Examination of Witnesses (Questions 67
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 19 JULY 2000
AIR MARSHAL
MALCOLM PLEDGER,
VICE ADMIRAL
PETER SPENCER,
LIEUTENANT GENERAL
T J GRANVILLE-CHAPMAN
AND AIR
MARSHAL SIR
JOHN DAY
Chairman
67. Air Marshal, welcome to the second session
on Armed Forces personnel issues. We are still trying to digest
the announcement made yesterday. No one seems absolutely certain
what the situation is. We have invited the Ministry of Defence
to visit us next week to explain, in further detail, what was
communicated in the document yesterday and by the Secretary of
State on board HMS Cornwall off Freetown. There is a little more
information to be transmitted. Mr Barton[4]
will transmit information next Wednesday. Thank you for coming.
Last week in our first session we spoke to defence academics,
and this is the first opportunity for the Ministry of Defence
to respond. Thank you for the details we have been given so far;
the memoranda that we were pleased to receive. You have brought
with you a high powered team. Perhaps you would introduce them.
(Air Marshal Pledger) Thank you, Chairman.
We definitely welcome yesterday's announcement, although we have
to await the exact definition of the outcome. I am Air Marshal
Malcolm Pledger. I am Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel),
and in conjunction with my colleagues on my left and my right
I am responsible for the policies, strategies and delivery of
the personnel requirements across the three armed services.
(Lieutenant General Granville-Chapman)
I am Tim Granville-Chapman. I am the Adjutant General and I cover
exactly the same area in relation to the Army.
(Vice Admiral Spencer) I am Peter Spencer and I am
Second Sea Lord.
(Air Marshal Sir John Day) I am John Day, the Air
Member for Personnel.
Mr Gapes
68. Previously we have had evidence from a panel
of academics and one of them, Professor Dandeker, argued that
the Policy for People will never be deliverable unless the Armed
Forces are prepared to devote enough able people at a sufficiently
senior level to ensure that those policies are properly implemented.
For each of the services, can you tell us how many senior officers
are involved and have as their primary task dealing with personnel
matters in the Armed Forces?
(Air Marshal Pledger) Doubtless you will judge for
yourselves the quality of the very senior officers at this table
in dealing with the significant changes that the quality of people
presents us with. Before talking about numbers, we have to put
those numbers into a context. We have given life to that statement,
to the Overarching Personnel Strategy and we deliver that in a
collegiate fashion. There is not a separation of endeavour here,
but there is a collective perspective. We bring the attributes
and capabilities of the three services to bear on what we are
trying to deliver. Then it is done in a structured way, through
action plans, and implemented in each of the different services.
Perhaps I should turn to my colleagues so that they can identify
specific numbers.
(Lieutenant General Granville-Chapman) The Army Board,
which is a very senior body, deals with personnel matters. I shall
include them in the count. Although I am pretty new to this, and
have returned to the Army Board after being away for three years,
I look back to what my predecessor dealt with. Last year, about
60% of the material crossing the Army Board was in the personnel
policy realm. The Army Board is deeply engaged in this area. In
my specific area there is a Three Star and five Two-stars. If
I go further out to those who are connected but less directly
so, there are about 10 one-stars. Again delivering in this broad
area one could look at people like the Arms and Services Director
and the regimental make-up and the number would go up further.
In addition, if you look at the major commands that the Army exercises
over its troops—Land Command—there are a number of
personnel with specific G1 and G4 responsibilities, as there are
throughout the chain of command. Even if we only look at the one-star
level, it is a significant number.
69. Are those primary responsibilities of those
particular individuals or do they have other functions?
(Lieutenant General Granville-Chapman) Yes. If you
are a G1 person, then personnel is your business.
70. What about these one-stars and Two-stars?
(Lieutenant General Granville-Chapman) To give you
a feel for the Two-stars: the Military Secretary runs the careers
set-up for officers and soldiers. The Chief Executive of the training
organisation runs the entire training enterprise that touches
people. I have a Chief of Staff and effectively my deputy who
runs the business of the headquarters. The head of the medical
services is a Two-star and the head of the legal services is a
Two-star. All those are directly related to personnel output.
