Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence



Examination of witnesses (Questions 212 - 219)

WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2000

MR GURBUX SINGH and MR BOB PURKISS

  Chairman: Mr Singh and Mr Purkiss, thank you very much for coming and for your very comprehensive memorandum. Sorry we delayed your appearance slightly, at least it gave you the opportunity of judging that we are a very affable Committee, although the Ministry of Defence is probably not quite of that opinion. It is with a brilliant sense of timing, for which either you or the clerk is responsible, that your appearance today coincides with a lecture at the Imperial War Museum on the Sikh Martial tradition, entitled "A Portrait of Courage, the Sikh Regiment in France and Flanders 1940-50". We shall meet later on. Please tell them I will be slightly late. I think the timing was fortuitous. May I say at the outset, in the last 14 or 15 years—Mr Viggers and I have been on the Committee that long—I have seen quite a remarkable transformation. We even found it impossible in 1986 to find out from the Ministry of Defence how many ethnic minority personnel were in the Armed Forces. The MoD steadfastly refused to tell us how far they had progressed—we could have told them it was not particularly far. We all met General Colin Powell and we asked how long it would take before there would be the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That caused some considerable mirth at the time. Although the situation is far from ideal I do take some consolation from the fact that considerable progress has been made. There is much, much, much more to do. We look forward to hearing your verbal presentation in addition to your written testimony.

Mr Viggers

  212. The last major Parliamentary investigation on racial equality was the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in 1996 where we said we were disappointed that so little progress had been made since the last Committee expressed concern and recommendations: "For too long the Ministry of Defence has dragged its feet on this issue". That was paragraph 29 of our Report in 1996. We then, of course, urged the Ministry of Defence to agree a programme with the Commission for Racial Equality. I remember being particularly keen that the programme should come to a conclusion in advance of the next meeting of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which will be in the early part of next year, 2001. Can you give us a progress report on the situation as it has emerged since 1996? Will you be in a position to produce a considered report in advance of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in early 2001? Do you feel that policies are now in place in relation to ethnic minorities and that progress is being made?
  (Mr Singh) In essence the messages we make to this Committee are essentially mixed messages. You will recall that the CRE's involvement into the Armed Forces was triggered by our formal investigation into the Household Cavalry, that commenced in 1994 and concluded in 1996. We were minded at that stage to issue a non-discrimination notice against the Household Cavalry, but were persuaded by the MoD that if we were to embark on a partnership agreement with an action plan which would look at all three services, that would avoid us issuing that notice. You will recall, also, at that stage our formal investigation showed considerable discrimination within the Household Cavalry. The mixed messages that we have for you today are, one, we believe there has been some progress. Over the last three or four years there has been some progress, some real progress around the Household Cavalry. If you were to look at things like the increase in the number of ethnic minority personnel, there has been a shift from 8 to 66. There has been some real progress in the number of personnel which the Household Cavalry has recruited. Secondly, it true to say that the Household Cavalry have accepted that mistakes were made in the past. They believe they have failed in the past. Now they want to tackle, in a sustained way, the issues that confront the Household Cavalry. It is also true to say that we believe that the success of the Household Cavalry is due to the sustained and consistent leadership which is there, and is very clear. I do not believe it is there in absolute terms for the three Services across the board. I suspect it is true to say that there has been a real culture change in the Household Cavalry, where race equality is imbedded in the organisation. That is the plus. The second positive point that I would make today is that ethnic monitoring, something I know this Committee was and has been concerned about in the past, is now something that is universally accepted. As a principle it is accepted and, indeed, our view is that there is now nearly 100% ethnic record keeping within the organisation. The system is in place which enables the information to be gathered. There is a separate question mark as to whether the information is adequately analysed. That is another point I wish to come back to. There has been considerable enthusiasm, energy and effort by the three Services to change the public's perception, particularly the minority communities' perception, about the nature of the Services and about the nature of race discrimination within it. There is some real effort to persuade minority communities that these are organisations well worth being employed in. That is the plus side. I have to say, however, there is some considerable down side to all this. The Defence Secretary in 1998 agreed ethnic minority employment targets with the three Services. They were year-on-year analysed targets, 2%, 3%, 4%. Those targets have not been achieved. Those were set by the Secretary of State, not by us. They have not been achieved. The bottom line position is that there has not been a significant increase in the period 1996 to now in the number of people from minority communities within the Armed Forces. The figures for serving personnel show something like a shift from less than 1% to 1.3%, or 1.4% if you are being generous. The view we take is it is about 1.4%. There has not been a significant shift over the last four years. Certainly the recruitment targets that were set were deemed to be achievable. General Sir Charles Guthrie made the point that the targets that were set by the Secretary of State and the Chief of Defence Staff were achievable and should be achieved. The first point I would make to you is that those targets have not been achieved and they have not had a fundamental impact on the nature and profile of the three services. Secondly, we do not believe that the good policies and the fine words have actually been translated into real action of a sustainable nature throughout the whole of the organisation. That, we believe, has not been formally delivered across the three Services. That is a matter of deep concern to us. Thirdly, we believe there are some real problems around recruitment. Bob Purkiss can go through some of the details about that. There are real specific problems within the recruitment process, which act as barriers or hindrances to addressing the question there. On balance, what we are saying is, there is some evidence of good practice, some evidence of some good progress, but by and large the position is not impressive. By and large the Services have not made the sort of changes that are necessary to achieve the targets that are set.

