The Army is digesting another critical report on the way it handles young recruits and investigates non-combat deaths in the wake of the high-profile fatal shootings of four young soldiers at its Deepcut barracks in Surrey.

BBC political correspondent Guto Harri examines the implications.

What are Surrey Police's key recommendations?

They are quite concerned about the welfare regime within the Army, and they recommend a broader inquiry examines whether there are sufficient resources and independent oversight to control the care of young recruits, and what happens if things go wrong.

Would that be the full public inquiry some of the dead soldiers' families are calling for?

No but this report will be added 'ammunition' for those calling for a full public inquiry because it says big things need to be examined in relation to the tragic deaths of those young men, and the government will not want to dismiss the idea there are broader lessons for the Army as a whole.

Is it all bad news for the government?

The one encouraging thing for them is the report says the Ministry of Defence has been pretty good at identifying problems - if not acting upon them, and suggests things are already slowly improving.

But isn't altering the whole culture of a major institution in this country a long slow process?

It certainly is, and all kinds of big things have been considered but not endorsed by this report.

One suggestion is young men and women at barracks should not be allowed to carry live ammunition.

This report comes down against a straightforward ban, and just says someone should look more closely at the rules governing handover of weapons, who actually takes them out, what happens when you change guards, and all those kind of things.