Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-239)
MR CHRIS
BAKER OBE, REAR
ADMIRAL CHARLES
MONTGOMERY CBE, MAJOR
GENERAL ANDREW
GREGORY, AIR
VICE MARSHAL
SIMON BRYANT
CBE, MAJOR GENERAL
SIMON LALOR
TD AND VICE
ADMIRAL PETER
WILKINSON CVO
22 APRIL 2008
Q220 Chairman: I can assure you that
we will cover cadets later. Generally speaking, is there a view
about how you explain military life to the public in order to
make its perception as beneficial as possible to your recruitment
activities?
Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Yes, there
is and it must be conducted on as broad a front as possible. There
is no single solution to fit all the relevant sectors of society
that we are appealing to in terms of awareness in schools. This
is very much designed to give people a greater understanding of
the Armed Forces and is a separate activity from recruiting. We
look at a different part of society for that. As you have already
said, the need also to influence gate-keepers and people of standing
in the community—headmasters and parents—is crucial.
We have to advance on a broad front by a variety of means with
the resources available to make as much impact as we can.
Q221 Chairman: Can you define the
different part of society that you look at in relation to recruitment?
Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I was
thinking essentially of the age group.
Major General Gregory: This is
a really important subject. You will have seen from the figures
for the seven years we have submitted that the Army's budget—we
use the word "advertising" but it is more than that—has
increased from £5 million to £26 million. First, that
reflects the importance we place upon the business of marketing
the Army in its widest sense to make sure that opinion-formers
particularly understand where we are going. We find that a significant
proportion of that must be spent on removing ill-informed perception
and opinion which is an important role for us. In terms of the
totality of helping society to understand us—I pick up Mr
Jones's question in particular—commander regional forces
is undertaking a study at the moment to look at the Army in society,
seeing how better across all the lines, including the point you
make, we should pick up our involvement with society to make sure
we cover all the strands and hit the right people so they understand
us better.
Q222 Mr Hancock: I am interested
to hear what you say about dispelling ill-founded perceptions
and disinformation. You must have some feedback to suggest to
you what those perceptions are. How on earth do you tackle that
issue when you go to opinion-formers and start off by saying to
them that obviously they have some mistrust or disillusionment
with the Armed Forces? On what do you base that?
Major General Gregory: The Central
Office of Information has made a range of surveys for us so we
can better understand the opinions of the public and gate-keepers
in particular. The sort of issues that come up are, first, public
perceptions of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which inevitably
have an effect on people's willingness to join the Army, particularly
parental opinions in that area. Inevitably, there are legacy concerns
about things that have happened in the past—the Deepcut
incident and things like that—where the perception is that
this is still the Army of today which it is not. It is addressing
things like that and also removing the opinions and concern of
young people about being away from family, the general fear of
going to war, being shot at and things like that.
Q223 Mr Hancock: When you have gained
that knowledge you then have to have the right people equipped
to take the proper message to people?
Major General Gregory: Absolutely.
Q224 Mr Hancock: One of the failures
we found in the past, particularly in our inquiry into duty of
care, was that the quality of some of the people doing this was
not of the best. I am interested to know how you have overcome
that so that the message you take out comes from people who are
properly qualified to convey it in a positive way.
Major General Gregory: That is
a key point. First, why do we use Army recruiting teams? They
have all been CRB cleared so that when they go into schools they
are properly qualified to do that sort of thing. Second, we look
very carefully at those people we put into the Armed Forces careers
offices to make sure they are balanced and convey a proper perception
of the Services and in my case the Army in particular. Third,
we look carefully—I am sure we will come on to this—at
the people we put into the training of junior soldiers. All of
them now go through the Army leadership school to make sure they
are properly prepared for this. In addressing the issue it is
absolutely fundamental that if we are to get the right number
of people coming into the Army out of training, which is the key
measure for me, we must have good people right from the start
of the pipeline in the recruiting and training environment, and
we are working very hard at it.
Q225 Robert Key: I want to return
to cadets and school visits. I am delighted to hear that you visit
4,000 schools but I should like some clarification. In 2006 we
were warned that the Ministry of Defence was reviewing the whole
policy of visiting schools. In 2007 we were told that the process
was coming to an end and would be replaced by videos, DVDs and
online access to websites which we were assured was nothing to
do with saving money and everything to do with the fact to gain
access to young people and explain what the military was doing
it was allegedly far more effective to do it through DVDs than
through personal visits. Apparently, that is not part of your
agenda. What has changed?
