Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
26 MAY 2004
LIEUTENANT GENERAL
ANTHONY PALMER,
REAR ADMIRAL
SIMON GOODALL,
COLONEL DAVID
ECCLES AND
MR JULIAN
MILLER
Q120 Chairman: The MoD guard service
did not operate in the Royal Navy two or three years ago; I might
be out of date. Do able seamen, recruits, do physical guarding
in naval establishments?
Rear Admiral Goodall: Not at the
initial training establishment. It is exactly the same as the
Army: if somebody is competent and confident on the weapon and
they have passed all the requisite tests and so forth. In essence
the guarding arrangements in the Royal Navy are very similar to
the Army wherever possible. It is MoD guard service and the MPGS
is now coming in for armed guarding. The MPGS is a relatively
new body—
Q121 Chairman: In the Navy?
Rear Admiral Goodall: Across the
board. The MoD guard service provides guarding which is not armed.
The MPGS are capable of being armed and that is a relatively new
evolution, so you are probably not aware of it.
Q122 Mr Cran: Let us be clear about this.
The documents we are going to get are going to cover all of the
considerations we have discussed over the three services, including
what you just said[15]
General Palmer: Yes.
Colonel Eccles: Yes.
Rear Admiral Goodall: Yes.
Chairman: This is another area we are
going to explore in enormous detail.
Q123 Mr Havard: I should like to turn
to instructors and supervisors and their selection, training,
assessment, monitoring and so on. There were some particular comments
about this aspect by the Directorate of Operational Capability
which found a very variable experience. Can you say something
first of all about the fact that war fighters do not necessarily
automatically make the best tutors and do not necessarily have
the talent for understanding and coping with individuals? How
do you go about selecting people to carry out these vital functions?
Rear Admiral Goodall: If I go
back to my time in the NRTA and echoing a point that the DOC reinforced
many of the things we were looking at anyway, we recognised that
we selected instructors basically on recommendation and reports.
We asked COs to ensure when they made reports on individuals that
they made a recommendation about their suitability for instructor
duties. We looked at that and asked what these COs knew about
instructor duties. A theme which has come out today is the changing
expectations of the individuals we are recruiting today. Life
moves on and their expectations are different and therefore instructors
need softer skills than perhaps we had reviewed in the past when
we were making a recommendation about someone's capability to
be an instructor. You are quite right that a good NCO does not
necessarily make a good instructor. I know in my own organisation
and across the board the services were looking at how to improve.
Measures have been put in place essentially to improve that process.
The directors of the training organisations are much more in contact
with COs who have these potential instructors under their care
to describe to them the sort of competencies and skill sets we
are looking for.
Q124 Mr Havard: As I understand it, the
RAF run a board type system, the Army is different again and I
am not quite sure how the Navy does it, so there is no one new
consistent process across the piece, is there?
Rear Admiral Goodall: No and indeed
it is an area where perhaps again, as we move forward looking
at best practice, we will draw on the different services' approaches
to get greater commonality. We have already moved a long way in
this respect and two key issues arise out of the DOC report: all
instructors are to be trained before they go into post. We were
very strong on training our Phase 1 instructors before going into
post, but, given the pressures on manpower, sometimes our Phase
2 instructors were not receiving the appropriate training. A big
move on that. The second and most fundamental area is the content
of that training. In the past we have largely focused on what
we called instructional techniques. Now we are looking much more
at how we can introduce into their training care-of-the-trainee
aspects so that they can demonstrate effective counselling skills,
recognise the signs and symptoms of the stresses, suicide, para-suicide
and so forth and mentoring and coaching capabilities. We are also
putting in place courses at the Defence Centre for Training Support
which actually harness the energies of our instructors, the supervision
of coaching of instructors and make sure that we are now, in assessing
our instructors, not just looking at quantifying their performance,
but also looking at helping them develop as instructors to unlock
their potential.
Q125 Mr Havard: You have anticipated
some of my other questions really about how you train these people
to identify the risks and to look after recruits. You spoke earlier
on about various standard operating practices; you spoke about
having suicide indicators and indicators about self-harm and so
on. Are you saying this is all now built into the training of
the trainers? But how much of the time of the train-the-trainer
package is devoted to doing these particular activities and is
it consistent across the three services?
Rear Admiral Goodall: The Defence
Centre for Training Support, which is the relatively new organisation
which I established under the DGT&E organisation has brought
the train-the-trainer agenda from the three services, where it
was located before, and put it into the Defence Centre for Training
Support which acts as the lead authority at Halton, which Mr George
and his two colleagues visited. That then franchises out that
training and applies the standards for that training and we are
rolling that training out to the three services and in the three
services they had already taken cognizance of some of those elements.
