Examination of witnesses (Questions 155
- 179)
WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2000
JENNY WATSON
and JAYNE MONKHOUSE
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming
along and for giving us a very detailed briefing paper, and for
commissioning the research done by Professor Segal. That was very
helpful to us. As you know, we are taking a deep interest in personnel
issues. This is obviously a very important segment of our work,
so we look forward to hearing what you have to say. If we could
kick off. We have just one Member of our Committee who is female.
We did have two. She did leave under her volition, I can absolutely
assure you. This is the first woman in a thousand years of the
history of the Parliamentary Defence Committee, so we are very
pleased to have one Member here at least. It is not tokenism but
we will ask Mrs Moffatt if she will ask the first block of questions,
please.
Laura Moffatt: Thank you, Chair. He jokes
about things in an interesting way. He says about the women on
the Committee: one down and one to go!
Chairman
155. You know it was just absolutely in jest.
(Ms Watson) Maybe next time we come back there will
be more.
Laura Moffatt
156. It is true. He is jolly good at making
sure we are included on the Committee issues. Now, I am going
to kick off with the role of the Armed Forces and the expansion
of roles within the Armed Forces, where we know there has been
an increase; and, in particular, the RAF now, most posts, something
like 96% or so, have been opened to women. Has this been good?
Is this an advantage to women? Have they benefited from it?
(Ms Watson) I think it has been excellent. The principle
behind it is clearly that if you are able to do the job, you should
be able to have a go at doing the job. Clearly, what the Armed
Services need, is trained personnel that will allow them to meet
the commitments that we have both here and abroad. So it is clear
that opening up the posts to women must be for those women who
are able to do the job, so they must be able to pass the tests
in order to qualify. It is also of benefit to women who want to
have a career within the Armed Service because, of course, you
need a broad breadth of experience. So the more posts which are
thrown open to you, the more the opportunities to progress through
the Armed Services. I think it is clear that the sticking points
are, both for the RAF and for the Navy, the Army regiments in
those services. So it is the Royal Marines, the RAF regiment,
where women are still excluded. Obviously, for the Army, it is
a broader range of posts. Yes, our evidence shows that it has
been good for women. That women want to give it a go. That they
want to participate and they are keen to do so on equal terms
with men.
(Ms Monkhouse) It shows as well that it has been good
for the Armed Services, that they have managed to recruit some
of the best people for the job, be they men or be they women.
We have a lot of anecdotal evidence that there are women who are
performing at high quality, high standards, in a wide range of
jobs, certainly in the RAF and in the Navy.
157. That is interesting because the next question
I would like to raise with you is: I know in all sorts of areas,
particularly in political parties, they have enormous difficulty
in getting women to decide that a political career would be good.
Now although we have these posts within the Armed Forces, how
do you believe that we could help women to choose a career in
the Armed Forces? Is there anything else that the MoD should be
doing to raise their profile?
(Ms Watson) Perhaps if I talk a little bit about the
general principle and then Jayne talks about special measures
that might help. I think it is the case that the very negative
impact of publicity about the dismissal of women from the Armed
Services when they became pregnant, which is in the past now—stopped,
finished, gone—hangs over. So for many women there is a
perception that the Armed Services are not a career for women.
They are not friendly to women. That is unfortunate because we
have seen great progress over the time we have been working with
the MoD and the Armed Services. There are many good opportunities
for women there. I think perhaps it might be helpful for the Services
to hear what I might call a rather more unfiltered view from young
women. Sometimes what happens is that by the time it gets up to
this level, "We cannot tell him that because it is very negative,"
or because, "It is a perception that we would not like to
have put," but you cannot target your recruitment and attract
those women until you address what they think about the Armed
Forces. We are very happy to work with whoever, (probably on an
individual Service basis, I would think), to bring together groups
of young women for them to hear those perceptions. That might
help with recruitment campaigns. I will now let Jayne talk a little
bit about special measures.
