Examination of Witnesses (Questions 820
- 839)
WEDNESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2004
BRIGADIER MUNGO
MELVIN OBE, GROUP
CAPTAIN STEPHEN
HOWARD AND
REAR ADMIRAL
SIMON GOODALL
Q820 Mr Roy: We would not know. As
I just said, pending the inquiry into the allegation. The reason
I say that is because I would be really interested to hear, if
you said, "Yes, that high school teacher should be suspended
because there is an allegation that he, in this instance, raped
a 17-year-old fifth-year pupil and it would be quite right that
that person would be suspended pending that allegation,"
because at page 30 of your report yesterday you are saying that
the best practice in your assessment would be that where an allegation
was made against an instructor that that instructor would stay. Group
Captain Howard: They are my words actually. Rape is a
criminal offence and I would expect—
Q821 Mr Roy: Let me finish the question.
Where the allegation was made you are saying—and maybe I
am reading it wrongly—you are saying that that instructor
would stay in position until those allegations were proved to
be false, and if they were proved to be false the person making
those allegations would themselves then face some disciplinary
action, or am I getting this wrong? Because that is what this
says here. Rear Admiral Goodall: I think in
general the principle would be that if an allegation was made
and was examined and it was felt that there was some substance
in that allegation, on a very quick appraisal, then that training
team or that individual would be suspended from the training immediately.
He or she would then normally be located somewhere else within
the organisation pending the formal investigation, but, yes, it
would be my opinion—and I believe it would be backed up
throughout the training environment—that the individual
would be suspended.
Q822 Mr Roy: That is not what the
assessment says. Group Captain Howard: Can I
put it into context because they are my words? An allegation of
rape is a criminal offence and I would expect a police inquiry
to be conducted and that instructor would be removed from training
under a criminal investigation. What we are referring to there
is general allegations across the spectrum, but not a criminal
offence in terms of civil law, and if we draw the delineation
there. What we are referring to is where we found best practice
and the best motivated instructors with confidence in their Command
Chain was where any allegation, no matter how small, would suddenly
have the instructor removed from training, it may take five or
six weeks to be investigated, and that instructor is then labelled
guilty whether he is or not, and that then transfers with him,
whatever happens to him. He is tainted by the experience. Not
referring to criminal offences. If there was anything of any seriousness,
such as bullying or physical harm or anything like that, then
we would expect that investigation to take place very soon and
the decision by the Command Chain to be taken either to remove
him from training or the allegation was not substantiated.
Q823 Mr Roy: With due respect, Group
Captain, that is not actually what you say in this, it just says
under the heading "Procedures for dealing with allegations";
you do not say in this black and white paper that there is a difference
between the allegations. Group Captain Howard:
Can you give me the page?
Q824 Mr Roy: It starts at the bottom
of page 29, "Procedures for dealing with allegations".
Not serious allegations, or you do not name the allegations. So
what happens if it is not a rape—and I am not convinced
on the point you have put across because it still does not tell
me that in black and white—what happens if it is a case
of serious bullying or if the teacher had really physically abused
the pupil, and in this case the instructor had physically abused
the recruit? Because what you are saying is that it is okay for
that instructor to carry on pending an investigation. What happens
if that instructor, who had done it once, did it again? Group
Captain Howard: I am not saying that at all. But can I
give you an example?
Q825 Mr Roy: But they could do it
if you do not suspend them. Group Captain Howard:
Agreed, but what I am saying is that the best practice we found
is where that allegation would be investigated almost—instantly
is the wrong phrase, but during that day.
Q826 Mr Roy: Is that the best practice
for the instructor or the best practice for the recruit? Group
Captain Howard: I would like to think that it works both
ways, and I am fairly confident that there is no whitewash there,
that that investigation would be thorough. I think we have actually
named RAF Halton as an example, and Sultan as well, where if we
take the worst case where if a recruit does not want to do a test
and says, "Racial harassment", instantly that instructor
is taken away, he is removed from training, put into a holding
flight—worst instance sent home. He is brought on to the
unit by the RSM to collect his mail, whatever, pending inquiry.
