Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
RT HON
DES BROWNE
MP, BRIGADIER STEPHEN
ANDREWS CBE AND
MR DAVID
GOULD CB
11 JULY 2006
Q80 Mr Jenkins: If I could ask one
question that has been puzzling me for a while: how many either
one or two star officers went to a state secondary school?
Des Browne: Mr Jenkins, you will
not be surprised to know that I asked this question myself.
Q81 Mr Jenkins: Did you get an answer?
Des Browne: I am not able to provide
an answer because that statistical evidence is not collected,
so the best you are going to get from anybody who tries to answer
that would be, in my view, an unhelpful conglomeration of anecdotes.
The statistics are not kept. Educational background is actually
an irrelevance to the Armed Forces. What we are interested in
in the context of selection and promotion is to take account of
educational achievements and qualifications, not what school a
person went to. That is entirely as it should be unless there
is evidence to suggest that people are being disadvantaged because
of their educational background, and I have to say that as I interact
increasingly with the Armed Forces I do not myself see any sign
of that. I understand that that is doing exactly what I am counselling
people not to do, which is basing conclusions on snapshot experiences
of anecdotes; but the fact of the matter is that that information
is not kept. In relation to women, if I can just expand, I think
there are—and I asked for this information which we do keep
in order to inform the responses to this sort of question if it
came up—trends in relation to the Armed Forces that are
very encouraging. There are increasing percentages—they
are starting off with small numbers—of women moving up the
chain of command. And can I just say to Members of this Committee
that I come from a background ministerially and politically where
I will encourage and support this trend with every effort that
I can because I think it is crucially important that "people
opportunities" is not just a phrase but that it has a reality
on the ground. In terms of promotion, in every walk of life the
most important thing to ensure is that the pool from which people
are chosen for promotion is expanded and is represented, not just
of women, not just of people from different educational backgrounds
but of people of diverse ethnic backgrounds as well, and we will
do everything we can to build on the success that we have been
achieving, I believe, in all of these areas. Then we have to ensure
that the promotion process is genuinely objective and selects
people by their ability from that pool, and that it is a genuine
meritocracy and is not affected by extraneous factors. I would
just say to you, Mr Jenkins—and I have not had the opportunity
to satisfy myself of this—that to the extent in 10 weeks
I can get a sense of this, and knowing what I do know about this
area of public policy, I do not get any sense that there is a
disadvantage to having had a particular educational background
in the Armed Forces.
Mr Jenkins: Secretary of State, it was
only a short question and I always get worried when people give
me very, very long answers to a short question. If you have difficulty
I suggest that you carry out a random survey; just go round the
CVs of the officers and pull out a random number—and it
will give you them in confidence—and look at the individuals
and see where they come from and their background. Are you keeping
a policy of advancement, inclusion without knowing some facts
from where you are starting? You just said to me that you do not
know where the facts come from, it is too big a job to look at
it, but someone should know where they come from to be able to
prove and say, hand on heart, that they come from a wide range,
that it is on ability and it is not on background.
Q82 Chairman: Secretary of State,
there is a suggestion for you.
Des Browne: I will take that suggestion
away and mull it over, and since I am offering to come back in
the not too distant future I can be cross-examined or examined
on how I responded to that suggestion then.
Q83 Mr Jones: Secretary of State,
I am quite disappointed with your answer because clearly you have
been there for 10 weeks and it appears that you have gone native
very quickly! The point is relevant because—and I am not
suggesting this is the case—it could be suggested that an
old boys' public schoolboys' network promotes to certain things
and is holding women back. So I am surprised that you do not collect
evidence of where people come from and I do not think that it
is beyond the wit of the MoD to pull that information together.
The other thing I would be interested to know—and I am disappointed
with the Brigadier's answer about women—is what is actually
being done to encourage women to break through that glass ceiling
into two and three star? It is not just a matter about people's
abilities, it is trying to engage and encourage those women who
have ability to break through. If you look at any examples of
how it has been done just go to an industry where there has been
real and positive work being done to encourage women to get into
senior management positions, and I do not think that the MoD is
any different or the Armed Forces are any different from industry
in that respect.
