Annex B: The Committee's web forum
The Committee hosted its third web forum during its
inquiry into Recruitment and Retention in the Armed Forces. Web
fora allow the Committee to hear from people who would not usually
engage in a Select Committee inquiry. In this case, it allowed
the Committee to engage directly with current and former Service
personnel and their families about the factors which influenced
decisions to join or leave the Armed Forces.
Practicalities
The forum was launched on 2 April 2008 and ran until
28 May 2008. The site was designed and created by Parliamentary
Information Communication and Technology (PICT). During the registration
process, users agreed to a set of discussion rules. The forum
was pre-moderated—messages were checked to ensure that they
adhered to the discussion rules before they were published on
the forum. Assistance in moderating the forum was provided by
the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit.
Publicity
The forum was launched with a press notice. Articles
about the forum featured on British Forces Broadcasting Service
(BFBS) and in Soldier magazine. Links to the forum were provided
on the Navy Families Federation, the RAF Families Federation,
the Army Families Federation, SSAFA FH, and the Institute of Career
Guidance websites. HIVE Information Service centres displayed
posters advertising the forum.
Forum questions
The web forum asked for responses to three questions:
- What are the positive aspects
of working in the Armed Forces? Why join and why stay?
- What are the disadvantages of working in the
Armed Forces? If you have left the Armed Forces, what were your
reasons for leaving?
- Why do you think that the Armed Forces face such
a challenge recruiting ethnic minority personnel?
During the forum, the Chairman of the Defence Committee
posted more specific questions about raising the retirement age,
transferring between trades and Services, whether welfare issues
would be better addressed outside the Chain of Command, and whether
a single entry point would improve recruitment.
Participants
The web forum attracted 13,785 views and 184 posts.
226 users registered for the forum:
- 150 current regular service
personnel
- 6 current volunteer reservists
- 15 Service family members
- 46 former regular service personnel
- 1 former volunteer reservist
- 8 others
Summary of the comments posted
What are the positive aspects of working in
the Armed Forces? Why join and why stay?
This question attracted 51 posts (although some of
the issues raised related to the retention question and are discussed
in that section). Some contributors identified job security and
benefits as positive aspects of serving in the Armed Forces, as
were comradeship and military ethos. Opportunities to learn new
skills, travel and make a positive contribution to the world were
also seen as positive factors:
The Army life isn't a bad one. I am currently
nearing the end of my career and if I had the chance to do it
all again I probably would. Having joined at the tender age of
16, the Army has taught me how to be a man. To do the right thing
even though that is often harder than ignoring the problem. It
has given me confidence, strength, a trade and more management
skills than you could shake a large stick at. I have made friends
for life and visited many and varied countries. I have completed
tasks that have meaning, that have had long term positive effects
on peoples lives. I have felt the adrenaline rush that only a
martial life can offer. The Army has so much to offer a person,
if they are willing to become more than they ever thought they
were capable of. You only get one shot at life, and I've had one
hell of a ride so far.
The most positive aspect of working in the British
Army today have been the soldiers (and officers) that I have had
the privilege to work alongside and/or command…We should
be justifiably proud of the commitment and courage that these
young men and women show…Our junior and senior NCOs are the
best in the world and remain the unyielding backbone of the Army,
and if there are those who don't quite meet the standard then
let us not blame the individual but rather those of us who have
failed to educate or train…Camaraderie and esprit de corps
are alive and well and for those considering leaving the Armed
Forces for a new life in 'civvy street' do not expect to experience
the like again. Whilst looking for your new 9-5 job consider also
the fringe benefits that you have enjoyed - a level of fitness
and access to gyms for nothing; medical (access to doctors, physios,
free-prescriptions etc) not only for you but also your family;
ditto dental; married quarters and single living accommodation
(some better than others it is agreed) cheaper than you'll be
able to rent your bedsit in your local town; schooling; education
(military and SCE); learning credits, enhanced learning credits;
3 superbly cooked meals a day should you so desire (for not a
lot of pennies); social opportunities; travel; adventurous training;
sport at all levels and of all natures etc.
The majority of respondents did not feel that a single
entry point into the Armed Forces would aid recruitment:
That would mean a UK Defence Force instead of
the 3 Services. We would lose far more through our individual
identities then could be gained. Besides if you are prepared to
join the Forces you should be allowed to join the Service of your
choice. I don't think that a single entry point would make a difference
at all. What are needed are stricter controls on who gets let
into the forces.
