The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 4: Education of Service Personnel - Defence Committee Contents

2  The education of new recruits and trainees

Requirements for the education of 16 and 17 year old recruits


9. UK Armed Forces need to recruit many young people for a wide variety of jobs and roles. The minimum entry age is 16 years of age, the earliest school leaving age. Some 28 per cent of Army recruits are less than 18 years of age on entry to the Armed Forces, whereas the Naval Service only recruited five per cent and the Royal Air Force (RAF) eight per cent. The ages at which personnel were recruited in 2011-12 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Age at entry for those recruited to the Armed Forces in 2011-12


Other Ranks

Naval Service
Royal Air Force
All Services
Naval Service
Royal Air Force
All Services
-- -- 101,470 101,500
-- -- 801,450 1001,640
1020 -20 2601,250 1901,700
2020 -30 2901,220 2201,740
1020 -30 2801,080 1801,550
4080 10120 200850 1401,190
50160 20220 170680 100950
50130 10190 150550 80780
40100 10140 130460 80670
25 and over
70200 40300 3501,450 2202,020
280710 801,070 1,94010,480 1,32013,740

Notes: The totals are not the sum of the individual figures in the table as the Defence Analytical and Statistical Service rounds personnel numbers to the nearest ten.

Source: Ministry of Defence[13]

10. The MoD has adopted a number of safeguards when recruiting personnel under the age of 18 years. The MoD told us that such personnel:

  • Require formal written consent from their parents;
  • Have a statutory right of discharge from the Armed Forces if they wish to leave the Forces at any point; and
  • Are not deployed on operations.[14]

11. The MoD told us that its policy of recruiting personnel under the age of 18 years is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children and that it had no intention of changing its policy. It further told us:

    We believe that our policies on under 18s in Service are robust and comply with national and international law.  In addition to the comprehensive welfare system that is in place for all Service personnel, we remain fully committed to meeting our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and have taken steps to bestow special safeguards on young people under the age of 18.[15]

12. In response to our questions about the validity of recruiting personnel under the age of 18 years, the MoD told us:

    We take pride in the fact that our Armed Forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people and that the Armed Forces remain the UK's largest apprenticeship provider, equipping young people with valuable and transferable skills.[16]

13. We support the Armed Forces' provision of challenging and constructive education and employment opportunities for young people. But we would welcome further information on why the Army is so dependent on recruiting personnel under the age of 18 years compared to the other two Services, and whether steps are being taken to reduce this dependency.


14. The Education and Skills Act 2008 requires that all young people who have ceased to be of compulsory school age, but are not yet 18 years old and have not attained a level 3 qualification,[17] continue in education or training to the end of the academic year in which they turn 17 from 2013 and until at least their eighteenth birthday from 2015.[18] In compliance with the Act, the MoD now requires all recruits in this category to enrol on an apprenticeship as part of their military training unless they are studying for a higher qualification.[19]


15. All Armed Forces Apprenticeships are accredited and linked to national occupational standards across a range of sectors. In the academic year 2011-12 some 7,500 apprenticeships and 2,700 advanced apprenticeships were completed.[20] The MoD provided us with information on the number of personnel on apprenticeship schemes and the diverse areas these schemes cover. Table 2 shows the apprenticeships completed in the academic year 2011-12 by skills area.[21]

Table 2: Apprenticeships completed skills area from 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012
Skills area
Advanced Apprenticeships
Royal Navy
Royal NavyArmy RAFTotal

(includes animal care)

193 193 3 3
Business Administration and Law 36 3571 62 62
Construction 36 36
Engineering (including ICT) 10312041 1253197 2841076 6412001
Health, Public Services and Social Care 1042743 1881973 551 56
Hospitality (including catering and food services) 39 39
Management and Professional 14 14
Retailing and Customer Services 731494 1567 540 540
Transportation (including warehousing and storage) 377 377
TOTALS 21824507 7647453 3391682 6552676

Source: Ministry of Defence[22]

16. Ofsted conducted a series of inspections on Army Apprenticeships between February and March 2013 and reported to the MoD in April 2013. The inspection rated the overall effectiveness as good which was an improvement over the last inspection in 2009, rated as satisfactory (now called 'requires improvement'). In particular, training for hospitality and catering apprenticeships was rated as outstanding.[23] We can attest to the abilities of the trainee caterers as they provided us with an excellent lunch from a typical operational field kitchen during our visit to Deepcut. Table 3 gives a summary of the keys findings of the results of the Ofsted inspection.

