4 Armed Forces and civilian personnel
Redundancies
57. In its Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11, the
MoD gave the following details:
In the SDSR, the Government announced reductions
in the size of the Armed Forces, reducing the Army by 7,000, the
Royal Air Force by 5,000 and the Royal Navy by 5,000. This will
help to ensure that the UK has the required force structure, training
and equipment to carry out operations, as part of the implementation
of the SDSR. The Armed Forces redundancy programme is expected
to deliver up to 11,000 redundancies across the three Services
and should be completed by 31 March 2015.
The first redundancy criteria for the three Services
were published on 1 March 2011 for the RAF and 4 April 2011 for
the Army and RN. Those selected for redundancy will be notified
on 1 September 2011 (Army and RAF) and 30 September 2011 (RN).
Those leaving through redundancy are entitled to a comprehensive
resettlement provision to help them transition back to civilian
life. This is the first of up to four tranches of redundancy in
each of the Services; the fields for the second tranche will be
announced in Autumn 2011.[62]
58. Ms Brennan told us that 2,860 Armed Forces personnel
out of a proposed total of 11,400 had been made redundant in the
first tranche, of which 62 per cent were "applicants",
that is, volunteers. Each of the three Services had determined
where they wanted to reduce their forces by particular trade groups
and ranks.[63]
59. Ms Brennan confirmed that no member of the Armed
Forces injured on operations will be made redundant while in the
process of being treated.[64]
We asked whether there were problems with too many incapacitated
personnel remaining in the Armed Forces, Ms Brennan said:
The British Army and the other three Services need
to be clear about what numbers of Armed Forces personnel they
need, at what ranks and with what trades and specialisms. We absolutely
have to make sure that the people who have been injured get the
care and support that they need, and that their future is determined
by what is best for them. I do not think the numbers are sufficient,
particularly as we are talking about the time while they are being
treated, that they will distort exit decisions. I do not think
that matter is causing us concern.[65]
60. We asked how the work was progressing to reduce
the number of senior ranks in the MoD. Ms Brennan told us:
There are two angles to that. One is in the Head
Office, where Lord Levene recommended a structure that is thinner
at the top—civilian and military. That included, for example,
the proposal to remove the commanders-in-chief, so that you did
not have two four-stars at the head of each of the Armed Services.
We are making progress on that and we will have completed that
by the end of next year. There will be other structural changes
in the Head Office, which we are trying to make more strategic
and smaller.
Within the individual Armed Services, each of them
has work in train to plan their new structure. For instance, the
Army already has a programme around reshaping the Army HQ and
rethinking what roles it needs to perform and at what level. That
includes thinning out senior ranks where that is sensible and
appropriate. We are keeping a track on that to ensure that we
have a structure that is of a sensible size and that has the right
balance.[66]
61. The MoD subsequently told us that it was working
on a blueprint to implement the recommendations in the Defence
Reform report and that its conclusions would be published once
Ministers had agreed them.[67]
62. Ms Brennan told us that the MoD was on track
to meet its targets on civil servant redundancies of some 5,000
a year over three years; indeed they had advanced the second phase.[68]
She told us that the target was to reduce civil service numbers
by some 32,000 although not all of these would be redundancies—some
involved organisations such as the Met Office moving out of the
MoD. [69] Mr Thompson
told us that 15,000 would be through paid exits and 5,000 through
natural means.[70] We
asked what percentage of the redundancies would be compulsory
and Ms Brennan said that the first two tranches of redundancies
would be voluntary but that they might come to compulsory exits
in particular locations in the third tranche.[71]
63. We asked why some 40 per cent of the Armed Forces
redundancies so far had been compulsory whilst all the civil service
ones had been voluntary. Ms Brennan told us :
[...] that is an absolute distinction between the
two schemes and is part of an approach that the Civil Service
takes civil service-wide, that we don't go to compulsory redundancy
until we've done the voluntary exits first. But it is also partly
because if you look at the Armed Forces, you have people who have
specific ranks and trades. We do have some specific trades within
the Civil Service—quantity surveyors, teachers and people
who have very specific professional roles—but a very large
number of the Civil Service have flexible skills that enable them
to work in a variety of places. Therefore, if you are targeting
redundancy, it is much harder to target a redundancy programme
for a generic group of staff. You can target redundancy quite
easily if you say "people in a particular location",
or if you want to get rid of accountants or something; it is rather
harder to target redundancy at a generic group of staff. That
is another reason why we move through the voluntary regime first.[72]
She further told us it was easier to move civil servants
around because of their generic skills:
[...] The way that the military do it is to identify
people whom they want to go, and then specifically target groups
who go in tranches. The way we do it with the Civil Service is
to say, "This is the number of jobs that we need to reduce."