The consideration of a single entry point goes
a long way to fuelling the feeling that we are heading towards
the amalgamation of all 3 Services into one 'Purple' Force (with
a very green tinge). Having experienced the Tri-Service Operations
in Basra, the tour was made more difficult due each Service having
their own identities and working practices, upon which they would
not compromise.
One respondent felt that having a single entry point
for officers and other ranks would be beneficial:
Now if you mean removing the direct entry officer
corps, the sooner the better… Who is the better, more experienced,
more capable, more respected leader, the WO/SNCO with years of
experience doing the job at different levels or the 21 year old
with a media studies degree, who's idea of hard work is doing
an essay with a hangover.
There were mixed views about the nature of the relationship
between the Armed Forces and society:
I think in the last 15 years the relationship
has improved. Several years ago I had the honour to take part
in a charity event which saw us heave a field gun from Somerset
to Greenwich to raise money for the family members of those lost
during the 2nd Gulf war. I was brought to tears on more than one
occasion at the generosity and support of those we met along the
streets.
Clearly the relationship has changed. The days
where literally everyone had a grandfather 'who fought in the
War' are long gone, along with the idea of service for its own
sake and the public good. Frankly, people are more selfish, less
inclined to volunteer and motivated entirely by advancement, money
and perks.
Contributors felt that involving families in Family
days would contribute to an understanding of the Armed Forces
and that specific measures targeting 'gatekeepers', in particular
mothers' were necessary.
What are the disadvantages of working in the
Armed Forces? If you have left the Armed Forces, what were your
reasons for leaving?
This question attracted 98 posts. Erosion of Service
housing, pay and conditions featured prominently in respondents'
discussions:
The second key factor in my decision to leave
has been the erosion of the terms of service, allowances and overall
package, with the loss of abated food charges, failure to upgrade
the service estate (with particular regard to housing), the annual
percentage increases in married quarter charges outstripping the
percentage of the pay award (the attempt to bring married quarter
charges into line with commercial rental charges), and the continual
failure to provide the right kit in theatre (be it spares, essential
tooling or operational equipment, or leisure facilities) such
that we appear to some of our allies as a first class air force,
surviving with third class equipment, to the extent that we are
known as "the borrowers" by our American allies. In
short the "broken covenant" referred to in the press.
The married quarters at my location are poor,
but what is worse is the standard of work carried out and the
total lack of support when things go wrong in them. I am lucky
in that the house is a good size, but that is as far as it goes.
Ever since the quarters were sold off things have got worse. Sadly,
the local housing market is so expensive that we cannot buy locally
and even if we could, who knows how long we would be in the house.
The support to the front line has been eroded
with many of the support functions now being undertaken by front
line units which places yet more burden on them. DE&S are
a huge money pit with civil servants with little or no experience
of the equipment they manage cause huge disruptions to operations.
This has resulted in many of them leaving (the few that can do
the job) and resulting in many IPT's not having the staff to carry
out the basic functions. This is at a time when recruiting within
DE&S has been stopped.
The impact on family life and the quality of support
offered was also raised:
It is okay to be told that you should have harmony
between tours but where does that come into play when you are
being posted to different units. You can get posted to one div
or another only to find that your new unit are on a rotation to
deploy, they aren't to worried that you have already been away
just as long as they have the manpower. The army isn't just a
job it is a way of life and not just for those serving for the
immediate family also.
Money is not the main issue here, it is quality
of Service life, we are all more than happy to 'get our hands
dirty' and expect that of our people but we must be prepared to
give something back, we are not currently doing this well enough
if at all. Whatever technology we bring in ultimately it is our
greatest asset, our people, who produce the goods. Sounds corny
and it is but has been buried under the mountain of bureaucracy
and 'heads in the sand' we now have to deal with.
Many respondents felt that the funding of the Armed
Forces, as well as its administration, were factors which contributed
to Service personnel leaving:
Over the past 21 years I've watched Armed Forces
slip into melt down and as successive governments, senior civil
servants and officers have sought to make names for themselves,
trying to bring about changes and new practices. Unfortunately
these changes have been devised by senior staff who have no idea
about how to fix aircraft, maintain equipment or perform the general
duties they are about to try and alter, and all parliament sees
is a person in a uniform…saying yes we can do it...when will
parliament realise that the officer corps mentality is purely
based on blind ambition and will agree to push the latest ideas
because to refuse is career suicide…the main result of this
action has been a reduction of the overall skill levels and an
extreme shortage of manpower…Having spent 3 years in an Integrated
Project Team watching engineers trying to act as businessmen because
that is what is expected of them nowadays...the problems within
the forces run very deep and there is no quick fix solution, parliament
must come down to the coal face and hear the words for themselves…you
will find the lads have the solutions you are looking for…we
all know that Armed Forces spending does not win as many votes
as hospitals or schools.