Des Browne: I accept your challenge
and I would be disappointed if the impression that I left with
this Committee is that I had ditched all of the principles that
I believe in in relation to equality in 10 weeks in the MoD, and
I do not believe that I have for a minute. I think women and educational
qualifications and where they are obtained are two separate issues.
Q84 Mr Jones: I do not think they
are.
Des Browne: They are in my view
separate issues, and I do not want anybody left with the impression
that we do not collect the detailed information in relation to
women—there is very good clear evidence why we should do
that. The evidence suggests that women are progressing through
the officer ranks in greater numbers than before and that there
has been a notable increase in the proportion of women at officer
rank below one star, and I will come back to that in a moment.
A significant percentage of junior officers are female, 40% captains,
for example, 18% of lieutenants and below, and for most senior
officers the female representation, although relatively small,
has increased significantly. The proportion of colonels and equivalent
has doubled in the 15-year period from 1990 from 1.6% to 3.2%
and for lieutenant colonels it has tripled from 1.4% to 4.1%.
As the Brigadier explained, moving into the stage that you have,
as a Committee, set as the glass ceiling is a combination of a
number of factors, one of which is life of service, and given
that women are only genuinely an integral part of the Armed Forces
and separate from women services for a comparatively short period
of time then that length of service has not been able to be acquired
by women, and the test is—and this is the genuine test in
my view—as to whether the pool from which those people will
be drawn is genuinely representative of the women who are joining
the forces in increasing numbers. If that is right and we are
sustaining that progression then there is no reason for anybody
at this point to believe that that will be stopped at any point.
But it is my responsibility, as the Secretary of State, to ensure
that the processes for selection work to make sure that that does
not happen, and I will do that because that is part of the whole
process of equality that brought me into politics in the first
place. As far as educational qualifications and where they are
obtained are concerned, it is entirely appropriate, in my view,
that the Forces should be blind to where those qualifications
are obtained. Mr Jenkins has suggested to me a piece of work which
he says may reveal a degree of prejudice against people who have
come from state schools. I do not believe from my observations
that that exists.
Q85 Mr Jones: We do not know.
Des Browne: I will take away his
suggestion and consider it and when I come back before the Committee
the next time we can address that subject in some more detail.
Q86 Mr Hamilton: I actually think
it is correct to say that since the time the change of policy
about women came about, it may be a bit early to say how that
has come through the system. However, I find it difficult for
you to make a judgment on educational ability or what school a
person came from when you do not carry those facts with you. How
can you make that judgment? Nobody can make that judgment unless
they gather those facts together. I would not take it to the Armed
Forces, I would take it to the Army specifically and look at the
Army because I think that is where the problem lies. It may be
a misconception but how do we know if we do not have the facts
and figures?
Des Browne: Neither of us knows.
Q87 Mr Hamilton: That is the point.
Des Browne: I qualified my answer
in the way in which I did very carefully to let the Committee
know where I thought the restrictions on it were. In the context
of the exchanges we were having, Mr Jenkins has made a suggestion
to me and I will take it away and consider it. I do not think
I can say fairer than that.
Chairman: May I recommend a policy of
an A list, Secretary of State. I just throw that out. Mark Lancaster
on overstretch.
Q88 Mr Lancaster: Overstretch, or
perhaps as the Secretary of State would prefer to call it, "stretch".
Perhaps, Chairman, because of the very nature of the question
I am about to ask, I know the Committee are aware, I ought to
restate that I have an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial
Army in the Royal Engineers as a bomb disposal officer, so a pinch
trade. How have our harmony guidelines been breached with the
latest appointments and which trades are probably most affected
by it?
Des Browne: Can I defer to the
Brigadier to give that specific information?