Indeed, we drew on good practice to develop this course. It utilises
for one aspect of its course the chaplaincy training area at Amport
House for listening skills and so forth and indeed we ran the
first course which completed just before the HCDC visited and
it had received very supportive comments from the instructors
who were on the course and we intend to roll that out.
Q126 Mr Havard: We can be confident,
then, can we that people who are going into training are a mixture
of volunteers, who are then properly assessed to see whether or
not they are the right people to go in, even thought they might
put up their hand for it, and some who are nominated through various
processes by others and they are assessed, are they?
Rear Admiral Goodall: Yes.
Q127 Mr Havard: Have we got the old lag
syndrome here? "Find him a job. Well stick him in training."
Have we got away from those sorts of processes? It comes back
to what Frank was saying earlier on really. We have to give confidence
to a lot of other people that the right people are in the process
to run all these other processes. Is it a good tick in the box?
How is it being seen in terms of career development for these
people?
Rear Admiral Goodall: Indeed as
part of the train-the-trainer agenda of course and then mapping
on to our accreditation policy, which is to ensure that all training
received is accredited to national standards, we are in effect
developing a lot of energy in this and the individuals who go
through this process go a long way towards getting teacher status,
which is a coveted qualification for many for leaving the service.
We have demonstrated an approach now through this continual improvement
as an instructor that there is almost a career path through this
which enables them to step into civilian life and, should they
wish to go into that area, it is that transition. That is a really
important point to make: if we do not get good people into our
training environment we are undermining our potential for success
. . . The services fundamentally rely on the training machine;
the services have to build their manpower from the bottom, we
cannot recruit sideways, it is not easy to find the skills and
competencies we require in civilian life when people have moved
up the ladder. The training machine is fundamental to what we
do and we need and do have good people in there. What I believe
strongly we have done in the last year to year and a half is bring
a lot more training in what I call the softer skills, the important
skills of teaching and mentoring and aiding the learner to our
train-the-trainer agenda.
Q128 Mr Havard: So it is train hard,
fight easy and train well, fight well, is it? May I just pick
up on the standards which are used? You mentioned standards. Someone
talked at the very start of this session about past experience
where contractors were used and people were brought back. If you
are now outlining a system which is as professional as you describe,
with serving personnel involved, trained and so on, then presumably
we are not going to see the experience we saw in the past where
people were brought back who perhaps had not had the training
or had left and were brought back in? Where are we with that,
because we need some confidence about that too?
Colonel Eccles: Speaking again
from the Army's perspective, being the biggest service and perhaps
having the greatest problem, we had the initial training group's
instructor school, so all those who were entering the initial
training group, as a start, even if they had served there before,
do this package which is between one and four weeks, depending
on their skills, at the beginning of their tour. For those who
are instructing in Phase 2, we have a programme now where we are
playing catch-up, because we have just instituted this system
from the beginning of this year, we have a rolling programme to
sweep everyone up and then keep it topped up and keep staff up
to date. It is a shorter course, but employing the best practices
we have heard about from DCTS, the training school. One thing
I must just balance is that 4,500 of our staff in the ATRA are
civilian members of staff, many of whom have served in the military
before, but we are also weaving them into this instructor programme
as well. Many of them have been there for many years and think
they do not need it, but actually we are requiring them to go
through the package so they understand the basics from which we
start.
Q129 Mr Havard: I see them slightly differently
to what I thought was being described as contractors earlier.
I am glad that they are consistently part of the process. How
is all of this monitored? How is the ongoing performance looked
at? You spoke earlier on about how the Adult Learning Inspectorate
was going to come in and their involvement and so on. Can you
give us some confidence that not only do we have a description
now of a system, but we actually have its application consistently
across the piece and we have a process for monitoring and ensuring
its rigour day by day, not just now or next year but down the
piece.
Rear Admiral Goodall: There are
two levels. The ALI will have a role in this and in their process
of reviewing the whole of the learner's experience one of the
areas is to look at the competence of the people who are teaching
them. I believe that will be part of the ALI role. Secondly, the
instructor's performance will be monitored both within the establishment
as part of the normal monitoring system that you would expect.
