|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 424-iv House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE DEFENCE COMMITTEE
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION IN THE ARMED FORCES
Tuesday 20 May 2008 DEREK TWIGG MP and VICE ADMIRAL PETER WILKINSON CVO Evidence heard in Public Questions 333 - 434
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Defence Committee on Tuesday 20 May 2008 Members present Mr James Arbuthnot, in the Chair Mr David S Borrow Mr David Crausby Linda Gilroy Mr Mike Hancock Mr Adam Holloway Mr Bernard Jenkin Mr Kevan Jones Richard Younger-Ross ________________ Memoranda submitted by Ministry of Defence
Witnesses: Derek Twigg MP, Under Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans, and Vice Admiral Peter Wilkinson CVO, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel), gave evidence. Q333 Chairman: Good morning. This is the final session in our recruitment and retention inquiry and, Minister and Admiral Wilkinson, you are both extremely welcome to the inquiry. In one particular respect we would be grateful if you could help us because we have, during the course of this inquiry, as we have on the Education of Service Children Inquiry and as we did on the Medical Services Inquiry, been running a web forum and we have been getting some interesting, quite trenchant views from existing and former members of the Armed Forces. It is always helpful for a select committee such as ourselves to get that sort of information which points us in various directions. However, we have heard today that when people have been in contact with the Ministry of Defence to ask whether they should submit posts on to our web forum they have been discouraged from doing so. I am absolutely sure that this would not come from you, Minister, or from you, Admiral Wilkinson, that it would not come from the top, but it is coming from the Ministry of Defence and it is most dismaying to us that our parliamentary scrutiny of a very important issue for the future of the Armed Forces is being subverted at a middle level, probably, within the Ministry of Defence. I wonder whether (a) you would like to comment and (b) whether you might like to take that away with you and see what can be done, not particularly for this inquiry, because we are getting some good posts on our web forum, but for future web forums, future inquiries, it is very disturbing that parliamentary scrutiny should be undermined. Our scrutiny, we regard, as very helpful to the Ministry of Defence and the defence of the country. I wonder, Minister, whether you would like to respond? Derek Twigg: Can I, first of all, say to you, neither myself nor Admiral Wilkinson have issued any such instructions, neither have ministers or senior military or civil servants, to my knowledge, and I am, quite frankly, shocked to hear that. I condemn any such instruction that was taken out, and I give you absolute assurance that, after we finish this session, I will ask for that to be investigated very promptly and I will get back in touch with you as soon as possible thereafter. We very much want to encourage our people to have this contact with you. As you rightly say, it enables a good discussion and ideas to be passed through, whether critical or not, from the department and, as you know from the health investigation you did, that worked pretty well. I am really dismayed to hear that and I can give you absolute assurance that it has not come from me and I will investigate it as soon as we finish this session. Chairman: I would have expected no less. Q334 Mr Jenkin: This is potentially a breach of Parliamentary privilege. It is a very serious thing to interfere with an investigation by a select committee, and I think, Chairman, we should resolve to write to the Speaker if we find any subsequent evidence that our inquiries are being interfered with. Derek Twigg: If you have evidence, then we will look into it. It is for the House and the Speaker to deal with that, but we would never give instructions to interfere with a parliamentary process. Q335 Mr Jenkin: I accept that. Derek Twigg: I feel, if anything, my style is one of openness and, as you know from the co-operation you have received from us in terms of visits and accessibility of people, I think you would be surprised if it was otherwise the case. Q336 Chairman: I want to move on. Minister, this is an inquiry into recruitment and retention, a perennial problem; in fact so perennial that the Defence Committee went into the same sorts of thing in 2001. Obviously, the Ministry of Defence has been putting a great deal of effort into trying to resolve some of the many problems that have arisen since then. How would you say the Ministry of Defence was doing? Derek Twigg: I would say, first of all, we have still got more to do and we still, obviously, have challenges and problems particularly around retention. I think you will see from the figures we have provided that we have made significant strides in terms of recruitment. If you look at it in this context (and I put it to you in this way), given the current economic climate, in terms of the employment opportunities out there, depending on your point of view, in terms of the war with Iraq and Afghan and the amount of work that is obviously entailing for our people, and given the constant criticisms of the MoD and the Government in terms of what it is and is not doing to support our Armed Forces, I think it is quite a good performance, quite frankly, in that climate, not only the demands for recruitment that we have actually been able to do but also in terms of retention: because if you look at the figures again, and we have provided these to you, it is broadly stable. There are obviously pinch point grades where there are issues around retaining people, which, again, we have provided you with information in terms of what we are doing. To sum up, because I know you want to ask questions, we have more to do, but I think it is a good performance given the conditions I have just outlined to you. Q337 Chairman: What would you say were the main problems remaining? Derek Twigg: Retention, I think, is our key area - because of what we term "pinch point grades" we are losing people at a higher rate than we want to - and we need to do more work. I can talk about the financial retention initiatives, I can talk about the pay and the Armed Forces Review Board in terms of the best public sector pay rise, I think, last year, another good pay rise this year, increasing the x-factor, an increase for the most junior soldiers and service personnel last year of over 9 per cent, and I think more is happening, and we have to work these things through. I think all things around, for instance, welfare support, including housing conditions, general support for families - all these thing we are working on. I think that is where we have a number of issues at the moment but, having said that, we also, as you know, have got to reduce wastage in terms of recruitment as well because that is where you get just under 40 per cent for infantry at the moment. I think there are at least two areas there, but there are others which I am happy to explore further, if you want, which strike me straightaway as being a priority for us. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: May I support what the Minister has said, but particularly the point on operational pinch points. We have talked about it before, Sir, but the small operationally important cadres of trained soldiers, sailors and airmen who have a disproportionate effect on those operations that we are undergoing at the moment but, because of the tempo of operations, they are the ones that we probably need to pay more attention to than some other groups, and, I think, as the Minister says, in a whole range activities, not necessarily just for the servicemen themselves but for their families and the support we give them, and then we can start making real inroads into improving retention. Q338 Chairman: The Vice Chairman is just about to ask some questions about those areas, and obviously it is very important. This inquiry is into recruitment and retention. Are the difficulties and the issues involved in relation to recruitment similar to, or linked with, the difficulties and the issues involved in relation to retention and, if there are any links, are your policies for dealing with those linked or are they wholly separate issues? Derek Twigg: I would not say there is absolutely no link, but I think there are distinct issues in terms particularly of retention, and the operational tempo is literally the opportunity to get jobs outside, in industry, with the skills that they develop, et cetera, the need to improve housing, which has come through the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, making sure that people are able to access services on a regular basis. In terms of recruitment, I think that is different in the sense that some people will join because of the operations that they are currently undertaking, some people might not do. In terms of the pay and conditions, we have not seen that as a major problem, as far as I can see, in recruiting people at the moment because we have made the improvements in the last couple of years. So, while I would not say there is no connection, I think our approach to that, particularly with the priority being for retention in terms of the number of initiatives being taken, is something which will bear fruit but more work needs to be done. Having said that, once we get people in, of course, once we retain them---. It is a life-long process is what I am probably trying to say. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: For recruiting specifically, we are aware that over a time period of decades our footprint across the nation has been receding, and your committee has heard before, Sir, about the various outreach awareness and marketing activities that all three services undertake to counter that, and it has to be said how grateful the services are to the work done by Mr Davis and his report that was published yesterday on the national recognition for our Armed Forces. We welcome that and the enhanced visibility that it gives to the services. Mr Jones: Can I ask you how the marketing is actually done? You can throw a lot of money at marketing and get very little return. Whose bright idea was it in the RAF, for example, to give away condoms as a recruitment tool? Q339 Chairman: Minister, you twitched there. Was it yours? Derek Twigg: It was not my idea. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Nor mine. Q340 Mr Jones: On a serious point though, you can waste a lot of money and marketeers will actually come up with daft ideas like that. Derek Twigg: Obviously I understand the point you are making, but in terms of the whole issue of recruitment, there is a degree of innovation that you might disagree with, but in terms of the innovation that we need and the ideas in terms of getting to the new generation that we are recruiting today, there is lots of thinking that needs to take place about how we best reach people and get to people and encourage them to join. There may be disagreements in terms of how we approach that, but the key thing is there is no one, single approach which I think would solve all the problems. We have to examine a lot of areas. As I say, I understand the point you are making, but I think we should not get side-tracked from all the good work that has been put in place, the innovations taking place on recruitment and the PR angle of that. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I think all three recruiting arms for the services actually use quite sophisticated marketing techniques, acknowledging that some of them may not produce the best effect. One of the recent Royal Marine's campaigns, which suggested that 99.9 per cent need not apply, actually was one of the most successful because, for the type of person that the Royal Marines were trying to recruit, this appealed to their machismo, to their ego and to their sense of wanting to prove they could do it. So counter-intuitive it might have been, but actually it worked. Q341 Chairman: Minister, this is a question really for you. You are responsible for recruitment, basic training, pay, things like that. Bob Ainsworth is responsible for readiness, personnel issues, training, reputation, things like that. How do you co-ordinate your approach between the two ministers? Do you find there is overlap or confusion? Derek Twigg: First of all, the changes are relatively new in terms of responsibilities, they were a few months ago, but actually we meet on a fairly regular basis, usually on a weekly basis, to go through lots of issues, of which these are one. So there is quite at lot of contact between the two of us and we work closely together. I think, specifically since we made the changes in terms of responsibility, that was the intention the Secretary of State wanted, for the two ministers to work closely together on these range of issues, and that includes accommodation as well. It is not just the areas you have mentioned; there is a range of areas where we are working together. I think, to be frank, it has been working very well. It is early days yet, but we do have a lot of co-ordination. Q342 Mr Crausby: The Spring Performance Report tells us that we will not meet target three. In effect, the MoD are saying that we will not be entirely ready to respond to the tasks that might arise. I know there has been a lot of talk about pinch points, but what are we doing about that? The Royal Navy, for lieutenant Harrier pilots short-fall 51 per cent, but instructors short-fall 57 per cent at the same time that the RAF have a surplus of some pilots. What, effectively, are we urgently doing to ensure that we deal with these short-falls? Derek Twigg: First of all, we are making sure that in terms of the leadership and organisation in services and across services, as you know, in terms of rotary wing pilots, in terms of medical care, where we have very much a tri-service approach, we are working together to deal with any particular difficulties around any particular service in terms of meeting the overall obligations and our objectives. I think there is a lot closer co-operation in recent years than has been previously, and I think the tri-service approach, the working between the three services, is very much improved. I also think that the various initiatives we are taking in terms of the financial retention initiatives, for which it is early days yet in terms of quite a few of them, are having a beneficial effect, and we have provided you with some figures on that, but, of course, as I say, it is pretty early on at the moment. Also issues around accommodation, where we are making improvements, the healthcare, which I think this committee recognises is world-class, the welfare improvement, support around decompression issues and mental health - there is a whole range of things. Improved equipment in regard to operations like UD, and people tell me it is the best equipment that they have had. It is not just one particular thing we are using to deal with this; it is a whole range of measures. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Sir, at the operational level units the such as Joint Force Harrier and the Joint Helicopter Command are testament to the fact that the Services have realised that they can make the sum greater than the parts. Those two units, in particular Joint Force Harrier, have been heavily involved in operations in Afghanistan recently using personnel from all three services to best effect. Q343 Mr Crausby: Even Objective I in the report - to achieve success in the military tasks that we undertake both at home and abroad - is on course with some risk. There will be some risk, will there not, if we continue not to generate enough forces as quickly as we are losing people? At what point do we panic on all of this and have to completely review our overall strategy? Derek Twigg: You will know as well from your visits and the other investigations you have done, actually we are achieving a massive amount, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but elsewhere, and obviously much of that has got to be down to the amazing professionalism and encouraging sacrifice of our people: their leadership skill that is taking place, the organisation, the new ways of working - I talked before about Joint Harrier and Joint Rotary Wing - all these things that are happening. If we sat here and said we had not got any answers, then I could understand we could get to the point where you are suggesting we could get to where there is panic and we cannot do this actually. We do not believe that is the case. We believe the improvements we are making across the piece will provide us with sufficient people to deliver what our aims and objectives are, but we are not complacent about it. It is difficult, it is challenging, we are asking our people to do an awful lot, but we are not at the stage where we think we will be in a panic mode in six or 12 months' time or anything like that. Q344 Mr Jenkin: Minister, this performance report is pretty devastating. It shows that nearly half the force elements are reporting critical or serious weaknesses against their peace-time readiness levels and their ability to generate from peace-time readiness to immediate readiness or deployment in operations. Is this not what the Ministry of Defence is meant to do, to have military forces ready to deploy? Nearly half of those forces are incapable of doing that. Is that not pretty devastating? Derek Twigg: If that is the way you read it, but actually what we are saying very clearly is that we are meeting our requirements, we are meeting our objectives. Q345 Mr Jenkin: But you are not. Derek Twigg: Let us be clear, in Iraq and Afghanistan we clearly are. We have just deployed some people to Kosovo. We are managing the situation in which ministers have said clearly we are asking a lot of our Armed Force personnel to deliver the objectives and commitments that we said we would deliver. Of course there are stresses and areas where we have got to improve and find additional resources and improve equipment, which we have been doing continually in terms of uplifts and helicopters, in terms of armoured vehicles, so an awful lot is happening. In terms of people, the reason you are having this investigation, obviously, is to look into what we are not doing, and what we are not doing is a lot of initiatives, not just in terms of financial retention initiatives, in terms of recruitment but also across the piece in terms of welfare, medical care, accommodation. We recognise it is an holistic approach to this, and I do not accept your suggestion that we are in a situation where we are about to fail or cannot meet our obligations. Q346 Mr Jenkin: The real problem is for a long time, as the report says, you have been operating above your defence planning assumptions, and this is set to go on. In the National Security Strategy we were told we were going to be entering on period of reduced commitments. Since then we have cancelled the drawdown from Iraq, we have deployed an extra battalion to Afghanistan, we are deploying a battalion to Kosovo and goodness knows what else is going to arise. Is not the problem that the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury have consistently underestimated the demands on the Armed Forces, and the recruitment problem you are having both fails to feed the Armed Forces with the personnel they need at the rate they need them but, also, the pace of operations is deterring people from staying on and adding to the difficulty? Derek Twigg: I think the difficulty I have with your argument is that you can try and predict the pace of operations absolutely accurately and that nothing will change and there will be no issues that arise; it just does not stand up, in my view. There will be always be situations where we have got to react. Q347 Mr Jenkin: So the National Security Strategy is wrong? Derek Twigg: No. Let me just finish. We will always be in a position like that. What we have is an amazingly competent and, I think, the best Armed Forces in the world, who have been able to react to these changing situations, albeit we are asking an awful lot of them. We have got the leadership in place, we have got the programmes in place to improve things like equipment and the whole range of facilities which I mentioned to you previously. It is not that we are sitting here as ministers saying, "Just get on with it"; we have got a range of initiatives we are taking to try and move this forward. In terms of coming back to your point about recruitment and retention, which is the specific reason for this inquiry here today, as I have set out briefly, there is a whole range of initiatives we are taking. Q348 Mr Holloway: Minister, you said to Mr Jenkin there he is assuming you can predict how things are going to work, but in a few weeks' time the TA Unit is going to deploy, who are going to work outside the bases, they are going with snatch vehicles, they are going with only one or two people having night-vision equipment, they have no aerial weapons, they have no money at all for quips. The MoD has known that this particular unit will be going for well over a year. What do you say to the guy in that unit who says to me, "Because we have not got the right equipment, we are going to come back with less arms and legs attached"? Derek Twigg: Mr Holloway, I think even you would recognise that we have made great strides in the last year or two in terms of improving equipment for our people, whether it is for our regulars or reservists. I was only talking to quite a number of reservists last week and they were saying to me how they had seen the improvement in equipment and support that they had had as well. Out in theatre, as you will know again from your background and visits, there are significant improvements. We are not sending people out there under-equipped and not with the facilities that they need. Q349 Mr Holloway: Minister, I totally accept that, but the fact remains, it is pretty extraordinary that a unit that you guys have known is going to be going there for well over a year is having to fill in a form to try and borrow GPMGs from TA units. It is staggering. If troop commanders are making emergency requisitions, there is something wrong, is there not? Derek Twigg: The key thing is we are not sending our people into theatre without the right equipment. Q350 Mr Holloway: You are. Derek Twigg: We are not. Q351 Mr Holloway: They think you are, and that is what matters in terms of this inquiry. Derek Twigg: We are making sure our people are fully equipped, and that is the message I get all the time when I have been in theatre myself or when I talk to the brigades when they come back into this country after a tour. They all say to me it is the best equipment that they have ever had. I was only in Basra five or six weeks ago. Q352 Mr Holloway: But that is a completely different point; whether the equipment they have got is the best equipment they have ever had or whether or not the equipment they have at the moment is actually what they need to do the job. Derek Twigg: That is exactly what they say as well. The equipment they have got is what they need to do the job. As I say, I was in Basra five or six weeks ago and that was the clear message I got from our people out there, both the Army and the RAF. Q353 Chairman: I think, Minister, that is the message that we have had. When we have been to Iraq and when we have been to Afghanistan, they say they have never had such good personal equipment, but I think we should acknowledge that. Am I right in thinking that you said that we were meeting our objectives? Derek Twigg: Yes, we are meeting our objectives in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan. Q354 Chairman: One of the objectives is to be ready to respond to the tasks that might arise. We are not meeting that target, are we? Derek Twigg: In the context that we are asking our people to do what has been set for them so far, they are achieving that. Obviously there is a limit to what we can do in terms of the people and resources we have available. In terms of what we are asking our people to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are meeting that. In terms of additional tasks over and over that, there is obviously a limit to what we can do. Q355 Chairman: We are not ready to respond to the tasks that might arise, are we? Derek Twigg: It depends what those tasks may be. We are obviously at a stage where our people are doing an awful lot. They do not have a lot of additional resources to respond to a greater degree. Q356 Chairman: No. Minister, in the last few days, the Secretary of State has issued a