Rear Admiral Montgomery: Perhaps
I may pick up that point since I mentioned the 4,000 school visits.
Those school visits are not recruiting visits but are fundamental
to increasing awareness of what the Armed Forces do in the round
across a key section of the community. Going back to your very
first question, you asked what kind of engagement was most effective
in terms of improving awareness. One of the areas not covered
in the responses so far has been the electronic media. The electronic
media, be it DVDs, internet access or whatever, are fundamental
in accessing 16 to 24 year-olds. It is not a question of school
visits or DVDs; it is now a combination of these and other means
of accessing key elements in the community.
Robert Key: I welcome that change of
policy as undoubtedly it is. The Answers to Parliamentary Questions
that I tabled made it quite clear that personal visits would cease,
so that is very good news. I think we might press that further.
Q226 Chairman: I am confused about
the numbers. Is it 1,000 schools and 4,000 visits? Are we talking
of different Services or what?
Rear Admiral Montgomery: I am
speaking on behalf of the Royal Navy. There are 4,000 school visits.
Air Vice Marshal Bryant: And 450
for the Royal Air Force.
Q227 Robert Key: But how many for
the Army?
Major General Gregory: A thousand.[2]
Q228 Robert Key: It does not sound to
me to be a very co-ordinated programme, if I may say so.
Air Vice Marshal Bryant: What
we are trying to do is to drive it to individual effect. Last
year the problem faced by the Royal Air Force as it came towards
the end of the service draw down was different. This year because
we are now going back to traditional recruiting levels the number
of visits has significantly ramped up. In terms of getting people
to focus on doing core business which was the challenge over the
past year, in that period we have brought together everything
centrally and increasingly they will go out now to enhance the
number of visits.
Q229 Robert Key: Is it reasonable
to assume, or can you confirm, that the Ministry of Defence has
increased your budget for school visits?
Vice Admiral Wilkinson: That is
a question for the individual Services rather than the MoD.
Q230 Robert Key: What is the answer
from the individual Services?
Air Vice Marshal Bryant: We will
be spending more money on school visits in the coming year. The
budget per se is not divided up on the basis of having more money
for school visits but in the way we allocate our resources a greater
percentage will go there.
Q231 Robert Key: Can you please say
what assessment the Ministry of Defence and each of the three
Services have made of the resolution at the recent Easter conference
of the National Union of Teachers not to allow the military into
schools?
Major General Gregory: We have
looked at that. We go only by invitation to support the curriculum.
Therefore, where career advisers invite us we shall continue to
go to support curriculum activities.
Q232 Robert Key: But what assessment
have you made of the impact of this new NUT policy?
Major General Gregory: I think
it is too early for me to tell.
Q233 Mr Hancock: It would appear
that some are recruitment attempts and others are show boating
the forces. There are two different roles here. One seeks to recruit
and the other to generate greater understanding of what the Armed
Forces are doing. Which is it, and who co-ordinates it from within
the MoD?
Mr Baker: You are absolutely right.
We have been looking at the way in which we interact with schools,
recognising some of the points that Mr Jones made about the unevenness
of coverage and the issues that arise because the distinction
between our recruiting and outreach activities at schools may
not be as clear as it might be. We plan to move forward with a
new programme that will co-ordinate effort and distinguish between
those different categories.[3]
As far as concerns the NUT resolution, it is fair to say that
so far we have not noticed any significant impact on our activities.
Q234 Mr Hancock: Within the MoD does
funding for these visits as opposed to recruiting visits come
out of the recruiting budget or another budget head?
Rear Admiral Montgomery: I can
speak on behalf of one of the single Services. The answer is that
it is a bit of both. Part of our outreach into schools has been
through assets owned by Captain Naval Recruiting. Those visits
have been made in part by assets owned by others, whether it be
ship affiliations or school affiliations in which we are very
active, and in part through very small dedicated teams, for example
physical training instructors and others in academic fields, that
have engaged specifically with schools and the curriculum. All
the latter categories are not scored against the recruiting budget
but the former categories are. Therefore, it is a bit of both.
