Memorandum from Dr Alex Alexandrou
INTRODUCTION
I would like to thank the Defence Committee
for inviting me to give evidence to this much needed inquiry.
I have become increasingly concerned with recent developments
that I believe have impacted negatively on both the Military Covenant
and the Armed Forces ability to retain key personnel. Britain's
participation in both Afghanistan and Iraq have brought these
matters to a head but the problems are more deep seated and have
been threatening to undermine the commitment, morale, motivation
and the retention of personnel for a number of years.
The past decade has increasingly seen the "dirty
washing" of the Armed Forces done in public ranging from
any number of disciplinary matters and employment tribunals to
issues of manning, deployment, compensation for injuries received
whilst on active duty, the standard of housing and equipment and
how far senior military personnel can go with their political
masters. To an extent this has destabilised the Armed Forces and
it is my belief that a significant number of issues could and
should have been dealt with "in-house".
Thus, with this in mind I would like to put
forward a proposal that in my opinion will in part help the Armed
Forces deal with these issues, particularly retention in a positive
manner. I propose that this is achieved by the creation of a representative
body for military personnel that is governed by statute and has
the best interests of both the forces and their personnel in mind.
CURRENT REPRESENTATIVE
BODIES FOR
BRITISH MILITARY
PERSONNEL
There have been significant developments in
relation to the issue of the creation of a representative organisation
for British military personnel particularly from a legislative
and non-legislative perspective. I will not rehearse these arguments
in full in this submission but suffice to say that as I have proved
in an article for the academic journal Defence Studies,
that British and European legislation does not expressly forbid
military personnel from having a representative organisation and
there is a legal obligation for them to have one in relation to
both the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Directive 94/45/EC
that deals with European Works Councils. Bartle (2006) also provides
significant non-legal arguments as to why military personnel require
a representative body from both a national and international perspective.
However, I would argue that these academic and
legal arguments have been overtaken by recent events that have
seen the establishment and proliferation of bodies that claim
to represent the views of British military personnel. In 2003,
the Combined Armed Forces Federation (CAFF) was set up. Membership
is open to all ranks but CAFF is essentially there to represent
the interests of all other ranks. Officers can join CAFF but they
are barred by the Federation from becoming members of its Executive
and Management Committees. In 2006, the British Armed Forces Federation
(BAFF) was officially launched and is a representative body for
serving and past members of all the armed services and is open
to all ranks, both in terms of membership and serving on its Executive
Council. It has produced a Ten-Point Plan (BAFF, 2006) which explains
its aims, objectives and how it is structured. I will return to
this plan in a latter section of this submission.
Significantly, CAFF is currently in dispute
with BAFF, which it regards as an organisation that has no legitimacy
amongst the other ranks. It basically argues that CAFF should
represent the other ranks and BAFF should only represent officers.
To add to the mix both these groups are now
under pressure from the United Kingdom Defence Association (UKNDA)
that was set up in 2007 by an esteemed group of politicians and
recently retired senior military chiefs. The UKNDA has been set
up to lobby for more resources (financial and otherwise), better
accommodation and better health care for Armed Services personnel.
This is in direct competition to both CAFF and BAFF and it seems
that this organisation is better funded and structured than both
federations and more powerful in terms of the individuals who
run it. Its President is Winston S Churchill and its Patrons are
Admiral Lord Boyce, Air Marshal Lord Craig, General Lord Guthrie,
Sir Menzies Campbell and Lord Owen. Its Vice-Presidents include
such colourful and famous characters such as Colonel Tim Collins,
Major-General Patrick Cordingley, Professor Richard Holmes, Colonel
Bob Stewart, Simon Weston, Bruce George and Michael Ancram to
name but a few. So if nothing else this will be a powerful lobbying
group with the know-how and personnel to get to the heart of government
and get issues stirred up.
In representative terms this is all getting
quite messy and this may suit the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as
"divide and rule" may mean that it will not have to
go down the road of helping to legitimise a representative body
in terms of supporting a legally constituted organisation. To
a degree it has been further helped by the fact that a Private
Members Bill presented by Kevan Jones (Labour MP for North Durham)
entitled Armed Forces (Federation) Bill which called for a federation
to be created based on the BAFF Ten-Point Plan failed to get its
Second Reading in October 2007. Interestingly (and obviously)
BAFF supported this Bill, whilst CAFF did not. CAFF even went
as far as petitioning MPs not to lend their support to this Bill.
