Public and Commercial Services Union

Our union sent a delegation to meet with Bob Ainsworth, Armed forces minister to explain the threat to training service personnel posed by DTR and second meeting on package 2 held with new IPT

Introduction

As part of the PCS campaign on DTR, the union has been seeking to engage the government at ministerial level rather than be continually stonewalled by the DTR IPT. On Wednesday 21 January, the meeting with Bob Ainsworth finally took place.

PCS explains its position - Min AF hears, but does not listen

The PCS delegation explained to the ,inister that PCS had not opposed tri-service rationalisation, and although opposed to PFI- understood government policy in utilising private finance. However, PCS could not accept and never would, that selling off our members to the private sector to exploit and make redundant was either in defence’s interest or indeed the country’s.

PCS pressed the minister explaining that our members are “the contract” and the failure to keep them delivering training would lead to contract failure and put defence training at risk. PCS explained that our members, outside of St Athan, were unwilling to transfer across the country and move to South Wales.

PCS also pointed out that St Athan couldn’t recruit instructional officers(IOs) now- being some 28% below complement already, and posed the question, how can METRIX recruit in the limited area of South Wales all the IOs it will require to deliver training, given the site couldn’t even recruit and retain now?

Our union also pointed out that it had been excluded from seeing the “fall back” plan in detail and the risk mitigation plans that underpin the risk register. PCS refuted the contention of both the IPT and Tim Inshaw that these matters were “commercial in confidence”.

Bob Ainsworth, an ex trade union official with MSF in the Jaguar car plant in Coventry, fully understood and even empathised with the PCS position. However, he made it quite clear that as long as METRIX was spending money on developing its final solution, then he would continue to press ahead with trying to deliver privatisation of training areas in scope of package 1.

Our union suggested, as it has previously, that MoD consider de-coupling the build programme from training delivery and support. Here the minister deferred to the IPT Team Leader Geoff Nield, who was present. Nield dismissed the suggestion claiming training and estate management were integral and a “holistic” approach was needed. This in itself will be a revelation to companies like Vosper Thorneycroft at Collingwood, Sultan, Bordon, Arborfield, Raleigh, and Bovingdon- where they provide the training but do not own the estate or its buildings!

Of course METRIX want the build programme and the training contract too. It is scarcely credible that Nield, and more particularly Bob Ainsworth- given his former trade union credentials, can fail to understand the motivation of any corporation or similar organisation- i.e. to increase shareholder value. This has nothing to do with what’s best for defence, and everything to do with what’s most profitable for METRIX.

The minister clearly wanted to engage with PCS but was concerned that sharing information with the trade unions appears to rebound upon him and the department. PCS assured the minister that if genuinely commercially sensitive material was shared with PCS, then it would not find its way into the public domain through our union. However, all other material gained at meetings or through freedom of information etc are of public record and PCS would continue to use them in its DTR campaign.

The minister undertook to look at whether PCS could receive copies of the risk mitigation plans and the fall back position and its financial footprint.

Clearly, the PCS will continue to campaign against the privatisation of package 1 and package 2- should that IPT push the solution down the outsourcing road.

It may be that the credit crunch will either push this programme even further to the right or finish it off entirely. But either way, PCS cannot rely upon the economy or the political masters to halt DTR. This will have to be achieved by members coming together and continuing with other unions and likeminded community organisations to end the madness of defence training privatisation.

Package 2 meeting

The first meeting between PCS, Prospect and package 2 IPT was held in Upavon on 27th January. The IPT shared its work to date which lacked any details yet on proposed solutions, as the IPT will be base lining and gathering information for some time yet.

What we do know is:

• Package 2 includes DCLPA, DCPG and MDPGA. This therefore includes only two defence colleges given the departure of DISC from package
• Deepcut is to close- but exactly what the solution is in terms of move options is still being scoped.
• That the IPT has employed 3 consultancy firms- KPMG as “Training Advisor”, Entec and Grimley’s as “Estates Advisors”.
• That the time lines of package 1 and package 2 is now fully disaggregated. Previously there was an expectation that package 2 would be delivered against the same time line as package 1. Information from PK2 IPT proposes main gate business case in Spring 2010, initial training capacity in Spring 2013 and full training capacity in Spring 2018. This however is likely to change, and if package 1 is anything to go by- move to the right.

As we receive more information on the maturing solutions within package 2, PCS will promulgate it through further BBs.

Chris Ames, a journalist PCS has been working with recently filed the following story on his blog.

More misleading ministers

It is now clear that ministers have repeatedly misled MPs over the escalating costs of their biggest ever private finance initiative (PFI) project.

Under the defence training review (DTR) ministers plan to give the Metrix consortium a 30-year contract to build and run a specialist military academy in Wales. But increased borrowing costs and falls in the value of surplus MoD land have pushed the project’s price tag to £12bn. Many doubt the scheme's viability.

