Select Committee on Defence Fourteenth Report


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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 30 July 2008