These are interesting times for the representation
of Armed Services personnel as not only do we have the three above
mentioned groups we also have the Commonwealth Soldiers Association
and a number of other charitable and specific lobbying groups
who also claim to be the voice of Armed Forces personnel. These
include the British Legion, the Army, Navy and RAF Benevolent
Funds, the three Service Families' Federations, Combat Stress
and the Gulf Veterans' Association to name but a few.
In addition to which there are any number of
websites that carry the views of military personnel, with one
of the most publicly quoted being the British Army Rumour Service.
Significantly, the key fact is that not one of these groups or
websites have been either elected or selected by the overwhelming
majority of serving military personnel to represent their interests
within the MoD, Parliament and wider society. This is not to say
that these organisations and the individuals who have set them
up and run them are not well-meaning and well-intentioned. However,
they do not have an official mandate from those who matter most—current
serving military personnel and they are not underpinned and supported
by primary legislation.
ARMED FORCES
PAY REVIEW
BODY
It may be argued by both the MoD and senior
military leaders that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB)
represents the interests and views of military personnel in relation
to what are commonly referred to as terms and conditions of employment.
I would argue that this is a weak argument as I hope to prove
in the next few paragraphs.
The Review Body's terms of reference as laid
out by its Thirty Seventh Report 2008 presented to Parliament
in February of this year are as follows:
"The Armed Forces' Pay Review Body provides
independent advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of
State for Defence on the remuneration and charges for members
of the Naval, military and Air Forces of the Crown.
In reaching its recommendations, the Review
Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
— the need to recruit, retain
and motivate suitably qualified people taking account of the particular
circumstances of Service life;
— Government policies for improving
public services, including the requirement of the Ministry of
Defence to meet output targets for the delivery of departmental
services;
— The funds available to the
Ministry of Defence as set out in the Government's departmental
limits; and
— The Government's inflation
target.
The Review Body shall have regard for the
need for the pay of the Armed Forces to be broadly comparable
with pay levels in civilian life.
The Review Body shall, in reaching its recommendations,
take account of the evidence submitted to it by the Government
and others. The Review Body may also consider other specific issues
as the occasion arises.
Reports and recommendations should be submitted
jointly to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister"
(AFPRB, 2008: iii).
I contend that as the terms of reference are
laid out above, the AFPRB is constrained by Government strategy,
particularly in relation to finance and there are other problems
that in my view are detrimental in relation to looking after the
interests of military personnel from an independent standpoint.
The most fundamental problem relates to the
parties selected to provide information to the Review Body. They
are limited and unrepresentative as the following quote from this
year's report clearly highlights:
"Our work programme began in March 2007
with full briefings from MoD and each of the Services on the issues
relevant to our review. These briefings set the scene for our
visits programme which enables us to engage with personnel and
families, to hear their priorities first hand, to understand the
role of the military and to explain our approach. We visited 25
Service units between March and July 2007 in the UK, Germany,
Gibraltar and on operations in Afghanistan. We met with around
3,800 spouses in 300 formal and informal discussion groups. Our
visits also enabled to hear the views of Commanding Officers and
their management teams and to view all standards of Service accommodation.
All Services provided excellent support throughout these visits
and, in the current operational climate, we cannot over-emphasise
the importance of our operational visits to gain an understanding
of the frontline role of the Armed Forces and to enable us to
deliver our remit...
...We held 11 meetings between September 2007
and January 2008 to consider the evidence presented and our commissioned
research. We reviewed over 130 evidence papers and held six oral
evidence sessions which allowed us to test out the written evidence.
These sessions were with the Secretary of State accompanied by
MOD's 2nd Permanent Under Secretary and HM Treasury; the Principal
Personnel Officers (PPOs0 and Deputy Chief of defence Staff (Personnel);
the Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Reserves and Cadets) and
the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets; and the Deputy Chief
Executive of Defence Estates. We also helpfully met with the three
Service Families' Federations, specifically focusing on the review
of the X-Factor" (AFPRB, 2008: 4).
Laudable as this approach is, I would argue
it clearly shows that a collective voice for military personnel
should be heard by the Review Body as well. The fact that stands
out from the Review Body's explanation as to how it gathers its
evidence is that while the management of each service and the
MoD give oral and written evidence to the AFPRB, military personnel
are not afforded the same right. A very small minority (which
does not even equate to 2% of all armed forces personnel), not
all of whom are serving personnel; receive a "visit"
where they are "talked with" both formally and worryingly
informally. The question is how representative can their views
be and how are they chosen? To independent observers such as myself,
this approach does not encourage confidence as to the credibility
of the evidence being gathered as there is a distinct possibility
that it is skewed to ensure both political and military leaders
are happy with the outcome and the voice of those who matter the
most—military personnel is barely heard.
