Examination of Witnesses (Questions 760
- 779)
WEDNESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2004
BRIGADIER MUNGO
MELVIN OBE, GROUP
CAPTAIN STEPHEN
HOWARD AND
REAR ADMIRAL
SIMON GOODALL
Q760 Chairman: Gentlemen, you are
welcome to our seventh evidence session in our duty of care inquiry.
The aim of this inquiry, as you know, is to examine how the Armed
Forces look after their people at the very beginning of their
service—recruits in phase one training establishments and
trainees in phase two training establishments. In today's evidence
we will be hearing from the Directorate of Operational Capability.
We will be asking them how they conducted their appraisals of
initial training establishments and the care and welfare of Armed
Forces' initial training establishments and what skills and resources
they have to do this effectively. We will then be asking them
what plans they have to continue monitoring the training establishments
in the future. We are joined by Admiral Goodall, Director General
Training and Education, who is responsible for implementing DOC
recommendations. We understand, Rear Admiral, that we will be
addressing the majority of our questions to your colleagues but
if our questions fall outside the DOC's areas of responsibility,
do please add your own comments. Thank you very much for giving
evidence to us and for your written submissions to our inquiry.
Before we begin hearing our evidence would the witnesses like
to introduce themselves?
Rear Admiral Goodall: As you say,
Chairman, I am Rear Admiral Simon Goodall and as Director General
Training and Education I am responsible for co-ordinating the
implementation of the recommendations arising from the appraisals
of initial training carried out by the Director of Operational
Capability. Brigadier Melvin: I am Brigadier
Mungo Melvin and I have been the Director of Operational Capability
since 7 October. Group Captain Howard: I am
Group Captain Stephen Howard and I am the team leader for this
reappraisal of initial training and the author of the report.
Q761 Chairman: Thank you very much.
The first question is an easy one to start: can you explain the
role of the Directorate of Operational Capability and the scope
of its responsibilities? Brigadier Melvin: The
Directorate of Operational Capability was set up in 1995 by the
then Secretary of State for Defence, Malcolm Rifkind, to provide
an independent source of evaluation within the Armed Forces. My
staff is Tri-Service, it is based in the MoD, but the majority
of our work is conducted on the road visiting units across all
three Services, here in Britain and in Germany and on operations.
We are a small team with an Assistant Director, Group Captain
Howard, who has just introduced himself, and I have five staff
officers of Commander/Lieutenant Colonel/Wing Commander rank,
together with a very small support team. I think it is important
to note that although we are not specialists, we are generalists,
I hope we have been chosen for our analytical skills, and although
I have only been with the team for a month my impression is that
we are highly motivated, free-thinking individuals who will challenge
the status quo and will probe into the detail. If I could add
one further point, I think it is very important to note, and it
is the most important thing I have discovered on taking over the
Directorate, that we are not constrained by the Chain of Command.
I report, unusually for a one star officer, directly to the Secretary
of State or to the Minister for Armed Forces on his behalf, and
we conduct two types of work. The first is audits or appraisals
such as the one done on initial training. The second one, equally
important, is to capture and process the operational lessons learnt.
Perhaps a couple of words may help you on this particular appraisal.
The Minister for Armed Forces tasked us on 23 June to carry out,
in his own words, a "health check" of initial training
regimes and to examine possible issues of morale, motivation,
training practices and culture. This work followed on previous
work conducted by the Directorate of Operational Capability which,
as you will recall, first reported in December 2002 (we refer
to it as DOC1) and there was another reappraisal in July 2003.
So the Directorate has been closely involved with this work for
the last couple of years. We have used our normal methodology
throughout this appraisal. The team visited a total of 12 units
drawn from the three Services—the Navy/Royal Marines, the
Army and the Royal Air Force—and, as you will have seen
from our report, the team interviewed over 1,200 recruits and
trainees and over 300 instructional staff. All those interviewed
were encouraged to speak openly and they did. The DOC team that
went and visited units was given unrestricted access and was able
to speak directly to recruits and trainees, bearing in mind that
we jealously guard our independence. So they were not overseen
by the unit Chain of Command. Clearly the units were consulted
over points of detail but we have aimed in the report to deliver
a really accurate impression of what the team found on the ground
and this is consistent with the techniques that the DOC audit
and lessons process has developed over the last ten years.
Q762 Chairman: Before you produce
your report, do you send a draft copy to the people that you have
been investigating for their comments, to give them a chance to
correct any what they may see as corrections? Brigadier
Melvin: What we did, again as a normal practice, is to
get together the major parties involved, in this case from the
three Services' training organisations, and we spent a day with
them going through the report. What we did not do was to send
all parties the final text and ask them for comments. However,
the Chain of Command of the three Services was involved in checking
the detail.
Q763 Chairman: Thank you. The Directorate
has conducted three appraisals of initial training in the Armed
Forces since October 2002. Who tasked the Directorate to carry
out these appraisals? Brigadier Melvin: The
Minister for Armed Forces.
Q764 Chairman: On all three? Brigadier
Melvin: That is my understanding.