We then invite people across the country to apply, and we have
a set of criteria that say we will score the applicants, but we
do not let people go if they have particular kinds of skills or
any particular role that we need to keep them for. [...][73]
As we complete and move further with the restructuring
of the Head Office and the organisations within the Department,
it is possible to identify some areas and say clearly, "These
are the specific posts that we need to go," but one has to
bear in mind that in the Civil Service, we take the posts and
volunteers out, and we can move the people who remain into the
jobs that we need to keep. It is not the same in the military.
You do not move the military around in that way; we can move civilians
around in that way.[74]
64. On 19 December 2011, there was an exchange at
Defence questions between the Rt Hon Andrew Robathan MP, Minister
for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans and our Chair:
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con):
Over Christmas, will my right hon. Friend find time to think about
the difference between those in the armed forces who are made
redundant and those in the Ministry of Defence civil service who
are made redundant? Members of the armed forces are frequently
made redundant compulsorily, but that has not happened to a single
civil servant so far.
Mr Robathan: My right
hon. Friend will know that there have been a large number of applications
from civil servants for the voluntary early release scheme. That
is why very few people are likely to be compulsorily made redundant
at the moment. Those in the armed forces have been less forthcoming
with applications for voluntary redundancy, but only 40% of those
taking redundancy are doing so compulsorily, the rest having applied
for it.
65. The
Permanent Under Secretary's argument, that civilians are flexibly
employable whereas the military are not, runs contrary to our
experience of the breadth of the military training we have witnessed
on operations. The MoD, in its response to this Report, should
set out what opportunities and encouragement it gives to those
in the Armed Forces who face compulsory redundancy to retrain,
especially into pinch point trades. The PUS's argument also implies
a lack of strategic vision as to the direction to be taken by
the civilian component of the MoD.
66. On
the other hand the Minister's assertion, that many civil servants
but insufficient members of the Armed Forces have applied for
redundancy, ignores the question of why that should be so. The
MoD should consider whether the terms of redundancy offered to
either the military or civilian staff are fair or appropriate
in the light of the stark and shocking difference between the
application of compulsion in redundancy to the two branches of
service in the MoD. For military redundancies to be compulsory
in 40 per cent of cases, yet for civilian redundancies to be compulsory
in none, is so grotesque that it requires an exceptionally persuasive
reason. We are not persuaded by either of the two reasons we have
been given.
Pinch point trades
67. Although overall manning levels for the Armed
Forces have improved, there remain significant shortages of personnel
in some key skills areas, some of which impact on operational
effectiveness, creating operational pinch points. The MoD information
is reproduced in table 6 below.