Brigadier Andrews: The harmony
guidelines in general across the Armed Forces are still holding,
but you are quite right to say they are breached in certain areas.
There are certain specialisations where there are acute difficulties.
In the Royal Navy, there are significant shortfalls amongst certain
specialisations in the submarine service. In the Army, there are
as you know shortfalls in the infantry and intelligence operators.
In the Royal Air Force, weapons system operators, air crew, linguists
and a number of ground trades are particular shortage areas.
Q89 Mr Lancaster: How are we trying
to address these shortages? Is there a direct connection between
shortages in key trades and the mobilisation of reserve forces?
Brigadier Andrews: There is a
number of measures which we can do to reduce manning pressure;
the pressure in these particular areas. Of course we can look
at the requirement, we can review the establishment and the requirement
on the ground to make sure that we are indeed employing the right
number of people, and if there are too many of course that is
a measure to reduce the pressure. We can look at rank-ranging
posts, perhaps a post which was originally designated for a captain
might be undertaken by a major or perhaps a lieutenant; we could
put a rank-range there. You have quite rightly pointed out sometimes
we can alleviate those pressures by mobilising reservists and
in some areas we have used contractors but sometimes posts have
to be gapped and that is a hard fact. In the longer term, we have
looked at the notion of the financial retention incentive to keep
people in the service, and of course corporately we look at the
structure of the Armed Forces to ensure they are properly structured
to undertake the sort of operations that they are undertaking
now.
Q90 Mr Lancaster: Let us be clear
then. You are talking about a gapping post, and a gapping post
as I understand it effectively means nobody is in it. So what
sacrifices are you making to operational effectiveness if you
are gapping posts, rank-ranging positions? Are you meeting the
harmony guidelines? Which posts are currently gapped in Afghanistan
or Iraq, ie have nobody in them?
Brigadier Andrews: I cannot tell
you precisely which posts—
Q91 Mr Lancaster: Are there any?
Brigadier Andrews: I would have
to let you know that.
Q92 Chairman: Would it be possible,
Brigadier, for you to write to us with those details?
Brigadier Andrews: Yes, it would,
Sir, yes.[5]
Des Browne: Subject to the support
I have been receiving from the Brigadier in relation to the detail
of this, I am not aware of any posts being gapped in either of
these theatres.
Q93 Mr Lancaster: Neither am I, but
I am just asking.
Des Browne: I do not think there
are any, but I will confirm that.
Q94 Chairman: It would be helpful
to know.[6]
Des Browne: I would not like to
leave the Committee with the impression that there is a possibility.
I do not think there is any possibility of there being gaps but
I will just check and make absolutely certain, since the Brigadier
does not have that specific information here. My overwhelming
impression is that there are no gaps.
Q95 Mr Lancaster: To be fair, I do
not think there are but I am asking the question.
Brigadier Andrews: Just to make
myself clear as well, gapping posts in operational theatres would
be exceptional. Gapping posts elsewhere is something that we do
have to do from time to time.
Chairman: Thank you very much. The final
topic we would like to cover relates to personnel and to the Blake
Review.
Q96 Mr Havard: The first question
I would like to ask you is the question of the Armed Forces complaints
commissioner which has now been announced. We really would like
to know whether or not you have any further details on what exactly
the role of that person is going to be. There was a general statement
about accepting complaints directly from servicemen or family
members and so on, but we are a bit short on detail and we would
like to know, given our previous reports, exactly what they are
going to be doing, what powers they have and how they relate to
the rest of the structure?
Brigadier Andrews: As far as I
know, those powers have not been drafted yet but, as you correctly
say, that commissioner would be in a position to accept complaints
and then of course to refer them to the Chain of Command for investigation.
He would also have an important role in monitoring as an independent
scrutineer the effectiveness and the fairness of that process.
Q97 Mr Havard: Can I understand very
clearly what you have just said? They have not been drafted yet?