At the best units that would have been dealt with there and then
by the CO of whatever size of unit, be it the junior officer in
charge of that platoon, flight squadron, whatever, calling in
the relevant parties, trying to work out whether there was a real
allegation there or not. If there was just a sniff of a real allegation
the instructor should then be suspended and a criminal investigation
started.
Q827 Mr Roy: I do not understand
this. Where do you get this "sniff" that it is a true
allegation? Kevan brought up a good point, when he said in ten
years' time would this all be rolled back again? It seems to me,
I am sorry, not ten years' time but ten months down the line you
are already rolling it back, because what happens if I am a vulnerable
recruit and I have made an allegation against someone and I am
feeling very vulnerable? Am I going to make that allegation if
I know that that instructor is still going to be in place during
that time, the time of the investigation of the allegation? Group
Captain Howard: By way of another example, we were given
an example where a very similar scenario to that which you have
just put to me, where the instructor was not interviewed but the
Command Chain then spoke to the recruits and the recruits were
very honest, and if they were aware that . . . And we have also
given examples where there is almost a bandwagon of, "I can
get out of this if I claim . . ." I cannot give you an exact
example, but, "If I cry wolf the same as everybody else,"
then we get a clear indication of a trend of—allegations
is too strong a phrase. But, alternatively, if you had an allegation
made, if you spoke to the recruits in that barrack block, they
were able to say, "Actually, I do not think that is what
happened, this is what happened," and they were able to put
it in perspective, and it was dealt with there and then and the
decision was then made, within an hour or two, whether further
investigation was required, how serious the allegation was and
what the appropriate action was, and the appropriate action could
well be suspension. But not that blanket suspension.
Q828 Mr Roy: But your paper just
says an "allegation". At the end of the day there is
going to be somebody who is going to stand up and say, "No,
I am sorry, it is in black and white." I am sorry, it is
not in black and white; it just says an "allegation".
It does not give you an example of how serious that allegation
would be. Can I also ask you on a point with regard to the recruit
himself who makes the allegation? As you know, in Scots law you
are either guilty, innocent or not proven. What you are saying
is here that someone makes an allegation and it is proven that
it was wrong and therefore the recruit then would be disciplined.
What happens if the allegation that that recruit makes is not
proven? In other words, we do not know if the instructor was guilty
or innocent. Because I will tell you, your paper is saying that
if it is not proven you are going to discipline the recruit. What
does that do for—as you said, Brigadier—the esteem
of a recruit? What does that do if they make an allegation and
they know it is true and it is not proven to be true, and then
according to your paper it will be used against that recruit—they
are going to be disciplined? Brigadier Melvin:
You raise a very, very serious point, Mr Roy, but that bit of
the report which you have highlighted was written against the
perspective from the instructor. Looking at the rest of the report
and putting it all in context you are very right to make the point
that that individual has to have access, recourse if he has a
complaint. Therefore, what we have tried elsewhere in the report,
to highlight the importance of having access to confidential advice—and
I think that is the balance, independent or to the Commanding
Officer, WRVS or whatever—and the best practice that the
team saw was the internal mechanism. So in cases of doubt—the
non proven in Scots law, as you refer to—those would have
to be either investigated further, or if there was doubt remaining
then other action would have to be taken.
Q829 Mr Roy: But your paper does
not say that, Brigadier. This paper, which will be the rulebook
at some point in time for my constituents in the Armed Forces,
does not say that. It is okay for you to say it could be the seriousness
of it, or whatever, or we could look at it again because maybe
the guilt is not proven, it does not say that in black and white,
and I tell you that I believe that that would then be used at
some point against a recruit making an allegation, and I think
it is a serious mistake if you believe that it would not. Group
Captain Howard: Perhaps we should put out an after note
by way of clarification.