The National Audit Office recently disclosed that this “significant cost growth” led the Ministry of Defence to deem the project unaffordable last May. In spite of this, hapless Armed forces minister Bob Ainsworth has repeatedly claimed that it provides savings to the taxpayer.

Last April, a week after he was told of a £1bn increase in costs, Mr Ainsworth stated in a written parliamentary answer that the project provided savings of approximately £400 million over 30 years.

On 3 November, Ainsworth told MPs that “the programme is still affordable and remains more affordable than the in-house alternative”. But the MoD subsequently disclosed under the freedom of information act that the cost of the programme remained at £12bn. It has also emerged that the MoD has developed a new in-house “fallback” proposal, which it has deemed both “affordable and deliverable”.

Tory MP Mark Pritchard is a vocal opponent of the privatisation, which is interesting in itself. His constituency of the Wrekin includes RAF Cosford, which would close under the PFI.

He says: “the project’s figures no longer add up - and neither do the minister’s words. There needs to be an early and updated statement in the House to clear up a long list of ministerial contradictions.”

In a letter to Pritchard, Ainsworth has asserted that his statement that the project was affordable was correct “at the time… following negotiations with Metrix to drive down costs and a rigorous and detailed assessment of the project’s affordability issues”.

Ainsworth declined to stand by his claim that the PFI option was “more affordable than the in-house alternative”. Ironically, he stated that detailed information on the costs of the in-house option “underpins our negotiating position with Metrix, and its disclosure would hinder the MoD’s ability to achieve value-for-money”.

Pritchard has accused Ainsworth of compromising his own department's negotiating position and prejudicing its ongoing evaluation.

He claims that the government’s current financial difficulties mean the Treasury cannot ignore the rising costs of the project. "It is no longer tenable for ministers to write off the fallback in-house option." he says.

An MoD spokesperson told me: “The bottom line is that [the project] is affordable. The MOD and Metrix have over the last few months and continue to work constructively together to drive down costs without materially affecting the scope of the project. You can’t solely focus on the cost, affordability also incorporates the fact that [the project] is now the best value for money for the taxpayer.” But she refused to deny that the MoD has increased its funding for the project to ease its affordability issues.

Under the PFI, staff from Cosford and other MoD bases would have the option of transferring to St Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan as employees of the Metrix consortium, which includes arms companies Qinetiq and Raytheon, as well as training bodies City and Guilds and the Open University.

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union opposes the PFI. Regional spokesperson Robert O'Harney, says: “Should the PFI go ahead, it will see our members being privatised and then 4 years later being given the choice of moving themselves and families to Wales or being made redundant. Additionally the vast ex-military experience of many of our members will be lost forever.”

Parliamentary clash

Mark Pritchard continues to badger the government on the rising cost of DTR. He submitted a written question:

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the implications for Wales of the defence training review programme.

The reply from the government was:

The St. Athan Defence Training Academy is a very important project for Wales. The substantial investment of Package 1 will create thousands of direct and indirect jobs both during construction and from 2013, when construction is completed.

On the 28th January the following oral exchange was recorded in Hansard:

Mark Pritchard (Wrekin)

John Smith has claimed many times that hundreds of jobs will come to Wales as a result of the defence training review programme, but the programme has rising costs and increasing delays. Indeed, in his desperation, the hon. Gentleman visited the Prime Minister this week, even though the latter has given no assurance that the defence training review will go ahead in Wales. Do we not need an early statement from the Secretary of State giving us the truth about the project and its rising costs?

Paul Murphy (Secretary of State, Wales Office)

I have had no indication at all that there will be any change of plan as far as that huge investment in Wales is concerned. The Government are committed to it but I am sure that, when the time comes, there will be a proper statement to this House of Commons.

John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment levels in south Wales will be greatly improved by the 5,000 jobs brought to the area by the defence technical academy? Does he also agree that it is about time that Opposition Members stopped knocking the project and began pulling together to ensure that it is brought in on time and within budget?

Paul Murphy (Secretary of State, Wales Office)

That is what we all like to hear. My hon. Friend has been a great champion of the project. When those jobs come to Wales, it will be as a result of the biggest single Government investment in Wales ever.

Clearly John Smith is still playing his role of drummer boy for METRIX, but his figures are as credible as his knowledge of defence training. John Smith recently talked about the need to get away from “chalk and talk” training- it shows how little he knows about the modern training environment. PCS believes not only do his 5,000 jobs include over a 1,000 military posts- which to the public are hardly countable, but also many of the jobs Smith continually mentions are transitory jobs created during the build phase.

Conclusion

The DTR campaigns committee will be meeting shortly to plan the next phase of the DTR campaign. Members are urged to look out for details on how they can continue to be involved in defence of their jobs and to protect defence training from METRIX market madness.