(Vice Admiral Spencer) The position is similar for
the Navy, particularly in regard to the involvement of the Navy
in personnel matters. In my headquarters I have six Two-stars
who work almost full time on personnel matters. In terms of the
one-stars, including seven Commodores, including the Royal Marines,
who are in command of training establishments, we would be looking
at around 20 one-stars who fundamentally deal with people. So
we have a good number of senior officers—if that is the
definition of senior—who primarily devote their time to
working in personnel.
(Air Marshal Sir John Day) The situation in the Air
Force is very similar. I would add to the comments, that the Air
Force Board and the Air Force Board Standing Committee spend a
great deal of their time on personnel matters. I have been in
the job only three months, but the previous Chief of the Air Staff
commented that he spent more time with my predecessor in personnel
than he did with the C-in-C Strike. It is an area into which we
put a great deal of effort. My headquarters is structured with
the same kind of numbers of people that you have already heard
about. It is replicated in some way or other in the other two
services. At headquarters Strike Command there are people directly
involved in personnel administration headed by a Two-star in that
case.
71. What do you feel about the resources that
you have at present? Do you each think it is sufficient?
(Air Marshal Pledger) I also have two two-stars working
with me specifically in the personnel area. In one particular
division we have restructured so that the whole organisation is
focused on the delivery of the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel
Strategy.
72. Coming to the Overarching Personnel Strategy,
is the prime responsibility for delivering that with you and the
people who work for you, or do each of the three services have
their own people ensuring that that is happening?
(Air Marshal Pledger) Yes. As I said to start with,
it is a collective effort. While the strategy and the direction
of that strategy, if you like, is in my hands, it was formulated
and agreed with the three PPOs. We work together at all levels
in a collegiate way in pursuit of the outcomes.
73. Would you say that each of the services
now has a strategic forward-looking approach to personnel issues
or is that still being developed?
(Air Marshal Sir John Day) I believe that we have
always had a forward looking approach to personnel issues. I have
been in the personnel business for over 20 years on and off, and
time in operations as well, as the Committee will know. We have
always had a forward-looking aspect to it, but life goes on. Aspirations
of individuals increase and aspirations of the services themselves
increase and we need to reflect that.
(Vice Admiral Spencer) From the naval perspective,
I believe that Committee Members will have seen the Naval Strategic
Plan which the First Sea Lord and the Navy Board produced last
year. One of the five major pillars of that is the people pillar
and that is from a Navy Board perspective looking forward over
the next 15 years to see what changes we could confidently predict
and what we would need to do about that. Now we are linking that
with the Armed Forces overarching strategy with a Naval Board
strategy, as you would expect, tailored to our own service, as
I know the other two services are in the process of doing.
Chairman
74. Could we have a copy of that document? A
quick look around the Committee tells me that none of us have
read it.
(Vice Admiral Spencer) Of course. It is restricted.
Mr Gapes
75. Are there similar documents relating to
specifics for the Army and the Royal Air Force?
(Lieutenant General Granville-Chapman) The answer
is yes. The Army Human Resources Strategy was in place in 1997.
In many respects it is being reviewed this year. If you slightly
imply that we find AFOPS an inconvenience, I would say that it
is quite the reverse. I have been struck by the fact that it is
extremely useful because it provides the framework within which
one can operate. A large proportion of my job is getting the arguments
right. One is helped hugely by having an overarching strategic
document in position.
(Air Marshal Pledger) I believe that here we are representing
a process of change that acknowledges the different environment,
the transition of the different environment that we work in and
what we have to deal with in relation to social change. There
is nothing fundamentally different in our commitment to support
people. We are just doing it slightly differently. This document,
as you can see, sets the parameters in the right direction.
76. We have a memorandum from the MOD that talks
about "other Centre-led policy areas where single Services
vary, within agreed limits". How are those limits agreed
and what scope is there for what is called "tolerable variation"
within this memorandum? Can you be specific about what tolerable
variation means in terms of differences between the way that the
three services work?
