Examination of witnesses (Questions 364
- 379)
WEDNESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2000
VICE-ADMIRAL
JONATHON BAND
and MR D FISHER
Chairman
364. Welcome to you both. One of the challenges
of your review is to make MoD training and education cost-effective.
Can you reassure the Committee that this review is not simply
an exercise in rationalisation and cost cutting?
(Vice-Admiral Band) Yes, I can. Every MoD major decision
is based on a cost-effectiveness judgement. I would wish to reiterate
that in this case, like in any other, what we are trying to do
is to get the quality we require with the right apportionment
of resources. I believe in most areas the training the UK armed
forces get is outstanding and a very high quality indeed. It is
a benchmark across Europe and the world. However, as changes occur
and parts of training need to come together or to take in new
factors, then the resource base you use, quite rightly, should
be identified and looked at in some detail. In some areas elements
of training were quite separate and were rightfully conducted
quite separately. But now in fact the process being supported
by training is the same, then you must ask whether that can be
done together more cost-effectively. You must make sure in that
judgement that the quality is maintained and indeed in many cases
heightened by it.
365. Mr Fisher, as a bureaucrat can you reassure
us that there is no agenda of cost cutting?
(Mr Fisher) There is an agenda of ensuring value for
money but that is exactly as the Admiral has described in terms
of enhancing the quality at an affordable level.
366. Is there an agenda of lopping off £0.25
billion?
(Vice-Admiral Band) No; absolutely not.
(Mr Fisher) No, we have been given no targets or secret
targets. It is a public exercise.
(Vice-Admiral Band) As Lord Robertson said when he
initiated the review, because of the forces structure set out
and process set in hand and all the other changes which came out
of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), and bearing in mind that
training underpins that raw capability, it was quite right and
appropriate to look at the individual training and education base
which is the bottom rung of operational success in the field.
367. Have you done any analysis of what you
feel is wrong about existing education and training?
(Vice-Admiral Band) It is a pretty broad canvas. The
way we approached it was to take ten major strands of work. Three
were driven by the human resource side: what we need our officers
to do, what we need our soldiers, seamen and airmen to do, what
we need civil servants to do. We looked at those HR dimensions,
what the drivers were in terms of specific tasks and also, very
importantly, the through-career development and their personal
aspirations. We then looked at the specialist training to see
whether it was the appropriate specialist training which was being
done, whether it was being done in the right boxes and groups.
We then looked very importantly at the changes in impact of technology,
another strand of work. We have analysed the cost basis on which
we do it now so we had a reference point. Then we took a whole
lot of policy issues, such as the wider Government agenda on education.
That is how we approached it. In all those areas we have done
a strengths and weaknesses analysis. That will be presented to
Ministers as the review draws to a close. I have to say the overall
assessment is that what we do we do very well, but it is an area
where evolutionary change is appropriate in some areas.
368. In looking at something as complicated
as the subject you are examining what if your recommendations
result in an increase in expenditure? Is that out of bounds or
is it within the scope of your study?
(Vice-Admiral Band) No, it is not out of bounds, but
in today's world where we know that there is quite rightly a general
pressure to use what resource you need for this endeavour, it
is a proper approach that if you really think something needs
to have more resources you ought to try to find a compensator.
It is very true in education generally that it is very easy to
add things to syllabi rather than find things which are slightly
less important. That will be a judgement for Ministers at the
end.
369. As long as you are teaching maritime history
to sailors I shall be happy.
(Vice-Admiral Band) We shall continue to do that.
370. In terms of the methodology of your study
are you talking, as we are doing in our study of personnel issues,
to people at the coal face; not necessarily the instructors but
the recipients of the education? What are you doing on that side?
(Vice-Admiral Band) Very much so. Mr Fisher has been
leading two or three of the work strands and he can tell you the
approach he is taking in those specifically. As a general rule
we have conducted a very full visit programme and I personally
have been to the vast majority of the bases where individual training
has occurred from the officers' colleges to the army training
regiments to Larkhill, Bovington, all round the place and the
navy and airforce equivalents. During those meetings, apart from
talking to people who are driving the training, I have always
met those people under training and those people actually conducting
the training. Indeed in the area where we looked at the non-specialist
training for our men and women, I think they reckon they have
spoken to over 1,000 trainees across the parish. That is just
one team of two. I am absolutely convinced that is the way to
do it because I should much prefer what we recommend as changes
or refinements to be understood and accepted. The focus idea is
very dominant.
(Mr Fisher) The other feature of the methodology is
that we are doing this work through a large number of working
groups and we have deliberately chosen to do it this way so that
all the services and all the interests are represented on the
working groups, so we have a very wide consultation process going
through these working groups. If we are looking at warrant officers'
training, then we have warrant officers on the working group so
we make sure all the interests are on the working group. We have
also conducted a wide range of visits to all the establishments.
