Jim
Thanks for your reply.
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.
Got it.