Royal Air Force unlawfully discriminated against white male recruits in bid to boost diversity, inquiry finds
The Royal Air Force discriminated against white men in a recruitment drive aimed at boosting diversity, an official inquiry has found.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the new head of the RAF, said he “apologised unreservedly” to all those affected, including the former head of recruitment who was forced to resign rather than implement an order she believed – correctly – to be unlawful.
Despite the damning findings, the chief of the air staff said that none of the RAF’s senior leadership, including his predecessor Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, on whose watch this happened, would face any kind of sanction.
Instead, he blamed the debacle on legal advice that incorrectly said a push in 2020 and 2021 to fast-track ethnic minority and female recruits into training slots was positive action – which is a legal way to improve diversity – when it was actually positive discrimination, which is unlawful.
“We accept that some men were discriminated against,” Air Chief Marshal Knighton said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Wallace: RAF diversity recruitment policy ‘wrong’
Thirty-one men have already been identified as having missed out on a potential £5,000 “golden handshake” to start cyber roles in the RAF.
As first revealed by Sky News, the RAF is compensating each of these individuals.
Air Chief Marshal Knighton acknowledged that there could be more cases and said that the RAF would compensate anyone found to have suffered discrimination.
Speaking to reporters in his first media briefing in his new post, he said: “I am sure you are going to say, who is responsible, who are you going to fire as a consequence of this?
“The report doesn’t single out individuals or recommend disciplinary or administrative action. My focus as the chief is to make sure we learn the lessons from this and we absolutely do not repeat these mistakes.”
Wallace concerned by ‘significant error’
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, described what happened as a “significant error” and a “cause for regret” for the RAF.
But he insisted that entry standards were never lowered – as had been claimed by insiders and reported by Sky News.
Ben Wallace
Yet he said the treatment of Group Captain Lizzy Nicholl, the then head of recruitment who raised the alarm about the unlawful activity and ended up losing her career, needed to be “looked at considerably”.
He said scrutiny was needed of “why she was ignored, why indeed she was put under that pressure. And I don’t want to see anyone put under pressure to do something like what we’ve seen in the RAF”.
The admission marks a stunning U-turn by the RAF on a scandal first exposed last August by Sky News when it was revealed that Group Captain Nicholl had resigned after refusing to carry out an order to discriminate against white men.
She was put into this position after her chain of command, under Air Vice Marshal Maria Byford, who reported to Air Chief Marshal Wigston, insisted that the order was to be carried out despite Group Captain Nicholl saying she had received new legal advice that it was unlawful.
Only last September, in evidence to parliament, Air Chief Marshal Wigston assured MPs that there was no unlawful discrimination against white men.
Mike Wigston
‘Uncomfortable reading’
A 72-page report – the result of a non-statutory inquiry ordered by Air Chief Marshal Wigston in the wake of the furore – found that the then head of recruitment had been right.
It also criticised senior leaders for not relying on reliable forecasts when setting ambitious targets to increase the ratio of women and ethnic minority recruits.
Air Chief Marshal Knighton admitted that the report made “pretty uncomfortable reading”.
The report sought to find out what happened in the lead up to Group Captain Nicholl’s resignation.
It also looked into allegations by the officer that she was the victim of institutional bullying because she had been forced to chase impossible diversity targets.
The report cleared the RAF of the bullying allegations but concluded that Group Captain Nicholl had been right to call out the unlawful recruitment practices.
Read more:
RAF ‘artificially inflated’ numbers to hit diversity targets
Boss insists ‘no drop in standards’ despite recruitment row
Chief ‘unashamed’ of ‘pausing jobs for white men’
Diversity goal led to impossible targets
The whole affair is framed by an ambition set by Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston to significantly improve the RAF’s diversity – a defining goal of his tenure.
But this was translated down the chain of command into impossible recruitment targets.
Sky News even revealed that white men seeking to join the Royal Air Force had been described as “useless white male pilots” in leaked emails that exposed the pressure placed on recruitment officers to improve diversity.
A number of selection boards to place new recruits on courses – a crucial part of maintaining the fighting strength of the RAF – were also cancelled if they did not include women or ethnic minorities, according to the messages.
The unlawful activity happened in that climate under a previous head of recruitment before Group Captain Nicholl took up her role in March 2021.
In the recruitment year to March 2020 and the year to March 2021, a total of 161 ethnic minority and female recruits were “pulled forward” onto initial training ahead of white men.
“We found that concerns were raised at the time by R&S [recruitment and selection] staff but that those who led the initiatives believed that they were ‘pushing the boundaries’ of positive action rather than acting unlawfully,” the report said.
Group Captain Nicholl, however, sought new legal advice in May and June 2022 that clearly said these activities were “contrary to the Equality Act 2010, which provided reasonable justification for the Former Group Captain R&S to state that acts of positive discrimination had taken place in RY20/21 [recruitment year 2020-21]”.
Despite this advice, she was still under pressure to prioritise women and ethnic minorities ahead of white men.
The report described how this advice was “either not seen or understood” by the most senior echelons of the RAF – two-star officers and above.
There was also resistance from the top to the challenge that Group Captain Nicholl made.
The report said: “We found that the chain of command’s reaction to the former Group Capt R&S was overly defensive and not properly considered whether she might have been justified in what she said regarding previous acts of positive discrimination or the legality of what she was asked to do; and that insufficient effort had been made to determine the facts.”
Former RAF boss should ‘correct the record’
Tobias Ellwood, the chair of the defence select committee, said he and his colleagues would be considering whether to ask the previous chief of the air staff to correct the record after he previously denied any unlawful discrimination had taken place.
“I do hope that Mike Wigston, now conveniently retired, recognises how perhaps he misled parliament in coming in front of our committee and should now take this opportunity to correct the record,” Mr Ellwood said.
“Discrimination was taking place and that was illegal.”
He also said those responsible for the unlawful activity should be held to account.
“You simply cannot have a report such as this which outlines the systemic, deliberate failures that were being done, a pursuance of something that was illegal…. You cannot simply gloss over or even retire from the RAF without comment being made, without some form of reprimand occurring to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
James Heappey, the armed forces minister, told Sky News last year that any evidence of positive discrimination would be investigated and would not be tolerated.
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
Read more: Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Read more:
Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion
There were no winners from Trump’s tariff gameshow
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
British Steel declined to comment.
UK
Prince Andrew’s Pitch@Palace branded ‘crude attempt to enrich himself’ as Chinese spy documents set to be released
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
Read more:
Who is Yang Tenbo?
Virginia Giuffre says she has days to live
Emails between Andrew and Epstein revealed
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway