House of Commons - Defence

Select Committee on Defence Third Report

7 REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION

366. The Surrey Police Final Report provides evidence that the Army chain of command was made aware of significant weaknesses in its training system at various times between 1995 and 2002 but failed to act to address them.[588] During this period, four internal Army reports and an internal working group, repeatedly identified welfare and supervision issues and made recommendations to rectify them. These were:

Brigadier Evans Report—Review of phase 2 Training System at Deepcut—December 1995
Suicide in the British Army—Dr Suzy Walton Parts 1-5—December 1996 onwards
In 1998 the Army Suicide Management Working Group (ASMWG), an internal Army working group, was established as a result of recommendations arising from Dr Walton's Suicide in the British Army Report
A Study of Attempted Suicide in the Army: 10 years of experience 1987-1996—Colonel Hawley October 1998
ATRA Duty of Care and Supervision (DoC&S) Report 1998-2001—Colonel Haes April 2001

However, these issues were neither considered nor acted upon in a coordinated manner. The Surrey Police report found that:

589

367. Both the Surrey Police final report and the independent literature review we commissioned found several common issues concerning welfare in initial training establishments identified by these reports but that, between 1995 and 2002, the Army consistently failed to address them.[590] These issues were: supervision of recruits; recruitment and selection; training structure; accountability of ATRA command and firearms and guarding.

Reasons for failure

368. It is clear from the evidence we heard that, during the period 1995-2002, ATRA lacked an appropriately integrated structure through which welfare issues could be highlighted, solutions found, and responsibility for implementation acknowledged. As Chief Superintendent Craig Denholm, the officer in charge of the Surrey Police investigation, told us:

What we found was missing fundamentally was a cyclical approach, if you like, to policy development and implementation. There was evidence of identifying issues and review, but there was very little evidence of substantive action being taken in relation to that. Then another report would come along, another issue would be raised, another review would come in, but again that final element of this cyclical approach was missing throughout the vast majority of the areas of work that we identified.[

591

369. When the issues raised in these reports were addressed by the Army chain of command, they did so in a fragmented and piecemeal way with scant consideration given to wider implications for the training regime as a whole. For example, following the death in 1995 of Pte The survey is administered by training staff, but run and analysed by MORI.[592] All trainees have the opportunity to fill in the survey when they leave training, even if they are leaving before completing the course.[593] There have been individual surveys in the past which were described to us as 'snapshots' that could not be used to make comparisons.[594]

370. Following the deaths of Pte Cheryl James, and four months later of Pte Sean Benton at Deepcut barracks, the Commanding Officer, Brigadier Evans, conducted a review of phase 2 training at the RLC Deepcut barracks. Brigadier Evans made 30 recommendations, 23 of which he considered applicable solely to the Deepcut training regime and therefore actionable under his command. The remaining seven recommendations he believed had relevance for the wider ATRA training regime. We have received no evidence that any of these recommendations which related to supervision, screening, welfare, and pipeline management were assessed for relevance to other training establishments. As Surrey Police noted, 'Evans' external recommendations provided an opportunity to promulgate the Deepcut lessons across the Army. This opportunity was missed'.

371. When, six years later, Colonel Haes wrote his report 'ATRA Duty of Care and Supervision' he was unaware of the existence of not only the Evans report but also the 1996 Walton Report 'Suicide in the British Army', commissioned by the Army's Director of Personnel, and the 1998 thesis 'Attempted Suicide in the British Army' by Colonel Hawley. This was despite the relevance to Colonel Haes' study of some of the recommendations contained in these reports on issues such as supervision, screening, and welfare. Colonel Haes told us that 'Until I read the Surrey Police report that was the first time I became aware that other people had written the same kind of report that I had done'.[595]

372. This lack of institutional memory was compounded by ATRA's complacency when presented with evidence of weaknesses in its initial training system. This complacency was illustrated by the experience of Colonel Haes who, when describing the process of formulating his 2001 'ATRA Duty of Care and Supervision Report 1998-2001', told the Committee:

596

373. When asked to account for the shortcomings in its duty of care regime between 1995 and 2002 MoD cited the demands on manpower experienced by the Armed Forces under the twin pressures of operational commitments and reduced levels of recruitment. A direct consequence was that the training system suffered as resources were moved to the Field Army. General Palmer told us that:

597

374. We recognise the pressures on resources experienced by the Army training system throughout the 1990s. However, we do not accept that this fully explains the Army's failure to provide the necessary organisational structure to expose problems in its training system at that time or to identify solutions and successfully implement improvements. Rather these failures were the result of an organisational culture that too readily transferred risk to its training regime when faced with operational demands. This is illustrated by ATRA Headquarters' dismissive response to the key recommendations in the Haes report, that a significant and rapid increase was needed in the number of ATRA instructors on the grounds that, 'the extra staff required was impractical in a climate where resources were over-stretched and functions were therefore under-manned'.[598]

375. For far too long in the past the Armed Forces, and the Army in particular, failed to grasp the nettle of duty of care. Arguments about the level of resources available and the need to divert resources to the front-line should not have been used to mask the Armed Forces' failure to tackle these issues in that period.

