§ Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the standard programme of weapons refreshment training which reservists are expected to undertake on embodiment; how many days are required for this training; and what proportion of relevant reservists embodied since 1 January 2003 have undertaken the full programme. [HL4636]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)The type of weapons refresher training provided on mobilisation is dependent on the reservist's specialisation and whether there is a requirement to carry personal weapons where the reservist is to serve. For example, for Op TELIC those who were mobilised to fill key positions in headquarters in the UK, key enablers who manned ports or airheads in the UK or welfare officers mobilised to support reservists' families in the UK were not required to undertake such training. The carriage of a personal weapon would not have been necessary for the tasks they were to perform.
Due to these factors, ascertaining what proportion of mobilised reservists have undertaken weapons refresher training since 1 January 2003 would involve consulting individual unit and personnel records. This would be a considerable task which could only be undertaken at disproportionate effort.
Where weapons training is required, the programme of small arms refresher training for mobilised reservists is the same as that provided to regular servicemen before they are deployed on operations. The training consists of weapon handling tests to satisfy weapon safety procedures and corrective individual weapon firing. This training is usually completed as part of a wider pre-deployment training programme the length of which is determined by the role of the reservist and the operation they are to support. Remedial training is provided for those who fail to reach the required standards. All reservists who are required to carry personal weapons receive the appropriate training before deployment.
Evidence given at the recent court martial of Lance Corporal Blaymire and Lance Corporal Sherratt suggests that, during the mobilisation for earlier 194WA deployments to Iraq, a decision was taken at the Army's Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre (RTMC) that for two elements of the weapons handling tests (loading a magazine and wind tables, neither of which is related to safety) performance at "average" instead of "skilled" would be sufficient for the then operational requirement. While this did not accord strictly with the stated standards required, this decision reflected professional military judgment at the time.
Since 4 October 2004, RTMC has directed that stated policy be followed. We are identifying those deployed in Iraq who passed the two modules at "average" and will judge the need, if any, for additional in-theatre training, but I should stress that safety has not been compromised and acceptance of the "average" standard was viewed by those who were professionally responsible for training at the time as appropriate. This is borne out by our Operation Telic "Lessons Identified" records, which contain no comments from operational commanders about safety deficiency with regard to personal weapon handling among deployed TA personnel.