Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

MPs not holding back - MoD Annual Report.

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

MPs not holding back - MoD Annual Report.

Old 11th Feb 2014, 15:58
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MPs not holding back - MoD Annual Report.

Not seen the Defence Committee so rabid in a while. Re paras 8 and 9, what reasons for the outflow and what "other incentives" might work..?!

House of Commons - Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13 - Defence Committee

Overall Conclusion

1. The Ministry of Defence has made some improvements to its reporting of information since last year but much work is still needed before it meets the standards we would expect to see in its Annual Report. We have set out the areas where the MoD needs to provide more extensive information on its performance. (Paragraph 51)

2. The MoD has been reviewing its risk management arrangements and we look forward to seeing the results of its review. We are concerned that structural changes have led to a lack of clarity in aligning roles and responsibilities with risk management structures. Our major concern and, apparently the Defence Board's second strategic risk, is shortage of key personnel. This was evidenced by the increase in the number of pinch point trades, the high level of voluntary outflow and the continuing breaches of harmony guidelines. The Defence Board should take these shortages seriously. (Paragraph 52)

3. The provision of reliable management information is critical to the effective management of an organisation. It is crucial that the MoD improves its management information systems and the quality of the management information produced. In particular, the MoD should concentrate on improving its financial management information. (Paragraph 53)

4. For the seventh successive year, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) qualified the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Accounts for 2012-13. The qualifications were:

The regularity of the treatment of the impairment of the valuation of the German estate resulting from the withdrawal of UK Forces from Germany;
Non-compliance with international reporting standards on the treatment of some contracts; and
The valuation of inventory and non-current assets.
The latter two problems are likely to persist beyond 2014-15. The MoD needs a clear plan and timetable as to how and when it will achieve a clear audit opinion from the C&AG. (Paragraph 54)

Performance and risk management in the MoD

5. We welcome the MoD's implementation of the recommendation in our last report on the Annual Report and Accounts that it provide a useful commentary on the input and impact indicators. We are, however, unhappy with the quantity and quality of performance information available to us and to the public. We recommend that more information of the type provided to the Defence Board should be provided to us and put in the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts. We have identified those areas where we expect the MoD to provide information in its Annual Report and Accounts or where it should develop an improved set of indicators. These areas are set out in an annex to this Report. (Paragraph 6)

6. We are concerned that structural changes in the MoD have led to a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities. The MoD should report to us on the results of its work looking at this problem. We also wish to know how responsibilities are aligned with risk management structures and, how it is improving business continuity arrangements. We do not accept the assertion that because the detailed Strategic Risk Register is produced as advice to the Defence Secretary and the Defence Board, that fact should preclude members of the Committee from being able to see it. The Register is an important document with several functions, and it needs to be open to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the very least, the MoD should provide us with a commentary on the reassessment of the risks presented to the Defence Board and with the new Risk Framework documentation. (Paragraph 12)

7. We recommend that the MoD should tell us what it is doing to manage the risks resulting from the volume of change presently being undertaken in the MoD alongside business as usual. (Paragraph 14)

8. We are concerned that the rate of voluntary outflow from the Armed Forces is above the long term average. The MoD should identify the causes of this increased outflow and determine what measures it needs to put in place to reduce the outflow. (Paragraph 15)

9. The MoD should support the Services in addressing shortages in pinch point trades—key shortages which leave the Armed Forces vulnerable now and in the future. The MoD and the Armed Forces should explore ways of filling these gaps by offering financial or other incentives to Service personnel to encourage those in pinch point trades to continue in service and to encourage others to undertake training in these trades or by using reservists and private sector contractors. (Paragraph 20)

10. It is unsatisfactory that harmony guidelines are still being breached for some Armed Forces personnel, in particular that over five per cent of the Army is away from home in excess of the recommended time. The MoD should provide us with the annual figures for breaches of harmony guidelines over the last ten years. We call on the MoD to set out a timetable for reaching a point where no Armed Forces personnel are in breach of harmony guidelines. (Paragraph 23)

11. As Lord Levene said in his second annual review of the Defence Reform programme, management information is critical for the effective management of Defence. The MoD should update us on its proposals to improve its management information systems in particular its financial management information systems. It should also describe in detail its planned work on costing defence outputs, in particular, operations. It should tell us the planned future level of investment in cost modelling and data and systems exploitation. (Paragraph 27)

12. The MoD has presided over significant cost increases in the Carrier Programme mainly caused by repeated changes to the requirement. We ask the MoD to confirm whether the Carrier programme is now on track and whether it now expects the programme to proceed without further significant cost or time overruns. (Paragraph 32)

Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13

13. We are concerned that the MoD is still so dependent on external accountancy support to produce its annual accounts. The amount it spent on external accountancy support to produce the accounts is excessive. We ask the MoD to provide us with a timetable setting out milestones for progress towards producing its annual accounts without significant external resources. (Paragraph 34)

