Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)

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

  Q260  Mr Hancock: I am interested to know what sectors you specifically target, not for officers but rank and file service personnel coming into the Armed Forces at the bottom of the rack. From which sectors you are now engaging to recruit?

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I do not know whether the Committee has heard the phrase "One Army Recruiting".

  Chairman: That is a matter to which we will come in some detail.

  Mr Hancock: Referring to the educational aspirations of young people, more and more people seek to go into further education, whether it be FE colleges or otherwise.

  Chairman: Before we get to that perhaps on the first question I might bring in Mr Bernard Jenkin.

  Q261  Mr Jenkin: Is it not the case that in concentrating on recruitment at national level we rather under-value traditional recruiting pools? For example, if battalion commanders were given more responsibility to ensure their individual units were recruited as part of their overall task there might be more recruitment to the British Army. It is true, is it not, that some battalions are very well recruited and some are not and it depends very much on the emphasis that the commanding officers places on recruitment among his officers and men?

  Major General Gregory: Partly. Inevitably, the emphasis that the commanding officer places on it will depend on other things he is doing and his other commitments. If he is committed to operations he may not be able at that time to commit resources specifically to recruiting. When they have time most of them see this as a priority, but what we are trying to do—the Chairman has mentioned One Army Recruiting—is to make sure we have a more coherent overall approach to recruiting for both the Regulars and Territorial Army and look at all the factors available. We have to make sure that as young people come to Army recruiting teams we can look at their personal circumstances and aspirations and see which part of the Armed Forces best suits their aspirations and abilities and then direct them towards that. That is the key thing. That is then supported by regimental initiatives at a lower level but co-ordinated within the regional chain of command and through the activities of recruiting groups. We try to make sure there is coherence between the high level piece, the Army piece and the regimental activities within the various regions.

  Q262  Linda Gilroy: The Services are not alone in facing these recruiting challenges and increasingly learning and skills councils and employment and skills boards are taking a role in seeking people out proactively. What links do the Services have with the learning and skills councils?

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I sit with the permanent secretary on the Sector Skills Council for Central Government, so from the MoD's perspective we are covering both the military and Civil Service as we work our way through the skills agenda for government.

  Q263  Linda Gilroy: And further down in the regions and cities?

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: It filters down our policies to try to make sure that as many courses as possible are given civilian accreditation and that we are in tune with the up-skilling agenda, because we know that if we give people qualifications that are recognised in civilian life they stay for longer. It is in our interests to do so. Initially, it seems perhaps counter-intuitive, but we know they stay longer because they have greater confidence that when they do decide to go outside they will be able to get a job. It is in our interests to make sure that as many courses as possible have a recognisable read-across to the civilian world, and we think we are doing reasonably well in ensuring we are up with the government's agenda on that.

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: I think there is a very positive story which spans all three Services. LSC funding and engagement with us is quite profound. I can give you some headline figures. In 2006-07, for which we have the latest statistics, 25,000 recognised LSC awards were made in our Service which I think you will agree is a fairly significant degree of award over a relatively small Service.

  Q264  Mr Hamilton: On traditional recruitment pools, if we take the regiments in Scotland as an example traditionally it would have been the Black Watch in Perth and the Royals would have been down in the borders and the Edinburgh/Lanarkshire area. Have there been basic changes since they changed the regiments in that area? That is a fundamental change in traditional recruitment pools. Before you answer that, the Highlanders are based in Midlothian. The tradition referred to earlier of officers trying to recruit in their area is quite difficult if you are based in the lowlands and you are a highland regiment.

  Major General Gregory: I cannot pick up your specific example. What I would say is that in terms of regimental recruiting affiliations to areas are seen as a strength. It promotes identity where applicable, but once again it is done within One Army Recruiting where the only regimental recruiting team still out is the infantry where appropriate.

  Mr Hamilton: I ask that you try to get some information about what measurable changes have taken place since the Royal Regiment joined up. I like to think that has not happened but I would like to see the figures because there are other organisations and parties who argue the opposite.

  Q265  Chairman: Perhaps you would write to us in due course.

  Major General Gregory: I will do my best.[9]

  Q266 Mr Hancock: I want to return to the educational issue. The government now expect that at some stage 50% of young people will go to university or further education. What has that done for you? Has it meant you have had to lower your thresholds educationally, consequentially holding on to recruits who are then recruited and join up and in one way or another fall by the wayside because educationally they are just not up to it, or the challenge is too great to overcome to make them effective servicemen and women?

