House of Commons Defence Committee Duty of Care Third Report of Session 2004–05 Volume I HC 63-I House of Commons Defence Committee Duty of Care Third Report of Session 2004–05 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 3 March 2005 HC 63-I [Incorporating HC 620 i-vii, Session 2003–04] Published on 14 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current Membership Mr Bruce George MP (Labour, Walsall South) (Chairman) Mr James Cran MP (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness) Mr David Crausby MP (Labour, Bolton North East) Mike Gapes MP (Labour, Ilford South) Mr Mike Hancock CBE MP (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Mr Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham) Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative, Croydon South) Mr Frank Roy MP (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw) Rachel Squire MP (Labour, Dunfermline West) Mr Peter Viggers MP (Conservative, Gosport) The following Member was also a Member of the Committee during the period covered by this report. Mr Crispin Blunt MP (Conservative, Reigate) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/defence_committee.cfm A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Committee Staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Hutton (Clerk), Richard Cooke (Second Clerk), Ian Rogers (Audit Adviser), Daniel Korski (Committee Specialist), Adrian Jenner (Inquiry Manager), Lis McCracken (Committee Assistant), Sheryl Dinsdale (Secretary), and James McQuade (Senior Office Clerk). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Defence Committee, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general inquiries is 020 7219 5745; the Committee’s e-mail address is [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Adele Brown on 020 7219 0724. Duty of Care 1 Contents Report Page Conclusions and recommendations 5 1 Introduction 23 Previous work of the Committee 24 Scope of the inquiry 24 Conduct of the inquiry 25 2 Background to the inquiry 28 Definition of Duty of Care 29 The Legal component of duty of care. 30 Moral component of duty of care 31 Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut 32 3 Recruitment 35 Recruitment process 36 Socio-economic background 36 Character of recruit population 38 Information for applicants and parents 40 Entry criteria and risk 42 Age 42 Applicants from local authority care 46 Education 46 Screening 49 Transition to Service life 51 Wastage and right to leave 52 4 Structure of Initial Training 55 Overview 55 Phase 1 Training 56 Army 56 Royal Navy 57 Royal Marines 57 Royal Air Force 57 RAF Regiment 58 Phase 2 training 58 The Army 58 ITC Catterick 59 Royal Navy 59 Royal Air Force 60 5 Duty of care information and structures 61 Resources 61 Dissemination of duty of care information 63 Information to trainees 63 2 Duty of Care Parental involvement 65 Duty of Care structures 67 Empowered officers 71 Chaplains 75 SSAFA 76 WRVS and other non-uniformed welfare providers 77 Medical Services 78 Access to welfare staff 80 Supervision 81 Supervisory ratios 81 Instructor selection 82 Instructor training 85 Career structure and incentives 87 Managing the training regime 88 Transition between the phases 88 Accommodation and facilities 92 Monitoring and Data Collection 93 6 Outcomes of failure of duty of care 95 Introduction 95 Bullying and harassment 95 MoD policy 95 Level of bullying at initial training establishments 99 Racial and Sexual Harassment 101 Culture and Ethos 105 Armed Forces response to bullying 108 Suicide and self-harm 112 Access to firearms 116 Guarding 116 Investigations 117 Role of police forces 117 Boards of Inquiry 121 Coroners’ inquests 122 Treatment of bereaved families 123 Disposal of effects 126 7 Review and Implementation 129 Reasons for failure 130 Developments since 2002 132 Improvements since 2002 135 8 External Assurance 138 A Military Ombudsman? 141 9 The question of a Public Inquiry 145 What is a Public Inquiry? 