Change for me was also one of the straws that
broke the camels back. I am fully supportive of change initiatives
but only those where they have been allowed to run through the
full change cycle to allow us to measure the impact of the change
put in place. I cannot remember of any such initiative in the
last 10 years of my service.
Some posters felt that manning levels contributed
to voluntary outflow. There was significant support for increasing
the size of the Armed Forces.
Manning Levels. In my trade we are 90% manned
and as our trade has a specialised war role we are beginning to
suffer because of retention and recruitment problems.
The many disadvantages have been well explained
by your other contributors and can largely be categorised as 'excessive
workload' and 'being taken for granted'. From my perspective,
the excessive workload results from the two long term commitments,
a level well in excess of that included in the Defence Planning
Assumptions (DPA) upon which the services' manpower numbers are
based. Anything above the DPA level can be managed for a short
period, ie a few months, but not the several years so far and
an unknown number in the future. In my view, there should have
been a slowdown in, or cessation of, the manpower reductions,
which would have generated a 'paper surplus' that could have been
used to fill gaps where individuals were deployed and to reduce
deployment frequency. This would have reduced workload whilst
at home and increased harmony time. This option would have cost
money, but that it didn't happen I can only put down to Treasury
insistence and the government's desire to stride tall on the world
stage without being prepared to pay for it.
In the last 10 years there has been a policy
to drive down numbers simply to save money without any regard
to the operational commitment. Some personnel on front line Units
work tire[lessly] to meet their UK commitment whilst supporting
Out of Area Ops. To bridge the manning gap and get the job done,
personnel are given acting rank, but at the same time must do
their own job as well as their line managers. I just wonder how
long it will be before people will be declaring themselves sick
or develop chronic fatigue syndrome.
One contributor felt that that better communication
between decision makers and Service personnel could lead to solutions:
Try listening to the guys and girls on the shop
floor, they won't bite because they are much better than that.
They'll be honest, just do them the courtesy of listening.
Responses to a question about the retirement age
in the Armed Forces were largely positive, but raised issues about
promotion prospects:
Mine was a "shortage branch" (submarine
nuclear engineering officer) and I was a willing volunteer to
remain committed to the Service well beyond mandatory retirement
at 50. It beggars belief that the Armed Forces in general are
so blinkered that they forcibly retire personnel at the very peak
of their expertise. Once people go beyond their late 30s they
will have gained vast experience…In short, they are happily
institutionalised and are the very best teachers for the new generation
coming through…A great institution such as our Armed Forces
must adapt to the changing working environment if it is to survive
effectively.
Look at the 'no promotion in last 2 years of
service ruling', meaning that there is no real incentive for personnel
to strive for the next higher rank. Was the demoralising impact
of this concept ever truly considered?
Raising the retirement age would be a start but
if there is no progression allowed where is the incentive? Is
there an incremental increase in pay per service years? And, surely
this has already been addressed in the last few years with regards
to the changes in service.
Other respondents were not supportive of increasing
the retirement age:
I believe that raising the retirement age for
the officer cadre would not retain personnel. Given the current
state of play it would have the opposite effect. This is because
many junior officers 'battle it out' to their first option point
(16 years) before they depart. It is a realistic objective and
one can 'keep going' against the adverse conditions of service
for that time in order to receive the immediate pension.
We are already extending service to 55 to plug
the holes. Do you mean beyond 55? Would the pension schemes be
adjusted to provide an incentive? Can you imagine having a 64
year old infantryman running across the desert in full chemical
protection?
A number of respondents described their difficulties
in transferring to another branch or Service. Several stated that
they would consider remaining in the Armed Forces if they could
transfer to another trade:
It is close to impossible to transfer branches
- the best option is to leave and rejoin. This is because all
the branches are so short that they don't want to release anybody.
Yes it would certainly encourage more to stay and transfer - it
would also result in more leaving because the source branch becomes
even more undermanned.
One respondent noted that some Service personnel
were transferring to Armed Forces in other countries:
service men and women not just transferring from
one to service to another, but to another countries service altogether.