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I do not think we have seen an effect, but I shall ask my colleagues from the individual Services if they have. We are certainly aware of the challenges that the government's push for more people in higher education will cause the Services. On the other hand, we also see as an opportunity the government's intention on education and training for all those up to the age of 18. I say it is an opportunity because we understand that military training and education for the under-18s is considered to be part of that. Therefore, that is an opportunity for us to enable people to continue their education and lifelong learning at that stage.

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: Perhaps I may pick up the answer to Mr Hancock's question. First, the most notable effect it has had on my Service has been an increase in the average age of entry which obviously has an impact later on career compression and so on. Those are issues that we manage on a day-to-day basis, but you ask for effects and that is one of them. The key point I register is that we have not lowered our educational qualifications or the bar one jot to compensate for this.

  Q267  Mr Hancock: Over what period of time?

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: I am going back over a significant period of time. The last time we altered the academic attributes of an individual group of entrants it was upwards and not downwards, so we have not altered the educational attainment required of people entering our Service in a downward direction. I made the point about having 25,000 accreditations in the Service over the 12-month period. I am really focusing here on the rating rather than officer structure. These span all the way from the Royal Yachting Association up to level 2 apprenticeships. These are heavyweight civilian qualifications. To an extent, therefore, we are responding to the understandable desire for higher education by accrediting more and more of our courses to satisfy that appetite.

  Air Vice Marshal Bryant: I endorse that. We have to embrace this because that is where society and government policy take us. There are two ways of doing it. First, I observe that we are an 80% technical service, so an awful lot of people are not disadvantaged or advantaged by this because we are looking for that type of qualification in the first place. Second, where possible within service along with the learning and skills council—we have figures similar to those for the Royal Navy—we embrace it by incorporating within our courses the ability to get foundation and subsequent degrees as a counter to creeping ageism which does not work well for us. Therefore, that is something that we have to work with but it does not cause a particularly bad effect at the moment.

  Major General Gregory: First, I remind you of the Armed Forces college at Harrogate where each year 1,350 young people go to get educational qualifications. Second, there is a current trial in London and the North West into further education bursaries with the aspiration eventually to have 3,000 people as part of it, getting their educational qualifications and being supported through that and then coming in as more mature but better educated individuals in the Services who are able to fill the roles that we seek of them.

  Q268  Mr Hancock: I am always very impressed when I meet young sailors in the Royal Navy who tell me that the only time they only ever learnt anything was during their period of service in the Royal Navy. Education had either failed them or they had failed education, but they were very grateful for what the Royal Navy offered. I remember talking to five young sailors in one particular ship all of whom had had the same experience. But when you come to talk to people who are about to leave the Service and have been in the recruiting stage but do not make it, how many are unable to cope with the educational requirements once in and they leave because they are not up to it educationally rather than physically?

  Air Vice Marshal Bryant: For the RAF it is a tiny number.

  Major General Gregory: I have figures to show why people are leaving during training. Training wastage is a challenge as you will have identified. Of the 38% we currently lose in training, 16% discharge themselves as of right (DAOR). Exactly how many of those cite the fact that they feel either embarrassed by or unable to cope with the educational qualifications I cannot tell you, and I am not sure we would be able to get that information. We can say when they go but not why they choose to discharge themselves. We have surveys but I am less clear about whether they are prepared to put that down, because it is quite a revealing thing to say about oneself.

  Q269  Mr Hancock: As far as concerns the Army, when we were looking at duty of care Colonel Haes's report stressed the fact that a lot of disciplinary problems were associated with educational level and the ones who were more susceptible to bullying were those who simply did not understand what was expected of them because intellectually they were not up to it. He registered that loud and clear, but nobody seemed to notice it at the time and his report was all but ignored.

  Major General Gregory: My wife has worked in a pupil referring unit dealing with children who have been excluded from schools and so I absolutely understand what you are talking about and the challenges faced by people who perhaps have needs that have not been detected and therefore lose their self-esteem and they face all these problems.

  Q270  Mr Jones: Are you not under-selling yourself a little? Certainly, in our duty of care inquiry we went to Catterick and saw the excellent work that you were doing at Darlington College about basic literacy. Having visited Harrogate, some of those people are really getting a second chance educationally which they would not have got if they had not joined the Armed Forces?

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Yes. Likewise, I visited the infantry training centre and was hugely impressed by the links with Darlington College. For whatever reason, you are quite right that infantry soldiers are being given a second chance. In view of the way they come on through dramatic contextualised learning and training, yes, we are under-selling ourselves on that particular score.

