I remember the Bett report as being a well researched and argued piece. He did make it clear that it should be read in full, not just the recommendations and that the recommendations should not be cherry picked. Here we are 25 years later discussing my recollections of some of the recommendations so we’re doing exactly what he asked us not to do!Fair one
From an Infantry only perspective
Not too many would be able to make the step up from Pte to Sect Comd in one movement. In addition, LCpl is where you gain experience and get qualified before making the step up to Sect Comd - Therefore in agreement regarding LCpls.
Natural stepping stone between SNCO and WO - From somewhere in the fog of time. Something to do with being an account holder, which a Pl Sgt will not gain ( needed for further promotion.
Although CQMS is a bit of a sh1t job ( in camp ) On Ops he should be one of the busiest men in the Company.
Hmmmm - Unless it has changed the RQ was a WO2 and the RSM a WO1. Senior by Rank and Appt.
I think it might be fair to say that the whole Officer Corp needs looking at
The services Bett saw had massive inertia that stopped getting things done. We were still in the days where people wrote memos to each other and put them in the infernal mail. There were loads of personal fiefdoms and precious little horizontal communication. Bett was proposing changes to ready the services for the digital age; whether the Army is any better at communicating now it is digital, I’ve no idea.
The Army for the most part gave Bett a stiff ignoring. Most people went straight to the recommendations and got hung up on the proposal to remove the rank of LCpl. But Bett wasn’t recommending the removal of the section 2ic role, he was recommending it being a paid appointment, not a rank. Similar with CQMS, RSM etc etc. The underlying principle was that, by removing the imperative to promote every 2-3 years and making some of the ranks paid appointments, you remove some of the toxicity and enable people to develop without what was then CR watching.
Bett had it’s merits. The problems he identified probably still exist. Whether his proposal was a valid solution is a moot point and it’s never been tested.
On your point about RQMS, the four Engineer Regiments I served in all had a WO1 RQM. In fact, they had at least 5 WO1s; RSM, RQMS, SMI, Staff Assistant (pre AGC) & ASM. Some also had at least one WO1 Clk Wks and MPF. I’m thinking 39 Engr Regt had around 10 WO1s in the late 80s. None of them would question that the RSM was the senior warrant officer.