I ask you to look at the resettlement magazines printed to offer
careers guidance to leaving personnel. You will find countries
like New Zealand and Australia offering new lives for military
personnel. I know of a single mother…PVR'd and applied to
join the Australian Airforce at the same rank, with better conditions
and was accepted. This is happening to the Navy as well...It shows
people still value Military service but they will not do it for
this country anymore.
A number of contributors felt that inequalities existed
in the treatment of officers and other ranks:
Officers in the RAF are only in post for two
years, where non-commissioned ranks can be in post for many, many
years gaining experience. That leads to a lot of reinventing the
wheel as many officers feel they know better. They steadfastly
refuse to believe that, in many cases, the way of working has
evolved over many years and is most probably the best way of doing
something. That doesn't mean that ways of doing things shouldn't
be queried, but to keep repeating the same changes is a waste
of manpower, money and valuable resources.
One disadvantage for Other Ranks is the lack
of career management. Those with a Commission have Career Maps
and they have some input into these. Unfortunately Other Ranks
are pretty much just "bums on seats", this demoralises
people when they end up in a post they don't like…If they
had a Commission they would know that they only had to complete
24 months and then move on to a different challenge…If all
careers were looked at more closely then there may be job satisfaction
for all.
One contributor noted that Financial Retention Incentives
were divisive for those who did not receive them:
All the time we hear of certain trades, new joiners,
pilots etc being offered a retention bonus for only a minimal
amount of return of service, but i always seem to be just outside
the parameters for these bonus, it becomes very annoying listening
to young lads boast about the money they have just received and
for them to say they will be submitting there PVR as soon as they
can anyway. This does not help the under manning of any of the
branches, just delays the departure of some personnel. Surely
increasing the benefits for those in service would be better rather
than trying to buy them of for a short period would be better
for retention.
In response to a specific question about training,
a number of respondents stated that in order to achieve recruiting
targets, standards had dropped. One respondent felt that the recruitment
process was too rapid:
Regarding the issue of moving between trades
and wastage during phase 1 training. I have several years' experience
in this environment and a common reason for recruits' leaving
is that they are often signed up too quickly for a particular
arm or trade at the recruiting office, I suspect in order to meet
quotas. When they subsequently arrive at basic recruit training
their eyes are opened to the many possibilities available and
which they may not have been made fully aware of. Because of the
severe, and I mean severe, difficulty of moving between trades,
even though at that stage it is an administrative exercise because
no trade training has started yet, many recruits opt to withdraw
from training. Ironically, the system then tends to blame the
recruit (doesn't have the right stuff etc) rather than looking
at how the recruit could be moved to another trade. An area well
worth parliamentary scrutiny I would suggest.
Why do you think that the Armed Forces face such
a challenge recruiting ethnic minority personnel?
This question attracted 29 posts. The majority of
contributors suggested that targets for ethnic minority personnel
were unnecessary:
The Armed Forces should not have a target for
recruiting from ethnic minorities, it should have the target of
recruiting the best person for the job irrespective of their religious
or ethnic background - just as long as those background are not
in conflict with the best interests of the forces.
Whereas it may be relevant for a police force
to represent the community it wishes to police, there is no need
for the Armed Forces to have the same ethnic make-up as the UK
as a whole. Arguably we are under representative of a lot of now
prevalent communities in the UK, including Polish, Chinese and
Lithuanian. If people from communities which are currently under
represented wish to join the Armed Forces, if they can meet the
same standards as other applicants, they are welcome
There are those backgrounds where serving in
the Armed Forces are not part of their cultural background. If
there are those from those backgrounds who are qualified to join
the forces and display an interest in joining the forces, then
they should be encouraged to do so.
One contributor suggested that mandatory national
service would provide a solution to the issue of ethnic minority
recruiting in the Armed Forces, as well as addressing a range
of other societal problems:
Bring back national conscription for all UK citizens
to serve for a period of two years, make this rule apply to anyone
under the age of forty-five who wishes to either emigrate to the
UK or seeks Asylum in the UK.
One contributor noted that families in ethnic minority
communities were often reluctant to see their children joining
the Armed Forces:
I believe that the issue is cultural. I served
in the recruiting environment for 5 years and one of the main
issues that ethnic minority recruits had to face up to was opposition
from their families. At a recruiting event in Birmingham a Hindu
father said that he had enjoyed the event very much but that,
in the end, it had not persuaded him that his son could join the
RAF because killing was against his religion. I have served with
several very professional Muslim Airmen, two of whom are long-standing
friends, and they all say the same; if the military wish to recruit
from ethnic minorities they need to target the families first,
not the recruit.
|