The results of any particular coaching and training team is to
be monitored as they are today by the COs and by the commanders
of the training wings and so forth. Most importantly the DCTS,
the experts, the black belts in this who are on the staff of DCTS,
will have a standards and monitoring role and go out and have
a look at the application of this, not least to feed back good
practice into the training and, secondly, for the standards we
require for accreditation. We will need to have review processes
which ensure that the accrediting authorities are satisfied that
the skills and competencies people are developing are appropriate
for that accreditation.
Q130 Chairman: The impression I had was
that the commandant has a messianic zeal. The teaching material
is being sent to us, the videos are being sent to us. We said
we would go down to see the chaplaincy service and I think that
two-day course is filling up rapidly because the Second Clerk
said he is not going to let me go on my own. My colleagues' interest
is such that there will be at least three of us there. This is
absolutely pivotal and we must be persuaded that it is working
very well and then, if it is, we can transmit that reassurance
to others.
General Palmer: A couple of points.
The acid test of whether this is working comes from the people
who are conducting the operations and I can tell you they are
very quick to say if they are getting people they do not believe
are up to the job in Iraq or wherever. Secondly, and I know you
were not implying this and I am not being defensive about it,
but the duty of care extends into the Field Army. It is not frontline
commander or care worker: the corporal in Iraq is as much concerned
for the eight men under his command as he would be for the eight
recruits. The reason we have to do this for the instructors is
to accustom them to the very different approach young people take
when they leave school and come straight into the Army and that
they are going to be told within a week to "eff" off
probably; that happens a lot, because they do not understand the
nature of discipline. We have to make sure that they do not over-react
but duty of care extends throughout the Armed Forces from the
Field Army corporal.
Q131 Mr Havard: Conceptually in a sense
the command responsibilities, which include duty of care, are
well expressed, certainly in Army terms, in that these are now
commanders who instruct as opposed to instructors who command,
that general shift in perception. What we are really after is
to find out the extent to which and the depth to which it has
been understood, is implemented and is maintained and monitored.
General Palmer: Yes.
Rear Admiral Goodall: I would
just say that DCTS is a relatively new institution, talking about
the depth of its implementation. We ran the first course and across
the three services there is significant buy-in to this. I fully
expect it, with the messianic zeal of the officer in charge, to
go like wildfire.
Chairman: I was put in my place when
I said I supposed they broke for the summer recess, just the same
as school teachers and ourselves. I was told very clearly that
this was not the case. If I named the days, there would be a course
there. I am quite pleased so far with what I have seen. We will
try to rattle through the rest of the questions and if we cannot
have complete answers because of time constraints, perhaps you
would care to write to us to elaborate, if we are not doing full
justice to important questions and these are very important questions.
Q132 Mike Gapes: I want to go back to
the issue of bullying. The MoD's policy is zero tolerance towards
bullying and harassment. I should be interested to know what that
means in practice. For example, how many people are dismissed
for bullying or reprimanded or sent for re-training, those kinds
of questions.
General Palmer: Would it be helpful
to give you a note of all those statistics?
Q133 Mike Gapes: It would be, but I should
be interested in a brief statement about how you deal with it[16]
General Palmer: The policy of
zero tolerance means exactly that. The idea that you should use
any form of intimidation against an individual to achieve your
aims, whatever those are, is just anathema to the whole organisation.
Everybody knows that, it is drummed into all our instructors through
the training courses, not just in the training organisations but
in the Field Army. They know that any allegation of bullying against
them will be investigated using the Special Investigation Branch.
The examples and the numbers of bullying incidents is relatively
small.
Q134 Mike Gapes: That you are aware of.
General Palmer: That we are aware
of. Of course you can argue that there are some going on which
do not get reported and I accept that. By and large I come back
to the point that bullying is such an ineffective means of dealing
with young people: you just do not get the best out of them, you
have to treat them well, you have to get their confidence, you
have to gain their respect and bullying can form no part of that,
apart from the fact that morally it is abhorrent. We do treat
it extremely seriously and everybody knows that. As Admiral Goodall
has just said, we do suspend whole training teams if there is
an instance of bullying which needs investigating and not just
an individual. I do not honestly know what more we could do officially
to let people know that we have a zero tolerance or what more
we could do to implement it. However, I do accept of course that
there may be things going on of which we know not. I think they
are probably few and far between and our antennae for noticing
where a boy or a girl in training is looking sad or is exhibiting
signs that they may be under pressure, are far, far better than
they have been for a very long time through our continual risk
assessment.
