Examination of Witnesses (Questions 860
- 879)
WEDNESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2004
BRIGADIER MUNGO
MELVIN OBE, GROUP
CAPTAIN STEPHEN
HOWARD AND
REAR ADMIRAL
SIMON GOODALL
Q860 Mr Jones: It is not very reassuring
to yourself perhaps. If you do not stay with the ship you fall
overboard. Rear Admiral Goodall: I think the
key point about this is that we need to have a look at this, because
the training process does identify an output standard that is
required of the training machine when the individual is passed
from the training environment into the operational environment.
In meeting that standard there are mandated tests. If somebody
is passed out without passing those mandated tests, I think the
only case where you would pass somebody out without a mandated
test is where there was a training gap and they recognised that
there was not the facility to train them in that capability and
therefore there was a need to train them in that capability as
soon as they got into the operational environment. Or, indeed,
there had been what is called a "declared training deficiency"
because a particular phase of the course was missed. There was
an example of that in my own Service when a group of cohorts was
on the foot and mouth epidemic and they missed a chunk of training.
But they can only pass out in that respect, having had that gap
identified and a process put in place to make sure that that is
corrected. So the key issue I am trying to say here is that what
I am not clear on, whether this is a real issue, or whether it
is something that has not been understood by the—
Q861 Mr Jones: Hang on. You talk
a lot but do not actually answer the question. It says in your
report that you have a situation where people are failing mandatory
tests—these are not optional tests in these things, these
are mandatory tests and they are failing them—and then being
passed through on to the Front-Line. You actually in the assessment,
at 79, give credit to three establishments that, "At these
units, Commanders and instructors alike had confidence that they
were not passing on risk to the Front-Line." I would think
there are two types of risk here: there is obviously risk to the
people that they are working with operationally but also a risk
to the individuals as well, and in the present climate there are
instances where people are coming out of training—and one
recruit we spoke to at Catterick—where a 19-year old who
was killed in Iraq was there a couple of months before. If we
have people who are actually going into those very hostile situations—and
I hear what you are saying about trying to re-test, but you are
not going to re-test people in those climates. So how confident
are we that your people going on operational duties do not think
they are optional but are mandatory, and the fact that you actually
try to teach people to swim without a swimming pool, I find bizarre. Group
Captain Howard: I was not advocating you could teach anybody
to swim without a swimming pool, what we are saying is, with the
fitness test as an example, we found instances where people were
not able to pass the fitness test but were still graduating with
a note on their file that they had not made the fitness standard
test but that they needed to re-take that test in Phase 2 to pass
it before moving on to Front-Line. The swimming test was an isolated
example where people were going to the Front-Line without having
passed that test because they had not had access to a swimming
pool.
Q862 Mr Jones: But what happens when
you are operational and you find yourself, for example in the
Navy—and it is reassuring that you go down with your ship—or
it might not just be in the Navy but all over the place, the Air
Force crash in the water—and you cannot swim, then it is
a pretty serious situation. Group Captain Howard:
It was Army units we were talking about.
Q863 Mr Jones: Army units as well
move around by ships, and if you cannot swim it is a basic problem. Brigadier
Melvin: Mr Jones, there is no way that DOC or DGT&E
is trying to condone any of this. What you have highlighted is
extremely bad and dangerous practice with, as you say, consequences
not only for the unit but their colleagues with whom they are
serving. Perhaps we did not make the report clear enough, but
as you have highlighted paragraph 79—and I would not want
to be a wordsmith here—we said that the mandatory standards
were not being adequately satisfied, and that is black and white,
and we highlighted some instances of best practice. But I think
you put your finger on, as we did, that there was risk being passed
on the Front-Line and therefore it must be attended to. It was
not within the scope of our report to highlight the actual detailed
measures which this risk could be mitigated; our job was to highlight
the risk, and it is subsequent work that needs to be done.
Q864 Mr Jones: That is an important
point. You have raised it here in the report, quite rightly, and,
credit to you, you have also pointed to Lympstone, Honington and
Halton where good practice is going on, and I did read that out,
so it has clearly been got right in some places, but not others.
What would give this Committee some reassurance—and obviously
people listening to this today—is that you have highlighted
it, but what is going to be done about it? Or is it the fact that
this is going to go on the shelf again, and is it that you have
actually assessed where you have found real problems, which you
have in certain places? How confident are you that these are going
to be solved? Brigadier Melvin: My test, taking
your point, would be to see whether this point is picked up in
the action plan that deals with all of these points and to ensure
that there is a method by which there is a systematic review to
seeing these points being addressed. DGT&E, Mr Jones has said
he has got an action plan and is dealing with this and this point
needs to be rigorously followed up. Hence the overall tone, the
final point of the report, just picking up the theme of what you
are saying, is that there is absolutely no place and no case for
any complacency on any of these points. So I fully agree with
you, it is a very, very serious issue and we cannot afford to
build risk into the system, hence we highlighted that we have
to take measures to take risk out of the system on the basis of
the livelihood of the individual and the units. Rear
Admiral Goodall: It is really just to echo that I believed
I opened my remarks by saying that we need to address this. What
I am saying is that we have a well defined process which identifies
the training standards that people have to achieve on passing
out of training, and if that is failing in any way because the
mandated tests are not being passed, and there is not a highlighted
reason, as I explained before, that there was a reason during
training why that did not happen but unusually, we will take that
forward, then we can—
Q865 Mr Jones: Give me some confidence
though. I would not mind a list provided of where these are, and
secondly what your action plan is going to be, because it is not
good—quite rightly being highlighted in this report—if
in six months, 12 months, two years' time, they have not been
addressed, and has that not been the fundamental problem in this
entire area, that things have been highlighted in the past, duty
of care and also training, and there has not been that rigorous
systematic follow-up to say that this has to be done by a certain
date? Rear Admiral Goodall: I will address that
for you, yes; but the second point I would like to make is that
one of the points that we have been encouraging is the idea that
DOC has a look at the next part of the training continuum and
that is the transition from the training machine into the Front-Line
and how the feedback loops in that area are energised to ensure
that the Front-Line does comment on the standard and quality of
the people coming out of the training machine, and I think that
is an important next step.
Q866 Mr Jones: That is fine, but,
frankly, all you are going to get, if you are not careful, is
a growth industry of reports and assessments. What I am always
more interested in is if problems are being highlighted, and they
clearly have, that they actually get addressed, and what I would
like to see and be provided with is where you see the weaknesses
are and what is being proposed to address them. Rear
Admiral Goodall: I will provide that as part of the action
plan.
Q867 Chairman: Admiral and Brigadier,
are either of you responsible for or mandated to comment on, make
recommendations on Territorial Army training regimes? Rear
Admiral Goodall: Not specifically, only that the policies
that apply across defence in training terms, the policies I would
write would be applicable to the Territorial Army. Chairman:
Can you drop us a note on that? As we are now so dependent
upon the Territorial Army I would be interested to know what your
responsibilities are. Frank Roy, please.
Q868 Mr Roy: Gentlemen, what steps
did the DOC report recommend should be taken to deter and prevent
bullying and harassment at all levels and has the recent reappraisal
found any evidence that bullying and harassment are on the wane? Group
Captain Howard: Bullying and harassment was one of the
questions we asked the recruits and both in the questionnaire
and in the general discussion they all acknowledged that there
was a natural pecking order amongst themselves, within the peer
group; but in most units, when we asked the question directly
about their instructors, we were met with a response of, "Absolutely
not. We hold our instructors up and we aspire to be like them,
we respect them as role models." We had to fish within that
area; it was not an area that was there as an item of any prevalence
with any of the units we met. Brigadier Melvin:
Mr Roy, if I could just draw your attention to one part of the
report, but noting the caveats that both we and your colleagues
have placed on the questionnaire, I think it is fairly significant
in answer to question 10 to the individuals, "Have you ever
felt victimised during your training here?" that during DOC
1 it is 25%, DOC 2 nearly 16% and DOC 3 11%. That is a trend,
which is a good trend, but it means that there is still a problem
there, does it not? So we have highlighted that it is still an
issue that needs to be addressed. Group Captain Howard:
And bullying within peer groups tended to be worst amongst girls
than it did boys.
Q869 Mr Roy: Were you surprised that
the figure that you got was 7 to 8% of trainees questioned said
that they were being or had been bullied during the course of
their training? Were you surprised at that 7 or 8%? That is appraisal
2002. Group Captain Howard: I think that is
why we asked the question and that is where they came back, and
it was bullying within peer groups rather than systematic bullying
or bullying by their instructors.