(Ms Monkhouse) It is interesting that you have drawn
a distinction between a Parliamentary career for women and a career
in the Armed Services. On the face of it they appear not to have
a great deal in common but the main thing is about traditional
jobs segregation, traditional sex stereotyping about jobs, which
make the jobs automatically unattractive to people. Certainly
one of the major things that the Armed Services could do is to
describe the jobs that they have: the marvellous, exciting, stimulating
careers which are available in the Armed Services for women and
for men. It is true that a lot of Service personnel come from
what is traditionally known as Service families, so they know
how good the career can be. However, I think the Armed Services
have got to go out to the wider community and describe the jobs
better. On particular issues we have seen some good work done.
For example, we have mentioned it in our written evidence about
the women-only training that is undertaken at Sandhurst, which
clearly gets more women through the system than if women were
segregated as one or two within a larger training course for men.
This has been extremely helpful. To get women through in significant
numbers has been quite useful. There are a number of other training
initiatives that the individual Services could do. We would welcome
the opportunity to work with them to develop that. Similar things,
of course, could be done to enable more women to pursue a Parliamentary
career but that is another story.
158. I am glad that is a matter of record. The
next part of my question also hurts me to ask it but it is important
to get it down as evidence, so that we may use that evidence wherever
we have to make the case for opening posts to women, to encouraging
women into the Armed Forces. That is, why should the MoD bother?
Why bother even to have a policy of equal opportunities? What
is in it for them and what is in it for us?
(Ms Watson) It is very clear that what is in it for
the MoD is tight teams, who treat each other with respect, and
that can perform tasks which can be done to the best of everybody's
ability, proper team work. In a professional unit you need a policy,
and the best professional units respect that policy, which treats
every member of that team as having something to offer, a skill
they bring to the job, and where every individual is treated with
respect. You do not get, for example, sexual harassment in professional
teams. You get team work, you get a cohesive unit. That is clearly
very important. The other point is one which Ms Monkhouse has
already made. We know that the Services are about 6,500 posts
short. It seems strange to me that when you know you are under-strength,
why not look to the broader community and say, "We want the
best talent possible, let's have everybody apply. If you can pass
the tests, have a go at doing the job."
Laura Moffatt: That is super. Thank you,
Chairman.
Mr Hancock
159. I would be interested to know how often
women come to you and complain about the issue of when they have
gone to the Armed Forces asking about a potential career, have
women come and complained to you often that they felt they were
unwelcome or difficulties were put in their way quite unnecessarily?
You talked about the Forces having to explain the role more, being
more specific about different roles within the Armed Forces. I
have a relative who was a female member of the Armed Forces so
I know what her experience was, what she went through. Therefore,
I am interested to know what people say to you when they do not
join. What is it? Is it the interview? Are obstacles put in their
way? Or what?
(Ms Monkhouse) When I was talking about describing
the jobs, it is describing the jobs to a wider recruitment pool,
to people who are not coming forward and applying to join. Once
people have contacted the Armed Services, have got all the literature
and are starting down the road, then I do not think many of them
experience many difficulties. The difficulties that they come
to us with after that are the difficulties of the types of jobs
they are able to move into: whether it would be useful to go into
a job, say, with the Royal Signals where there are a lot of women,
or whether they want to go into a job where they are fewer women.
Those sorts of difficulties. Those are the ones that are reported
to us. Of course, the major difficulty is: what are the cultural
issues which women come to the Commission about? Individual women
come to the Commission essentially to complain when they are at
the end of their tether and cannot progress their complaint any
further. Those complaints are mostly to do with sexual harassment
and the lack of opportunities to be able to balance a home life
and a career.
160. So they are more about incidents once people
are in the Service as opposed to people coming to you saying,
"I went to see if I was suitable and came up against barriers
which were quite unnecessary." I am taking your point, Ms
Watson. With the shortage, why are there not more people being
recruited? Why are they not going in? Are they being put off at
the recruiting stage?
(Ms Watson) The honest answer to that is that the
people who come to us, which is the data we would have to draw
from, it is women largely who are there and who have experienced
difficulties. I think the unknown is actually the perceptions
of women who might think, if they knew what it was like, "what
a fantastic opportunity!" but who think it is so remote from
their lives and have no experience of it. It is those perceptions
which we need to get at because it is cracking that which is the
key to the Forces recruiting in the numbers they clearly want
to. They have asked us, "Why don't women join?" We do
not have all the answers but by talking to those young women we
will find out some of those answers.