Mr Spellar had a seminar back in March deliberately to consult
with wider interests. We have consulted very much with wider outside
interests, the trade unions as well as, the universities. We are
very much engaged in an open consultative process and that has
been our methodology.
371. The infamous defence cost study 15 had
no doctors on it even though it was examining defence medical
services. You are waterproof, are you?
(Mr Fisher) Yes, we are learning from previous experience.
372. In the work you have done so far, has anything
hit you in the face in terms of thinking it was about time you
looked at that again or this really needs doing?
(Vice-Admiral Band) In most areas it is appropriate
to continue to take stock and to evolve. A few themes are relevant.
One obviously is the operational scenarios which we face and which
were set out very clearly in the SDR. We have to make sure that
where we have instituted joint force structures or joint force
elements or where endeavour can be encompassed by a more common
approach, that training reflects that. That is one area. Another
area I would cite is the whole educational field and this ties
neatly and appropriately to our Learning Forces Initiative and
making sure that every single service person when they leave the
service takes credit into the other workplace for what they have
learned; and by gosh, they do learn a lot and they develop a lot.
The whole education agenda is an area where we can align more
closely. It was started by Lord Robertson with the Policy for
People and Learning Forces Initiative, but we see opportunities
now for a continuing close and enhanced engagement with sectors
like universities, industry, local FE colleges. There are some
very good examples that have been taken forward over the last
two years. That approach can be strengthened. They are two examples:
one operational and one on the education side.
373. Are there any countries you think might
do things at least as well as us or maybe even better than us?
A lot of Brits have gone to the National War College or the National
Defence University.
(Vice-Admiral Band) Groups of us have visited Italy,
France, the Netherlands, Germany, America and we have talked to
others. We have not visited Australia but we have engaged with
their trainers and things like that. The first thing I would say
is that although often you think there is common endeavour, a
lot of our training process actually reflects our educational
system, our style of doing things. One thing is very marked about
officers' training and that is that the vast majority of countries
still take in officers at 18 to a classic officers' college, most
of which turn them out with a degree. We on the whole now, as
I am sure the commandants will tell you, basically take in a majority
of graduates and then turn them into military officers. That is
a fundamental difference. So there was frankly not much to learn
from the French, German, American systems in that concept. I should
say, in terms of our staff colleges that we have the best in the
world, without a doubt, properly focused, operational, joint and
multinational activity. You see little differences everywhere
around. For example, on the issue of non-commissioned officers,
a lot of the European countries have NCO academies. The reason
for that is that they make an NCO like we make an officer from
the start without doing time as a lad or a lass. We do not. All
our NCOs are grown through. Once again that model does not fit.
There are certainly areas in generic terms like acquisition where
we see much closer training together because of that scene. In
the collective area of training, where formed units go to train,
that is a remorseless increase in multinational activity but that
is not an area for my study. On the whole, we are very alert to
offers and there are bits and pieces we should like to look at
but the overall jig we have, with the evolutionary strands I have
mentioned, continues to be appropriate. Indeed everywhere we have
gone we have had comments like, "We're touched you have come
to see us. We're actually rather more interested in what you do",
which tells you something.
374. I am pretty certain that it is outside
the scope of your study to evaluate NATO educational institutions
but has there been anything which might draw on the experience
of the people who have gone to the NATO Defence College?
(Vice-Admiral Band) Mr Fisher has done more visits
in this area than I. We are absolutely wedded to the fact that
part of our educational process for officers rightly builds onto
what I call a national foundation, which is why we are very keen
on sending officers to other staff colleges, which is why we contribute
to the NATO Defence College in Rome; the whole multinational engagement
is very important. We put a lot of effort into that. Indeed, as
I am sure you know from our Joint Staff College, a large multinational
elements trains with us, which is all part of the preparation.
We see this engagement as absolutely appropriate and continuing.
(Mr Fisher) We have visited the NATO training establishments,
not least to see whether we are making best use of them. One of
the general themes of our study is that we do need to do more
joint and multinational training to reflect the shift in operations
to joint, multinational - "largely coalition -" operations
and peace support operations. We have visited the NATO training
establishments, the tactical school at Oberammergau and the NATO
Defence College in Rome, to see whether as a nation we are making
best use of them. One of the things we are certainly going to
be saying is that we probably need to make more use of these because
we need to do more multinational training.
(Vice-Admiral Band) The key aspect of that is the
interaction of officers, particularly as they become more senior.
We are not talking about great big courses here, we are talking
about small injections and interaction which allow the people
who may end up on an operation together to have this exchange.
It is quite a demand because people, particularly as they go up
through their careers, do not find the time pressures any easier.
However, use of existing schools, use of the allied commanders
training jigs and things like that are something we must continue
to focus on.
Mr Cohen
375. The Strategic Defence Review is referred
to as one of the key drivers of your review. In fact in the MoD
memorandum it was referred to as the first key driver. In what
ways has the SDR changed the training needs of the armed forces?
