Ministry of Defence renege on recruitment

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jul 11, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Monday, July 09, 2007
    The Ministry of Defence has only employed one in eight of the essential staff it said it needed.

    Although defence ministers promised in March to appoint 244 administration staff to handle training and welfare in Iraq and Afghanistan only 31 are in place 16 months later.

    A shortage of cash has effectively ruled out further recruitment of more permanent staff, leaving staff with unresolved pay and family problems.

    As revealed by The Herald newspaper, the MoD is already seeking to make a saving of £5m in the Territorial Army (TA) budget and also that the formation of desperately needed helicopter technicians and engineers and supply transport specialists will not take place until August 2009.

    Mark Lancaster, a Major in the TA said: "It is not only capability that will be hit. It will also impact on personnel. The manpower turnover in the TA runs at about 30% a year. The proposed cutback of £5m for the reserve forces is the equivalent of a reduction of £50m for the regular Army. That is not an exaggeration."

    A report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee warned last week the regular forces were already 5850 personnel short of full strength.

    Past cuts in recruitment have had a negative effect on managing some areas, but money constraints are stopping the MoD from recruiting enough to make up the shortfall.
  2. It looks as though training and welfare is being put on the back burner at a time when this area should be beefed up. Surly with two wars in progress training needs to be better supported in order to learn lessons from past mistakes. and ensure units are trained to the highest standard prior to going on operationnel tours. Welfare speaks for itself with steadily rising casualties a first class welfare and support system is essential if a further drain on manpower is to be stemmed.
  3. Thanks, Skynet. This is an important story, especially to anyone who remembers the way these posts were trumpeted by MOD - starting long before March 07, by the way.

    The story goes to the heart of the way the MOD treats Parliament and British public opinion.

    Skynet, any chance of a link to this story, or if you can give us an idea of where you saw it, someone else will kindly supply it, please. I gather that the original story was in The Herald?
  4. Thank you very much, DB.

    In addition to the shocking failure to fill these promised posts, Ian Bruce's story also mentions the recruitment freeze for many TA units - strenuously denied as it was by some when first mentioned on ARRSE.
  5. Well done DozyBint you just beat me to it! I think this says a lot about future intentions.
  6. Hackle do you really think the British Public gives a rats ass about training the forces for Iraq etc. Most of them still believe we as serving soldiers pay no taxes and they provide for us. As for Parliment show me a member who has stood up and fought for our forces tooth and nail.
    I believe Parliment etc, Mod are all the one, they dont really give a toss about the troops, we are there to be used and abused when it suits for as little cost as neccesary.
  7. There is an element of truth in what you say and this only leads me to say all the more reason why all of the armed forces should support BAFF. hackle and others with limited resources are chipping away at exposing this cant and can only do a more effective job with more resources. The way modern democracy works is that you only get listened to if you have a strong independent advocate. The sooner forces personnel wake up to this the better the deal they will get.
  8. scaryspice

    scaryspice LE Moderator

    With respect hackle, the Herald quote is simply not true (my bold). It is NOT likely there will be a freeze for all such units (although this was part of the original proposal) - most will simply be asked to maintain the staus quo (i.e. inflow=outfow) until next April. Only those already over 100% recruited are likely to see the use of the word "freeze".

    No I don't think this is a good thing before anyone asks, but let's not over-egg the pudding here.
  9. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

  10. scaryspice

    scaryspice LE Moderator

    Don't see that this article either agrees or disagrees with the points made here - it's got nothing to do with the non-recruting of NRPS posts which is what the previous posts here refer to and nothing to do with any restrictions on recruiting that are yet to come into force.

    I'd love to know where the "18,500 recruits" are now. Did they actually all enter the system or is this just "interested enquiries"? Meaningless really...
  11. How about the MP Mark Lancaster, quoted in the article ...? :tongue:
  12. It would be interesting to have a break down of those who leave by rank and years served. This would then give a more accurate picture of current manning levels and importantly the costs of recruitment verses training and retention. It must be cheaper and more worthwhile to retain staff by providing good conditions of service. It certainly is with all other organisations I know of but then again the MOD is not working under those same disciplines.
  13. May be able to find them buried in amongst this little lot.

    Armed Forces strength:

    Outflow of trained personnel to civillian life:

    Full time strength versus requirement - regular personnel.

    The last table shows that as at 01 Apr 07 we are nearly a thousand Officers up on requirement, and almost three and a half thousand Other Ranks down.

    *Interesting point.
    As an Army we have a ratio of over one Officer to six Soldiers. Now that's some seriously overpaid section commanders.