Developments since 2002

376. It was not until the summer of 2002, some five months after the death of Pte. Geoff Gray whilst on guard duty at Deepcut, that a significant and coherent attempt was made by MoD and the Army to address duty of care issues in its initial training establishments. These developments included:

the establishment of a joint Police/Army learning account in August 2002;

the September 2002 review of lessons learnt from the investigation of the Deepcut training establishment;

the first Directorate of Operational Capability report into the training establishments of all three Services;

and the establishment of the post of Director General of Training and Education which, for the first time, provided a coordinated and over-arching responsibility for education and training issues.

377. The joint Police/Army Learning Account was established by Surrey Police with the Adjutant General's agreement in August 2002.[599] Its aim was to provide Surrey Police with a means to 'report to the Army issues that required timely and appropriate remedial action'. It also provided the Army with an auditable tracking and implementation process. By March 2004 the Learning Account contained 27 recommendations relating to risks identified in the training regime at Deepcut. These risks included: supervision policy, screening, dissemination of best practice and firearms/guarding. The Army has told us that these specific risks have been addressed.

378. In September 2002 the Adjutant General tasked the Deputy Adjutant General (DAG) to 'assist the Surrey Police by conducting a supporting military investigation in order to identify further lessons to be learned from all four (Deepcut) cases and to make recommendations'.[600] The resulting review compared the training system at Deepcut with that of other Army training establishments with the intention of identifying best practice and applying any resulting recommendations across the training regime. The review identified several areas of significant (and familiar) risk.[601] These were: supervision levels; screening; the number of Soldiers Awaiting Trade Training (SATT) and firearm/guarding; all of which had been previously identified in reports since 1995. The DAG review was the first occasion in which the Army applied recommendations in a coordinated way across the Army training regime. For example, changes in regulations on access to firearms, the introduction of the Military Provost Guard Service to take over routine security and guarding at training establishments and a recognition that SATT levels were too high. In particular, DAG's recommendation for an indicative instructor: trainee supervision ratio throughout ATRA led to the recognition by the Army that the numbers of supervisory personnel needed to be increased to levels very similar to those recommended by Colonel Haes and rejected by ATRA HQ only eighteen months previously.

379. The welcome decision by Mr Adam Ingram MP, the Minister for the Armed Forces, on 3 October 2002 to task the Directorate of Operational Capability (DOC) to conduct an appraisal of the initial training of non-officer recruits of all three Services (including initial and basic specialisation training) represented a significant change in attitude by MoD in that, for the first time, it had initiated an assessment of its three training systems.[602] The aim of the appraisal, which reported directly to the Minister, was to provide a health check of training regimes and examine possible issues of morale, motivation, training practices and culture. The autumn 2002 appraisal was followed by reappraisals in the summer of 2003 and the autumn of 2004 to check progress against the recommendations identified in the original appraisal.[603] All three appraisals were based on the outcome of questionnaires and personal interviews with thousands of recruits and trainees as well as instructors and commanding officers.

380. DOC (1), whilst assessing that 'the department has a lean hard worked initial training system in which it can have considerable confidence', found that the training system due to the high volume of throughput of trainees and too few supervisors, was 'inherently fragile'.[604] In general terms DOC (1) called for a rapid increase in supervisor numbers, improved management of recruit numbers through the training system and improved accommodation for trainees and instructors. This should be underpinned by 'additional investment in the initial training pipeline or adjustments to intake flows…This has the potential to transform radically the Initial Training environment and reverse years of under-investment in this key area of operational capability'.[605]

381. DOC (3) recognised that although 'It was evident that considerable energy, imagination and leadership are being applied in an effort to improve the regime in which phase 1 and phase 2 trainees are trained', further progress needed to be made particularly in the areas of management of SATT, out of hours supervision and accommodation.[606]

382. We welcome the evaluation work that the DOC team has carried out in its three appraisals. However, questions remain over whether an internal MoD audit team whose 'primary purpose was to provide a strengthened ability to assess defence-wide operational capability through a process of operational audit' was the most suitable agency for assessing welfare systems in initial training teams.[607] The Director of Operational Capability, Brigadier Mungo Melvin, told us that, in his opinion, his team was suitable for the task because they:

608

383. We recognise the commitment and integrity with which the Directorate of Operational Capability has approached its three evaluations of initial training. We also recognise that these appraisals have successfully brought to the attention of MoD and the Armed Forces' chain of command the need for a focus on welfare and supervision issues in initial training. This has resulted in MoD providing extra resources for more supervisory personnel and to improve accommodation. We also welcome DOC's highlighting of areas of good practice, particularly in the management of SATT. The internal audit role of DOC is important and clearly has credibility in MoD. We recommend that DOC appraisals of initial training should be regular and ongoing.