Q830 Chairman: I think Frank made
a reasonable point. I think it would be helpful to us if you dropped
us a note on what the existing practice is in the Army, Air Force
and Navy in response to allegations; secondly, what advice is
given or instruction is given in training establishments. And
if when you review that you feel that there is any substance in
Frank's comments then you can make amendments. Group
Captain Howard: Can I come back on one point? You say
about disciplining a recruit if the allegation is not proven or
proved false. Within context—and it probably is loose language
on my part—that comes back to the ethos, core values and
standards, and if you are trying to instil courage, honesty, mutual
respect, self respect, what we are talking about is even just
a verbal chat by the Commanding Officer of that small platoon,
unit, whatever, just to explain where that recruit has gone wrong
in making that false allegation, if proven false; or even if not
proven just to explain what has happened about that procedure,
and that is what we are talking about.
Q831 Mr Roy: I do not accept that,
Group Captain, because if they make the allegation and the recruit
knows that that is a true allegation and it cannot be proved,
then, I am sorry, you are saying that that recruit is guilty;
you are not saying he is innocent. Group Captain Howard:
I am not saying that at all. Mr Roy: You have. Chairman:
Frank has made his point; we have been 20 minutes on this.
Let us move on.
Q832 Mr Roy: Let us finish this point.
It is good to ask the question, Chairman, instead of making a
statement, because I really want to get to the bottom of this.
You really need to make it clear that that person who is making
the allegation—I agree if it is a malicious allegation then
I do not have a problem with that—but when one of my constituents
who joins the Forces and makes a serious allegation and it is
not proven, in other words, "We know what you are saying,
but I am sorry we cannot prove it," your paper is saying
that they will be disciplined. Brigadier Melvin:
Mr Roy, you have made a very serious point and we promise the
Chairman to forward you a note to clarify this issue. Chairman:
Thank you. Peter Viggers, please.
Q833 Mr Viggers: I would like to
revert to instructors, choice of instructors, training instructors
and career ATRA instructors. Just glancing at page 31 of your
report, where you say, "Instructors still perceive that an
appointment at an Initial Training establishment is a regressive
move in career terms." One can imagine that many people,
sensing that excitement of career prospects are in the Front-Line
would not necessarily wish to turn towards instruction. What actions
have you taken or do you think you can take to promote the role
of instructors as an attractive career option in the Forces? Has
any progress been made? Rear Admiral Goodall:
As I say, I draw attention to the work of the DCTS, which is in
early days. I think we need to emphasise that the role of the
instructor has an exponential effect on the quality of the organisation.
Good instructors breed high quality trainees and high quality
trainees then up the standard. There is a parallel here with the
teaching profession—people remember a good teacher, they
remember the people that gave them a start in life. Many of our
young recruits in our care come from backgrounds where they need
this sort of guidance and role model. I think it is that area
where we really start to emphasise that you can put more back
into the organisation that has helped you on your way by being
an instructor and bringing the next generation on and, as part
of that gain, through life qualifications that enable you to go
into civilian life with a recognised teaching qualification. I
highlight the fact that people do well in this area of service:
i.e. they do feature well in promotion stakes. But this is not
just an overnight thing; this is something that we have to work
hard at. As I say, I am using the DCTS to lead the agenda; we
are putting in place early next year a Tri-Service seminar to
really drive into these issues and spread good practice amongst
the Services, both in the selection and the encouragement of instructors.
Q834 Mr Viggers: It is important,
obviously, to train people for the job of instructors and also
give thought to them being reintegrated back into the Front-Line. Rear
Admiral Goodall: Indeed, and another subtle subset of
that, is that we need really good people to train the trainers,
and so there is a whole quality issue around instructing and training
instructors that I do believe we are making very strenuous efforts
to get a hold of, and I do anticipate that the work of the DCTS,
in particular, in this area will bear significant fruit. But it
will not be overnight, there will be areas of the Services where
this is a culture change, and that does take a little bit of time.