Mr Jenkin: This is a very important line
of questioning. There are two suggestions. First, is there a case
for having a tri-Service school visit team to do the "awareness"
point without disrupting the single Service, even single unit—particular
battalions, squadrons or ships—relationships with particular
schools? Has that been considered?
Chairman: I would like to come back to
that in later questions.
Mr Hamilton: I want to go back to the
first answer we received. The 1,000, 450 and 4,000 are extremely
discouraging from our point of view because it sounds as if each
organisation takes a different view. We are talking about a tripartite
approach which will come out in other questions. I ask that those
in power consider Mr Jones's earlier point and do this in a direct
sense and they take up the cudgels with MPs. I have 46 schools
in my area including six secondary schools which are different.
Nobody knows my area better than the MP. I have barracks in my
area but I have never been there by invitation. I have been there
two or three times at my instance, not the barracks. This issue
must be dealt with. I ask that you make a serious endeavour to
make contact with all the MPs especially in those cases where
there are no resources to help recruitment.
Mr Jones: I am trying to get my head
round what Mr Hancock said in terms of co-ordination between school
recruitment visits and raising awareness and how that is determined.
I do not have a clear view of how that is done. I have been on
this Committee for seven years and I consider myself quite a strong
supporter of the Armed Forces. I can tell you now that no one
from any of the three services in the north east of England has
ever contacted me either to ask my opinion or whether I can help
with certain things. I reinforce Mr Hamilton's point: we are a
resource that can be used.
Q235 Robert Key: What is the number
of cadets in each of the three Services in our schools? Is it
going up or down?
Major General Lalor: There is
an aspiration to grow the cadet movement. All three single Services
have their own intent in the way they manage their resources.
To start the ball rolling, the RAF has a mature plan to increase
the size of the air force cadets, but there is no defence policy
as yet on where we might be in the size of that force in future.
I emphasise "as yet" because this is very much a hot
area. The government's admiration of the cadet movement as part
of its youth policy is very welcome and I suggest that we shall
see greater interest in and mature plans for cadet growth in future.
Q236 Robert Key: I ask the question
in a completely different way. Is the number of cadets in each
of the three Services going up or down?
Major General Gregory: I will
have to come back to you on the specific question. I can tell
you how many we have, but I do not have the historical data.[4]
Air Vice Marshal Bryant: For the
RAF it is broadly level at about 40,000 and the stated aspiration
is to go to 45,000 by 2015.
Q237 Robert Key: And the Royal Navy?
Rear Admiral Montgomery: Likewise,
I will come back to you on the trends.
Q238 Robert Key: Do you have any
knowledge—if not, please tell us later—of whether
there is any difference in the number of cadets in English, Welsh
and Scottish schools? Does a higher proportion of Scottish or
English schools have cadet forces?
Vice Admiral Wilkinson: We will
have to get back to you with that information.[5]
Q239 Robert Key: It is quite important
that we make evidence-based suggestions. If we do not have the
evidence it makes it a bit difficult. I move on to the reserves
and their role in the link between the Armed Forces and wider
society. Is this perceived to be a strong or weak link? Do you
wish it to get stronger? Can you tell us about the nature of that
link between the Armed Forces and wider society and the role of
the reserves?
Major General Lalor: We consider
it to have considerable value. When we talk of outreach we are
fortunate that we have a greater national footprint than our regular
counterparts and we are supported by a national network, ie the
reserve forces and cadet associations. I would certainly be very
disappointed if I heard that MPs with reserves and cadets in their
areas were not contacted by the RFCAs because that is one of their
main purposes. It is now acknowledged that this footprint, including
the link with national and local employers, is of considerable
importance to defence overall. I know you have taken evidence
from SaBRE. For example, we now talk very much to SaBRE, not just
about issues to do with reserves but about Armed Forces and society.
Therefore, the answer to your specific question is that there
is an aspiration that we can be more active using the totality
of our national footprint, regular and reserve.
2 The figure of 1,000 for the number of Army visits
to schools given during the evidence session was provided in error.
The correct figure is 4,000. Back
3
See Ev 167 Back
4
See Ev 169 Back
5
See Ev 169 Back
| 