Q765 Chairman: Okay. You said how
small your team was. Methodology is quite complicated, surveying
is very complicated; did you have sufficient skills in-house to
undertake this study or were you able to have seconded to you
people outside your immediate Directorate who might assist in
the writing or the research for this report that you produced? Brigadier
Melvin: Our normal methodology is to scope the appraisal
and consult those parties who might be interested in it but what
we did not do was to bring external people on to that. The audit
was conducted by our in-house team consulting as we went along.
And also we referred towards the end of the report writing period
to Admiral Goodall's organisation.
Q766 Chairman: So why did you not
seek outside support? I do not suppose there are many people skilled
at the methodology of polling or investigation. Did you have to
read text books? I would have thought that a small team might
have seen it prudent to go outside for supplementary support. Brigadier
Melvin: We did not do so in this case.
Q767 Chairman: Okay. So what skills
and relevant experience would your team have to conduct this type
of investigation? Brigadier Melvin: The audit
team, which consisted of four people led by Group Captain Howard,
had a Lieutenant Colonel equivalent Commander, a Wing Commander
and a Lieutenant Colonel from each of the three Services, who
have all got command experience and a lot of operational experience
and, as I said in my opening remarks, they have all been selected
for their analytical skills and are people with a good deal of
intellectual rigour, and they are prepared to go in and look behind
what they are presented with, so it is the overall balanced professional
skills which they bring to bear that provide them with the capability,
in my opinion, to do the job that you have outlined.
Q768 Chairman: In a number of investigations
sometimes an outside consultant is employed just to look at the
final product to cast his or her eyes on a document to make sure
it is methodologically acceptable. Please do not think I am criticising,
it is just seeking to appraise what appears to be a very efficient
report; but did you go to any outside experts? Brigadier
Melvin: Not in this case but I think it is important to
note that we were following the methodology, by and large, of
two previous reports so we saw this not as a completely new piece
of work but as a continuation of work that had been conducted
on two previous occasions. Group Captain Howard:
Chairman, I have now been involved in this job for 14 months and
this is probably the fourth, if not fifth, appraisal/audit I have
been involved in. One of the things we have found is that each
time we do an appraisal and audit of capability we have a thing
called the purple book, of which I think there is a copy before
the Committee, and in there there is a generic questionnaire,
and each time we tackle a new subject we go through that questionnaire
to see if it needs amending to fit the subject. Invariably, we
find it does not, it just needs a tweak round the outside. What
that questionnaire does is it makes COs of units, and in this
case, instructors and unit Commanders, look at the wider picture
of where they fit within defence and the capability they are bringing
to defence, in this case training. By going through that process
of making them think through the wider issues we invariably find
that we end up with a fairly broad canvas with which to start,
trimming down to focus in on areas where we feel there are areas
of concern. In this instance of course we had the first appraisal
and the reappraisal six months later to fall back on and the work
of Admiral Goodall and his team.
Q769 Chairman: Who does the appraisal
side, I missed that? Group Captain Howard: We
work as a team.
Q770 Chairman: So self-appraisal? Group
Captain Howard: Very much so, yes.
Q771 Chairman: Last question: we
went to Sultan yesterday in Mr Viggers' constituency and I was
a bit confused because I know what Phase 2 is but a lot of those
did not appear to me to be Phase 2 because they had gone to sea,
they were more mature than normal Phase 2 military personnel,
They divided Phase 2 into A, B and C—and this may be a very
unfair question so perhaps you could check up on it for us before
giving any definitive answer—and would you consider their
delineation of 2A, 2B and 2C of falling within your category of
Phase 2 establishments? Is it sui generis to have more
mature students in Phase 2 who have been to sea and come back
and who are two or three years older than normal Phase 2 students? Group
Captain Howard: In the broader sense of training we did.
I think you are referring to the artificer apprentices that the
Royal Navy have where there is up to an eight-year period for
them finally getting to the point where they go to sea as a Chief
Petty Officer. Yes we did, we spoke to a cross-section within
their divisional system of duty of care at HMS Sultan—recruits
who had come straight from Raleigh within their first two or three
weeks, those who had been there for up to a year, and those who
had been away to sea and had been in the Royal Navy for approximately
three years. You saw yourself that the divisional system within
the Royal Navy is right across a sailor's career, it is not just
through training. I am sure you met Mr Allan down there. Mr Allan
is looking after those particular duty of care issues. I personally
feel that the divisional system works exceptionally well for all
age groups, be it at sea or on shore Chairman: Thank
you very much. If there anything else you would like to add just
drop us a note if you would.
Q772 Mr Hancock: Is it possible to
ask one question. Group Captain, you said you had been involved
for 14 months. How long do you anticipate spending in this team? Group
Captain Howard: It is notionally a two and a half year
tour, if I last that long!
