Labour Friends of the Forces

Article by Mark Collinson on Defence Report.

British veterans’ benefits initiatives look to government for leadership and funding
Since the announcement of UK defence cuts, including a reduction of 20 thousand regular Army soldiers by 2017, Labour party critics and policy experts have begun the probing process of weighing the coalition’s planned strategy for after-service government assistance for Britain’s veterans.

Some experts say such care – which might include educational, housing or health benefits – is a difficult thing to define in British society. Though similar services may be available to serving military, no catch all government programme exists to assess or award such aid to ex-military.

“Who are veterans in the 21st century and what are their rights?” This is a question circulating among policy planners and military alike, Hugh Milroy of the charity Veterans Aid told DefenceReport. Milroy, a former RAF officer and chief executive of the charity, focuses his organisation’s work on securing accommodation for ex-forces candidates.

But while charitable organisations have taken on some of the after-service care needs faced by some veterans, policy planners have been critical of what they deem to be a government sidestep to avoid the issue.

And with further cuts to Britiain’s defence budget, along with what critics say is fading morale of many British troops who fear that they could find themselves without jobs, many feel there is an even greater need to assess the rights of veterans to ensure that their transitional period is a smooth one.

Labour: we need to boost forces’ morale

“This is a very difficult time at the moment for so many people who are being forced to leave against their will, so morale is a real problem,” Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy told DefenceReport. “I think when the election is held in 2015 Labour is going to come forward with a serious plan to boost the morale of our Armed Forces,” he added.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was not available for comment, but an MoD spokesperson said “we know the transition into civilian life can be daunting which is why we ensure that all service leavers have access to crucial support including housing advice, career guidance and social benefits.”

Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy says Labour will address forces’ flagging moraleJim Murphy, who has been critical of the coalition’s defence policy and particularly the handling of personnel cuts, told DefenceReport that “although the Labour Party disagree with the government on many issues, on the basis that this is the policy, it needs to be a success for the country’s sake.”

Prime Minister David Cameron reportedly began addressing this issue through the creation in 2012 of a relatively new role for Lord Ashcroft as Special Representative for Veteran Transition. Government sources have said the peer will be working across all government departments to review the help that military personnel receive as they move from uniformed service to civilian life.

His work includes the so-called Veterans’ Transition Review. This survey, whose results will be reported by the close of 2013, reportedly aims to “look at the advice and support available for personnel returning to civilian life from the Armed Forces” and will scrutinise “all aspects of transition, consulting government departments, charities, industry and the Services themselves.”

One major concern for Lord Ashcroft will be to find sustainable accommodation for veterans who will be joining a housing market which is expected to reach an all time high by 2015 with a 14 percent rise in housing costs forecast.

Milroy, who’s Veterans Aid charity helps find up to 200 UK veterans accommodation yearly, believes that a scheme similar to a student loan would be extremely effective and could dramatically change the system. “So you finish your time in the Armed Forces and are then allowed a loan. This allows you to get the training that you want, to get sustainable accommodation and get on with your life. Once you reach a certain amount you can pay it back,” he says.

Jobs, economy troubles spread to veterans groups
Another debate taking centre stage revolves around how to help veterans get back into work. Whilst the UK has avoided a triple-dip recession by a fraction of a percent, unemployment has risen to nearly eight percent. These factors have led experts to question how veterans might be eased into the jobs market without upsetting the wider UK economy.
Several key challenges still face veterans who are seeking to return to work. Experts say one of these is a reluctance among employers to employ ex-military. “There is something in the British culture that is a little suspicious of the ex-serviceman because they feel that he has a particular way of doing things, and won’t be willing to change,” says Professor Edgar Jones of the Department of War Studies at King’s College.

Perhaps an even darker side to the challenge of reintegrating soldiers into British society is recent research that connects violent crime with UK veterans.

A recent study by King’s College London examined the links between the military and violent crime, using some 14 thousand official criminal records from British soldiers deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. It found that around three thousand soldiers under the age of 30 had a criminal conviction for a violent offence. This translates to 20.6 percent, compared to 6.7 percent of the general UK population.

Professor Jones told DefenceReport that these statistics do not necessarily paint a negative picture of veterans, but may frame some of the bigger issues facing British society. “People forget that the Armed Forces are a reflection of society as a whole, and the patterns that you see in the military really reflect that of society as a whole.”

“Some of the best soldiers I have had the privilege to command most directly, that is at junior level, had convictions. They came from booze-fuelled corners of big cities where a conviction was almost a rite of passage,” added Major General John Moore-Bick, former director of Staff Duties at the MoD and now General Secretary for the Forces Pension Fund.

In the UK today, a person with a conviction for a “violent crime” is still eligible to be considered for military service. And while insiders may feel that convictions do not translate to problematic work records, civilian recruiters must weigh these attributes against an increasingly competitive labour market.

In the US, First Lady Michelle Obama and White House advisors aim to combat American veteran joblessness with the Joining Forces campaign that has encouraged a number of businesses to employ veterans. Most notably, Walmart Stores, Inc. has pledged to employ 100 thousand veterans over the next five years.

The Shadow Defence Secretary explained to DefenceReport how the Labour Party is planning something similar for the UK.

Government programmes and public stigma
“We have launched the Veterans Interview Programme (VIP) which is getting some of the biggest employers in the country to offer guaranteed job interviews to out-of-work veterans. So even though we may not be in government, we are attracted to the idea.”

But according to some critics, such a scheme might drive a wedge into the job market and reduce public sympathy towards veterans and the Armed Forces.

even people out of work understand that we have a responsibility to those who have returned from Afghanistan
Jim Murphy responded to these fears by asserting that ”even people out of work understand that we have a responsibility to those who have returned from Afghanistan. So I hear the argument. I just don’t believe it.”