(Air Marshal Pledger) I think I described the process
by which this is not Stalinist in the way that perhaps you are
trying to lead me towards. This is an agreed approach to each
of these personnel strategy guidelines. The tolerable variation
is there so that we build on and maintain the strengths of the
single services and do not impose outcomes that will not be supportive
of the operational capabilities of those circumstances. We test
it very clearly.
77. Are there specific differences and specific
examples that you would point to?
(Vice Admiral Spencer) A different view may be taken
on certain disciplinary matters, particularly absence. If someone
misses a ship sailing there is a direct impact on operational
capability and, therefore, we are allowed to operate our discipline
slightly differently. That is one example. Another example is
in the family policy area. A large majority of our personnel are
not mobile. The way in which we configure our policy on families
is, therefore, able to be different and we put emphasis on slightly
different things.
(Lieutenant General Granville-Chapman)The fact is
that the wording is far less sinister than may be implied. Tolerable
variation is not a hindrance, but a help. An area where we genuinely
vary is on how we approach recruiting, for example. Recruiting
is carried out differently in the services for obvious reasons—the
different environments and the different people you are after.
There is the matter of how we approach individual training. That
is done differently for exactly the same reasons. We have mentioned
the discipline world. Because the environments are so different,
it is acknowledged that we will vary where appropriate.
(Air Marshal Sir John Day) I would enforce what the
Adjutant General has said, that tolerable variation is very helpful.
It would be extremely difficult to have written the AFOPS as though
everybody in all three services had to do exactly the same thing.
I would liken it to the stations that I have under my command.
I would not expect each station commander to run his station in
exactly the same way. There are different issues and there are
different tasks. There is a whole number of things. Putting AFOPS
together is a key phrase. It was put together by the three services
with the MoD so that we have, as the Adjutant General said, a
template with which we can work. It is a set of core principles,
but with essential variations where necessary. Some of those variations
may well change over time. For example, in the service housing
area, there are some variations because of the historic nature
of the way that the three services have evolved. The Second Sea
Lord has already mentioned that the Navy has a different approach.
It may be that in 10 years' time some of those variations will
have been swept away and we shall operate to the same levels,
or we may diverge. It is an essential way of doing business.
(Air Marshal Pledger) The other side of this equation
is that today predominantly we have to operate together as the
recent operations will have shown. The purpose of that is to get
the right people with the right skills at the right time and in
the right places to fulfil that operation capability. It is a
balancing act.
Mr Brazier
78. I want to turn around Mr Gapes' question
and put it the other way, although I agree with what underlies
it. When most larger companies are moving towards decentralising
personnel policies, why operate from a centralised blueprint with
variations? Why not look for greater delegation and where there
are differences, as there are in at least three of the areas mentioned,
let people develop along different lines?
(Air Marshal Pledger) It is a matter of degree. We
are setting the direction, the guidelines, consistent with the
operational effectiveness. The implementation process which I
think is what you were describing generally, is very much in the
hands of the PPOs.
79. Some of that concerns principle rather than
implementation. However, the Chairman is anxious that we move
on.
(Lieutenant General Granville-Chapman) The business
parallel is useful to some degree, but this is quite a different
organisation. I have just come from commanding a joint outfit
in the past few years, therefore, I saw this quite starkly. So
much more often nowadays soldiers, sailors and airmen work alongside
each other and if they see different terms and conditions when
they ought to be similar or in the same vein, that works against
them and they see it working against them. They have no difficulty
with the idea that where it makes entire sense to do things from
a joint perspective, as AFOPS represents, that is what we should
do. They would be hugely irritated if we were not doing it in
the way that AFOPS does, in a sensible way allowing for tolerable
variations. It is a slightly different state of affairs from the
business world.
(Vice Admiral Spencer) Added to which the workforce
is mobile and does not remain in that business area for years
at a time. Sailors move from one part of the Navy to a joint headquarters
and then to another part of the Navy and his or her terms and
conditions would keep on changing, and we would find that extremely
difficult to cope with.
4 MoD Parliamentary Clerk Back
|