  213. In looking for reasons why the targets have not been met—and it looks unlikely that they will be met—one starts from the thrust at the top, the determination, then, perhaps, the reputation or, perhaps, the climate within the country that makes it unattractive for people from ethnic minorities to join the Armed Forces. Do you think the Government has the commitment at the highest level?
  (Mr Singh) We are absolutely convinced that at the very highest level there is that commitment, we have no doubt about that. At the highest levels within the MoD, both in the civilian and the uniform section of the MoD, we believe there is real commitment from the top. However, the problem then is further down the organisation. We do not believe that that sort of commitment and the leadership is translated further down the organisation. That is where we believe the fundamental weaknesses are. There is inconsistent leadership. Leadership changes, people go. I think one of the major success stories of the Household Cavalry is due to the consistent leadership that has been there over time. That has led to some real sustainable change.
  (Mr Purkiss) If we take the Household Cavalry, we have had the same Major General there for the past three years now. He has not just shown the commitment, there is a consistency of how that is driven down through it. The three senior officers in the Army, Navy and Air Force change on a regular basis, some 18 months to two years and, therefore, there is a different personal interpretation of that commitment and drive, almost to the point where it becomes a little bit of a competition as to who can do better than the last one. I think it is the commitment of the nature of the job that we are looking for to make sure that this is driven down in each different service.

  214. In terms of the chain of command, do you also feel there is the commitment there?
  (Mr Purkiss) There is the commitment, there is evidence of it, especially the fact that it has now been brought into the promotion structure, the appraisal system and the analysis and the understanding of the implementation of equal opportunities, particularly at senior officer level. However, that is not consistent all of the way down. They need more consistency there to ensure it is not just giving the command, it is winning the hearts and minds of people and getting that consistent understanding. We are seeing evidence of different interpretations. I refer to two sister frigates, both having the same policy, both having the same instructions under the chain of command but the interpretation by the two captains meant that on one there were no black people and there were two women and on the other there were something like ten ethnic minorities and 20% women. That was two ships both sailing out of Portsmouth. It is that consistency factor that needs to be implemented.

  215. Could that be peer group pressure as well, in that once a certain target has been reached it is easier for people to come in because they feel they are more welcome?
  (Mr Singh) There is this general point, that once you get a cluster of people working in any organisation drawn from minority communities, that then projects a different image of that organisation and, therefore, at the point at which you get critical mass within that organisation you are likely to actively encourage others to move into it. The problem we have here is the step before, that frankly there is gross under representation. Even now, the Armed Services are still not seen as an equality friendly organisation. The public perception within minority communities is it is still the view that race discrimination is live and active within these three services, and that it is not a friendly place to work. If that is the perception then the reality is that you will not get people who are rapidly, desperately wanting to go and work there, it is that that we have to change.