paper saying that we are not ready to respond to the tasks that might arise? Derek Twigg: The point I am trying to make is that what we are asking our people currently to do, they can. That is the point I am making. Q357 Mr Crausby: The point that we are trying to make is that the report says we will not generate forces which can be deployed, sustained and recovered at the scales of effort required to meet the Government's strategic objective. It is a pretty clear statement, and the MoD said that that target will not be met. Derek Twigg: What I am trying to say is that what we currently ask our people to do, we are meeting. Q358 Mr Crausby: I think we all accept that. Derek Twigg: In terms of what they may be asked in the future, I cannot predict what that will be. Q359 Mr Crausby: We all accept, I think, that Objective I the MoD argue is on course with some risk, but as far as Objective II is concerned, the MoD clearly say, "We will not meet our objective." What we are urgently asking is what urgent action are we going to take? Derek Twigg: I was trying to explain, in terms of the wholesale initiatives we are taking in terms of recruitment, in terms of the retention initiatives, the equipment improvement, all that is taking place, and, as I say, it will have, and is having, an impact. Some of it is pretty early in terms of initiatives and what the final impact of that will be, and, of course, we have learned lessons from the initiatives we have taken and we are going to continue to do that. Q360 Chairman: Are you concerned that we are not now ready to meet the tasks that might arise? Derek Twigg: It is always the case. If we have tasks that we need to meet, of course I would be concerned if we cannot meet them. In terms of what tasks they will be, we could have a discussion about that, but what I am very clear about is the tasks we are asking our people currently to meet we are meeting, and, of course, we need to further improve recruitment and meet our targets in order to be able to meet these tasks, and that is exactly what we are about in terms of our strategy for improving recruitment and retention, improving equipment and improving the range of welfare and other support to maintain the numbers of people within our Armed Forces to meet those additional tasks whenever they may arise. Chairman: I think we ought to move on. Q361 Mr Jenkin: Have you got the money to do all that? Derek Twigg: With respect, Mr Jenkin, I am not going to predict what the final outcome of POOA is at this stage. We will make a statement on that, but, as you know, we have had significant amounts of money from the Treasury to fund UORs and equipment and we have the money to recruit people that we need in the Armed Forces at the moment. Q362 Linda Gilroy: I want to ask some questions on pay and conditions. The Armed Forces have harmonised pay and conditions but they have not all been brought exactly into line, and we have heard that these inconsistencies are causing friction and discord. Can you set out for the committee what these differences are, how they might be better aligned and what plans you have for bringing that about? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Shall I lead on that one? Certainly the interaction of JPA (Joint Personal Administration System) has helped us enormously here, and we are now, indeed, paying all our servicemen on the same computer system, the same administration system, and, indeed, we are administering them in terms of some of their personnel, their HR performances on that system. There is much more to do though. We are not yet really joint in the way we have achieved that. To bring the system in on time we had to limit some of its functionality, and we are now working hard to reintroduce that so the system gives us the benefits that are waiting to be taken there; but as to specific differences in pay, I think you will have to give me the examples. Q363 Linda Gilroy: I think that the introduction of the JPA, while it is solving some problems, is perhaps, hopefully temporarily, creating other problems. The sort of evidence we have had includes that from Dawn McCafferty when she was serving in the RAF and had responsibility for working on a project to harmonise and simplify, and, of course, she is now involved in the Families Federation. She tells us that there are issues which just "grate" - in her words - "I am sure things could be done to try and soften the edges of that to take away any irritant." Also, looking at the web forum, we have got very specifically there, "The Pay 2000 has narrowed the pay gap between trades to the extent that the technical grades feel undervalued and, unsurprisingly, are leaving in droves". That sounds like quite an important issue. There is disparity between the services in similar jobs in respect of rank, pay and promotion time and there is disparity between the services in similar jobs in respect of rank, pay promotion and promotion time. This person particularly asks why, for example, is a high pay band RAF flight sergeant on the same pay scale as an Army or RN WO2, yet the WO2 gets an OR8 pension and the flight sergeant gets an OR7 pension? One can see that there have been positive moves. It sounds as if there are some quite significant differences which are bound to cause tensions between people doing similar levels, perhaps sometimes more senior levels, more responsible levels of job getting lesser pay and conditions? Derek Twigg: Others will, obviously, come and correct me if I am wrong, but, first of all, the obvious fact is that is true. There are obviously a number of differences in pay, particularly amongst the Services and also within the Services. You made one point there about the RAF, the technical people, and of course that is a problem. I think anyone who has spoken to them will get that view, but I think the way the signal services have grown up and developed their own systems and also with the changes that have taken place over recent years, I think they are there, but it is not that we are just sitting back and saying we will never look at that. I think the Armed Forces Pay Review Board will need to examine some of these things as well, but, you are right, it is a fact. Some of them we will probably be able to deal with, but at this stage I would not like to give the committee an absolute assurance that we are going to solve the whole problem overnight. There are, I accept, differences and there is unhappiness amongst some people about this. Q364 Linda Gilroy: Would you be willing to go a stage further and say that you would ask the Armed Forces Pay Review Board to look at that: because if it is true that people are leaving in droves in trades which pinch point, surely that is something that merits some very serious consideration? Derek Twigg: Yes. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Perhaps I could take over and say, certainly it came out of our discussions with the pay review body this year, and will certainly feature as my colleagues and I begin to discuss next year's pay round, how we can continue to tidy up and remove these irritants that you have spotted, certainly that emerged from Pay 2000. Again, we are making considerable progress there, and perhaps for my own service the introduction of the Warrant Officer Two rank that did not exist a few years ago is an example of how we have moved to try to align the three services. We are well aware as we fight and live and work far more together than we ever did actually that, if we wish people to concentrate on achieving operational success, then we do not want them to be distracted by whether the sergeant, the petty officer or the flight sergeant sitting next to them is getting more or less pay than they are. Chairman: Before you move off that subject, Richard Younger-Ross. Q365 Richard Younger-Ross: How many service personnel were paid late last year? Derek Twigg: I am sorry; I cannot give you that answer. We will have to write to the committee. We did answer a PQ last year, I think, which would give that detail. I just cannot off the top of my head think what it would be. Q366 Richard Younger-Ross: I cannot remember the exact figure, but it was ten times the year before, which was higher than the year before? Derek Twigg: We could get into the JPA, but, clearly, in terms of the transfer across to JPA we had major problems with the RAF when they first went on it, maybe less with the Army where it works better, but, clearly, in terms of education of using the system, and the people who are providing information to the system as well, there have been issues and we are looking at that and examining the training and the time. As a result of that, there have been a number of instances of late information being put into the system. One of the biggest causes of that figure of over payments was, I think, a Navy error which was around a £10 charitable--- Q367 Richard Younger-Ross: Three pounds. Derek Twigg: Three pounds, yes, but in terms of late payments, we do not have those figures. Q368 Richard Younger-Ross: The figure has been increasing. My belief is that it is liable to increase yet again this year. The question really is what are you able to do for those people who are paid late, because if you are paid late you may very well get bank charges and other charges. Are you able to compensate someone who has been paid late for their additional charges: because they are not going to be very happy, they are going to be very unhappy if they end up with charges and costs, and that is not going encourage them to remain in the service. Derek Twigg: Again, someone will correct me about that if I am wrong, but we do have a system where we do advances of salary, in terms of being able to pay people, when they do not get paid by the system, manually, and in the case of any cost they incur we do reimburse them. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I believe that is correct. I think, Sir, it is one of the interesting paradoxes of JPA that actually we have increased the visibility of understanding to a large extent the payment process, and it refers back to the point the Minister made that he has commissioned a short review on training both of HR administrators and of people before they start using the JPA system to make sure they fully understand it, but actually, although we do not wish pay to be an issue, we have raised its visibility and some of the inaccuracies and some of the difficulties that have always been in existence have now come to the fore more so than they did under the old Legacy pay system. Q369 Richard Younger-Ross: Would you write to us and give us the detail of that? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Yes. Mr Holloway: While I have some sympathy, and I do not for a minute doubt the good faith of the ministers in the MoD at all on this, in the context of retention and recruitment is it not ultimately a question of commitments as against resources and at some point we have to accept that, if we are going to keep the military as it is, we have probably got to increase the numbers? Does the Minister feel that the Treasury understands defence, in the words of General Guthrie, because I am not sure that it does? Q370 Chairman: By the way, you do not have to talk in the third person. Derek Twigg: I think this it is all a myth that the Treasury does not understand. Certainly when you were last in government, the Conservatives--- Q371 Mr Holloway: We were at war in two different places. Derek Twigg: I can go back over various conflicts, if you want, and we could have a similar argument, the fact is that the Treasury never understood the departments, and no doubt Mr Arbuthnot had similar discussions when he was sitting, albeit in a much higher and esteemed position than me, in the Ministry of Defence. They had similar issues. You only have to look in terms of what the Treasury is providing in terms of the operational requirements contingency fund, the massive improvements that have taken place in equipment, the pay awards we have been able to give. I just do not recognise that point; that the Treasury do not understand. There has always been this tension, not just within the Ministry of Defence but in government departments--- Q372 Mr Holloway: But do you recognise the point that we probably do not have enough people to do what we are trying to do at the moment? Derek Twigg: With the people we have got, we are able to meet our current obligations in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of what we are asking our people to do, we can meet that. They are working tremendously hard doing an amazing job to do that: adaptability and flexibility is second to none. We do, of course, recognise we have got to recruit more people. We do recognise, of course, that we have got to retain more. The answer to your question is that we need more people, and that is why we are taking the initiatives we are taking. Q373 Linda Gilroy: We need to keep the people that we have got-- Derek Twigg: Absolutely. Q374 Linda Gilroy: ---and make the best possible use of them, especially if they want to stay, and the conditions can be arranged which continue to attract them. Could you make better use of transfers between and within services? We have heard that they can be quite complicated, even between cap badges, never mind between the services themselves. If you simplified the process, would you have another way of managing? Are you maximising the way in which you are managing that in order to keep manpower levels where we want them to be? Derek Twigg: Actually, if you do not mind me being candid, I was quite surprised that this point came up because, like you, I visit many bases and barracks all round the world and talk to hundreds of service personnel and I think I recall once or twice with me, and in fact at one of the pass-out parades in the RAF, they had had two people who had transferred from the Army into the RAF at that particular time; so I do not think we clocked it, to be quite honest, as being a major problem. I am not saying it is not a problem with some people. I did some figures on this. I think in 2007/2008 there were about 858 transfers. The next question will be: that is how many out of how many applications? We do not have that information directly to hand, unfortunately, to be able to give you. I am trying to find that out. Are we in favour of that? Yes. Do we want to allow that to happen? Yes, we are having to encourage it, but it has got to be based on operational requirements, whether the people have the sufficient skills and background ability to transfer into different jobs, of course, depending on the particular pressures at that time. We have no problem with it in principle, we are happy to support it, but it has got be based on operational needs and also their ability to do the job they are asking to transfer to, and, of course, whether we have a particular issue in their grade in that particular part of the service Q375 Linda Gilroy: You are saying that from being sat in the MoD main building, but when, again, you read some of the contributions we have had - this is from one: "It is theoretically very easy to switch between cap badges, assuming one meets the criteria. You just complete the transfer paperwork and then wait, for a very long time indeed in some cases, and paper work gets lost." A transfer between services is a great deal harder. It does not happen that often. You have quoted some figures actually in the written submission you have give to us that show that it does happen, but is this happening in a way that keeps people in post? This person also says, "I would be willing to stay quite happily to my 55-year point if the RAF could offer me anything like an interesting and valued job. There is just no way to find out if such jobs exist", and another point that is raised is that, if you do transfer between services, it is often accompanied by a change in pension rights because you have to resign and apply again. You wonder whether there is a difference between your attitude towards this in the main building and whether, when people are faced with the actual practicalities of it with their senior officers, with the chain of command, that there is a different attitude there that does not actually appreciate the overall benefit there may be to manpower retention and whether you actually have to try and do more to achieve a culture change which brings that about. Derek Twigg: I think you make a very important point, particularly around the area of retention. Serving personnel write to me on all sorts of issues, but I have had very little on this. Hand on heart. can I say it is working as well as it can? No, I cannot. I have said to the committee that I can go away and do some more work on that to see whether we can actually bottom out and maximise that. Q376 Chairman: That would be helpful. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: May I just add, Chairman, I am slightly surprised by the tone of the submissions you are getting, certainly about the Army. The Army, to my way of thinking, are very committed to cap badge transfer. Every division holds a transfer fair twice a year. The Army in Germany holds a transfer fair twice a year. All three services understand it is far better to keep someone in the service and to transfer them so that they will be content rather than leave, if at all possible. So, I am slightly surprised. Q377 Linda Gilroy: The quotation I gave was actually from somebody serving in the RAF. In your written Submission, I think it was, you do tell us about these transfer fairs, but even there 550 successful transfers, 426 rejected and 511 withdrawn. So there is almost double the amount not succeeding, and you do wonder whether that is because people start the process and it is not that it is not happening, it is not that there is not a policy that you have at your level--- Derek Twigg: No. Q378 Linda Gilroy: ---but maximising it is clearly something that could have a role to play in the retention issue, particularly, by the sound of it, in some of the trade issues, perhaps even some of the pinch point trade issues. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: There is often, in my experience, a feeling that the grass is greener on the other side and, therefore, a lot of people, both officers and other ranks, do look during their time in the service at another branch or another trade or career to see if that would be of interest. I am not saying that that is where some of these numbers come from, but certainly, as you know, the recruiting process will do its best to match people's talents, skills and abilities to the right trade or branch. It may well be they get that right and actually some of these transfers are a little more than wishful thinking. Linda Gilroy: I am sure, being realistic, that must be an element. I think our point to you is are you doing enough to maximise this as a method of retention, and I think perhaps it is something that you have acknowledged. Q379 Chairman: You have said you would look at it again. Derek Twigg: Yes. That does not apply to ministers, of course. Q380 Linda Gilroy: There are particular points relating to retirement age. Again, in your written submissions you obviously acknowledge that consideration to raising the retirement age perhaps has a role to play and gives us some indications of what is happening in each of the Armed Services. You say it will remain under scrutiny for both officers in the Navy on full-time commissions and other ranks on second open engagements to increase one or both to a retirement age of 55. In the Army you are talking about the compulsory retirement age for officers commissioning into the Army no longer 55, but 60, and for soldiers the versatile engagement which has been introduced means that some can kept on beyond the age of 55, even as far as an upper age limit of 65. In the RAF continuance beyond 55 is offered on a case by case basis, relating, of course, to service issues, out of service dates for aircraft, et cetera. It is all a bit of a mish-mash as far as the different ages are concerned. Are there specific reasons for that which I have not been able to spot? Derek Twigg: Obviously, there is a degree of autonomy that single Services have in terms of their manning and recruitment; historically it has been that way. In terms of the Ministry of Defence, we are keen to examine initiatives around this. You have seen specifically what the Army does. Our view is that you should not explore this further and look to what should be done because there are lots of issues around it, things that we have exposed here today in terms of how each Service might be affected in terms of career development, promotion opportunities, whether people of that age are appropriate for any particular types of job that might become available, whether there is the right turnover in people. There are a number of areas which need to be taken into account in terms of establishing a distinct policy saying, "Yes, you will be allowed to continue until you are 65 or 60". I do not think it is an exact science. Q381 Linda Gilroy: But there are some equality issues there, although I believe I am right in saying that the Armed Services are exempt from European Union legal requirements on that. Would you, Minister, acknowledge that, whether you are exempt or not, if that too is giving rise to irritations and tensions and people feeling under-valued it is something that you should be looking at as an equality issue apart from a straightforward recruitment and retention issue? Is this something that again we can ask you to look at to see that you are maximising the kind of culture that you want to achieve in valuing the Armed Services, that there are not rules and regulations in the different Armed Services which rub up against each other and cause problems? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I think we have come a considerable way on this over the years, where they were absolutely categorical that at the age of 40, if you were another rank, you got thrown out, at the age of 55 as a senior officer you got thrown out, and we were losing a lot of talent. If it looks rather disjointed and unco-ordinated, as you lay it out, Ms Gilroy, then certainly we will look to see if we can make it more co-ordinated. It has been done very much thus far on a case-by-case basis and let us be in no doubt that at the operational end it is still very much a young person's business. It is physically tiring. Being in a ship at sea in an operational unit at the age of 40-plus is exhausting, so we are talking here, I think, in very small numbers in headquarters or administrative posts rather than the ability to plug big gaps in operational front-line units, but certainly we will look to see if we can be better co-ordinated. Chairman: We will almost certainly include something in our report about this. Linda Gilroy: Before we move on, Chairman, could I on an officer issue particularly highlight what can happen in terms of recruitment and retention? The retirement age for Royal Marines is 50, for the Royal Navy I think it is 53 going on 55 because there is some alignment going on over quite a long timescale, and for the Army it is 55. If they are all competing inter-Service for promotion then by the time you get to your early to mid forties you are beginning to think about exit. If you want to go on and have a successful career the only way is out, basically, whereas if you are in the RAF and the Royal Navy you have an extra three to five years. Apart from the equality issues that are there, that must mean that we are losing really good people from the Royal Marines, which is just ridiculous because of what they are contributing. Q382 Chairman: Perhaps you could consider that too. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: We will. Q383 Mr Holloway: This is for Vice Admiral Wilkinson. When I did my pathetic bit of military service and one of the top brass over there did a huge amount of military service the expectation of lots of bang-bang was really very small. Today it is completely different. We have kids that are now firing 10,000 rounds in a day, we have this incredible work regime for the Apache crews and so on, and you have got people not just being there but with build-up training and lack of time for their families and probably the feeling that you have been absolutely terrified and you have done lots and lots of fighting and you kind of do not need to do it any more. Does that not point to, in certain types of units, particularly the infantry and perhaps the engineers now and certainly the Apaches, the fact that we need to not just pay certain skills more but we also need more people if we are going to match commitments with resources? Derek Twigg: That is a really important point. This is one of the things I discuss with soldiers and airmen and sailors in terms of their commitments. There are all the issues here about Harmony, about the manning, the work they are doing and all that in terms of the number of times people go on operations and how all that affects them, but you are right: what do you say to the married soldier who has been two or three times to Afghanistan, has been in all sorts of hard fighting and thinks, "I have done it now. I do not want any more of this. I have done what I joined up for"? That is a difficult question to answer and I do not think there is one answer to that problem. It is a range of issues in terms of the amount of times they go out, the Harmony guidelines, the support they get back home, the welfare for their family, the accommodation. All these things come together. You will never stop someone who feels at the end of the day, "I have done that. I want to move on and do something else". On the other hand, as you know from your experience, there are other people who want to go out there and do it on a number of occasions and people have stayed in for that reason, so there is a mix of reasons for that. What I am trying to come round to is that I do not think there is one answer to that; it is a mix of the whole debate we have already been having today but there is no doubt, as you rightly point out, that some of the things we are asking our people to do are extremely demanding. Q384 Mr Holloway: But does the Admiral think that in those sorts of areas we need to have more people? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: We do the best we can with the resources we have, sir, at the moment. Mr Holloway: Forgive me, but that is a politician's answer. Do we need more people? Q385 Chairman: The Minister has agreed that we need more people. Derek Twigg: In terms of the fact that here we are talking about recruitment and retention and do we need more people, we do need more people; that is why we need to recruit and retain more people, because we are not at manning balance at the moment, so we accept that. Q386 Chairman: I think we have covered that. Derek Twigg: Whether you want to increase it over and above what our current target is another issue, of course. Q387 Mr Jones: Can I turn to Service welfare now? There are a large number of organisations - I have just counted what we have here, I think it is 33, and there are perhaps more - but we are still being told that there are gaps in welfare. What are your views in terms of how welfare is being delivered by these organisations and also the MoD, and when is the Command Paper, which I understand is going to address this issue, going to come out? We were promised it in the spring but we did not think it was the southern hemisphere spring that you were indicating. Is there a day that we can announce it? Derek Twigg: In terms of the Command Paper, the Secretary of State has been on record as saying that we expected it to be around June time. The key thing is to make sure we get it right. We have done extensive consultations with a whole range of bodies and we are taking comments and views. There are many different views about that. I am not going to pre-empt what that will say at the moment but clearly it is going to be a very important paper in terms of defining where we are in terms of support, what we can do further and what is possible. Coming back to the first part of your question in terms of welfare, I came to this job about 20 months ago. If you want my honest opinion, I think there are an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of good work. Whether it was truly joined up, whether it was ensuring that gaps were being plugged, the honest answer to that is that it was not. If you look at the range of people who are involved, from the Ministry of Defence, the single Services, the regimental associations, the many ex-Service charities, not just the big three or four, and lots of other organisations, I suspect they are in the hundreds, I asked the question of myself, "Why should there be anyone falling through the gaps, given that there are lots of resources around, whether it is within government or outside government? There are lots of people who want to do good. What can we do about this?", so last year, along with the Chief of General Staff, we organised a welfare conference which brought all these bodies together to look at how we could improve that, and I will give you two examples of how that has improved. Selly Oak, for instance, which we discussed in terms of the welfare support and accommodation which you yourselves recognised in your previous report, was a significant improvement. In terms of the Pathway of Care we have now put in place, because basically we could not understand why we did not have a pathway which was monitored from the time and point of wounding through to, if necessary, leaving the Service (although many people do not leave the Service today), we will make sure we have that monitored and looked after all the way through. That is in place and the database is now up and running but further work needs to be done to enhance that. In terms of case where you get somebody who has been wounded, has to leave the Service and we find Defence Estates issue him with a 93-day notice that he had got to quit, we suddenly find there is a story there when actually the story was that you go through a legal process and no-one is going to chuck you out anyway, but we have to make sure things like that are joined up. In terms of welfare support, in terms of the compensation package, despite the criticism there is a major step forward from what was there previously. Q388 Mr Jones: Can I be controversial? Is there not a need, frankly, to cull some of these organisations and is it not the fact that some of these have grown up over time and might, as you say, be very worthy causes but possibly in some cases are employment agents for ex-servicemen or serving senior servicemen's wives rather than providing the joined-up service that you want? Is there not also a debate about what Government should do? Derek Twigg: In terms of the number of organisations, that was something I recognised when I came to this job and I think part of the reason for having the welfare conference was to try and get people thinking about how these organisation work together and the amount of organisation there are now. COBSEO are doing a really good job in this line and they are working very well with the organisations, and I think it is a much more joined-up approach than there was previously. It is not for me as a minister to say an organisation or a charity should not exist or that it should join up with X other charity, but clearly COBSEO have recognised the work they do and they are taking this forward along with the big four in particular but also the rest of the organisations, so I think that is recognised, is the short answer to your question. In terms of this interesting debate about the dividing line between charities and the MoD and the Health for Heroes Fund and the swimming pool at Headley Court, I would answer it this way. There has always been a history of the ex-Service organisations and charities working with the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces to provide support for our Service personnel, families and veterans, and that has been for ever, frankly, so there is nothing new in that. Some people decided, because of the health fears, which I praised because they did an amazing job there, to use it for political purposes to attack the Government, that suddenly we were accepting charity. The fact is that at Headley Court, which is owned by a charitable trust and we pay for the staff and the facilities, there are already four or five gyms there, they already had a hydrotherapy pool, but we welcome this support from Health for Heroes; it has enhanced the facilities, so that is a good thing. It also brings in members of the public. I think it gives people a much more tangible way of expressing their support to the Armed Forces, so I welcome it. Part of the Command Service paper will look at this dividing line, but you know as well as I do, Mr Jones, that if you look at the Health Service it is in terms of hospices and Macmillan nurses and research or in education it is educational foundations; it is throughout public services. Maybe there is an argument about where that dividing line should be but I certainly do not think it is the case that the MoD is using charities to do things it should be doing as a matter of course. Q389 Mr Jones: One of the issues that has come up is frequent postings and access to care services, not for serving men and women but for families. For example, it came out in the medical report and also the educational report we did in terms of how families get access to priority services when they move. What can be done better there, do you think, to provide families, when they move and certainly when loved ones are on operations, with that support, not just in terms of practical things but also things like medical services or the right school to go to? Derek Twigg: This is one of the things that the Command Paper is looking at in some detail in terms of support. I have had a number of meetings with my counterpart in different government departments, not least in terms of health. We want to see a position where anybody who is a family member is not discriminated against by the fact that they move into a different area in terms of the waiting list, and those discussions are going on as part of the Command Paper and the discussion that we have had with ministers. In terms of schooling, again, discussions have been taking place with education. As you know, as part of the Missions policy that has to be looked at now, and a marker has now been put on education to try and find out whether there are any issues around educational attainment, so a number of things have happened there. You rightly point out some of the concerns of Service personnel, issues around basing strategy in terms of super garrisons, ensuring that people do not move around as much so that they have a better, more stable future. There are a number of issues taking place but we certainly do recognise that as a major concern and that is being looked at in some detail as well by the Command Paper. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: We risk running into the realms of speculation as to what the Command Paper is going to say, but I will support the Minister in that certainly those areas that he has mentioned - super garrisons for the Army, base porting for the Navy and a reduction in airfields for the RAF so that people are more stable than they were 20 years ago - have all been recognised as helping to reduce the difficulties of military mobility. Q390 Richard Younger-Ross: First of all, my apologies: I have to go fairly shortly, but perhaps I may ask you about housing. Housing has repeatedly come up as an area of dissatisfaction in more recent surveys and reports and has a bearing on retention. Bob Ainsworth announced a £5 billion plan. How long is it going to take and what impact do you think that will have on retention? Derek Twigg: If I can just say this before I go into the detail of it, there is a clear issue that there have been decades of under-investment in housing and we accept our responsibility in that but it is going to take us some time. Even the previous Government after 18 years could not solve the problems of Service housing. Having said that, what are we doing about it? We have got responsibility now. We intend to spend on housing over the next ten years over £8 billion. If you look that, it will involve lots of improvement of single living accommodation. There have already been since 2003 26,000 new or improved single living bed spaces and we intend to have another 30,000 by 2013. Since 2001 I think nearly 13,000 Service family homes have been put to the top standard for condition. There is also a programme of replacing boilers which was a major problem the winter before last. There is replacing kitchens and bathrooms, and if you go round, while there is some accommodation which is clearly not up to the standards that we want our people to have, there are significant building programmes taking place at many bases around the country which I have visited. There have been major improvements but it is going to take some time and, as I say, a spend of £8 billion