Table 3: Key findings of the 2013 Ofsted inspection of Army apprenticeships.
The provider is good because:
  • The overall success rates are consistently high across the majority of programmes and effective actions have been taken to improve the achievement gaps of a small but, significant, proportion of learners in information and communication technology (ICT) and engineering.

  • Learners develop good employability and personal skills. They demonstrate good, and often outstanding, practitioner skills in their sector areas.

  • Teaching, learning and assessment are mostly good. Learners have the opportunity to share good practices with their peers and further improve their knowledge and skills.

  • The DETS(A) Army Apprenticeship Programme is led and managed particularly well. Senior staff provide clear and decisive leadership. Links with army units and subcontractors are strong, and self-assessment and quality improvement planning are thorough.
The provider is not yet outstanding because:
  • Not enough teaching, learning and assessment are outstanding and a small proportion of training, particularly theory sessions, is dull and uninspiring.

  • Too few instructors, particularly military instructors who are new, are sufficiently qualified and experienced in teaching to take full account of individual learners' needs.

  • Not all reviews and learning plans are fully recorded, updated, and include clear targets for learners.

Source: Ofsted[24]

17. The Royal Navy training provision had a full inspection in February 2009 and was found to be good with delivery of engineering training judged to be outstanding. [25] Key strengths and areas for improvement for the Royal Navy are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Key findings of the 2009 Ofsted inspection of Royal Navy apprenticeships
Key strengths
  • Outstanding provision in engineering
  • Very good development of good quality vocational skills
  • Outstanding resources
  • Particularly good pastoral and welfare support through the Divisional system
  • Very well managed training programmes
  • Good personal development for staff and apprentices
  • Good actions to improve the quality of provision
Key areas for improvement:
  • Some poor timely success rates
  • Insufficient focus on learning in the observations of teaching and learning
  • Insufficient sharing of good practice between establishments and sector subject areas
  • Insufficient evaluative and judgmental self-assessment reports

Source: Ofsted[26]

18. Training by the RAF had a full inspection in January 2009. It was also found to be good.[27] Key strengths and areas for improvement for the Royal Navy are shown in Table 5 below. The next full inspections will be within six years of the last inspection but may be brought forward if performance drops and an Ofsted risk assessment indicates the need for an earlier visit.[28]

Table 5: Key findings of the 2009 Ofsted inspection of RAF apprenticeships
Key strengths
  • Very high overall success rates on most programmes
  • Good development of learners' practical skills
  • Very good resources to enhance and develop learning on most programmes
  • Particularly good welfare and vocational support for learners
  • Good strategic planning, co-ordination and performance management of the apprenticeship programmes
Key areas for improvement:
  • Insufficient planning of reaching and learning for learners' varying skills and needs
  • Insufficient progression opportunities for all learners
  • Ineffective strategic co-ordination and quality management of self-assessment

Source: Ofsted[29]

19. We welcome the expansion of apprenticeships for new recruits and trainees and the improvements in the ratings given by Ofsted. The Armed Forces should build on these improvements to ensure that more establishments providing apprenticeships are rated as outstanding by Ofsted. The MoD should provide us with its plans to address the areas for further improvement identified by Ofsted and its recommendations.


20. Given the increased demands on the MoD to provide education for recruits under 18 years of age, we asked the MoD if it was still value for money to recruit Service personnel younger than 18 years old. The Minister replied:

    [...] We are not concerned about it because we believe it is the right thing to do. Under-18s, who for instance join the Army, sometimes do cost a bit more to train initially, but they usually stay longer in the service—in some cases quite a bit longer—so we believe that the higher investment is worth it.[30]

21. Admiral Williams, Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel and Training), said they had not done a full cost-benefit analysis of recruiting those under the age of 18 years. He also added that he was uncertain what these recruits would be doing if they were not taking an apprenticeship with the Armed Forces.[31]