14. We call on the MoD to report the finding of its review of contracts likely to be affected by the International Financial Reporting Issues Committee Interpretation (IFRIC) 4. We also ask the MoD to inform us about the cost and manpower implications of the work required to ensure compliance with IFRIC4 and provide us with an undertaking that the steps it has taken would fully addressed the grounds of the qualification. (Paragraph 43)

15. We are pleased to see that the MoD is finally taking inventory management seriously. However, there is still much work to be done. We expect to see the relevant IT systems delivered on time and making a valuable contribution to inventory management by 2014-15. In response to this Report, the MoD should tell us what further measures it needs to take to remedy the poor state of inventory control in the MoD and the timetable to introduce them. (Paragraph 50)

Areas where the MoD should provide additional information in its Annual Report and Accounts (as recommended in paragraph 6)

1. Readiness levels

2. Manning levels for each Service by officers and non-commissioned officers and other ranks

3. Pinch point trades, both operational and manning

4. Harmony guidelines for each Service highlighting any subgroups which are regularly breaching the guidelines

5. Voluntary outflow statistics for each Service by officers and non-commissioned officers and other ranks

6. Recruitment levels against targets for each Service by officers and non-commissioned officers and other ranks for regulars and reservists

7. Indicators reflecting the delivery of Defence Transformation and structural reform priorities including the new employment model

8. Performance against Future Force 2020 targets

9. Performance of DE&S including the Major Projects Report projects and the supply and maintenance of equipment, all set against robust targets

10. Performance of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in managing the estate including that of Service personnel's accommodation set against robust targets

Other efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability measures of the MoD's performance in supporting the Armed Forces
Al R is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 16:10
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just shows that it isn't just the RAF that are critically undermanned; someone has been talking to the select committee and I get the feeling they have gotten the message.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 16:15
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,360
Received 455 Likes on 120 Posts
Bloody politicians

I love points 9 and 10 best.
The report says that harmony guidelines should be adhered to and financial incentives should be found to solve problems. So let's cut your budgets and make thousands of Armed Forces personnel redundant then. That should help.
BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 16:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And a "harmony guideline" is?
Wander00 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 16:59
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Stamford
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From AFPRB 2013 para 2.11

Harmony Guidelines are set to ensure balance between competing aspects of the lives of Service personnel: operations; time recuperating after operational tours; personal and professional development; unit formation training; and time with families. Each Service has different criteria for Harmony Guidelines (1), reflecting different operational requirements and practices. The guidelines are: separation levels of about 60 per cent for the Naval Service; 45 per cent for the Army; and 38 per cent for the RAF. Any personnel exceeding these limits across a rolling period will have breached these guidelines. Quarterly figures show that the levels of breaches have been fairly constant over the past two years within each Service at about one per cent for the Naval Service, almost three per cent for the RAF and just over five per cent for the Army. However, these figures mask higher individual levels of harmony breaches in specific trades and ranks.


Note 1 - Royal Navy – In any 36 month period, no one to exceed 660 days of separated service; Army – Over a rolling 30 month period no one to exceed 415 days of separated service; RAF – not to experience separated service in excess of 280 days (all codes) in any 24 month period.
Stuff is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 17:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lima Peru
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A 'guide' to the amount of time an individual/unit (Formation.) should be spending on Ops/Leave/Training etc. The idea being that the pain is spread.

However, if you are in a pinch trade, or have very specific skill sets, then you can end up deploying way more than someone else of similar trade/branch, but different qualifications. There has been some disconnect, certainly in the FJ sqns, whereby do training deployments (A few weather flying days at a different airfield, for example.) count as time away from base in the Harmony plan?
CAndyPOB is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 17:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,779
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
The Navy have the best harmony compliance rate because they take it very seriously. They are also meticulous in recording even single nights away from home towards the stats.

The Army take it seriously, too. I believe a 2* officer has to authorise individual deployments that breach harmony.

The RAF doesn't take it anywhere near as seriously. Most units I know use the "separated service" days from JPA as the harmony measure, and that only starts counting after 10 days away. This means that most routine dets and business trips do not count. And that's assuming units even "move and track" their pers in the first place. The RAF needs to take harmony more seriously because "undetected" breaches are starting to cause dissent at the front line, especially on RW and the Tornado force.