  Q271  Mr Jones: I was also impressed that they spotted things like dyslexia which had not been identified earlier. In terms of the evaluation of that you need to ensure that it is sung from the rooftops because it gives some of those kids chances they would not otherwise have.

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Thank you.

  Chairman: We shall write to ask you various questions about careers advice and things like that, but now I should like to move on to manning balance.

  Q272  Mr Crausby: I begin by asking you to describe what is meant by "manning balance" and then perhaps you can tell us what the latest position is regarding the position for each Service.

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Perhaps I may start before handing over to the individual Services. The manning balance is achieved when our numbers are between minus 2% to plus 1% of that stated in the public sector agreement. I think you are aware that we are not in manning balance as at 1 April. I offer to send a note to the Committee round the end of May when the final quarter's figures are available. They are still being scrubbed through by the analysis agency. We are working on figures up to the third quarter. Before handing over to the Navy perhaps I may say that manpower planning is an inexact process. We are working with gains to the trained strength and retention on one side of the equation and a changing liability on the other. These three factors tend to move independently which makes the problem more difficult. Perhaps the individual Services can enlarge on that and tell us where they are with their particular manning numbers.[10]

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: From the Royal Navy's perspective—you will have seen the figures in the note sent previously—at the moment we are at about minus 4% and so outside manning balance. We expect to close the manning balance in 2009-10 and possibly get into balance briefly before we dip back out of it again in about 2012.

  Air Vice Marshal Bryant: The Air Force figures for the turn of the year show that we are marginally outside manning balance because we have drawn down people as part of our medium-term work strengths down towards the 41,000 target but the posts have lagged behind; they have not been disestablished. It is artificial. In effect, I believe that the note to be provided will tell you that as of 1 April the RAF is in manning balance but it is a transitory position. I believe that we will dip beneath manning balance probably by the end of the year and it will then stabilise and go up by 2010-11. The extent of that dip obviously depends on the recruiting versus retention battleground that we are fighting at the moment.

  Major General Gregory: For me, manning balance will not advance my career. What I am being told to deliver is full manning. There is a step between manning balance and full manning and that is full strength. Full manning is having the right person in the right job fully trained at the right time. That is very difficult to achieve, but what the Army has to reach is full strength. In terms of manning balance we are currently outside it. As you will have seen from the figures, we are about 3.5% down and the balance is minus 2% and plus 1%. We have a range of measures in place to try to get us back up. The modelling suggests that provided things work as we predict—that is a balanced prediction—we should get there around April 2010.

  Q273  Mr Crausby: Can you pinpoint some of the major reasons why the Army and Navy in particular do not achieve manning balance?

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: There are three factors in achieving manpower balance. I totally agree with my Army colleague's comment that this is rather more sophisticated than headline manpower balance issues. One key factor is the requirement—the manpower liability—another is recruiting and the third is retention. As you will have seen from the notes already submitted, we are not achieving our recruiting targets and our voluntary outflow rates are higher than we wish. But another issue is liability reductions. We make balanced decisions on what we see as the future liability requirements of our Service and we make that against a continually changing backdrop of change programmes elsewhere in defence and make assumptions about those in our forward planning. Those assumptions sometimes do not come to fruition and the reductions that we anticipate and plan for do not materialise in the profile we anticipate. That is the reason why just at the moment we are not due to achieve manpower balance as quickly as we would wish.

  Q274  Chairman: I am afraid I did not understand that. You have problems with recruitment, retention and requirements. What assumptions did not come up to scratch?

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: Let us take the examples of the change programmes, the Defence Equipment and Support organisation, the changes in the CINC Fleet headquarters reorganisation or the changes in the head office organisation in London. Those are three big change programmes all of which are forecast to reduce the total number of people that defence requires. As a single Service we provide manpower to those organisations and it is our responsibility at least to plan for the numbers and sorts of people required up to 10 or 15 years in advance. If those programmes do not achieve the forecast savings in the profile in which they are supposed to be achieved then the liability eventually will be higher than that which we were planning for at the time and there will be a mismatch.

  Q275  Chairman: So, the issue is always that your assumptions tend to be more optimistic than reality turns out to be?

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: That has turned out to be the case just recently. Again, one must make a judgment on the balance of risk. If there is one thing that is worse than being in manpower shortage it is being in manpower surplus because then we are spending money on people we do not need. There is a very careful balance of risk judgment here in terms of the assumptions we make about manpower planning for the future.

