Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1300
- 1319)
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 2004
RT HON
ADAM INGRAM
MP, COLONEL DAVID
ECCLES AND
MR MARTIN
FULLER
Q1300 Mr Cran:
Minister, you have made it very clear that you are opposed to
public inquiries and so on. You have given all the reasons why
that is so and, if I may say so, your reasons are logical, but
they are also very matter-of-fact; they are really rather quite
cold when you look at them. What I have discovered in this inquiry,
and particularly meeting the families, is that these are people
who simply cannot put this issue behind them. I think you and
I and the Committee and everybody else will understand why that
is so. They just cannot move on and they cannot rest at all. The
impression I have been left with by most of the families I have
talked to is that really they think that the MoD just does not
care for them at all. If you ask any of them to give an assessment
of the MoD I assure you it would not be high. What I would like
to know out of all of this is, where is the place for these families
if the decision is to refuse to have a public inquiry? Where are
they in all this?
Mr Ingram: I am trying not to
be cold and insensitive; I am trying to say that in all of this
we have to determine the way in which government structures operate
and those who comment on them I think have to use a critical faculty.
It is not, I would suggest, the job of politicians or, even more
so, Ministers, to be populist. It is easy to be populist, to agree
with the last person who puts pressure on you, simply to gain
that headline. Good governance has to be more than that. It has
to be a whole lot of factors in the balance. It does not mean
to say that there is no sharing of the pain, that we cannot truly
understand the pain because we are not in that family, but there
is a comprehension and you always put yourself in the position,
"If this was me what would I be saying?". You then have
to separate out those aspects of the governance of all of this.
That is what I am seeking to do. This is not the first time I
have been through this. In Northern Ireland I established a whole
structure to deal with the victims of 30 years of violence that
had never been addressed before We commissioned the Bloomfield
Report which set a whole range of processes forward and we then
started to implement it. I had to deal with this in a previous
job when it was in Northern Ireland, meeting people with grievances
that had never surfaced, never been dealt with, and then having
to work through how best to deal with all that, knowing that we
could probably never satisfy them, never find the truth to the
past because there are people in that community in Northern Ireland
who will never tell the truth, and therefore you have to face
up to that. If I am sounding insensitive and cold, it is not my
personality. I am trying to say that I have got to use analytical
faculty alongside the other side of the equation. I do not think
you can score them in that way. It has been said to me, "Give
a public inquiry and you will be a hero". That is not why
I am in government. It is not to be a hero; it is to do the right
thing and administer the department which I have responsibility
for to the best of my ability. It is not chasing headlines.
Q1301 Mr Cran:
I entirely understand all of these reasons you give and I would
be the last to say that you as a Minister were insensitive. I
just have to say to you that in the course of this inquiry I have
had my mind changed about this issue simply because the considerations
for these families have got to be ratcheted up the decision-taking
process somewhere. I just feel, and I repeat the point to you,
that they cannot rest, they cannot put it behind them, and I do
not think that they will allow you to put it behind you either.
If you are not careful you will give the impression—I am
not trying to make a cheap political point; it is simply that
I have had my mind changed on this issue. You are just going to
be seen, I fear, and it would be the same if it were my government,
kicking and screaming towards further concessions.
Mr Ingram: I do not know if that
is a statement or a question. These are not concessions. These
are an examination of all the information which is in front of
me. I do not see them as concessions. I believe them to be an
iterative process. If something new comes along they have to address
that issue. The other bit of the equation which I ask you to consider
as well, is that if there is a public inquiry, whatever it is
into, whether it is wide or narrow, how long it is going to last?
How much truth will it establish? How many untruths will it bring
into the public domain which then do damage unfairly which will
not be retracted? Meanwhile, we are trying to recruit, we are
trying to maintain the high standards within Her Majesty's Armed
Forces. Those are the judgements that have to be taken in this.
Chairman: We have not reached any conclusions
yet. We have three months to go before we produce our report.
Q1302 Mike Gapes:
I want to move to the other aspects of the inquiry that we have
set up when we started this duty of care inquiry. One of the most
important, obviously, is the recruitment process and we have taken
evidence on that. Rear Admiral Goodall, the Director General of
Training and Education, told us in an earlier session that one
per cent of applicants to the Army are at Entry Level 2, which
is a reading age of seven, and 24% at Entry Level 3, which is
a reading age of 11. When I was at Hendon Police yesterday, Hendon
Police have a reading age of 14, I think, in recruitment into
the Metropolitan Police. I just wonder, as a result of the processes
of recruitment, do you believe that the Armed Forces should be
recruiting people with a reading age of 11 or less?