161. I find it strange that there is no statistic
in any of the papers we have been sent, which actually says about
the numbers of people who sought to join but changed their mind,
either from the MoD or from you. That must be the starting point.
Everyone who joins something, male or female, will always find
a problem somewhere in their working career, some more than others.
But I am interested to know why these women do not seek to join,
as opposed to the problems they experience which are equally important,
but for the starting point of our debate on this issue we need
to know why women just do not go to join the Services. Is it that
they are put off at the door or is it that there is not enough
another publicity done in schools or universities for women to
join?
(Ms Monkhouse) I think it is both of those things.
Also, when they do join (and the Commission has not any statistics
on this) but they may not pass the tests in sufficient numbers
to get in, so they may be failing at the initial application stage.
We suspect that they are failing in greater numbers because of
the fitness tests, but that is a fact of life. If these are the
tests which are the requirements of the job, then it is likely
that fewer women will get all the way through the selection process.
There are few women who apply to join in the first place, and
to increase that number of women the Armed Services need to explain
the jobs and make the jobs more attractive at a pre-recruitment
stage.
(Ms Watson) You asked whether they get to the door
and change their minds or whether it is before. I think it is
way before that. The situation that we have in the United Kingdom
is a situation where we do not have a lot of contact with the
Armed Services. We do not have personnel in uniform, for understandable
reasons, on the trains and in places where we go in our every-day
lives. It is a very separate world. As Jayne has said, many of
the women who come forward—many of the men who come forward
indeed—are from Service families. There is nothing wrong
with that. That is a great family tradition to have, if you have
it. But it clearly is not sustainable. So it is society out there
needing to have a clearer understanding of what the Armed Forces
do and what the jobs are there for.
Chairman
162. When we travel around, we see women in
posts that five or ten years ago they would never, ever be seen
in. A little anecdote. We went to a Gulf country, where women
are not allowed to serve in Parliament, but where the pilot of
a Tornado 1 was female. We did remark on the stark paradox in
the role of women in different societies. The question I would
like you to explain to us, more for those who have not yet read
your excellent briefing paper, is: we are all aware that women
can serve in 70% of posts in the Army, 73% in the Royal Navy,
and 96% of posts in the Royal Air Force. We are talking to Mr
Singh later on about targets for ethnic minorities. Do you operate
a similar target system? Would you like to see 100% posts available
to females?
(Ms Watson) We would like to see all posts opened
up to women, yes. I think that is a different issue from the CRE
issue with targets for recruitment, and that is an issue for them
to speak to you about.
163. Of course.
(Ms Watson) It is clear from talking to the Armed
Services that they would like to see a larger percentage of women
coming forward and staying in the Services, and we are keen to
help them do that. Are targets the best way to do that? Well,
let us get the posts open first and see what percentage we have
of women coming forward. We might then need to look within Services
at methods to encourage women to come forward.
164. Have you speculated? If what you wish to
achieve is achieved, what percentage therefore of personnel in
the SBS or the SAS or in certain infantry regiments are likely
to contain women? Would 10% meet what you would consider to be
legitimate standards? Can you give us some kind of thinking of
what is going on?
(Ms Monkhouse) It is impossible to know at this point
in time. The whole history of women in the Armed Services has
been a difficult one. They were not brought into the remit of
the Sex Discrimination Act until 1995. It has been a relatively
short time that women have had open access to the range of jobs
they have access to now. There will clearly be an element of role
models, where other young girls are seeing women achieving high
rank within the Armed Services. That will itself have a knock-on
effect. If I can draw an analogy with the Police Service. The
Police Service intake of women now is around 35%. For many years
it was stuck at 20 or 25%. Women's aspirations, young girls' aspirations,
are changing. The traditionally male jobs are seeing more and
more women going to them. Where that will stop is very difficult
to speculate at this stage.