  Q276  Chairman: So, you are by design optimistic?

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: We have been proved to be optimistic. This is a dynamic. We continually go back and also learn from these programmes in our future planning. We have been optimistic in the past and we now introduce a greater amount of realism into the assumptions we make about the change programmes, but I am sure the Committee understands that this is a difficult and very complex business management process.

  Major General Gregory: There are three factors related to manning balance: liability, inflow and outflow. As to the Army's regular liability, the 101,800 is reasonably static. We have talked quite a lot about inflow in terms of recruiting. We are not meeting our recruiting figures by a little over 10%. The real challenge at the moment is seeing people who come in at the start of phase 1 training and going out at the end of phase 2 training to join the field army where our numbers are down against the numbers we need. As to voluntary outflow, the numbers are broadly static: 4.3% for officers and 5.9% for other ranks, though over the past year we have had trouble ascertaining exactly what the figures are due to problems with some of the computer systems, particularly some of the fields that are not available. In terms of what we are doing to deal with it, we have recruiting, training and retention action plans that look at all the various elements that we consider apposite to target to try to improve these two critical things and get us towards manning balance. In terms of the retention action plan, we have some 70 measures that look at a range of things from the applicability of financial retention incentives—certainly, a measure of last resort but very effective—through to looking at the tempo of activity between operational tours, or what we colloquially term "the stuff in between", to make sure that where possible we reduce the load on soldiers and their families.

  Air Vice Marshal Bryant: We have the same three problems. The reason I anticipate we may go outside the manning balance is because we expect as a result of PR08 uplifting the requirement which was not forecast. With regard to the recruiting challenge as we ramp the Air Force back up we are having difficulty recruiting particularly in specialist pinch points, so I anticipate falling short in those areas. There are some gentle indications that the outflow will exceed those that are in the planning assumptions that had us sitting at that level. Obviously, I am trying to address the last two points and where we bottom out of our draw down to 41,000 will depend on how successful we are in that.

  Q277  Mr Crausby: As to consequences, to what extent does it lead to a vicious cycle of overwork and pressure and dissuade people from joining up? How serious is that?

  Rear Admiral Montgomery: Manning balance is not the issue which really keeps me awake at night. What keeps me awake at night is the issue referred to earlier: the key pinch points where we are short. This is not an issue of manpower balance per se; it is an issue of key pinch points.

  Major General Gregory: I wholeheartedly agree with that. You have seen our list of operational pinch points and manning pinch points. We have specific activities designed to address those key area of shortfall in capability.

  Q278  Mr Crausby: What about the financial implications? Given the stresses on the defence budget as things stand, can the MoD afford to be absolutely up to strength?

  Vice Admiral Wilkinson: We have the resources that are allocated and the manpower picture you have heard. In terms of money to retain and the offer we make to our servicemen and women, the pay rises that the AFPRB recommended to the government last year and this have assisted us in working on the retention side of the equation. A 3.9% pay arise in 2007, a 2.6% pay rise this year plus 1% for the x factor and another .3% for financial retention incentives all help us in trying to balance the numbers. All three Services and me and my colleagues in the MoD centre are working hard not just to try to achieve manning balance but full manning. Manning balance is a helpful step on the way but I think you are getting the flavour that we are not talking here about big numbers but in a high operational tempo about handfuls of people in some instances that are in key operational pinch points who have an impact on capability that is out of proportion to their numbers. They are the key areas that the navy secretary in particular is targeting, and the air secretary and DG personnel will certainly agree with him on that.

  Q279  Mr Jenkin: With respect, I do not think that was quite the question asked. For example, the Army is 3,000 under-recruited. Three thousand extra soldiers would cost a lot of money, but I do not get the sense that that money is knocking around the defence budget unused because the Army is 3,000 under-recruited. Supposing all three Services were on target, where would the money come from to pay that extra wages bill? Is the money there?

  Air Vice Marshal Bryant: The answer is that the money is there in that it is finite and it would have to be redistributed elsewhere. My answer to Mr Crausby's point is that personally I do not believe that particularly in the pinch point areas we can afford not to be fully manned because the effect he spoke about in terms of the downward spiral is a challenge at all points, and it is made worse by the extraordinary things being asked because of the overreach we have through operational stretch against defence planning assumptions. I think we have to target it. At the moment that will cause some shift of resource but from an air force perspective I aim to be at the top end of that manning balance.



9   See Ev 173 Back

10   See Ev 183 Back


 
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