Mr Ingram: We have got to look
at the recruitment pool from which we draw. I would reverse that
question and say, look at output, look at the large numbers of
people who come in with that limited capability who are immediately
put, not in the early days of their training but as they go through
their career, into basic skills training. We are, I think, the
largest provider of that type of training anywhere in the UK.
We take people who have these deficiencies but they still can
be bright. For a whole lot of reasons people do not attain those
higher levels when they are young. We identify it, we seek to
turn them round and the output shows that we do so to a remarkable
extent. That is to the credit of the Armed Forces, and it is probably
more predominant in the Army than it is elsewhere, again for the
reasons that technicians and others go into the RAF and certain
skills in the Navy. I have seen this at first hand. I have been
round barracks where there are young men and women sitting writing
letters to their teachers back in England, and in this case it
was a visit to a barracks in Northern Ireland, and they were all
doing this, things that should have happened to them at school.
If we say we are not taking those people because they have not
reached that level, knowing that we can turn them round—and
they are good soldiers—and knowing the qualities that they
bring, I do not think we would have an Army anywhere the size
we have today. It would be better if they were better educated.
We have to take from the population which is out there and then
make the best of them and judge it on output, not on input.
Q1303 Mike Gapes: You
have said the three Services are different in their educational
requirements, and we have had evidence to that effect, that the
RAF would be higher and for the Royal Navy as well, and so predominantly
the young people with the lower educational attainment are more
concentrated in the Army. Could you give us any indication of
what proportion of recruits enter front line units lacking basic
educational competence?
Mr Ingram: Not off the top of
my head.
Colonel Eccles: Could I say that
within Phase 1 and Phase 2 training, we are only able to do a
limited amount to improve the basic standards of our people because
of pressures on them, constraints of time and compressed timetabling
and so on. So while we do remedy some deficiencies and make good
for some people, there are still an awful lot who start with low
levels and who go on into the Field Army.
Q1304 Mike Gapes: So
it is quite possible that some 18- and 19-year-olds would still
have a very low reading age but would actually be doing a job
serving with our Forces wherever?
Colonel Eccles: That is perfectly
possible, yes.
Q1305 Mike Gapes: You
cannot give me any figures? How do you assess this?
Colonel Eccles: No. The way in
which we do it is that during the recruit selection process, as
I think you may have seen on your visits, tests are given to people
who are coming through the system. We try and make good deficiencies
in Phase 1, for example in Catterick we have a two-week block
at the end of their course for those who need additional training.
In Phase 2, if there are gaps in the programme, we fill in, but
those gaps depend on the nature of the construct of the programme.
It is difficult to identify a figure. I would reiterate, there
are a number who still go through the system and require additional
help when they get to the Field Army.
Q1306 Mike Gapes: Would
you accept if you are carrying out the remedial educational work
for these recruits, firstly, it takes time?
Colonel Eccles: Indeed.
Q1307 Mike Gapes: Secondly,
for those young people it could be potentially quite a difficult
period because their peers know they are getting this special
help and therefore in a way they are singled out?
Colonel Eccles: Of course, it
could be difficult for those individuals but, equally, turning
it round, there is a great sense of achievement when they make
progress and they can demonstrate to their peers and families
and so on what great strides they have made. There are two sides
to it.
Q1308 Mike Gapes: How
do you protect people who are undergoing this remedial training
or educational support from being bullied or ridiculed or picked
on by other people?
Colonel Eccles: I do not think
there is any policy across the board but what we do is deal with
each case as circumstances arise, and we are very sensitive to
those sort of issues. We would treat each case classically on
its merits.
Q1309 Mike Gapes: Do
you have any way of assessing whether this is happening?
Colonel Eccles: I do know our
skills tutors are very alert to these sorts of issues, they are
very skilled people, and these are the kind of issues which are
in every part of society and they are very attuned to them and
would be very aware of it.
Mr Ingram: Can
I say this is what the Adult Learning Inspectorate may be examining
as well, because they are bringing that type of experience from
elsewhere to look at this. If lessons are to be learned and new
approaches have to be adopted coming out of what they say which
can deal with that potential problem—it may not be a real
problem—and how can that be best dealt with, they will be.