over the next ten years is a major step forward but we have a lot to do. Q391 Richard Younger-Ross: Those figures you gave were 13,000 family units, of which there are 71,000 ----- Derek Twigg: Worldwide. We are currently looking at the whole commission of our stock at the moment because a lot of it is already at the top condition but obviously a number are not at the moment. The only other thing I can say to you is that the standards we are asking for our people are well above the Decent Homes standard. I just thought I would make that point. That never quite gets brought on. The Decent Homes standard is something that we exceed in terms of aspiring to for the condition of our houses. Q392 Richard Younger-Ross: Of those remaining 71,000, how many need to be upgraded or knocked down and replaced? Derek Twigg: In terms of "knocked down", there is a whole programme taking place around the country in terms of refurbishing houses but also in terms of giving houses that we do not need any more back to Addington Homes or demolishing houses which we own and which we do not need any more, but it is also important to stress on this that we have a void level at the moment which we are trying to get down but we need to take account of any future basing strategy, housing needs and moves, etc, so it is not quite as simple and straightforward as that. Q393 Richard Younger-Ross: In terms of maintenance, on our website there were a number of complaints regarding maintenance. One person wrote that it took 15 years to change a carpet. The same person complained that the plumber was called after a water leak because there was water running down the light fitting. The plumber came, went to the wrong house and, despite having a contact number, went away again and did not come back. The person went on to complain that everyone blames everyone else. What are you doing in terms of day-to-day maintenance to make sure that what is there, even if inadequate, is maintained to a reasonable standard? Derek Twigg: After the initial problems with MODern Housing Solutions, not least in terms of the response times, I think you will see that response times now are significantly improved for repairs. We are working very closely with the MoD. Admiral Lawrence, who runs Defence Estates, has a very close relationship with them and he has been in the job over six months now, I think. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Just over six months. Derek Twigg: He has set out a plan and target to improve the maintenance and to keep pressure on MODern House Solutions, so a lot of work is taking place at the moment. Q394 Richard Younger-Ross: I know if something goes wrong in my house and it is not fixed it will cause friction between myself and my wife, and the import of this cannot be stressed enough in terms of keeping a family background or two partners happy with each other. Derek Twigg: There is no argument here. If repairs are not done on time it is not acceptable, full stop. There have been problems, as you rightly point out, but we are continuing to improve the responsiveness and ensure that these repairs get done. There will always be cases. What we need to make sure is that we learn from any of those to make sure that we put the solution in place first time. I think you will find that our response times now are significantly improved, so at a ministerial level I can assure you - and I ask some very serious and searching questions and I get the regular monthly reports about repairs - that we continually want to drive up the responsiveness for them. Q395 Mr Jones: Can I just ask, in terms of MODern Housing Solutions, is the problem that what you did - and I understand why the contract was let in the way it was done - was that, unlike any other housing provider, be it housing association or social provider, you took away the person at local level whose job it was to ensure that things were done? We went to Pirbright, for example. The Commanding Officer there was saying that he had no say. At one woman's house we went to, for example, her ceiling had been collapsed for four or five weeks. You were a local councillor, Mr Twigg, and I was. You just would not put up with that, but he did not have any ability to action anything. Is not the problem that there is nothing wrong with the system being set up but what we need is somebody responsible at a base or an area to drive those things forward in terms of when those unacceptable delays come forward? Derek Twigg: I could not disagree with you. That is an issue and it has been raised with me on a number of occasions. I will just say two things, first on whether the old system was perfect. When you talk to people, there were lots of issues around the old system. One of the things that strikes me is that sometimes it is not just about whether they are doing the repairs. It is about someone keeping on top of the maintenance, which is basic stuff in some cases and it has just been allowed to drift. In terms of someone locally doing that, I think there are a lot of interesting questions about, despite that change, whether some people should intervene to stop things like the problems happening that we saw at Pirbright. In terms of the local connection, that is one of the things that is being brought to our attention. We are looking at it as part of the Service Command Paper. We should not detract from the fact that having this centralised system gives us much better focus and overall control on the issues which we did not have before. It was left often to single Services. Q396 Mr Jones: I do not disagree with that, but if you talk to any housing professional about the way in which management of housing stock has gone over the last 20 or 30 years, even with some of the big social landlords now, the one thing they do is that they have someone locally responsible for it, but, as I say, everybody seems to have forgotten that they are looking after the housing here and somehow have done it completely differently. Derek Twigg: As you know, MODern Housing Solutions has managers responsible for particular areas. Having someone on every base is another issue but I certainly think that you are right, that there is scope to improve that. It is something that the family federations have raised with me on a number of occasions and, as I say, I know it has been raised as part of the Service Command Paper, so yes, we need to do better on that. Q397 Chairman: Minister, we drew attention in our report on the Defence Estates to these issues and we suggested a number of ways in which there could be some sort of local ownership of the problems so that local Service men and women did not feel that everybody was saying it was somebody else's fault. I am afraid we thought that the response from the Ministry of Defence that we got to that report was pretty defensive. I wonder if you could revisit that and look again at that response and see whether that could be done better in response to Mr Jones' question. Derek Twigg: I accept the point that has been raised. It raised with me regularly. Whether it means someone on every base is another issue but we do need to look at how we can improve that situation. You rightly did highlight that and I have seen it myself when I have been on to bases and talked to families and people, and it is an issue that has been raised as part of the Service Command Paper, so I do not want to pre-empt what we might decide there but we are keen to improve that situation. I cannot give you a definitive answer at the moment because otherwise it will pre-empt what we might say later in the year but yes, I accept the point you make. Q398 Richard Younger-Ross: Service personnel report difficulties in accessing allowances and understanding them. What impact does the system have on retention? Derek Twigg: We have just introduced a ready-reckoner which I think 26,000 Service people have accessed. We have put on the website a ready-reckoner and you can go through a series of screens telling you what allowances you will be entitled to, depending on what you are doing at a particular time, so that is a major step forward. We can always do more on that. As you rightly said, there are a lot of allowances that people qualify for. I will give you an example. We have just introduced the council tax refund which came into place on 1 April. There was some uncertainty about where you would claim for that. Some people thought you would go to the local authority and others thought you asked someone in the units or the Ministry of Defence. There has been some uncertainty and confusion about this but I think the ready-reckoner has been an innovative step forward to try and improve that and we do need to do more work on that. In terms of recruitment and retention, I do not have any figures to suggest that that has been a major problem. I am sure it has affected some people's judgment in what they want to do but I do not think we are sitting back and saying we are not doing anything about it. We have taken steps to try and improve that. Q399 Richard Younger-Ross: So the ready-reckoner is in response to the round-Europe criticisms of the current system where they say there is a disconnect somewhere between policy and execution and that this may be because of the complexity of the allowances, the way in which they are communicated within each Service or both? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Like the Minister, I do not really recognise that as a major issue that our people are raising with us. It may well be a by-product of the introduction of JPA that people have become more aware, as we have introduced a much more self-service culture, of allowances that are available to them. I certainly do not recognise a gap between the policy and delivery around those allowances, but I can investigate further if you wish, sir. Q400 Richard Younger-Ross: How far are you reviewing the allowances to see what allowances are necessary, because the report had a number of views from personnel about what they thought the allowances ought to come to? I will give you some examples - increasing net pay to those on observations, improving child care to help spouses deal with the effects of disruption, improving moving allowances. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: All these are covered annually in what used to be the Single Service Attitude Surveys and we are now awaiting the results of the first Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey. Q401 Richard Younger-Ross: So there is another study that will say everything is fine? Derek Twigg: It is not a case of "everything is fine". It has not been raised with us as being a major issue. It clearly is an issue for some people. In terms of knowing what you are entitled to, I think we have recognised that and we have demonstrated that we want to try and improve that recognition, but, as a number of Service people have said to me, they tend to be pretty good at finding out what allowances they should be entitled to. That is not being complacent because some people will have problems and that is why we recognise that and the ready-reckoner is one way of improving that. Q402 Mr Jones: Dr Alex Alexandrou, when he gave evidence to us, argued that the military personnel need a body to represent their views, and, as you know, I have a third attempt, I think it is, with my Ten-Minute Rule Bill and my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill calling for a federation. Increasingly you are getting a lot of organisations of former senior military personnel claiming to speak on behalf of the Armed Forces. Why is the MoD so against an Armed Forces federation? Derek Twigg: I will answer it first and I think it is worth your hearing from Admiral Wilkinson as a serving officer as well. First of all, we do not see the need for it. There are a number of reasons for that. We feel that in terms of the Chain of Command it is very important that issues are dealt with by that process, particularly around welfare issues. As for the changes in terms of redress, which you know yourself from the Armed Forces Bill and you probably know the detail even better than I do, the Service Complaints Commissioner has been put in place. Q403 Mr Jones: You were dragged screaming and kicking to introduce that. That was not easy. Derek Twigg: Whatever the perception was, and I accept collective responsibility - I was not around at that particular time but I did the last bit of the Bill - I thought there was a lot of support ministerially to do that. That is another area which would mitigate against doing what you are asking for. We have not seen any great groundswell of opinion from Armed Forces personnel that this is what they want. The current organisation has about 200 members. Unless I am mistaken, that has not increased significantly, but also I have to say that Service personnel write to me if they have issues, so they have access to ministers. I deal with correspondence with individuals on a range of issues that they may have concerns about. For those reasons I am not sure that I see the benefit over and above what that this would bring. I know you feel very strongly about but I do not know whether Admiral Wilkinson wants to add something to that. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I agree that certainly representing the wellbeing and welfare of the people under your command is a vital function for the Chain of Command. I am also strongly of the opinion that there are a number of mechanisms and routes whereby people can make representations or state a complaint all the way up to the Defence Council if necessary. Q404 Mr Jones: Come on; there are very few who do that. We took evidence on the Armed Forces Bill. It is a handful, is it not, because they never get that far? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: We can give you the number, sir, I am sure, if you would like us to. Certainly in my own career I have complained at least three times officially. The lightning conductors are there, the individual briefing teams that the Services operate. The Armed Forces Pay Review body takes a lot of information from Service men and women. There are the attitude surveys, the spouses' attitude surveys. As the Minister says, a lot of families and dependants write to him. People can join societies, trade organisations that represent their particular career interests. There is any number of outlets for them to discuss or raise issues of difficulty. I think we just have to be cognisant of whether this would strike at some of the areas of ethos that the Services have. Q405 Mr Jones: I know why the Chain of Command do not want it, but it was good enough, for example, for most of our major allies, including the United States which has a plethora of these organisations representing different branches of the Armed Forces and it works there. It does not affect the Chain of Command there or the ethos. Why are you so against it? You are going to have to give in eventually, I will tell you this. You have to recognise that society has changed. Unlike with the Service Complaints Commissioner which you were dragged screaming and kicking to approve eventually, I have to say you will eventually have to agree to this. Derek Twigg: I think the argument that somebody else does something does not necessarily mean that we have to do that. We have our way of doing things in this country and I believe the systems we have are robust. Recently the Australian Federation has disbanded or got in trouble; I am not quite sure which. Q406 Mr Jones: It has, yes. Derek Twigg: So I can only say to you that I talk, like you do, to probably thousands of Service personnel, and I get lots of correspondence and I cannot ever say I have seen a groundswell of opinion saying that it is absolutely essential to have this federation, and for the reasons I have given I really could not add any more to that. Mr Jones: We will wait and see. Q407 Chairman: Minister, you have seen the way that the Police Federation has grown up. I do not suppose you would say that that had damaged the police in any way, would you? Derek Twigg: It is not a case so much about whether it has damaged the police or been a bad thing. In terms of the Armed Forces, we have this tradition. In terms of the options for taking forward these issues and the special nature of the Armed Forces, I do not necessarily think because something is right for another organisation it is right for the Armed Forces. Q408 Mr Borrow: There is a danger when you are trying to gauge what the views of the people you employ are that you can look at the websites and you can get the odd letter and that gives you a certain picture. One of the advantages of some sort of representative body such as a federation is that there is a collective view arrived at by that body of what is wrong or right and some mechanism to put it right. The danger is quite often that you get one or two observations which are at the extreme end which do not necessarily reflect the generality of views and it is about how the MoD gets a view of what the generality of opinion is within the men and women that they employ and how that mechanism works. There is no formal structure to do that. It is just opinion surveys, etc. The thing that the Police Federation can do for the Police Service is say, "This is collectively what we think the police as a service need and these are the views", and they come to some collective views. There will be people at one extreme and the other outside that but there is at least something for the Police Service and the Home Office to discuss with and to form a view with. Within the MoD there is not that same structure. Derek Twigg: If you look at the range of things we do in terms of the Continuous Attitude Survey, that is often quoted against us because it often is the negatives that are picked out from it, so obviously that is perceived to be a pretty reflective view by a large number of people. That is one way. We as ministers meet literally thousands of Service personnel during our time in office, but the Chiefs do the same sorts of briefings and talk to Service personnel. There are, of course, many items of correspondence that I particularly receive because I deal with lots of these issues around personnel and discipline areas, whether it is from individual serving personnel or their wives or partners. It is on a regular basis. Without being arrogant about it in any way, in terms of whether we do not know what the general view is of our Service personnel, I think we would be missing something if that was the case given the range of opportunities we have to get views, as I say, and I have not seen a groundswell of opinion from serving personnel that they want this. Q409 Mr Jenkin: Are there any public expenditure implications to the possibility of an Armed Forces federation? Would it cost public money? Derek Twigg: The honest answer is that I do not know as we have not decided to have one. Q410 Mr Jenkin: May I just point out that the Chain of Command is already compromised by the Service Complaints Commissioner, and indeed by the courts which are interfering with the Chain of Command. I rather agree with the general sentiment in this Committee that it is an inevitability and it might be an advantage to have an Armed Forces federation speaking more confidentially and more closely to the Ministry of Defence than a variety of organisations that claim to represent the Armed Forces from outside the Armed Forces at the moment. I have not heard a killer punch against the idea. Derek Twigg: Obviously I have failed in my task then, Mr Jenkin. I can only repeat what I have said. I do think with the range of views and getting the opinions of our Service personnel it means there are lots of opportunities for ministers to do that down the line. There are the Continuous Attitude Surveys, the various surveys we do, the various forums that exist, etc, so I do not necessarily agree with that. On the other hand, I have not seen a really strong argument that outweighs that, to be quite frank. In terms of the Chain of Command, I do not accept that. We had a discussion about this on a statutory instrument last year with regard to the changes that are being proposed in terms of the Service Complaints Commissioner if he was there. I think the Service Complaints Commissioner is complementary. I think the processes are robust and people have the opportunity to take their complaints up the line. Q411 Chairman: I do not think you have been trying to punch this to death, Minister. I think you have been trying to smother it. Derek Twigg: It is not my intention. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I hesitate to say it would be anything like a killer punch, but can I just point out the low level work of my own committee, the Services Personnel Board, that I chair and on which the three principal personnel officers, one from each of the Services, sit. I am left in no doubt as to the strength of feeling that they are representing on behalf of their own Service on a whole range of personnel issues. This work goes on largely unsung but I think it is yet another mechanism by which Service people are making their feelings known. I freely admit this is coming up through the Chain of Command but there is a strong vein through here that means that in the Ministry of Defence we are getting to hear what really does bother our people and that is why we then take action to make lives better for them. Q412 Mr Jones: SAFFA and the Families Federations told us that welfare support is around the Command structure rather than the individual and the individual's family. They said it needs to be more cohesive, the welfare package, and I think the Ministry have already touched on some of the things you are trying to do. Would you agree with that and what could be done to improve that? Derek Twigg: Clearly the Command has an absolute duty to ensure that welfare support is provided for the Service personnel; it is important that the structure is in place, and if it has meant that it is too much around what they specifically want and not enough around what families want I am not sure I go along with that. I think SAFFA themselves have been very much involved in welfare. The Families Federations are very much involved in welfare, ranging from the padre to the HIVE information centre. There is a whole range of welfare support on bases and out in operations. As to whether that can be improved, I accept it probably can, and I think that is the point I made to you earlier on, that we recognise this. In fact, we are having another welfare conference in July to follow up from the previous welfare conference on what more improvements could be made. Yes, there clearly is room for more improvement but whether it is in some way stymied because it is based on the Command structure, I would not necessarily accept that. Q413 Mr Jenkin: Why is ethnic minority recruiting so important? Derek Twigg: It is very important that we have Armed Forces which reflect society as a whole. I think that is why we have put so much effort into it, to try and raise the number of ethnic minority recruits. Q414 Mr Jenkin: And you are missing out on a great deal of potential talent. Derek Twigg: We have a full range of talented people that we would like to see from communities recruited into the Armed Forces and ethnic minorities are clearly one of a number of people that we want to do that and see more people involved in the Armed Forces and recruited, and that is why we have put so much attention and effort and resource into it. Of course, we have seen that our ethnic minority recruits have done tremendous things in the Armed Forces and we hope to continue to improve the level of recruitment that we have. It is a very difficult task, as you know, from the information we have given you, but it is not through want of trying and that comes from ministers down to the Chain of Command and the Chiefs of Staff. Q415 Mr Jenkin: So what is the principal reason we keep missing our targets? Derek Twigg: That is a very difficult question to answer. There is not one reason. We engage at all levels, whether it is from the Chief of the Defence Staff or leaders of the Muslim community to our recruiting officers to the special community events to engage with specific parts of the ethnic minority community. I do not think we know the full reason why we cannot improve on that further. Q416 Mr Jenkin: Are they all realistic? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: They are aspirational. I fully support the Minister's view that we need to reflect the society we represent if we possibly can. We are carrying out a research project at the moment to try to understand better the reasons why people from the ethnic minorities do not wish to join the Services. We have made considerable ground over the last few years in understanding the importance of speaking to the gatekeepers within the communities, those individuals of standing, parents and in many cases grandparents, but there are huge difficulties sometimes in reaching particular areas of our society. The Chinese community in this country is well established and has been for a number of years but our attempts to recruit from that have been extremely difficult. Q417 Mr Jenkin: And the Hindu community, for example? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Again, we are trying extremely hard, sir. It is not for want of trying that we have not achieved success thus far. Q418 Mr Jenkin: So are we ever going to meet these targets? Derek Twigg: I cannot guarantee that we will meet the targets but we want to and we are working very hard to do that and we believe we can, but a lot of work is needed. This is not going to be something in the short term. We have to build upon the work we have already done, and perhaps you will understand, as Admiral Wilkinson has said, in terms of the reasons why people do not want to join the Armed Forces. I do not think it is a case of never meeting the targets. It is about not giving up on that and I think it is right that we do not give up and it is right that we have a target that you may argue is an aspiration at the moment but is actually a target we think better reflects the ethnic minority community and how they should be represented in the Armed Forces. Q419 Mr Jenkin: And reflects the values that the Armed Forces are trying to present to the public. Derek Twigg: And the values we all know. Q420 Mr Jenkin: What about the reliance on ethnic minorities from outside the UK? Are we over-reliant on that? Derek Twigg: I do not accept that we are over-reliant. There is a long-standing history in terms of Commonwealth citizens being members of the Armed Forces. Clearly, they form a very important part of our need and do an amazing job but I would not say we are over-reliant on them. I do not accept that point. Q421 Mr Jenkin: Some people feel that you are almost fiddling your figures by recruiting from overseas. You are not really recruiting ethnic minorities from within the UK and therefore not really reflecting society. Derek Twigg: There is a narrow point of difference here but in terms of active recruiting that is not what we do. We were asked to go and recruit; we will do so, and clearly many people of their own volition apply to join the British Armed Forces, so it is not that we are going out there with a strategy to recruit to replace the shortfall we have in the Armed Forces, that is not the case, but we do obviously welcome recruits from other countries and they are doing an amazing job for us. Q422 Mr Jenkin: And the Equality and Human Rights Commission has complained about the quality of data that are collected within the Armed Forces about ethnic minorities. Can you say something about that? Are you addressing that? Are they going to be pleased with your next set of data? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: I would certainly hope so. We worked very well with their predecessors, the EOC. We are trying to establish a similar relationship with the EHRC. We are well aware that the veracity of the data is important, both for them and for us. We are using their skills to help us improve wherever we can, so we are looking forward to quite a positive relationship with the EHRC. Q423 Mr Jenkin: How effective do you think it has been to recruit civilian chaplains from ethnic minority communities? Derek Twigg: It is early days. I think it is a good innovation. Having met a number of them, I think it is something that will help our overall aim to recruit from ethnic minorities. It is too early to say at the moment how beneficial that has been but I think it is the right thing to do, to be quite frank, and they are very committed individuals. Q424 Mr Jones: When I was at HMS Raleigh yesterday I have to say that, in terms of the Commonwealth recruits I saw there, one commanding officer was saying they are very good, they are of a high quality and very dedicated, so I think they add to the Service, but just looking in terms of the actual numbers in the Armed Forces, apparently 305 Muslims are in the Armed Forces according to the figures we have here. Is it possible, not today, to supply how many of them are from the UK rather than abroad, because I have come to the conclusion that this is a problem of communities rather than the Armed Forces themselves in terms of attitudes, etc. If you could break that down that would be helpful, and women as well. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Yes. Q425 Mr Borrow: One Army Recruiting into the TA - how effective has that been? Has it made things better or worse? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: One Army Recruiting, as you know, is only a year old and certainly when my colleague, General Gregory, was here when we gave evidence before he said that it is very difficult to tell thus far. It is too early to make judgments, but, instinctively, by offering a range of options to anyone who declares an interest in joining the Army, we think that that will be an improvement on past distinct and separate recruiting for the regular Army versus the Territorials. Derek Twigg: Some of the Reservists in the TA I have spoken to in recent months think it is a good thing. I could not tell you whether that has brought about the increase that we would all like to see but people serving think it is a good thing, so I think that is beneficial. Q426 Mr Borrow: To what extent is there an interest in this as a concept from the Naval Marines and the RAF? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: They are watching closely. Q427 Mr Borrow: So they are in a look-and-see mode at the moment in terms of whether to implement something similar? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Indeed. Q428 Mr Borrow: Can we move on to a bigger issue, and it is certainly something that we hear anecdotally quite regularly, which is the difficulties of Reserve Forces continuing in the Reserves when they are deployed quite regularly in that they are coming under pressure from their employers? Of course, in the UK there is no statutory right in this area. I just wondered to what extent you are reviewing whether or not we should, if you like, give a bit more strength to those people who are in the Reserve Forces and are facing pressure from their employers to leave the Reserves because of the deployments they are taking? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: There is, of course, some legislation that protects both the employer and the employee, but, given the current operational tempo, of which we have spoken already this morning, the fact that Reservists are having to deploy more frequently than perhaps was the case in recent times has brought to a head some of the issues that we are now trying to address to make sure that people who join the Reserves have a fulfilling career within them and that we are fair both to them and to the employers, who we gratefully acknowledge release them in most cases very willingly. Derek Twigg: On the very positive side, SaBRE, which does an amazing job, the organisation with employers, is very supportive and there is a great deal of support out there from employers. While there are, obviously, issues there, I think the vast majority are very supportive and organised in a way that supports us, given the challenges we have in terms of our current operations. Also, for instance, in terms of medical Reservists, we are working very closely with the NHS to see how we can encourage even more to join the Reservists or at least spend some of their time in an operational theatre, so there is a lot of work taking place with the NHS on that. Q429 Mr Borrow: Is there a recognition that there has been a change over the last 30, 40 years in employment patterns? If you go back 30 or 40 years, a large number of the Reserve Forces population worked for very large employers and therefore it was easier, whether it was jury service or magistrates or whatever it was, for people to be out of the workplace doing things that are public duties. It is much more difficult now, given the changes to much smaller workplaces. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: There is no doubt that it is more difficult for a small business to manage a Reservist's frequent deployment as compared to the period of large commercial organisations a few years ago. Linda Gilroy: As far as young people are concerned and their changing expectations and careers, are you matching these with flexible entry points and training routes? I am sure you will be aware of the NAO reports and the demographic issues, changing expectations, not having a career for life in the same way that people expected, and Professor Strachan has told the Committee that we ought to be looking much more at the universities as a potential source of recruitment and a positive thing rather than, in his impression, that it is not viewed in that way. Q430 Chairman: Minister, you nod. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Again, sir, we covered much of this in our last evidence session, but I do not detect any movement against recruiting from the universities. In fact, we need to explore all avenues that are open to us. There are opportunities here. We realise that people no longer perhaps want a career for life as they did in the past. If we can be more flexible about the way we employ them that would be to our advantage and we have people looking at the possibilities here in terms of taking career breaks or part-time or flexible working so that we reflect the lifestyles of the people who now join the Services. We realise it is to our advantage to do that. Q431 Linda Gilroy: But does a re-engineering of the role of the Reserves have a role to play in that? Vice Admiral Wilkinson: Indeed, and you are well aware that there is a review of Reserves being undertaken at the moment, and I would have thought that that is one of the areas that they are going to be looking at, to be more flexible in the future. Derek Twigg: To sum up, basically, we have to be smarter and more flexible in terms of recruitment and retention, and that is a yes. Q432 Chairman: Minister, yesterday I visited Basingbourne, which was a very helpful visit from the Defence Committee's point of view. I wonder if you could help to clear up some confusion that I now have in my mind about the number of people who discharge as of right? Yesterday I heard that we lose something like 23 per cent of new recruits in training and that it is much the same as our loss at the same level in the United States, but I have also heard different figures, that the United States only lose ten per cent in training and that we lose 37 per cent. I wonder if you could write to us setting out precisely what numbers we do lose discharging as of right and how it compares with our major allies and, if we are doing worse, why you think we might be doing worse and how we can learn from other countries how to do it better? If you could break that down by Service that would be helpful. Derek Twigg: Yes, we will do that. Q433 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. One final suggestion. I met yesterday some young boys. They were all at that stage boys going through the junior entry. They were 16, 17, and they were very impressive after ten weeks of service. I wondered whether there might be some mileage to be gained in asking them at the end of the early part of their training to go back to the schools that they had left, possibly not having done very well in their schools, completely transformed into confident and contributing young men and women and showing their teachers, who are sometimes the gatekeepers, quite how Forces training can transform a personality. Derek Twigg: It would probably be best after phase two rather than phase one. Q434 Chairman: It could well be. Derek Twigg: I think it is an excellent idea and it is something we will explore. Vice Admiral Wilkinson: It is certainly a thread, sir, that Quentin Davies' report brought out yesterday as one of his recommendations. Derek Twigg: The answer is yes, we will explore that. Chairman: Excellent, thank you. It is 12.30; you have to go. Thanks very much indeed for this final session. It has been very helpful.
|