Memorandum from Mr Kelsey John Tainsh,
MBE
Having watched part of the Select Defence Committee
"Duty of Care" programme dated 7 July 2004, which was
screened on Sky TV on 5 September 2004, the following information
may be of interest to your Committee.
1. In the year prior to my retirement from
the Royal Air Force in 1999, whilst on duty over a weekend at
RAF Innsworth I received a telephone call from the Orderly Sergeant
informing me that he had a problem with one of the uniformed RAF
Guards. On investigation I found:
— He was in a poor emotional state,
and had reported sick with associated depression problems as a
result of a breakdown in a relationship, and I believe was prescribed
medication by a civilian doctor employed by the MoD (who I believe
held a Commission in the TA).
— He was armed with an automatic weapon
and live rounds, and in rotation with other guards manned the
main gate, opposite which there was a bus stop and built up housing
area.
— I concluded he urgently needed further
medical attention, and called in the locum doctor from Gloucester.
The doctor was reluctant to come in person to look at the guard
in question, and only did so when I insisted, primarily because
he was in possession of an automatic weapon and live ammunition,
and I had concluded that he was in a suicidal state, and could
kill/injure himself and/or members of the public.
— The locum doctor did not think he
was suicidal, but on my recommendation sent him on a weeks sick
leave. I arranged for him to spend this sick leave with his parents.
— I was later to be informed that three
days later this Guard attempted to commit suicide at home with
his parents.
— My conclusion is that someone suffering
from any form of emotional upset or depression, or who has been
prescribed medication:
(a) Should not be on guard and in possession
of an automatic weapon and live ammunition.
(b) A locum doctor with no military background
should not have assessed the guard concerned.
2. I was always concerned about the Duty
of Care implications associated with RAF Annual Physical Fitness
Tests, especially for those proceeding on operational commitments:
— In 1999 when I was in uniform, the RAF/Services
did not have a standard minimum acceptable "Tri Service Basic
Combat Fitness Test" which at a time when Tri Service Jointery
is the norm, and with increasing use of Reserve Forces, did not
make sense to me. I understand that this is still the case today.
— There was a reluctance to formerly state
in RAF Queens Regulations, that anyone who failed the RAF Annual
Fitness Test, was not to be employed on operational duties.
— I was informed at that time that it was
perceived that if such a regulation was laid down in writing,
there was the possibility that some Service personnel would deliberately
fail their annual fitness test, as a means of getting out of operational
commitments.
— If this situation exists today, it has
many Duty of Care implications, which includes added danger to
other Service personnel, who may need to rely on those who are
not fit enough to perform their operational duties in a combat
situation.
— I can only believe that with the proposed
Defence Review cutbacks in Service personnel and "Boots on
the Ground" there will be even more pressure placed upon
the Services, to ensure that personnel are fit enough to proceed
on operational duty. In my opinion, there should be a Duty of
Care requirement to ensure that all Service personnel (Regular,
Reserve Forces, including MoD Sponsored Reserves) have passed
some form of standard minimum acceptable "Tri Service Basic
Combat Fitness Test".
September 2004
|