Q773 Mr Hancock: If you last that
long. Brigadier, do you think that is a serious enough commitment
on behalf of the MoD that this is going to be a long-term team
that is going to build up expertise and that there is an argument
to be made—and I am not suggesting that you are volunteering
to stretch your two and a half years, I am sure you want to go
on to other things—that because of the problems that have
been experienced one of the things has been the turnover of people
who have had experience at this level and they have not stayed
around long enough to see things through. Some of them have left
before reports that they were commissioned to write were actually
published. That seems to be one of the failures in the system. Brigadier
Melvin: I think that is a very fair point but, as in any
part of the life, one has to balance the staying of an individual
in a post so he gathers experience in doing that job against bringing
other people in who might have a freshness of approach to reinvigorate
the process. I think there is a careful balance to be achieved
between the two—to have enough collective experience, which
will be undermined by people staying for only short periods as
you have alluded to, against not having people who themselves
get institutionalised. I think one could argue that there is a
balance then between those who, let's say, do DOC3, where they
have read the previous material but they are not the owners of
the previous work. I think they can bring an objectivity. I think
there is a balance there and we strive to do that and having a
steady turnover of Army, Navy and Air Force people within the
Directorate. Group Captain Howard: There is
an important distinction there as well in that we do not own the
lesson to see them through to fruition. We then pass them on to
a senior responsible officer either within MoD headquarters here
in London or out at one of the Command Headquarters to then take
forward those lessons we have identified into policy and implementation,
which in this case will forward into Admiral Goodall and his team.
Q774 Mr Viggers: Three appraisals
in two years; is that a rather large number or is that normal?
Are there other areas where you have had similar numbers of appraisals? Brigadier
Melvin: No, but I think what it does show is the importance
given to the subject in the Department. I think DOC1, as you will
recall, raised some very serious issues and therefore there was
quite a quick follow-up within six or seven months to make sure
that the immediate actions which were required by DOC1 were followed
up and then about a year later there has been this third report
(second reappraisal) to make sure that what had been instituted
is on track. You will see from the end of the report that we believe
that this work is not finished and that there should be a further
reappraisal in the future to make sure that because of the turnover
(not in this case of DOC's personnel but the turnover in training
units where perhaps today's generation have been exposed to this
DOC analysis and other measures) that good practice is maintained.
There are other measures in hand to make sure that the people
in the department and across the three Services keep their eye
on the ball.
Q775 Mr Viggers: The name of your
Directorate is the Directorate of Operational Capability. Is your
role to ensure the efficient delivery of operational capability
or ensure proper treatment of recruits? Brigadier Melvin:
Overall, in terms of the three Armed Services it is operational
capability, but we derive our operational capability primarily
from our people, from our equipment and the doctrine and training
they get, so we will not have any operational capability unless
we have the right standard of sailors, soldiers and airmen across
the three Services. So it is not in our view a contradiction,
it is part and parcel of operational capability that we have the
right training regimes and we provide the right trained and qualified
personnel going into each of the three Services to provide the
bedrock of professional expertise.
Q776 Mr Viggers: Looking at the second
appraisal and the headlined items here—identification of
risk, access to confidential advice, access to communications,
engagement with parents, health and safety at work—all of
these are things which emphasise the duty of care and the discharge
of duty of care responsibilities to the young trainees. Do you
sense any conflict between the duty of care emphasis and operational
capability? Brigadier Melvin: I do not think
there is any contradiction there. Could you explain exactly to
what you are alluding? I think I know what you mean but could
you clarify that question, sir.
Q777 Mr Viggers: Speaking for myself,
I have been very impressed going round different establishments
hearing the care that is put into ensuring that the recruits have
access to every kind of advice, they are not left lonely and home
sick, they have access to communications and the padre is there,
and so on. I speak only for myself— Brigadier
Melvin: Yes, I see your point exactly.
Q778 Mr Viggers: Do you think that
this comparatively recent emphasis on duty of care, which I recognise
has been carried through, is blunting the ability of the Minister
of Defence to turn young, quite often callow, youths into skilled
operational soldiers, sailors and airmen? Brigadier
Melvin: I will ask Group Captain Howard to comment in
a moment from what he actually observed, but from my own background
and from my recent exposure to this work over the last month,
in my view there is not a contradiction between providing hard,
realistic training in order to prepare our sailors, soldiers and
airmen for their future operations and having a properly organised
duty of care regime in place. Training can be hard but we have
got to treat our people absolutely properly. That is really what
the DOC reports are all about. It is not a softening of training;
it is just to make sure that it is conducted in a proper manner.
Q779 Mr Viggers: You have stressed
your objectivity but do you think that as serving personnel officers
your investigation lacks some measure of independence and objectivity? Brigadier
Melvin: Our recommendations and work that is in hand is
itself going to be tested or validated and inspected by the Adult
Learning Inspectorate, so we shall let others judge how well we
are getting on with this work. It is important to stress that.
It is not just being left to DOC or to Admiral Goodall's organisation
to see through the implementation. The MoD has taken care to involve
the Adult Learning Inspectorate to bring that outside expertise
and that objectivity. I would stress again that our own work is
independent of the Chain of Command and we take an independent
view of all that we see.
|