Q870 Mr Roy: Can I just stay on the
figures? How can you be confident that bullying is experienced
by 7 to 8% of the trainees if your recording mechanism is inadequate,
as you say in paragraph 75 of DOC in 2002? Group Captain
Howard: We have said that the figures are indicative figures
only. I do not think we have confidence in the fact that that
is an actual accurate reflection in the Armed Forces. I do not
think we profess that at all.
Q871 Mr Roy: But you have said that
there are inadequacies in the record mechanism. So how can you
be confident that the percentage you are giving is true? Group
Captain Howard: As I said, I do not think we are confident.
It is indicative. It is a question we asked and each group answered
that question. I do not really see where you are coming from.
Q872 Mr Roy: If you have admitted
that the mechanism is not really adequate— Group
Captain Howard: We agreed that.
Q873 Mr Roy: So what are you doing
about it? Group Captain Howard: In what sense?
Q874 Mr Roy: If you are looking for
statistics and the measure that you use, you realise that there
were problems with that particular mechanism, and once you realised
it, Group Captain, what did you do and how do you improve it?
Or do you just move on to the next? Group Captain Howard:
We were not looking for statistics. We used those figures as an
indicative measure of areas we needed to look into, and I think
bullying was sufficiently high up the agenda anyway that the figure
was immaterial really as far as whether we were going to question
and look at the area—it was on our agenda regardless of
what the figures said. Brigadier Melvin: I think
the figures, Mr Roy, due to the caveat that we have given and
that you have given, should be regarded as an indication—our
words—of a trend rather than of their absolute value. So
the members of the audit team, in answer to the question, "Have
you ever been bullied during your training year?" where it
says DOC 1 7.6%, DOC 2 6.9%, DOC 3 4.5%, we say that all you can
use those figures for is to observe the trend. That is all we
are saying.
Q875 Mr Roy: How do you work out
that that is the trend, if we say—and I quote from the DOC
appraisal notes—"The quality of existing captured historic
data seem to suggest that bullying statistics may be technically
unreliable"? Your words, not mine. Group Captain
Howard: We agree. Brigadier Melvin:
So we are saying that of the questions we have asked there are
questions and caveats that we put into that. For instance, the
question which we are alluding to, is an individual necessarily
going to say that he has been victimised or bullied? I think that
is what you are coming to, is it not?
Q876 Mr Roy: No, no, do not put words
into my mouth. Brigadier Melvin: I apologise;
I did not mean to do that.
Q877 Mr Roy: If you accept that the
statistics were technically unreliable into the way it was done,
then what recommendations have you made for ensuring that the
recording mechanisms for instances of bullying are more robust
than in the past? Group Captain Howard: It comes
into the overall label of duty of care really; it is the whole
system, the DOC process from the first report through DGT&E's
work, as put in place as an overall mechanism to look for bullying,
make it a more open system and have mechanisms there that can
pick it up.
Q878 Mr Roy: What are they, Group
Captain? Group Captain Howard: All of these
you have seen on your visits, with padres, WRVS, Salvation Army,
Empowered Officers, access to outside counselling organisations,
the whole plethora of duty of care that has been encompassed by
the report. I do not think anybody has gone out to be an anti-bullying
officer or anything; it is the whole issue that encourages openness. Rear
Admiral Goodall: It was an issue when we were last before
the Committee; we highlighted the fact that we are collecting
data about bullying across the piece, and we put those statistics
in front of the Committee. I remember we had the conversation
that in fact—and I am looking at them now—the numbers
of complaints went up quite significantly, and we had the discussion
then: is this because we are more sophisticated at tracking them;
is it because being an open society now we are encouraging people
to bring them to our attention?
Q879 Mr Roy: Maybe they are not afraid
to come forward now. Rear Admiral Goodall: Correct
and they are in a climate where they do that. So we have that
debate, does the fact that the statistics we gave you of increased
numbers of complaints mean that there is more bullying or does
it mean that we have a better society? I think we had a position
here that we could not agree then and we cannot agree now, and
it is something that we are working on constantly, to improve
our capability of tracking these issues. This is demonstrating,
I believe—and as I think I said on the last occasion—that
it is a sign of a more open society that is dealing with the issue
directly. But if you were to ask me is it statistically valid,
I could not say yes or no.
|