165. Rightly so. We have a great concern about
equal opportunity. We also have a great concern about performance
on the day. We have just produced a report—yesterday—on
the lessons of Kosovo. That you have to judge the military by
their performance when under pressure. Therefore, perhaps we would
have to temper our commitment to equal opportunities with a satisfaction
that should further changes be made—I hope they will be
made it must not compromise our performance. If the performance
demanded that the highest level can be met by any woman, then
our reservations in most of these cases would disappear. But we
would need to be satisfied that where you are rescuing captured
soldiers from Sierra Leone, that everybody there is able to meet
the standards. When the Marines climb precipices with 120 pounds
on their back, everyone that qualifies for the Royal Marines meets
the criteria. That is the only concern. It is not chauvinism.
It is valid concern.
(Ms Watson) Absolutely. I would like to be very clear
for all of you that this would also be our view of it. If you
can pass the tests that are necessary for the job to be done,
then you should have a go at doing it. What we are absolutely
not saying—and I want to make this very clear because sometimes
it is not heard—that women should be able to do it regardless.
Women who are able to do it should be allowed to have a go. Clearly
we need to be absolutely certain that does not lessen the effectiveness
of our Services. This is our view and you will see from the research
that David Segal has prepared that admitting women would not be
detrimental. That is our view. You might expect us to have that
view by the smile on your face.
166. I just cannot resist another anecdote.
I had a wonderful, wonderful student, who was an Olympic standard
marathon runner. I fought to get the West Midlands Cross Country
Association to allow her to run in one of their races. The compromise
was yes, she could run in one of their races, but she had to start
last so as not to interfere with the men. She started last and
came 13th. Ran past everybody. So there is a lot of nonsense felt
by people, but beneath some of that nonsense there is more than
a modicum of legitimate anxiety and concern. We are responsible
for performance on the day. We had evidence from Professor Strachan
in July, and he spoke of the question of equal opportunities for
all rather than equal rights. I do not know whether you have read
that evidence. Have you given consideration to this concept of
requirements that should approach the role of women in the Armed
Forces from a perspective of equal opportunities rather than equal
rights?
(Ms Watson) That seems to me highly sensible. I have
not seen the evidence but the point we are making is that we would
like to see women have opportunities within the Armed Services
where they are able to make the most of those. I think you also
do need to look at the different needs that people have at different
stage of their careers, but that also applies to men as well as
women. For example, family responsibilities. It is clear that
men are leaving the Services and saying that they want to be able
to spend more time with their family. Really wanting to be able
to do that. You do have to make allowances from time to time and
have policies which are adaptable. However, it is the opportunity
that is important.
167. Should the Services use "positive
action" to try to find ways around the physiological barriers
to equality?
(Ms Watson) What would you mean by "positive
action" in that context?
168. Encourage women to increase their strength
prior to applying, or give them a period of grace, or changing
the standards. We visited the Marine Corps 20 years ago and the
men ran around at 6 o'clock in the morning carrying 110 pounds
on their backs and women with 70 pounds on their backs. That was
the situation 12 or 15 years ago. How do we overcome the problem?
I know there are many women who are much stronger than men, but
how would one approach the problem often of physical differences
in who may be potential applicants?
(Ms Monkhouse) There are two issues here. One is about:
should you lower the standards to allow women in? We would categorically
say no. It is not about that. It is about achieving the right
standards, the most appropriate standards for doing the job in
question. That way, not only do you get women who are capable
of doing it, but you get men who are capable of doing the job
as well. So you are then increasing the combat effectiveness of
the unit that you are recruiting to. There is nothing to stop
the Armed Services showing people what both men and women—but
it would be of more value to women, I would suggest—what
the standard is and giving people a go at the standard. "This
is the number of press-ups or the shuttle run level that you have
to achieve in order to break into this part of the Service. This
is what you have to be able to lift. By doing these sorts of exercises
you will be able to increase your upper body strength to be able
to do that." There is nothing to say you cannot do that.
In many organisations the physical training instructor is often
a woman, who can act as a role model to encourage women to achieve
that standard. Women's fitness is of a different calibre and different
order than male fitness. It is the requirement to do the job that
must be paramount.
169. I think that is a very good answer.
(Ms Watson) You may well have seen the material produced
by the Army. It does pick up a number of points which Jayne has
raised. It is designed for young people who do not do a lot of
physical exercise. It says, "This is the sort of thing you
can practise before you come to do the physical tests and it will
give you a better chance." That is an excellent example of
making the process transparent for people.