Table 6: Most Severe Operational Pinch Point
Trades[75]
| Royal Navy trades
| Liability/Shortfall
| % Shortfall |
| Lt Cdr XSM Command Qualified
| 46/4 |
9% |
| Leading Aircraft Controllers
| 67/31
| 46% |
| Rotary Wing Pilots |
610/54 |
9% |
| Anti-submarine Warfare Aircrew men
| 89/21
| 24% |
| Strategic Weapons System Junior Rates
| 28/14
| 50% |
| Leading Seaman General Service
| 612/148
| 24% |
| Seaman Specialist | 334/104
| 31% |
| Royal Marine Other Ranks
| 2,284/617
| 27% |
| Leading Air Engineering Technicians
| 828/244
| 29% |
| Cat A Nuclear Watch Keepers
| 147/26
| 18% |
| Cat B Nuclear Watch Keepers
| 373/91
| 24% |
| Army trades |
| |
| High Threat IED Operators
| 130/40
| 31% |
| Yeoman of Signals Electronic Warfare
| 35/16
| 46% |
| Systems Operator Electronic Warfare
| 170/61
| 36% |
| RAVC Dog Handler | 201/58
| 29% |
| Military Intelligence Cpl-Sgt
| 640/232
| 36% |
| Interrogators | 70/60
| 86% |
| Intelligence Corps Linguist
| 263/163
| 62% |
| RMP Special Investigation Branch Sgt-WO2
| 178/12
| 7% |
| Military Provost Staff |
132/22 |
17% |
| Combat Medical Technician (CMT) Cpl-Sgt
| 720/250
| 35% |
| Royal Artillery Exactor DC
| 24/1 |
4% |
| Royal Engineer Clerk of Works SSgt - WO1
| 274/37
| 14% |
| Royal Artillery Weapons Locating Radar DC
| 156/0
| 0% |
| Royal Artillery UAV Operator Bdr-Sgt
| 225/86
| 38% |
| HUMINT Operator | 232/78
| 34% |
| Geospatial Engineer Cpl
| 82/50
| 61% |
| REME Armourer Class 1 |
246/82 |
33% |
| Infantry Pte - Cpl |
18,829/839
| 4% |
| Pharmacist Officer Capt and above
| 23/12
| 52% |
| Observation Post Assistant
| 395/75
| 19% |
| Royal Artillery Capts |
260/18 |
7% |
| RMP GPD - LCpl - SSgt |
1238/+32 |
+3% |
| Royal Air Force trades
| | |
| Intelligence Analyst (Voice) - SAC to Sgt
| 159/47
| 30% |
| Pilot - Junior Officer and Squadron Leader
| 1940/170
| 9% |
| Operations Support (Regiment) - Junior Officer
| 205/35
| 17% |
| Medical Officer - whole branch
| 280/30
| 12% |
| Emergency Nursing - whole cadre, all ranks
| 75/50
| 32% |
| Gunner - SAC to Cpl |
1680/120 |
7% |
| General Technician (Mechanical) - SAC to Sgt
| 900/190
| 14% |
Data source: MoD
68. Ms Brennan explained that the MoD took shortages
in pinch point trades very seriously and what it was doing to
address the issue:
Addressing the pinch points is a matter of a mixture
of things. In some cases, it is to do with incentives, and financial
retention incentives and so on are important. In some cases, it
is about a slightly softer set of issues to do with really getting
underneath what is making people unhappy—if that is what
is going on—with the job they are doing. Sometimes, it is
to do with the mixture of work that we ask people to do, which
they find boring or unsatisfactory. Then, it is a case of changing
the job mix to make it more attractive, so that people want to
do it.
Clearly, in relation to the redundancies, the redundancies
in the military are quite specifically targeted on particular
areas. Obviously, one thing we do is make sure that we do not
target them on the pinch points. Although these are compulsory
redundancies, we allow people to volunteer to go in there, but
not to come from a pinch-point trade.[76]
69. In respect of high profile shortages such as
improvised explosive device (IED) operators and nuclear watchkeepers,
Ms Brennan told us in more detail how the MoD was responding to
shortages:
On the IED operators, there has been a special project
around training, recruiting and retaining people in that area.
[...] That is difficult, because nuclear engineers, in particular,
are in short supply in the UK full stop, and we are in competition
with the civil nuclear industry for those people, civilian and
military. We have actually had a joint civilian-military programme
to look at what we can do to ensure that we have a good pipeline
of civilian and military nuclear engineers.[77]
70. Addressing
the issue of pinch point trades needs to be a priority for the
MoD, particular in respect of certain trades such as IED operators,
nuclear personnel, intelligence specialists and medical personnel.
The MoD must ensure that sufficient personnel are not only recruited
and trained effectively but also retained. It should also consider
Armed Forces personnel subject to compulsory redundancy as a potential
source of recruits to retrain in pinch point trades. In response
to this Report, the MoD should tell us, in some detail, what its
plans are to address shortages in the above trades.
62 Ministry of Defence, Annual Report and Accounts
2010-11, HC 992, p 39, paras 6.41-6.42 Back
63
Qq 107-110 Back
64
Q 112 Back
65
Q 117 Back
66
Q 118 Back
67
Ev 26 Back
68
Q 125 Back
69
Qq 127 and 132 Back
70
Q 132 Back
71
Q 133 Back
72
Q 134 Back
73
Q 136 Back
74
Q 137 Back
75
Ministry of Defence, Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11,
HC 992, p 39 Back
76
Q 103 Back
77
Q 104 Back
| 