I would suggest ridicule and so on could apply across a whole
range of attribute failings, if he or she was not the fittest
person in the class, they could be the slowest runner, the person
who cannot swim; a whole lot of reasons. I come back to my earlier
point, we cannot be perfect on this, and therefore we can never
wholly eliminate bullying, harassment and victimisation. No organisation
can. When you look at the statistics, what it does tell us is
that our incidence level on this is lower than is happening outside
in the rest of society. The figures are still ones that we have
to address but outside in comparator areas they are sitting around
14% and we are 7 to 10% who would say they fall into that category.
You then have to say, "What do they mean by bullying? Is
it physical, is it mind-breaking or something people can work
their way through?" These are complicated issues and I doubt
anyone will give us the perfect model to eliminate it.
Q1310 Mike Gapes: As
we change and reduce the number of recruits targeted for the Army—and
the figures I have indicate that the target for this current year
is about 11,500, and last year it was over 13,500—do you
think that will lead to a corresponding, if you like, increase
in the average reading age of recruits? Will it reduce the numbers
of those who are currently being, or have in the past been, recruited
into the Armed Forces?
Colonel Eccles: I do not think
it is going to make a significant difference either way. Having
introduced the new system on 1 April this year, where we screened
and did not allow those with the very lowest entry level to come
in, those with a reading age of a five year old, we have only
debarred 130 people so far. We are playing around at the margins
and I do not think it is going to make a huge difference to the
overall composition of our cohorts.
Q1311 Mike Gapes: So
there will still be recruits with a reading age of seven coming
into the Armed Forces?
Colonel Eccles: I suspect there
will be.
Mr Ingram: Maybe you could get
our old friend, Charles Clarke, to find out why we have this pool
in the community.
Mike Gapes: I agree, and in case anybody
in the public misinterprets my line of questioning, I actually
think the Army does a very important job in raising educational
standards which should have been raised elsewhere in society,
but nevertheless we are doing an inquiry on the duty of care and
it is important we do pursue these questions.
Q1312 Mr Viggers: The
bulk of those with low educational attainments go into the Infantry
and the Logistics Corps, not into the Signals and Engineers and
so on. Is there a correlation between events at Deepcut and Catterick
and the very different way the arms and services in the Army recruit?
Are we specifically talking about an Infantry problem?
Colonel Eccles: I do not believe
so. Recruiting into the Army is done across the board, as you
know, and people identify at an early stage in the recruiting
process which arm of the Service they would like to go to. Part
of that choice is governed of course by their innate abilities,
and numeracy and literacy are part of those factors taken into
consideration, so I do not think the way in which we recruit into
the different arms of the Service makes a huge difference in that
regard. Whether the problems we have historically experienced,
and we have been talking about earlier today about Catterick and
Deepcut, are a reflection of the skill levels of those people
who are going through training is a point on which I do not think
we are competent to comment.
Chairman: I am not trying to undermine
Mike's line of questioning, which is very valid, but I would like
to point out at the age of 11 people can read very competently,
it is not a sign of some mental deficiency. I was reading, as
I am sure many people here were reading, some quite serious books
at the age of 11, so while it is necessary to raise standards
I would hate people out there to think there are some sub-normals
operating in the Infantry. This is not what Mike was saying but
I am merely saying when people hear about a reading age of 11,
somehow they think it is childlike reading, and it is not; 11
is an age when people are able to read and comprehend and write
very seriously. Having got that off my chest, Frank Roy?
Q1313 Mr Roy: Can
I say, as someone who as an 11-year-old never read a serious book,
I was reading comics at age 11, speaking to some of the families,
especially the Catterick families, they have highlighted to me
that the people who, for example, are dyslexic or are slower on
the up-take for reading are the very people who have that weakness,
that chink, which will allow them to be the target for bullying.
It is the same in schools, and I can tell you in Scottish schools
those children who have that deficiency are the very children
who are pinpointed for bullying. Would you not agree therefore,
where we do have this problem, that the Army should pay special
attention to these particular recruits?
Colonel Eccles: Yes, they should,
as they should for anybody who has a vulnerability or weakness
in any area, and I think that is implicit in all that we do. Part
of the function of the Chain of Command is to understand the people
whom you are commanding or the people for whom you are responsible,
and if you identify a person needs additional support or protection
then of course you must do that, and that runs right through our
culture. I entirely agree with you.