170. The Army is currently carrying out a study
of the effects on combat effectiveness of opening all posts to
women. To what extent do you believe that equal opportunities
considerations should take priority over combat effectiveness?
You have largely answered that. Are there any principles which
should override equal opportunities considerations?
(Ms Watson) We have already made it clear that operational
effectiveness must be the primary factor. Clearly the trials that
are taking place, as we understand it, are one part of a decision
making process. There is desk research and there will also be
other assessments. My understanding, from having spoken to the
psychologist who is organising those trials, is that they are
not trials to demonstrate combat effectiveness, but they are trials
to demonstrate mixed teams in an infantry environment. That is
a slightly different shift. We have not seen the detailed trials
and results. They have only just been completed. But it is clear
that what they are looking at is the effect of mixed teams. In
many, many places you already have mixed teams, so I think we
already have a good body of research to say that this is the way
in which men and women work together. If you can demonstrate that
they can do so without harming operational effectiveness—
171. But is this not a rather too narrow focus?
Should there not be research on—I am not sure how you would
simulate killing somebody—but would one embark upon a study,
which would overcome the criticism that a women should not be
put in a combat zone? Should not have a bayonet on the end of
their gun and stick it into somebody.
(Ms Watson) You can divide that into two different
areas. One is that it is obviously impossible to replicate combat
until you are in it. All the experience and the kinds of studies
which are done after combat, there are always lessons to be learnt.
You referred earlier to the lessons that can be learnt from Kosovo.
This will be equally true for all kinds of combat. There will
be things to draw out of it. The other strand of it is that it
is very difficult to test perceptions. Clearly, there are some
issues around women in combat that are based very largely on perceptions:
that `women do not kill`; that is `not a role for women`.
We would argue that you need to put those perceptions aside and
work on the basis of the facts. It is very, very difficult to
replicate combat. It may be that mixed teams in an infantry environment
is as close as we can get to it.
172. What about American studies? Obviously
they have had more women in the combat zones than in other countries.
Are there any lessons to be learnt from other countries' experience
where they have deployed women?
(Ms Watson) There are women deployed in combat in
other countries, but the interesting thing is that this is obviously
in a British military context. I would want to draw a distinction
between the role that the British Services perform in certain
situations and the role that maybe other countries, such as Denmark
and Canada, perform. We seem to have the kind of (for want of
a better phrase) the go in and sort it out role. That might mean
that you need a different understanding and there are different
lessons to learn from other countries that might have perhaps
a more peace-keeping role. We do need to look at it in a British
military context.
173. If there are examples of countries like
the United States, which have seriously deployed women in certain
cases in combat zones, are you saying that there is no relevance?
A woman who has been brought up in the United States, is that
an irrelevancy?
(Ms Watson) No, of course there is relevance but the
Services, and specifically the Army, have made it very clear to
us that, yes, there may be things that they can learn, but from
the perspective of the British military context I can take their
point. It is specifically within that context that we are looking
at this issue. I think it is fair to say that we are now at the
stage where we are leading on this issue in terms of debating
and research. So it is an interesting role for the Armed Services
to have.
174. Again, this sounds almost male chauvinism
but it is not meant to, it is meant to elicit an answer which
we will find very helpful. How would you address the concern that
is so often expressed by those in our Armed Forces, especially
the infantry, who are deferential and nice and polite to all women
they have contact with. We all know that from our local experience.
You have heard this a million times. They would feel so protective
towards a young woman who was fighting alongside them, that if
they were injured then they would down their SA 80s and help them.
What kind of arguments do you use to people who use this kind
of argument: that politeness would make combat effectiveness absolutely
impossible and, therefore, women should not be brought into that
kind of situation which would produce that kind of conduct?
(Ms Watson) I would produce the argument of training.
There are very few men, I would guess, who go into the Armed Services
having experience of killing somebody, yet their training equips
them to do that. It is your training that takes over when you
are in a crisis situation. It is that which carries you through.
Yes, it will be unusual for men first, but we have seen the experience
that the Navy has had of bringing women on board ships. It is
ten years ago since that happened. The overwhelming response has
been positive and people are now starting to see that it is normal.