145 Families’ demands 146 MoD Response 147 The Blake Review 148 Duty of Care 3 10 Conclusion 151 Annex A: List of Duty of Care visits 154 Annex B: Literature Review and Analysis 155 Annex C: List of abbreviations 181 Formal minutes 184 Witnesses 185 List of written evidence 187 Reports from the Defence Committee since 2001 191 Duty of Care 5 Conclusions and recommendations Introduction 1. The Army is the largest Service, it has the largest training organisation, and it is also the Service in which duty of care concerns have most regularly been raised. A large proportion of this report therefore deals with the Army. Where we have made recommendations we would expect MoD to consider their tri-Service applicability as appropriate. (Paragraph 8) Definition of Duty of Care 2. We accept that MoD’s distinction between moral obligations and legal requirements may aid its internal process of identifying responsibilities in law. However, we do not consider the distinction helpful to the development of duty of care policy. By maintaining a dividing line between its legal and moral obligations, MoD is open to the criticism that it considers obligations that are not legally enforceable to be less important. A precise and unambiguous statement setting out the moral obligations of the Armed Forces to their personnel would provide clarity for those charged with providing duty of care, and for those entering the Services. We therefore recommend that MoD produce a clear and concise statement of its duty of care and welfare obligations for recruits and trainees in the three Services. We would expect such a statement to go beyond reiterating the ethos and standards of the Services. (Paragraph 30) Recruitment 3. In the Armed Forces, pressure remains on recruiting officers to meet recruiting target numbers. MoD must make it clear to the Services’ recruiting organisations that pressure to meet recruiting targets should not lead recruiting staff to dilute standards or admit applicants who do not meet the mandatory minimum entry criteria. (Paragraph 37) 4. We expect MoD to build on work to identify aspects of the recruitment processes that would benefit from greater tri-Service harmonisation, and better sharing of best practice between the Services. (Paragraph 40) Socio-economic background 5. Some young men and women may join the Services as a last resort, that does not necessarily mean that they have made a wrong choice. Military life will not immediately appeal to all young people, who may perceive it as too disciplined or prescriptive. There is no reason why those who join the Services, as “a last resort” should not find it a satisfying and rewarding career. (Paragraph 42) 6. MoD has acknowledged the need to collect more relevant data about is recruits. We welcome MoD’s intention to collect more information about the socio-economic background of recruits to all three Services. We recommend that, in parallel with 6 Duty of Care collecting data on socio-economic background, MoD should research whether socio- economic background influences Service personnel’s subsequent careers. We acknowledge that, for many youngsters, particularly those from deprived or disadvantaged backgrounds, the Armed Forces provide an opportunity that may have been denied them in civilian life. (Paragraph 44) Character of recruit population 7. The nature of recruits inevitably reflects changes in society as a whole. Training regimes must be able to adapt to changes in the characteristics of the young people from whom they recruit. (Paragraph 48) 8. The recruits and trainees we met during our visits to initial training establishments clearly possessed initiative and ambition, qualities that have always been rewarded in the Armed Forces. Young people coming into the Armed Forces today may possess highly relevant and desirable abilities that are perhaps less readily identified than those previously looked for in recruits, but which we believe nonetheless can be harnessed and developed to the benefit of the Services as well as to the individuals themselves. (Paragraph 49) Information for applicants and parents 9. We recommend that MoD review the material provided to those making enquiries at Armed Forces Recruiting Officers to ensure that it sets out clearly recruits’ rights and responsibilities and the nature of the commitment they are making in language that potential recruits will understand. (Paragraph 53) 10. We recommend that the recruitment process includes a requirement on recruits to acquaint themselves with the documentation setting out their rights and responsibilities. Recruiting officers should ensure that potential recruits are assisted in fulfilling that requirement. (Paragraph 54) 11. We recommend that MoD ensure that Armed Forces Careers Offices provide tailored literature for parents explaining the commitment made by the recruit to the Armed Forces and the commitment the Armed Forces make to the recruit. (Paragraph 57) 12. We acknowledge MoD’s preference for an appropriate adult, whether parent, guardian or other mature adult, to be involved in the recruiting process. However, we recommend that MoD produce clear guidance and direction on this issue, such that recruiting officers are obliged to discuss with potential recruits the desirability of involving their parents or an appropriate adult in the recruiting process.