  216. You have produced this very helpful briefing note for us. You have put in a restriction against using some names or units. Will you be producing an open report which will be available for the Select Committee on the Armed Forces?
  (Mr Singh) We most certainly can do.

Laura Moffatt

  217. You were saying that in the Armed Forces they had not reached their targets, which it would seem on the surface they should have been doing. Have you done any work with the Cadet Forces, which are rich recruiting areas for the Armed Forces? Of course many have some very good practice to share, those from the inner cities, and, happily, I should say, from Crawley where we are very much a diverse community. Are they doing any work to assist the Armed Forces, because they obviously need some help?
  (Mr Purkiss) It is a dilemma that you get such activity. The Chairman and myself went somewhere recently where we met a load of ethnic minority cadets, who were all in the Army Cadets, and when we said, "Are you going to join up?" They said, "No, we are going to join the Air Force". It is making those links between the Cadet Forces within the schools and colleges and what is on offer from that, and making those links too in terms of the ability to go to university, the ability certainly to go in as officers. We know, particularly, of the struggles that many people now have for sending their sons and daughters to university, yet there are grants available from the three Services and they are not really understood by parents in particular. I do not think there is enough of the relationship of what is happening in the Cadet Force and what that could possibly lead to. There is a big element of competition at the moment for people with ability at that level, particularly ethnic minority ability. If you are black nowadays the uniform services are begging for you to go in, just to make sure they are seen to be right. Therefore, you have to be attractive in that sense and make those links at an early age. If I can make a reference here, in numerical terms it is quite amazing when you look at the efforts because, as the Chairman said, there has been a lot of effort and a lot of enthusiasm that has been put in by the various Forces at different levels. If you take the Army as an example, they had some events through the Focus Consultancy Group which attracted 190,000 ethnic minority young people. If you take some of the other activities we are talking about, over 200,000 ethnic minority people last year were brought to the door, if you like, but then when we look at how many went through, it was only 338. We have been saying in the meetings that you need to analyse why you cannot make those links. That is one of the failures that we referred to, that there is not enough analysis done of the failure to convert.

Mr Brazier

  218. The Cadet Units in my constituency have a small ethnic minority and also in the East End of London, where I served with the Territorial Army, they were very, very well integrated. It was an example of the young people from all different ethnic backgrounds working together in uniform. It struck me as extraordinarily disappointing when we had the three personnel officers in front of us, pressed for over an hour on this issue, that not one of them ever mentioned the Cadet Units as resources. Can I make a possible suggestion? We have at last got the figures for ethnic minority numbers in the regular forces. Could you not press them to provide them for the Reserve Forces and Cadet Units too, because when people see the resource there that might be the most effective way of pressurising them to do something about it.
  (Mr Purkiss) They are different regiments and there is almost this competition factor if one regiment is connected with a Cadet Force. There does not seem to be that centralisation, which we would all say is a better way forward.

Mr Hancock

  219. You quoted Sir Charles Guthrie in the 3% target. The figure for 1999/2000 is a phenomenal situation. The Armed Forces need to recruit 25,533, and they actually recruited less than 300 in that year.[7] I would be interested to know what Sir Charles' response to that statement is and has he come back to you since he made his statement saying he believed it was achievable? Your comment that 25,000 got to the door and only 300 passed through the door. What analysis has there been of those 24,500 who did not go any further and why they did not?
  (Mr Purkiss) It was 200,000.


7   Note from witness: The figure is 338, and relates to ethnic minority recruits to the Army. The Army recruited a total of 13,433 soldiers and approximately 1,0000 officers in 1999-00. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 21 November 2000