(Vice-Admiral Band) A number of things. One was that
it confirmed the force structure for the future, so we know what
we have to train to deliver. Two, it set a very clear strategic
and operational context with respect to working with others, increased
endeavour, the battle space of the future being much more integrated
and all that. So all those high level things need to be ratcheted
through the training to make sure we are preparing individuals
for that. There is obviously a balance of what personnel do at
the individual staff and what you do once they are in their formed
units. That is one whole side of it. The second side is that some
fairly fundamental process changes were brought out by the SDR,
SMART procurement, formation of the Defence Logistics Organisation
(DLO), where that sort of underlying professional and business
underpinning of what we do in defence is a different process,
brings people together in a different way, has changed, so we
have to reflect that in individual training. We are particularly
looking at areas like logistics and personal administration where
the processes are converging. Nothing in the SDR has told me that
the essential training for an infantryman or sailor is any less
different than it was at the start, because they are trained to
go to fight and operate in that environment which is driven by
the land, sea or air component.
376. One of the things which Lord Robertson,
the former Secretary of State, said when he announced the training
budget following on the SDR, was that people are trained "...
to make the best possible contribution to the Armed Forces, and
to equip them to return to civilian life". I support that
very much but it is a little bit of rhetoric. Have you adjusted
the balance? How have you seen the balance between those things?
(Vice-Admiral Band) We have not adjusted the balance
because we are still in the review. Certainly there are some very
clear themes coming out. One is that the vast majority of the
military training they get, if it is delivered with a view to
accreditation, can be described in a much more layman's way than
it has been in the past. We are absolutely convinced that the
vast majority of service training can be accredited to some thing
either vocational or institutional or some process which can be
described on their personal development records. We want good
training and if you are doing good training and one is talking
about engineering training or logistics or personnel management
or something like that, there is a civil equivalent. If it is
that good, it should be accredited and that is what we are doing.
It is certainly not rhetoric and it fits very much the whole theme
of this which is that the personal development of the individual
required by the services or the civil service is important, because
we want them to stay with us and to develop through and see themselves
bettering themselves and, secondly, it is their own personal agenda.
What the individuals want now is a lot more firm than it was when
I was a young officer, for example. Before one quite often thought
the service knew what was best. A lot more of the individual is
what I want. We have to entertain that.
(Mr Fisher) The need to do this is that if we are
to recruit and retain the people we need then we have to be seen
to be an employer of first choice and we therefore have to adopt
the best practices in this area. That is the first driving force
here. The second is obviously that it all fits in very much with
the Government's wider lifelong learning policy and we are very
keen that we should do what we can to help there. We are also
looking very practically at ways in which we can improve this
so that we can get an accreditation system and accredit as many
of the courses that have been undertaken on a defence-wide basis.
At the moment what is happening is that the services are all quite
big into accreditation, but they are all doing it themselves and
negotiating themselves with education authorities to accredit
particular courses. Clearly it would make a lot more sense and
we should probably get a better deal if we did it on a defence-wide
basis. We are looking at setting up a defence accreditation board
so it can be done on a defence-wide basis. The other advantage
of that is that one of the things we are trying to look at is
how we can accredit training progressively so that as servicemen
go through their careers they can pick up credits and add the
credits together to produce usable qualifications. We hope in
all these ways that we are going to give this quite a big push
forward.
(Vice-Admiral Band) The danger if you do not go through
this linkage of accreditation is that in trying to make sure the
courses are accredited, courses are driven by the accreditation
requirement rather than the operational need of that course and
if we can do it in bite-size chunks and then lead the accreditation
through, then we can get the answer.
377. Like taking an Open-University-style course.
(Mr Fisher) Very much so.
(Vice-Admiral Band) Yes, there is an element of that;
absolutely. Huge numbers of individuals in the services use the
OU and indeed the OU has just recently been engaged with another
university to help accredit the training of Air Force officers;
an excellent example.
Chairman
378. At the end of the day will they have a
qualification or set of qualifications which will be marketable?
(Vice-Admiral Band) Yes.
379. What sort?
(Vice-Admiral Band) For example, in some cases they
are there already. Most people who do some form of engineering
training, whether it is combat and, civil in the Army or marine
engineering in the RN, are on BTec, HNC, degree line anyway, so
you have the natural links. The more tricky area has been what
you might call something like the "combat or teeth"
arm, like the marines, the infantry, the RAF Regiment, where the
task is much more military and much less easily explained. The
core of those people is leadership, managing people, so for those
elements we are looking very strongly at the NVQ route. There
is actually no doubt that in the equivalent experience by the
time the person makes staff sergeant or colour sergeant they have
a lot to say and a lot to transfer and through the NVQ and institutional
thing we can offer them a lot more than we have in the past. It
is very, very important in those areas.
|