384. The appointment of the Director General of Training and Education (DGT&E) in September 2002 was the first time that there had been a single joint focus in MoD for training and education policy.[609] The DGT&E is responsible for identifying and promoting the sharing of training and education good practice. In addition to developing and implementing training and education policies across the Services DGT&E is responsible for implementing the recommendations of the DOC appraisals. The DGT&E, Rear Admiral Simon Goodall, told us that:

610

385. We welcome the establishment of the post of Director General of Training and Education as an important step in the development of a coordinated joint approach to training and education. We recommend that his remit be expanded to include responsibility for developing policies, priorities and targets for welfare across the three Services' training establishments. This would include the identification and active promotion of good practice across the Services.

Improvements since 2002

386. In its Final Report, Surrey Police acknowledges that the Army has made significant progress since 2002 (a "watershed" year). However they state that they:

remained concerned that more needs to be done to address areas of risk and strengthen the care regime for young soldiers in training. It is inevitable that, in any training regime fit for the Army's purpose, trainees will be severely tested. However, the Army has a duty of care as an employer to take reasonable steps to safeguard its personnel from avoidable harm. This is particularly pertinent to the issue of young soldiers in training who are removed from the care of their family or guardians into a closed environment, where there are obvious and particular risks not experienced in other forms of employment.[

611

387. In earlier chapters of this report we have described and commented on that progress. Admiral Goodall, DGT&E, told us that 'in implementing DOC, we have gained resources to implement, up to date, 48 of the 58 recommendations… this year £23.25 million were given to implement some key recommendations…'.[612] Tangible outcomes from extra investment have included: the re-establishment of 179 instructor posts previously moved to the Field Army in the late 1990's; the establishment of train the trainers courses at the Defence Centre for Training Support; changes to regulations pertaining to the supervision of guarding by trainees and evidence of some better management of SATT.

388. We are concerned however that MoD cannot guarantee resources in the future for the initial training regime. When we asked the Minister whether DOC's reports were the driver for ensuring extra resources now and in the future the Minister told us:

613

389. We welcome the fact that MoD has provided the necessary funds for the implementation of many of the DOC report recommendations. We recommend that MoD commits itself to providing the necessary additional resources for the full implementation of the DOC report.

390. As we have noted the Army does not historically have a good track record of committing the necessary resources to its initial training system. For that to change permanently in the future will require not just adequate resources but also a change of attitude. As Colonel Haes told us:

614

391. In essence MoD needs to ensure that the chain of command drives through a permanent change in attitude in the Army from one that accepts unnecessary risk in its training regime to one that considers effective welfare and training as vital to producing operationally effective Servicemen and women. As DOC himself stated:

615

392. Effecting the culture change which we recommended earlier in an organisation as large and complex as the Army will be a significant challenge. It will require the provision of a training system which has the care of recruits at its heart whilst at the same time including sufficient rigour to produce, in a relatively short time-frame, operationally effective Servicemen. We recognise the establishment of forums such as the DOC Appraisal of initial training and best practice working group as a positive step for sharing good practice amongst Commanding Officers across the Services. We also welcome the establishment of the Defence Centre for Training Support, under the command of the DGT&E, as a positive signal that MoD is committed to promoting good practice on its train the trainer course.

393. We believe, however, that more can be done to share best practice, particularly in the Army and with the other two Services. We recommend that regular conferences of Commanding Officers and expert welfare professionals be established, at which changes in policy would be discussed and good practice identified and shared. We recommend that such seminars should also be a forum for the consideration of future reports on the Army's training system. The output of those meetings should then inform the work of the Director General of Training and Education.

394. We recommend that MoD encourage development of a community of welfare practitioners. This could include instructors, the Army Welfare Service, chaplains and medical officers. Such a community of practitioners could be a vehicle for the exchange of information on areas such as changes in legislation or policy, approaches to particular welfare issues or the identification of good practice. The process might involve conferences, web-based groups or in-house journals. We believe that such measures would promote an integrated approach to welfare concerns across the three Services.

395. An example of how good practice and lessons learned can be widely shared across the Services is the in-house magazine 'Aviate' concerned with flight safety. This magazine, which also has a web site, promulgates good practice, enables the exchange of real-life flying and ground crew experiences and stimulates discussions on flight safety issues. Flight safety issues are explored in a full and frank manner even if they could be considered to be critical of the chain of command. There is a sense that the magazine is written by and for practitioners and not to serve any internal political purpose.

396. We recommend that MoD consider providing resources for the establishment of a similar forum for welfare practitioners in all three Services. An in-house magazine and website could provide instructors with the means to share experiences of providing welfare in training establishments, promulgate good practice and provide instructors with a means of discussing welfare issues. We believe that such a magazine could significantly contribute to the sharing of good practice within the three Services.

588 Surrey Police Final Report Back

589 Ibid, para 4.10 Back

590 Literature Review and Analysis of Duty of Care in Armed Forces, Ivan Zverzhanovski, King's College London, October 2004. Back

591 Q 669

The Review of the Phase 2 Training System within Deepcut, conducted by Brigadier Evans Back

592 Qq 42, 1326 Back

593 Q 43 Back

594 Qq 1326-1336 Back

595 Q 269 Back

596 Q 243 Back

597 Q 11 Back

598 Surrey Police Final Report, para 2.94. Back