By the way, one reason for the differing harmony standards between the services is the fact that the RAF tends to work longer hours when "at home", eg providing QRA or the AT/AAR hub. Less time "in barracks" and no POETS day in light blue :-)
Easy Street is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 18:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Didn't I read recently that the RAF has just relaxed its Harmony to match those of the Navy?
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 18:37
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I love that in our place, when harmony was introduced we totted up all days away from home.
We all exceeded harmony limits so it became ops and op training.
We all exceeded harmony so it became ops only....
theboywide is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 18:47
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,779
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
JTO,

RAF harmony has recently been aligned with the Army's, although I think there are still a few days' difference. The Navy still has its higher figure, which has its roots in the idea that "you join the Navy, you get a lot of time away on a boat". It's part of the deal when you choose which service to join...
Easy Street is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 19:10
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Thanks Easy and I agree with your points regarding recording actual sep service. I spent some years with a fleet that spent most of the time away but usually less that 10 days at a time. On top of that we did big dets that did count in the figures… clearly the difference between the two were lost on the family. I think the accounting needs to be sharpened-up.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 19:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 833
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
By the way, one reason for the differing harmony standards between the services is the fact that the RAF tends to work longer hours when "at home", eg providing QRA or the AT/AAR hub. Less time "in barracks" and no POETS day in light blue :-)
Ah ha, ha ha ha ha, ah ha. ha ha ha ha, ho ho ho, ha, ha, ha.

No seriously, stop. My sides can't take it.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 19:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't believe that anyone joining any branch of the armed forces in the last 15 years or so ago didn't know they were going to be away for long periods. You are/were all volunteers guys, you chose the job, if it doesn't suit you, walk away. I might add I did my 22.
thing is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 19:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Get real thing. We are supposed to treat people and their families humanely; I know of pinch-points and individuals who have done 2 years away in a 3 year period; which would not sound too awful if they hadn't done exactly the same thing in the preceding 3 years. With repetitive and overlapping RoS requirements even PVRing is not an option for some.

This is not an issue that should be resolved by repeatedly relaxing the harmony guidelines. This is not a prison sentence and the families have done nothing wrong!
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 19:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Get real thing.
So are you seriously telling me that someone joining up since say 2000 didn't know that they would be spending long periods away? I'm all for family harmony etc, I spent long enough periods away during my service but that goes with the job. It's part of it. It's like teachers complaining that the job would be great if it wasn't for the kids, it's nonsensical.

You volunteered to do the job, you knew what it entailed, you're quite happy to take the money and pension. I can't understand why people stay in a job that they obviously dislike so much. I'm not aiming that specifically at you by the way. If you don't like it, don't do it. It's that simple.
thing is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 20:04
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 126 Likes on 26 Posts
Pretty much everyone on my sqn is harmony red except for the new guys, but then we've had crews rotating on ops continuously since 2003.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 20:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 126 Likes on 26 Posts
Thing: whilst there is some truth in what you say things have got worse as overall numbers are reduced & harmony guidelines have been ignored. So the cumulative effect is to disenchant those who may have been doing the job for some time & it gets harder to cope with as family responsibilities for example change & increase. Partner starts to complain & the individual looks to leave or gets a divorce. Either way it leads to massive discontent & a steady outflow of expensively trained personnel which reduces the overall numbers etc.

Next you'll be saying, 'they volunteered so they should expect to get killed', as one hears so often from idiot civilians.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 20:15
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 18 Posts
thing

I think thats the problem. Long time away might be okay by you, but for many of the current generation it is not and they are walking with their feet as you have suggested!

Telling these people 'it comes with the job' will not stop the flow. Those who did join the military in 2000 joined a considerably larger organisation and have seen funding, personnel, bases and equipment cut repeatedly whilst the amount of work required just goes up and up.
m0nkfish is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 20:17
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: scotland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thing,

Technically you are correct, but irrespective of people knowing what they were getting into when they joined, they are now voting with their feet.

I did 22 years as well, but the truth be known after all those years of constant stints of separation I also had enough by the end. It wasn't me really, I loved all the detachments and the ops, it was watching my family suffer that made me finally pull the plug.

What do you propose?

Last edited by light_my_spey; 11th Feb 2014 at 20:23. Reason: spelling
light_my_spey is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2014, 20:23
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Next you'll be saying, 'they volunteered so they should expect to get killed',
No, there's a risk that they may get killed, different thing.

I'm being Devil's advocate a bit, sorry if I sound mean. I still have very close contact with the RAF and know what is happening at grass roots and above. I hear what you say.

I genuinely think that a lot of guys never consider that it's something that they can actually stop doing if they wish. JTO mentions prison sentences, I sometimes hear guys talking about it as if it were. It's not. You can walk away at any time.

I did 22 years as well, but the truth be known after all those years of constant stints of separation I also had enough by the end. It wasn't me really, I loved all the detachments and the ops, it was watching my family suffer that made me finally pull the plug.

What do you propose?
I propose that people should do as they are doing and vote with their feet. I'd had enough by 22 as well. Thoroughly enjoyed (well most of the time) it. But it's a young man's game and by the time I was 39 I wanted to be a grown up.

Edit: Yeah I know, I never achieved it...
thing is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.