility for state institutions are the hallmarks of a democratic society.

The military is not beyond the law simply because it is the military.

Jeff Zindani is a solicitor and managing director of specialist on-line claimant personal injury company Forum Law