Rear Admiral Goodall: The only
thing I would add to that, and we are providing the literature
for you, is that there are very, very strong statements at all
levels in the organisation to emphasise the fact that bullying
is not tolerated from the very top; in strategic guidelines and
through every policy document which then goes down the organisation,
so much so that it then appears in things like our directions
to instructors. It is on the card which we issue to our trainees,
that any incident, anything they perceive as bullying, and bullying
is quite rightly in the eye of the beholder, is reported. The
system then mandates a response to that. Those responses range,
as they would in any organisation, through a hierarchy. The officer
responsible for equal opportunities perhaps does the initial investigation
and then it might rise through the organisation or indeed be referred
to the police authorities if there is a serious case.
Q135 Mike Gapes: Could I put it to you
that some people in positions of authority, instructors and supervisors,
even recruits themselves, might not be able to distinguish between
bullying and the necessary aggression to train people to be in
the Armed Forces?
Rear Admiral Goodall: Indeed that
is an appropriate comment. A disciplined and rigorous approach
to training must and can never be confused with bullying. That
of course is where we come back to the training of the trainer
and all the work we do with our instructors to ensure that they
fully understand where bullying can be seen to start and where
it is rigorous application of training, which is important in
the environment we are training people for and yes, those lines
are blurred. The definition of bullying effectively ensures that
the onus of proof is on the establishment not the individual because
it is the individual's perception of bullying which is important.
If somebody believes they have been bullied, they report it. We
then have to determine where that boundary is.
Q136 Mike Gapes: I have the wording from
a MoD memorandum which says ". . . bullying is not a specific
offence and any allegation of this nature is recorded as harassment
or assault". Can you clarify that for me? How do you distinguish
between bullying and harassment? Do you have a policy which is
for bullying and a separate policy for harassment, a separate
policy for assault? How do you do it?
Mr Miller: This is a slightly
legalistic point. Bullying is behaviour: it does not in itself
fall under the criminal acts in the service discipline Acts. What
we are talking about in terms of harassment are the specific things
which are forbidden under service discipline. Bullying is a type
of behaviour which can be exhibited in many ways and when disciplinary
action is being taken, it has to be characterised in some rather
more specific way than the general term of bullying. There is
no fundamental issue here, because bullying is very much a question
of perception; it has to be captured when anyone feels that they
have experienced something which they judge to be bullying. It
does not then neatly translate into an offence under the more
legal definitions; the offences which are pursued are those which
are set out in the memorandum.
Q137 Rachel Squire: You have mentioned
the information on the card about how bullying is totally unacceptable
and must be reported. Do you seek in any other way to improve
awareness and reporting of complaints of bullying and harassment
in initial training establishments? Is it for instance almost
part of the training to have a session where it is discussed openly
and made clear to individuals?
Colonel Eccles: Absolutely. Right
at the beginning of the training course, up front, there are lectures
about the Army's values and standards. The examples which are
used to illustrate those points cover bullying. The ATRA code,
which I mentioned earlier, is explained and bullying is covered
in that. There are posters up saying "Are you being bullied?"
There is a wide dissemination and lots of mechanisms for doing
that.
Q138 Rachel Squire: How confident are
you that the complaints process is being properly used? Do you
consider that complaints of bullying and harassment are still
under-reported?
General Palmer: It is a terribly
difficult question to answer. I suspect there is bullying which
goes unreported. The nature and size of the organisation almost
makes that a certainty. I should be horrified to think that a
significant level of bullying or some really nasty bullying would
not be observed by the supervision regime that we have in place
now, but I cannot be fully confident and I do not think we can
ever be complacent or ever let up on the view that we will track
down bullies wherever we find them. The important thing is that
we give people who feel bullied access to make their complaint
to somebody who is independent, whether that is a confidential
helpline, whether that is a WRVS person, whether that is through
the empowered officer or whatever. All you can do is impress on
everybody that bullying is unacceptable and then put in place
a mechanism for people to report it confidentially if they feel
bullied.
Q139 Rachel Squire: We find in all walks
of life, but particularly in the Armed Forces, that what is crucial
is that an individual who is a victim of bullying or harassment
is confident that, if they report it, it will be kept confidential
and their name will not become widely publicised throughout the
training unit as having just made that complaint. How confident
are you about that guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality?
Colonel Eccles: It is like every
confidential relationship which happens between a doctor and a
priest and an individual or, in this case, somebody who is perhaps
the empowered officer. They have to say to the individual that
if they want something done about this the confidence is going
to have to be broken in order to address the issue. If that person
agrees, then, given the circumstances of the case, there is a
way of doing it. As more and more of these happen, more and more
confidence comes into the system that things are being dealt with
properly, it will develop and people will gain the confidence.
15 Ev Back
16
Ev Back
| 