22. Child Soldiers International estimated that the MoD would save between £81 million and £94 million a year if it stopped recruiting personnel under 18 years of age.[32] The MoD acknowledged that initial Army training for those under 18 years of age (junior entrant) costs more than that for standard entrant recruits but said that if recruitment of under 18 year olds was to be stopped, a shortfall of nearly 30 per cent of recruits would need to be made up.[33] Admiral Williams said that it was unclear whether the Armed Forces would be able to recruit enough people if they stopped recruiting people under 18 years of age.[34]

23. The MoD also told us that those who joined under the age of 18 years stayed in the Armed Forces longer. Of those Army personnel leaving in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, the average length of Service for those who joined at less than 18 years of age was some ten years, and, for those over 18 years, the average length was some seven years.[35] The MoD told us that there was also some evidence that these younger recruits also achieved higher ranks that those who joined over the age of 18.[36]

24. The MoD should carry out a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the policy of recruiting Armed Forces personnel under the age of 18 years old. It should provide us with this cost-benefit analysis.

Basic level entry requirements

25. The Royal Navy, Army and the RAF determine separately the minimum educational qualifications required from recruits. Entry level requirements also vary with the nature of the role to be undertaken by the recruit ranging from no educational qualifications to a full professional qualification such as a Registered Nurse. The minimum entry requirement is 'entry level 2' which equates to the standard expected from a seven to eight year old in literacy and numeracy. The MoD does not keep data on the educational achievements of its recruits on entry to the Armed Forces.[37] But of those recruited in 2012, all in the Royal Navy or RAF were above entry level 2 for literacy or numeracy. Only 3.5 per cent of the Army were rated at entry level 2 for literacy, however, 39 per cent had a literacy level of an eleven year old. On numeracy, 1.7 per cent were at entry level 2 and 38 per cent of an eleven year old.[38]

26. We asked the MoD if it had considered raising the basic entry level standard. Colonel Johnstone, Assistant Head, Training, Education, Skills, Recruitment and Resettlement, said that the issue had often been looked at but they recruited in competition with other employers and took the best available candidates. She further said that:

    An individual who comes to be selected is put through a number of assessments, [including] literacy and numeracy [...]. We also measure their attitude, their physical fitness, their commitment to joining the Army, Navy or Air Force, and their trainability. We take the best that we can to fill the numbers that we need, so the actual levels of achievement will go up and down depending on who is coming to us from the marketplace.[39]

27. If as the MoD states, it has to recruit personnel at whatever level of attainment is available, then it should boost remedial action when recruitment entry standards are particularly low. In the light of changes brought about by Future Force 2020, it may be that recruiting personnel with higher levels of attainment would better meet the future needs of the Armed Forces. The MoD should identify how it might raise the basic entry level and still recruit sufficient personnel.

Literacy and numeracy support

28. Given the entry levels of some of the recruits and trainees in the Armed Forces, considerable effort is needed to improve their literacy and numeracy levels. The MoD assesses that recruits need to reach entry level 3 (standard of an eleven year old) to assimilate training fully and all recruits have to reach this standard before the second phase of training.[40]

29. In 2008, the MoD and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) commissioned the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) and the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy to conduct a longitudinal study of basic skills in the Armed Forces. The study was conducted over three years and followed a sample of recruits from each of the three Services. It involved interviewing the recruits, their line managers and senior officers, trainers and education staff. The study also assessed some 1,600 Army recruits with low literacy and numeracy skills during their first two and a half years of training and service. The results of the study were, on the whole, very positive. It showed conclusive evidence of the importance of literacy and numeracy skills for professional development and operational effectiveness.[41] It also reported that:

    The strong Service ethos generates high expectations of success amongst learners and their line managers alike, which combined with the strong culture of training and development to prepare for immediate job roles and promotion, contribute to a most impact on learner outcomes.[42]

30. The study also made a number of recommendations as to how support for the improvement of literacy and numeracy in recruits could be enhanced; how awareness of its importance could be raised; and on the need for better management information on the performance of individual learners for them and for the Services and Defence.