Q1314 Mr Roy: On
that additional support, could I draw you towards the very important
parental support, or the lack of it which seems to be given or
able to be received by young recruits? We have heard evidence
from the parents of soldiers who died at Deepcut and Catterick
that their involvement throughout their child's recruitment process
was minimal, and the most they did was sign the consent form.
We also heard from the Commanding Officers that they consider
parental involvement is extremely helpful. Therefore where do
you merge them? What do you think could be done to inform parents
or guardians so they are involved more effectively in recruitment?
Let me tell you, the families we have spoken to felt they absolutely
were not connected to this process.
Colonel Eccles: Can I say that
we very much welcome the involvement of parents, guardians or
whoever else right from the very beginning, and we have discovered
through long experience that if a potential recruit comes along
with somebody—a grandfather, an uncle, a parent, whoever—it
is much better, it aids the process, and it is very much encouraged.
When youngsters come in for the first time, if they are on their
own, people often say, "The next time you come back . . .",
because that person will come to the recruiting office on another
occasion before they go off to the Recruit Selection Centre, ".
. . please bring somebody with you."
Q1315 Mr Roy: Are
they told that though? Are your people obliged to lean towards
the recruit and say, "I know you are an adult but really
we do think it is imperative you bring someone along so there
is this involvement"?
Colonel Eccles: I was at the Commander
Recruiting Group's Conference at Bovington a month ago and we
had a presentation on precisely this and it was discussed and
people were talking about their experiences, spreading best practice
and how recruiting organisations were doing, and I could see everybody
in the audience nodding their heads saying "Absolutely. If
we get somebody along with an adult, a much older person, it is
so much better. It speeds the process and it is much better".
That of course makes sure we look after that person to the best
of our ability.
Q1316 Mr Roy: Is
there some sort of best practice code that people in the recruitment
office should be saying to people when they phone up and say,
"I would like to come for an appointment, I am thinking of
joining the Army"? Does somebody there say, "We will
give you an appointment for a week on Tuesday, it would be helpful
if you want to bring someone along"?
Colonel Eccles: I do not believe
it is written in the administrative instructions for those working
in recruiting offices, but I do know from this Best Practice Forum
we were running, it is very much encouraged. The whole time we
are looking to develop and improve our procedures and tighten
up the bolts and so on, and this is just the kind of thing we
should be doing.
Mr Ingram: I understand you using
the Catterick families and others as the basis to understand things,
but you have to look at the other side as well. I do not know
if you have been to a passing-out parade and talked to the parents
who are there and seen their incredible pride. They say, "Look
what they have done, how they have turned this youngster round
in such a remarkable way", and that is why we have to look
at the output here, and not just look through the other end of
the telescope. All those qualitative approaches have to be there
and commonsense applies as well, and it seems to be commonsense
if you encourage someone to come along with another person.
Q1317 Mr Roy: Some
people are guilty of not using commonsense.
Mr Ingram: Some young people are
guilty of not using commonsense and saying, "I am big enough
to do it myself." We live in the real world and they are
not dictated to, and when we recruit we have to live in that way
and draw from the pool we are drawing from. We cannot dictate,
we can only try our best to set best standards.
Q1318 Chairman: Frank
has made a valid point, it is as much for the parents as for the
young soldiers. They are taken away from home—and I know
some of them in one or two cases are very happy to be away from
home and maybe they are going into the Army because they do not
want to be at home—and what we got from our many visits
is that the kids leave and the parents cannot see them for a long
time. This is more than good public relations, and it will not
cost a fortune, but writing a letter or allowing a little more
contact, so that the transition, which would last only a couple
of months, from living at home to going off to combat is made
a little less unpleasant and alien for parents who are seeing
their children disappearing. This is one of the things you could
do. I know you are thinking about this and it would be very helpful
if you could let us have some more information about that Conference
in Bovington because you seem to be thinking much more strongly
along those lines.
Colonel Eccles: Indeed. We have
been focusing on the recruiting element of it at the moment but
once the young person enters Phase 1 training we do have a number
of set procedures and these are laid down in the ATRA Handbook,
which I hope you have seen, whereby the Commanding Officers can
get in touch with parents at the beginning of the course and say
that if they have any concerns or problems, this is the contact
number they should phone. We try to establish contact at the beginning.
A number of the establishments invite parents at the half way
point and they all invite them at the end, so we try and maintain
that linkage throughout.
Q1319 Chairman: Send
us any documentation because this is a really valid point and
I think that would be helpful.
Colonel Eccles: We will.
| 