In our Duty of Care Report we made suggestions about the type
of process we would like to see and we made particular allusion
to the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland because we think this
person should have quite extensive powers of investigation, calling
evidence and all sorts of other things. We have had discussions
on the Armed Forces Bill Committee and on the floor of the House
about this, and we were told that this person of some sort of
variety, not as we had described them but something slightly different,
was going to come forward. Now you are telling me you have not
even described what they are going to do.
Brigadier Andrews: The Armed Forces
Bill contains provisions, which I am afraid I cannot set out for
you. The detailed way in which the Services complaints commissioner
could work will be a matter for later. That is my understanding
and perhaps I may confirm that to you?
Des Browne: Can I say to the Committee
that in the absence of being able to give the detail, dotting
the I's and crossing the T's of this, the external reviewer will
have wide powers in relation to complaints, bullying and harassment,
as the Committee suggested and will be able to receive complaints
directly from Service personnel or indeed made on their behalf
by third parties, referring them then to the Chain of Command
for action and to be notified of the outcome. To that extent,
in relation to the component elements you have identified, Mr
Harvard—
Chairman: Kevan Jones served on the Bill.
Q98 Mr Jones: I am quite disappointed
with the Brigadier's answer and I suspect what is going on is
that the military do not want this commissioner. In terms of the
Bill, which is in the Lords stage now, I am surprised even at
this late stage you cannot actually tell us what the commissioner
is going to be. Is it, Secretary of State, that you are a new
secretary of state, it is in your box now, there is a danger the
military will actually kill this off by stealth? When are we going
to have the detail? If we do not have the detail in the Lords
and amendments are not put down, I have to say there will be a
lot of disappointed people, not just the families who have been
campaigning for this, but I have to say a lot of Members of Parliament,
on the Labour side as well, will be very annoyed if this is watered-down
or the thrust which I think is needed in terms of improving the
independent oversight of the Armed Forces is not actually followed
through.
Des Browne: We have set ourselves
the task of having a complaints system which is fair, transparent,
effective and prompt. We have accepted there needs to be an external
review element to that and I have set out to the Committee, in
response to the concerns I understood the Committee had and in
relation to its own recommendations, the elements which will be
there. These issues will of course have to be subject to debate
in the context of the Armed Forces Bill and people will have an
opportunity to test them against the standards they have set.
In my view, this independent element, this independent reviewer
that we envisage, whose position in the complaints system will
be reflected in the statute, will be able to achieve all of the
ambitions Mr Havard has for him.
Q99 Mr Havard: I hope so. Can I raise
a particular question at the moment? Not in my constituency but
in the next door constituency but nevertheless part of the local
extended family, as it were, we have just seen a boy die in training,
apparently through a process called "beasting" which
is a debate which has been going on for years. We were told during
our Duty of Care inquiries that in these sorts of processes for
dealing with physical punishments during training there were rules
and regulations and advice to PTIs in particular about how they
must deploy physical training. I do not want to go into the details
of the particular case but what it raises in my mind is the suspicion
that in fact what we have not seen is what we were promised, which
is processes of supervision being put in place to avoid these
things, so that if someone has committed a misdemeanour or not,
or is in need of some sort of remedial training, be it physical
or otherwise, they are dealt with in a proper civilised fashion,
so that we have people being trained not brutalised, which is
essentially what we were concerned about in the past. I am very
concerned that the promises which were made to us and the descriptions
we have had previously about how this was going to be carried
out are clearly not working. I would like to know in a general
question of duty of care, how the supervision processes are running
in order to carry out what were promises which were made to us
during that Report?
Des Browne: Can I deal with the
general point and then on the specifics I will defer to the Brigadier,
who may be in a position to give the detailed information. If
he is not, then of course we will provide that detailed information.
I do not think the Committee, the Chairman or the Committee, expect
me to respond in the context of the specific case you referred
to, Mr Havard.
5 Note: See Ev 22 Back
6
Note: See Ev 22 Back
| 