At present, service leavers can access resettlement support two years either side of their discharge, including the Career Transition Partnership. According to the MoD, this programme “historically” gets those looking for work back into full-time employment “within six months.”

“The skills that can be learnt in the Armed Forces are exceptional,” says the Shadow Defence Secretary, ”and what we have to talk about is that, and about the remarkable skills people leaving the military have.”

It is an agenda with which Hugh Milroy very much agrees, beginning with refocusing on veterans’ marketable skill sets. “There is going to be a post-heroes time, when people won’t even remember how to spell ‘Afghanistan’. We have to be here for the long haul and stop with the constant reflection. The real issue is how we move forward,” adds Milroy.

With the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 nearing these are some of the issues experts say must be considered. According to them, the British Army may be shrinking, but its veterans’ needs are not.

Jim Murphy MP, Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary, in response to the Public Accounts Committee report, ‘Ministry of Defence: Equipment Plan 2012–2022 and Major Projects Report 2012’, said:

“Rather than posturing to the Conservative Party over Europe, the Defence Secretary should get to grips with defence procurement.

“This is the second damaging report which has proven the Defence Secretary’s claims to have balanced the budget to be totally false.

“There are unanswered questions and unfinished business in defence procurement reform, but unfortunately the Defence Secretary is wasting time and money.

“This report shows that new equipment may not be able to be purchased in future as there is insufficient slack in the budget. The future funding settlement for defence equipment is uncertain, despite Prime Ministerial promises. The Defence Secretary is failing to reform procurement practices to control programmes’ timescales.

“We welcome any progress, but further work must be done to professionalise defence procurement, ensure contingency is sufficient and that industry partners deliver to targets for time and cost.

“This is essential work not just for the Department’s baseline but to give our Forces what they need on the frontline.”

The report can be read in full here.

Article by Alison Seabeck MP, Shadow Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, in a article in Defence Management Journal, said:

In April, Defence Minister, Philip Dunne, pushed out a long awaited statement on the Defence Procurement. Sadly, at a time when industry is crying out for some certainty, it begs more questions than it answers.

The Defence industry is perfectly within their rights to be asking government the question ‘What have you been doing for the last three years?’

There is consensus across the political divide that successive administrations did not sufficiently reform defence procurement and as a result elements of the equipment programme were ‘over-heated’ while the MOD was underpowered.

Chief of Defence Materiel, Bernard Gray, brought in by the last Labour Government to examine the issue, has persuaded ministers that a GoCo (Government-owned, Contractor-Operated) model should be the preferred model for future management of Defence Equipment and Support. Ministers have now announced a year-long consultation to make the idea stack up.

Unfortunately, the non-engagement to date of outside parties, whether political or industrial, has made it harder for those of us with a clear interest in making this work to have confidence in the process.

There are a myriad questions which remain unanswered. Primarily we must know where the financial risk lies? No government has previously set up a private body responsible for managing multiple programmes of such complexity and value. The US Government looked at clustering projects but has now backed away from this model. Everyone in the UK will want to know whether shareholders will be willing to shoulder the financial risk which derives from the potential for delay, over-run or scope development, or whether they will be expecting the government to continue to underwrite the GoCo’s decisions. If the case is the latter, many would view this as rather defeating the object. Warning bells are already ringing around Westminster about the management of risk within the MoD and we already know from successive Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and National Audit Office (NAO) reports that the MoD struggles when it comes to assessing risk. Many will be asking, who is responsible for ‘pricing in’ risk and, indeed, whether existing contracts will be renegotiated by the GoCo? If so, the Core Equipment Programme could be thrown into jeopardy and any increase in individual programmes’ forecast costs could eat up financial contingency.

Furthermore, it is unclear where accountability will sit for the outcomes of decisions taken by the GoCo, the scope of their decision-making power and the oversight provided by ministers. There will be concern if Parliamentary oversight, in particular that provided by the PAC, were to be weakened. They must be able to access the decision-makers within the GoCo.

We will also clearly need to be told what the role of the Investment Approvals Committee will be should a GoCo be introduced. It will also be important to understand how a GoCo would sit alongside the Levene proposals to give Service Chiefs greater responsibility and flexibilities within their budgets, and whether this sensible reform is undermined by the transfer of power to a GoCo.

Many in industry have raised concerns about the length of the contract for any consortium running the GoCo, the likelihood of this being shorter than contracts for individual programmes and the instability to programmes arising from retendering.

Additionally, across the workforce many want reassurances that staff will be transferred under the TUPE arrangements.

These are all issues which the Opposition Front Bench has been waiting to ask, but has not been given access to do so.

Understandably industry is asking to be part of the debate which has to be undertaken on this dramatic change to the way in which the Government does business. It is important that the government draws on views from within the MoD and from outside, and from the people they expect and want to do business with in the future. It is essential that industry’s voice is heard: we have to nurture a level of trust and confidence between government and our industry partners which has been sadly lacking of late.

Just setting up a body which drives down cost and increases efficiency might satisfy an accountant, but it will not sustain our defence manufacturing sector or the employment and exports which benefit the UK. Labour recognises the need for procurement reform and supports radicalism in the area, but reform must deliver our strategic objectives of sustaining our defence industrial sector, retaining and growing skills for the benefit of the wider economy, as well as providing world class equipment for our men and women on the frontline. The GoCo mustn’t be set up as a ‘one trick pony’. This is about the right reforms, and the onus is on Government to make the case for a GoCo.