31. Ofsted told us that support for recruits and trainees with additional learning needs was mixed in 2011-12, and showed no clear improvement from the previous year. However, those recruits and trainees with specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, were managed more effectively.[43] It also told us:

    An initial assessment of a recruit's literacy and numeracy needs often takes place at the initial stages of application. At this stage, literacy and numeracy support is well managed. The process of passing on information from initial assessment, through phase 1 and phase 2, including the role of subcontractors, was poorly managed in too many cases, with the result that the quality of literacy and numeracy support did not always meet the needs of the recruit.[44]

32. We asked the MoD what it had done to address an Ofsted recommendation that literacy and numeracy support should be provided from the beginning of recruits' training programmes. Colonel Johnstone said:

    [...] The previous training delivery model at the infantry training centre at Catterick was that when the recruits completed their training, they got a package of literacy at the end of their training. With the introduction of functional skills, [...] it is now peppered through the course, and the literacy and numeracy is delivered in context. That helps. The policy is that all our trainees will be at entry level 3 before they start phase 2 training.[45]

33. Both Ofsted and the longitudinal study supported the MoD in the adoption of a functional skills approach to the teaching of literacy and numeracy: that is, integrating the teaching of these skills throughout the first phase of military and trade training rather than as separate modules. This approach reinforces the importance of learning in context and the development of transferable skills. It was introduced over the period April 2011 and March 2013.[46]

34. In its evidence, Ofsted identified characteristics of effective literacy and numeracy support that the best of providers shared and that, it believed, would benefit the education of new recruits. When asked if the Armed Forces had assessed its literacy and numeracy support against these characteristics, Colonel Johnstone detailed where they met best practice more generally.[47]

35. The Armed Forces have a good record of improving the literacy and numeracy of recruits and trainees who enter the Armed Forces with low levels of attainment. We welcome the introduction of literacy and numeracy support throughout Phase 1 training. The MoD should consolidate this recent improvement by reviewing their support for literacy and numeracy to ensure that it meets best practice as set out by Ofsted.

36. We asked the MoD if it should be doing more to encourage recruits to do English and Maths GCSEs as part of their basic training. Admiral Williams, Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel and Training) replied:

    Many of those people who do not hit the GCSE bar are perhaps those who do not fit with our national education system. [...] Most of those who have come through the state system and have not got a GCSE may need a different approach. [...] Some of those individuals who just don't seem to get the standard state provision or the standard academic approach are able to develop their numeracy and literacy skills when taught and trained in a slightly different way. [...] In the Army in particular, we have a substantial number of people who haven't gained the traction in the standard state system and haven't developed a wish or an obvious ability to make the GCSE standard. Our approach is to take those functional standards and try to work it a different way.[48]

He further replied that individuals had the opportunity to take the exams if they wished:

    [...] right the way through all the Armed Services there are opportunities to take your education across. I would not say it was a very high number—I am not sure whether we gather the statistics—but the opportunity is there, whether you are on a deployed ship or whether you are in Afghanistan, depending on the operational situation. [...] In a ship I deployed with, I think we had 10 people out of 200 who got an English GCSE in a six-month deployment. So the opportunities are there.[49]

37. Whilst we recognise that some recruits may not have done well in their previous academic careers and may not be eager to take further academic exams, the MoD should encourage more recruits to undertake English and Maths GCSEs which would stand them in good stead for future employment.

Defence instructors

38. Instructors are required to attend a 'Defence Train the Trainer' course which involves some mentoring from a senior teacher.[50] We heard on our visit to two training establishments that some instructors did not attend the course before commencing their work as instructors. In its recent report, Ofsted said that:

    Inspectors recognise that instructors at all establishments are knowledgeable, highly skilled an well qualified, but, as was the case in previous years, too few instructors arrive at their postings having completed the Defence Train the Trainer course. In half of the phase 1 establishments and in over half of the phase 2 establishments, fewer than half of all instructors begin their new roles having completed the training.[51]

39. Ofsted told us that instructors play a vital role in ensuring that recruits' and trainees' personal and educational needs are met effectively and that a well-planned professional development programme for these key personnel is important in sustaining improvement.[52] The Ofsted inspection of Army apprenticeships shown in Table 3 also pointed to some instructors lacking experience and qualifications. It further said:

