Other news stories

Military home page

Military and intelligence links

There was more to being a soldier, Sir Charles argued, than "cradling babies". 

Disabled groups have branded the comments a misunderstanding of the concept of equal opportunities. The government has supported the views of Sir Charles, as have the Tories, who said judgments need to be made case by case and not by a European "rights agenda". 

What is the current policy on disabled people in the army?
Many desk jobs and other types of work within the forces which do not require the fitness levels of active service personnel are carried out by civilians and are open to the disabled, according to senior army sources.  

However, all uniformed personnel have to be capable of carrying out military tasks.

The prime minister's spokesman said today: "If you have people in the military they have to be prepared to fight and there is no such thing as a non-combatant job." 

What prompted the general's comments?
He expressed concern at European moves which some have interpreted as an attempt to give disabled people the legal right to join up. A year ago the European commission proposed a non-discrimination package based on article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The package included a proposal for a directive prohibiting discrimination in employment on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

However, Downing Street pointed out today that Britain had secured in October an opt-out for the armed forces from the relevant clause in article 13.

"The prime minister's view, which is shared within government, is that the armed forces cannot be just another employer," a spokesman said. 

But could the treaty realistically force the services to accept disabled applicants?
Jo Sawyer, a human rights lawyer at Liberty, thinks not. She said: "General Guthrie's comments appear a little misconceived. The European Convention doesn't mean everyone has a right to serve in the armed forces in any capacity. "It simply means that everyone has a right not to be discriminated against. There's a balancing exercise. Clearly it depends on the nature of the job and the individual's capacity, and the extent of their disability." 

What are the benefits of allowing disabled people into the services?
Supporters say that opening the ranks to disabled people would achieve two goals: it would allow hitherto-excluded patriots to serve their country in uniform, and help the military to overcome its recruitment problem.

Agnes Fletcher, spokeswoman for the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (Radar) said: "He has completely misunderstood the concept of equal opportunities. He seems to think that giving jobs to disabled people is a charitable act.

"Equal opportunities is about getting the right person for the job. And why cut out great swathes of people who might have something very important to contribute?"

Aberdeen South MP Anne Begg, who uses a wheelchair, said: "What really annoys us is when someone who doesn't know us or know what we are capable of says we can't do a job, simply because they themselves can't imagine how we could do it. That is what has held disabled people back for so long."

What do disabled war heroes think?
Falklands hero Simon Weston, who received horrific burns when HMS Sir Galahad was hit, dismissed the row as "a lot of noise about nothing". 

"When you join the army you have to go through rigorous training whether you are a cook, whether you are a medic, whether you are a bandsman. There is no scope for making an assault course easy for disabled people." 

Mr Weston urged campaigners to keep the issue "in context". He added: "There are disabled people within the armed forces but I think a lot of those guys were injured and allowed to stay on.     "I was offered to continue serving as a storeman but I couldn't see myself handing out equipment I could never use, so I decided to leave. 

"I do not think he meant anything in any way derogatory to disabled people. I think his sentiments are correct in the fact that we can't have disabled people on the frontline but there are disabled who work for the MoD." 

What about women and homosexuals in the forces?
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, lifted the ban on gays and lesbians in the armed forces earlier this year and has said that the army will soon have to allow women to fight in the infantry.

Mr Hoon said that he was becoming increasingly convinced that women wanted to serve as combat soldiers and should be allowed to do so. They already occupy frontline roles in artillery regiments and other areas.

The Tories, however, have said they would consider repealing the government's moves on homosexuals in the services. 

Iain Duncan Smith, the shadow defence secretary, told the Conservative party conference in October that the party will not tolerate "political correctness" in military matters and will counter European rules on defence. 

He said: "Our only aim is to have a professional fighting force for this country. The suggestion of women on the front line is PC gone mad. The most professional fighting force in the world, the Israeli army, has had to repeal rules on women in combat because it didn't work."

Is the make-up of the forces an issue elsewhere?
In America there was a similar debate when Duncan Hunter, a Republican congressman from California, pressed the Pentagon - without overt success - to overthrow what he regarded as outmoded standards requiring all soldiers to be able to carry a pack and slog across rough country.

He said: "Everybody doesn't hike over the hill and everyone doesn't have to be able to run five miles." 

His idea is that the disabled could be recruited for work behind the lines, where, he argued, the battle is as likely to be fought on computers as in foxholes.