This is clearly inequitable and further underlines
the need for a collective body that can adequately represent the
views of all personnel. It could also represent the views of personnel
in such a way that ensures that issues are discussed within the
structures and system of the MoD and not in public via the media.
I contend that such an approach is not only feasible but will
have a positive impact on the morale and retention of Armed Forces
personnel. Additionally, I believe it is a good recruitment and
retention tool as firstly, not only will the voice of military
personnel be heard but negative issues will not be aired in public
which can affect not only those serving, possibly leading them
to question their continuing involvement with the Armed Forces.
Secondly, it can also help to ensure that for example, negative
issues relating to the treatment of military trainees, sub-standard
housing and inadequate equipment are dealt with in-house. As which
parent would want their child to join an organisation that is
routinely criticised within the media and cannot be trusted to
look after their loved ones who are prepared to put their lives
at risk?
The membership of the Review Body also highlights
a further inadequacy. The current membership of the AFPRB is as
follows: Professor David Greenway (Chairman), Robert Burgin, Alison
Gallico, Dr Peter Knight, Professor Derek Leslie, Air Vice Marshal
(Retired) Ian Stewart, Dr Anne Wright and Lord Young of Norwood
Green (AFPRB, 2008: iii). As the website of the Office of Manpower
Economics (which also acts as the Secretariat for the Review Body)
shows in relation to the biographies of those listed only one
of them has served in the military and there is currently not
one person who is serving in the Armed Forces representing the
views of military personnel. Yet again, I would argue that this
is a serious anomaly that needs to be rectified in favour of current
serving military personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
FOR POLICE
OFFICERS
I would argue that the only way forward is by
the creation of a representative organisation by statute that
will work in the best interests of military personnel, the Armed
Forces and the MoD. A precedent was set in the previous century
in relation to the Police Service. The Police Act 1919 helped
to create the Police Federation of England and Wales that would
represent the interests of police officers, particularly in terms
of welfare and the efficiency of the Police Service. It is not
a trade union but a staff association.
The Federation today represents the interests
of almost 140,000 police officers, who hold the rank of Constable,
Sergeant, Inspector and Chief Inspector. It negotiates on terms
and conditions of employment; lobbies on issues that will not
only affect its members but which will also impact on the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Police Service and is also consulted
on police regulations. I would argue that the Federation along
with the other Police staff associations do a good job in representing
the interests of their members within the structures and systems
of the Police Service and the ministries that have overall control
of the Service. Rarely, are issues brought into the public domain
by the Police staff associations and when they are it is only
when all internal avenues and procedures have been exhausted.
Similar organisations exist for the Superintendent
and senior ranks in the form of the Police Superintendents' Association
(PSA) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). This
template is replicated in both Northern Ireland and in Scotland.
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION?
The lack of a collective representative body
currently in my view currently impacts negatively on the morale,
commitment and ultimately on the retention of high quality military
personnel at all levels. This can be witnessed by the almost daily
deluge of negative press the Armed Forces attract either in relation
to their current operations to issues of housing, equipment, length
of tours, overstretch, compensation for injuries whilst on active
service and military personnel and/or their families pursuing
high profile cases against the MoD and the three Services.
I am not advocating that the Armed Forces replicate
the representative structures of the Police Service but what should
be copied is the creation of a representative structure made up
of one or more bodies that is enshrined in statute and as with
the Police Service forbids any form of industrial action.
As noted above, a number of bodies purporting
to represent the interests of Armed Forces personnel have been
set up recently. Most notably BAFF, which has its own constitution
and structures that have been constructed in accordance with civilian-based
legislation. It has also produced the following Ten-Point plan
which was originally posted on the British Army Rumour website
in January 2006 before BAFF set up its own website. BAFF proposed
the following:
"1. A professional staff association
is to be formed for members of Her Majesty's Forces under the
provisional title of the British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF).
2. Comparable bodies have for years served
the armed forces of allied countries such as the United States
and Australia, with official cooperation and no negative impact
on operational effectiveness or military discipline. The proposed
federation is, however, designed to be a specifically British
solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect and respect
the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services.
It will meet all requirements of British and other law, including
international conventions adopted by the United Kingdom.
3. The federation's mission shall be to
represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare and other
legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their
capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services
of the United Kingdom, and in so doing help to maximise operational
efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel.
4. The federation will be a democratic
representative institution answerable to its members. Membership
of the federation will be open to all personnel irrespective of
rank, branch of service or gender. The main membership categories
will be Ordinary Membership (Regular), Ordinary Membership (Reserve
Forces) and Veteran Membership. In responding to the requirements
of its members, the federation will act in the interests of all
serving personnel and veterans but will not countenance any pressure
on individuals to join.