It is life. It is what happens in the Navy. Eventually, that will
happen with the Army. Training is the key to that. Training on
the task involved and having a team that will complete that task.
I take your point about politeness. I must say that the Services
are the only place I go to, that when I walk into a room every
man stands up. It does not happen in any other part of my life.
Life outside is not like that. So there will be some perceptions
to overcome and we would be naive to suggest there are not. However,
the training is what will carry you through.
Mr Brazier
175. Could I preface this by saying that my
wife is a member of the Reserve Forces and has been for 15 years.
My grandmother served at the front in Mesopotamia in the First
World War. You have actually already answered my question—if
I may say so, a very refreshing answer—that you support
the gender free rather than the gender fair approach, which has
done so much damage in the American Armed Forces. You believe
that women must pass the physical tests. That is a very refreshing
answer and you have spelt it out. What I would like to do is to
take you one stage further and put to you three scenarios where
strength is not the only factor; but if only one or two women
were to pass, as seems likely, it raises other issues. First,
the general question and then two scenarios. Supposing in an area
like the Paras, like the Marines, where you are having to carry
very heavy weights, you were to find that only 1%, say, of those
who could pass were women, do you think it would be healthy in
the long run to have units which only had just one or two token
females, with perhaps a necessity for separate accommodation in
peace time and all the rest of it, simply so that a very, very
tiny majority of women could serve in the units and show they
could carry the 130 pounds (or whatever it is) sometimes carried
into combat? Do you think that is really worth it?
(Ms Monkhouse) There are already women serving in
difficult situations where perhaps strength is not an issue. Even
in the Second World War there were women serving on the front-line
in secret occupations. There was a lot of difficulty with personal
safety and some of the other issues to do with privacy and decency
which your question raises. I think the main thing, when you are
recruiting to the Parachute Regiment or the Royal Marines, is
the respect which comes from the individuals and from the unit,
when people pass the tests and they get through the selection
process and they become one of the unit. That respect which is
engendered is so enormous that it should carry people through,
irrespective of their sex. Somebody in the Army once said to me,"If
a woman could pass these tests I would want her standing by my
side." That is the right attitude. A lot of people already
in the Army have got that attitude: that if you are good enough
to pass the tests, you are good enough to stand with me and fight
in this particular corner.
176. May I give you a couple of specific scenarios
now. In the airborne unit in which I served, there was a woman
officer who was very good but she was on the headquarters side
and had not passed the combat tests for the combat side of it.
One of those tests—and every airborne unit has these tests
and it is a very fundamental part—you say it is very difficult
to simulate combat, (it is the best simulation of combat there
is), it is combat in a boxing ring. They did not have a recruit
my size so they put the unit boxing champion against me and he
knocked me down five times. But I passed because apparently I
kept on getting up again. I do not remember much by the end of
it. Would you think that very many men would feel comfortable
going into a ring, boxing against a woman, even if she was of
equal strength? You do not see, even in the year 2000, any problem
with that at all?
(Ms Monkhouse) It is not a test that the Royal Navy
have admitted to us, of getting people into a boxing ring, so
I am quite amazed.
177. It is the Armed Forces test. It is the
most direct simulation of combat you can provide because it is
combat.
(Ms Watson) If you take the Police Service—it
is a slightly different example but it is a training situation—men
and women train for riot control, they train together, they are
going into an exercise and replicating bashing hell out of each
other. There is a perception barrier - of course, there is—but
a perception barrier is not a reason to deny the woman the opportunity
if she is able to take it.
178. You can reassure me then that we would
not find pressure coming from airborne forces to remove that test
on the basis of not gender fair?
(Ms Monkhouse) I would like to think that it was an
appropriate test in the circumstances.
(Ms Watson) If the tests are appropriate and they
show you something about what somebody is going to bring to the
job and a skill they have, then that is what women need to be
able to pass. If the tests are inappropriate, that is another
issue.
Chairman
179. Women may have innate skills in compensating
for any lack of ability in the boxing ring. There are other martial
arts which tend to create equalisers than the rules laid down
by the Marquis of Queensbury.
(Ms Watson) We have taken cases to allow women to
fight, to box, in any case.
|