But there is no want of effort on our part in leading that change.
Q835 Mr Viggers: You have spread
out as a joint Forces group, looking at all of the Army, Navy
and Air Force, what did you learn in terms of best practice? And
if you tell me that all of the three services were equally excellent
I will not believe you. What distinctive characteristics did you
pick up and what are you doing to spread best practice? Group
Captain Howard: In any particular area or best practice
as a whole?
Q836 Mr Viggers: I am still thinking
about instructors and the instructor/student relationship. Group
Captain Howard: I think the best practice was where an
instructor received pre-appointment training, so he was given
the suite of courses that the Chairman has alluded to earlier
on, and as many of those key social worker skills as military
skills before he took up his post, and then he is prepared to
go and do that job to the best of his ability.
Q837 Mr Viggers: Were there distinctive
characteristics between the different Forces? Group
Captain Howard: Very much so.
Q838 Mr Viggers: Can you summarise? Group
Captain Howard: Again, scale comes into it and individual
service culture. Halton are very lucky in that they have the school
on the premises, but they have also made the effort to get their
instructors out to other units, such as the leadership courses
up at Fairbourne, and they have been down to the Padre Centre
to do more pastoral care courses. Some instructors have completed
more courses than others but they put more effort into ensuring
their instructors were given the best preparation possible than
perhaps some units. The Royal Navy, with their divisional system,
was very, very good, totally inculcated into the way the Royal
Navy works. It was not just a system that was imposed on to a
training system, it was something that was going to go through
that recruit's whole life within the Royal Navy and everybody
understood it.
Q839 Chairman: And the Army? Group
Captain Howard: The Army, I think Catterick stood out
very well with their links with the regiments and they had done
a tremendous amount of work up there since our earlier reports
to establish identity and to get that link where a recruit was
identified on day one as a member of that particular regiment,
given the t-shirt, given the beret—very simple things, but
he actually felt as though he belonged and he was not just any
recruit. That was very obvious, and that also helped the instructors
because the regiments came back to visit their respective recruit
candidates—a lot of the regiments are obviously co-located
at Catterick—and the Commanders were also able to keep tabs
on and watch the instructors that they had sent to the Recruit
Training Centre. Brigadier Melvin: Also, if
I could add, the concern of balance was one that I certainly looked
at during the final drafting stages of the report—could
you make a general view of best practice between the Services?
Tempting as it might be you could not easily, because of the variety,
particularly of the Army of the types of training units—you
have from the Infantry at Catterick Phase 1 and Phase 2, as you
see, together, whereas in other parts of the Army that separate
Phase 1 and Phase 2. In some cases the schools, such as the Royal
School of Artillery and the Royal School of Military Engineering
are looking to integrate more the schools with Phase 2, so there
are differences there. That is the caveat that we looked at, that
there was quite a wide variety. Rear Admiral Goodall:
That brings us right back in a circle in a way to the DCTS. Again,
there is good practice spread across the Services and indeed within
certain cap badges in the Army it is recognised that the instructor
role within certain cap badges is more valued than others and
there is work to try to learn the lessons of how some cap badges
seem to be better at encouraging people into instructional roles
than others. If I could just come back to the best practice point,
and again by emphasising the point of the Defence Centre of Training
Support, it does identify standard processes that have been found
to be good and disseminate them. I did draw attention to the sort
of journals and publications they are putting together, and the
first one happens to be an instructor-focused inaugural edition,
again to highlight "tips for trainers", for want of
a better word. There will be a trainer journal, and there will
be an intranet in which instructors can swap ideas, swap notes
and so forth. We are revamping the Defence Instructor Handbook
that will be out in April 2005 and we are redrafting the Defence
Code of Conduct for Instructors; we have a number of single Service
booklets and we are bringing those together. For example, we are
identifying the need for discussion groups of instructors led
by the Chain of Command within that Code of Conduct, to ask how
do we improve our own capabilities in this area? A quality process
drives this agenda.
|