5. Within resources, the activities of
the federation may include:
(a) professional and career development
by the provision of education and information;
(b) liaison, monitoring and response
to proposals or developments within the services, in Parliament,
in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector
which have a specific impact on forces personnel;
(c) appropriate advocacy and consultation
to protect and improve the conditions of service life including
pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement
and all other areas of personnel support;
(d) appropriate support to personnel
facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection
with their service (the federation will not normally comment on
any specific case within the systems or military justice and administrative
discipline); and
(e) the negotiation for members
of a range of insurance, financial and other benefits, discounts
or affinity deals.
6. The federation will not be beholden
to any political party, pressure group, or defence industry interest.
While supporting the cross-party consensus on the need for robust,
adequately funded but cost-effective forces serving the Nation
as determined by the Government of the day, the federation will
not be a defence pressure group. The federation will not take
a view on matters of defence strategy or operational decisions,
although it may raise legitimate subsidiary matters affecting
personnel. Parliamentary liaison will be strictly on a cross-party
basis.
7. The federation will not be a trade
union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone any form
of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces.
The federation affirms the vital role of the Armed Forces chain
of command in representing the interests of its personnel. The
federation will seek to agree with the Ministry of Defence appropriate
mechanisms for the exchange of information with the chain of command
as well as centrally. A code of conduct will be adopted, and potential
disagreements will normally be raised centrally to avoid placing
serving personnel in difficulty with their chain of command, or
vice versa. The federation will act to protect serving members
in their federation-related activities within the agreed code
of conduct.
8. The federation will not seek to supplant
the role of any existing charity or other agency involved in service
welfare. Where appropriate the federation may help to direct members
to appropriate sources of advice and assistance.
9. Work is already under way on matters
such as the structure and legal format of the federation, and
staffing. A business plan is being prepared.
10. This draft statement of intent outlines
the basic principles established so far. Work continues on detailed
aspects of the proposals with a view to wider consultation throughout
the armed forces community, and with the Ministry of Defence".
I would argue that this is a good basis to begin
discussions in relation to setting up a body or bodies to represent
current serving military personnel. I would argue that if collective
representation is afforded to military personnel then there is
a need for a number of bodies to be created that will be able
to effectively represent the interests of the three Services.
They would also represent the interests of the other ranks and
officers within each of the Armed Forces, particularly taking
into account their individual traditions, ethos and needs.
As a basis for discussion I propose that each
of the three Services should have three main representative bodies.
The first would represent the interests of the other ranks. The
second would represent the ranks of (Army) Lieutenant (and similar
ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force) up to (Army) Major
(and similar ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force). The
third would represent the ranks of (Army) Lieutenant-Colonel (and
similar ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal) up to (Army) Brigadier
(and similar ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force). Finally,
there should be one sole representative body for the most senior
ranks in all three Services akin to ACPO.
Each of these representative organisations would
require not only a constitution and set of rules and procedures
but would also have to be organised at local, regional and national
level in such a way that they replicate the organisational structures
of their individual Service. The membership of these organisations
would be restricted to currently serving military personnel.
Each of the representative bodies will have
a ruling body in the form of a National Executive Committee (NEC)
with its key office bearers being the Chair, Secretary and Treasurer.
All key office holders and committee members will be elected only
by its membership.
The representative organisations should not
become a financial drain on the MoD, so they should be allowed
to raise monies by charging the membership an annual subscription
as most representative bodies and trade unions do.
All the representative bodies would be set up
and governed by primary legislation and this legislation will
also ensure that military personnel will not be allowed to take
any form of industrial action.
The above suggestion is at this juncture a framework
for discussion and is put forward to initiate a serious debate
as my observations, research and working with the British Armed
Forces for the past decade lead me to conclude that collective
representation for current serving military personnel will have
a positive effect, particularly in relation to morale and retention
which have undeniably been negatively affected in recent years.
References
Alexandrou, A (2004) Creating a Collective Representative
Body for British Military Personnel through European Community
Law, in Defence Studies, Volume 4, Number 1, Spring, pp 114-130.
Armed Forces Pay Review Body (2008) Thirty-Seventh
Report 2008. London: The Stationery Office.
Bartle, R (2006) The British Armed Forces: No
Trust, No Representation, No Change in Military Unionism
in the Post-Cold War Era: A Future Reality?, Bartle, R and
Heinecken, L (eds). London: Routledge.
British Armed Forces Federation (2006) Ten-Point
Plan. available at www.baff.org.uk
17 March 2008
|