    Most of the establishments inspected last year did not have an effective system for improving the quality of training through structured instructor observations to help them improve.[53]

Ofsted also commented that this remained an area for improvement in its 2013 report.[54]

40. We asked the MoD witnesses if they agreed with Ofsted's assessment. Colonel Johnstone replied:

    I think they were right, and they put this in their annual report on what they had seen in armed forces education last year. It had also been picked up possibly because the Army was considering developing this new approach to instructors as something that our own internal inspections and audit had shown as an area for improvement, so we had asked Ofsted to do an additional piece of work for us that they did between January and April, which was to come and look specifically at the development of instructors after their initial defence training course, and they have come back to us with some proposals on how we can improve it. [...][55]

41. She added:

    the Army is rolling out something over the next 12 months or so called the Army instructor capability. As well as the instructor qualification that people will have when they go in to teach in training establishments, there will be a higher level of qualification, the Army instructor supervisor, and one of their specific roles will be to monitor and improve classroom level instruction. Above that, I think that it is going to be the Army instruction leader, who will be managing the whole instructor output and linking those instructor performance standards to the delivery of the quality education.[56]

42. The MoD should ensure that all instructors complete the 'Defence Train the Trainer' course before they take up their appointments. The MoD should also institute a system of observation and feedback to all instructors in line with the recommendations made by Ofsted in its recent work for the MoD. In response to this Report, the MoD should set out its plan and timetable to implement these recommendations.

Oversight of education

43. Ofsted undertakes two types of inspection on MoD education and training. First, it inspects the provision of apprenticeship training and funded education by each of the three Services. This work is funded by the Skills Funding Agency.[57] Establishments by Ofsted judged to be 'good' or 'outstanding' are inspected again within six years. Those establishments judged to be 'satisfactory' or 'requiring improvement' are re-inspected within 12-18 months.[58]

44. Secondly, the MoD commissions and pays Ofsted to inspect the welfare and duty of care of Armed Forces initial training establishments. These inspections cover outcomes for recruits as well as the quality of teaching and learning but are separate from Ofsted's regular inspections of BIS-funded education and training delivered within the MoD.[59] Ofsted inspects at least ten establishments each year.[60]

45. Ofsted reported that

    [...] Evidence from the care and welfare [inspections] indicates that, overall, leadership and management is efficient but establishments need to make better use of data to support self-assessment and help them to improve. [...] Good practice, as evidenced through inspection, is not shared routinely across establishments to help others improve.[61]

46. Ofsted told us that the Director General of Army Recruiting and Training had provided clear strategic direction and leadership to enhance the awareness of the Army's apprenticeship programme and that this had resulted in a greater understanding of the importance of apprenticeships to soldiers' development. Ofsted further told us:

    The Army's capacity to make and sustain improvements is good. The A&SDs [Arms and Service Directors] make good use of data to monitor provision. The analysis of data is shared very effectively across the Army to prompt action. In the infantry, A&SDs have introduced competitive performance tables which are very effective in stimulating commanding officers' commitment to the programme and their understanding of its benefits.[62]

47. We support the use of Ofsted inspections, which bring an independent assessment of the performance of training and education within the Armed Forces, in particular, for recruits and trainees under the age of 18 years. The Armed Forces should share the results of the inspections across establishments to help them improve.


Inspections of establishments

48. The results of the Ofsted inspection of care and welfare of Armed Forces initial training establishments are given in Table 6 below. Eight out of the 21 establishments inspected were rated satisfactory (now categorised as 'requires improvement' by Ofsted).

Table 6: Ofsted gradings for the overall effectiveness of Defence training establishments
Outstanding HMS SultanHMS Raleigh

Officer and Air Training Unit, RAF College Cranwell

Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (CTCRM) - Commando Training Wing

CTCRM - Command Wing

Army Foundation College

GoodArmy Training Regiment, Bassingbourne

Army Training Regiment, Winchester

Army Training Centre, Pirbright

Defence College of Policing and Guarding

Royal Armoured Corps Training Regiment, Bovington

14th Regiment Royal Artillery, 24 (Irish) Battery

2 (Training) Regiment, Army Air Corps

3 RSME Regt, Royal School of Military Engineering

RAF Honnington

RAF Cosford

RAF Halton, Recruit Training Squadron

Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

HMS Raleigh, Royal Naval Submarine School

HM Naval Base Clyde, Submarine Qualification Course

Defence College of Logistics and Personnel Administration, Worthy Down

Infantry Training Centre, Catterick


Adequate or requires improvement

Infantry Training Centre, Catterick

25 Training Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps

Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

RAF Halton

RAF Honnington

11 Signals Regiment, Blandford

Infantry Training Centre, Catterick

Defence Medical Services Training Centre

Royal Military Academy, Sandhurt

25 Training Regiment, Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut

Unsatisfactory NilNil Nil

Source: Ministry of Defence for 2010-11 and 2011-12[63]and Ofsted 2013 report Welfare and Duty of Care in Armed Forces Initial Training[64]

49. Ofsted told us that inspection was having a positive impact on establishments previously judged to be satisfactory or inadequate. However, one Army establishment was judged only to be satisfactory for the fourth time. Ofsted told us that, "in weaker establishments, the same problems remain: high wastage rates, inconsistencies in the quality of care and a failure to ensure that the recruits have sufficient basic skills to complete their training successfully".[65]

50. Ofsted further told us:

    HMCI [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools] is of the view that more needs to be done for young people and adults joining the Armed Forces training establishments. The establishments prepare and support young people to meet the challenges and demands of their role and to enter the Armed Forces as highly professional, highly skilled and well-motivated individuals. All establishments therefore must be at least good and that this must be viewed as the minimum acceptable standard.[66]

51. We asked the Minister how long it would be before all establishments were judged good or outstanding. He replied:

    I do not think that we can pre-empt that [publication of the Ofsted report for 2012-13], but I think that you will find that the gradings in the report that will come out in the summer will be better than those we had last year.[67]

In its 2013, Ofsted reported that out of the eleven establishments inspected in 2012-13, three were rated as outstanding and six as good and two as only adequate (requiring improvement). [68]

52. We welcome the continuing improvement in the Ofsted ratings of Armed Forces initial training establishments. The MoD should work to improve all establishments so that they reach the minimum acceptable Ofsted standard of 'good' in a timely fashion. In particular, the MoD should focus its attention on those weaker establishments whose performance has not improved. The MoD should tell us how it intends to achieve this improvement and in what timescale.

13   Ev 17 Back

14   Ev 24 Back

15   Ibid Back

16   Ibid Back

17   Equivalent to AS/A levels Back

18   Education and Skills Act 2088, Ev 24 Back

19   Ev 24 Back

20   Ev 19 Back

21   Ev 18-19, tables 5a to 5c Back

22   Ev 19 Back

23   Ofsted report on Directorate of Educational and Training Services (Army) Army Apprenticeships Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

24   Ofsted report on Directorate of Educational and Training Services (Army) Army Apprenticeships Error! Bookmark not defined.  Back

25   Ofsted Report Error! Bookmark not defined.  Back

26   Ofsted Report Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

27  Ofsted report on Error! Bookmark not defined.  Back

28   Ev 31 Back

29   Ofsted report on Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

30   Q 49 Back

31   Q 49 Back

32   Child Soldiers International : One Step Forward Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

33   Ev 24 Back

34   Q 52 Back

35   Ev 26 Back

36   Ev 24 Back

37   Ev 14 Back

38   Ev 17-18 Back

39   Q 5 Back

40   Ev 24 Back

41   The Armed Forces Basic Skills Longitudinal Study, 7 June 2012 Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

42   Ibid Back

43   Ev 32 Back

44   Ibid Back

45   Q 2 Back

46   Ev 23 Back

47   Q 17 Back

48   Q 18  Back

49   Q 19 Back

50   Q 21 Back

51 Back

52   Ev 33 Back

53   Ibid Back

54 Back

55   Q 22 Back

56   Q 21 Back

57   Ev 31 Back

58   Ibid Back

59   Ev 25 Back

60   Ibid Back

61   Ev 34 Back

62   Ibid Back

63   Ev 28 Back

64 Back

65   Ev 32 Back

66   Ev 33 Back

67   Q 55 Back

68   Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 18 July 2013