MoD wins its compensation appeal: 'a victory for bureaucracy over bravery'

Defence Secretary Ainsworth and senior civil servants at the MoD must be feeling very smug and self-satisfied today because the Court of Appeal has upheld their claim against the awards made by the compensation tribunal to two injured British soldiers.

When the tribunal increased the basic compensation awarded to Corporal Anthony Duncan and Royal Marine Matthew McWilliams because both men had suffered further health problems as a result of their injuries, the MoD took the case to the High Court to get the increases revoked.

The High Court upheld the awards amde to the soldeirs but the MoD was determined to claw back the compensation and doggedly pursued the case to the Court of Appeal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ministers and MPs continue to rip off the taxpayers by cynically manipulating their expenses (particularly those relating to 'second homes').

Civil servants at the MoD continue to get massive annual bonuses or receive hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation for a strained thumb or 'work-related stress'.

Meanwhile two soldiers may have to repay compensation awarded to them for their injuries.

The Mail: Injured servicemen face having compensation slashed after MoD wins court battle
BBC: Smith apology for expenses claims

Al Qaeda goes nuclear just as MoD cuts 900 guards

Two articles appeared in today's newspapers which, when read together, make for uncomfortable reading.

In the article 'Big Bang scientist admits plotting Al Qaeda atrocity', the Daily Mail reports that French police have uncovered a terror plot by an eminent Algerian nuclear physicist currently working on the CERN nuclear research euro-project. The scientist

is alledged to have been planning to use his expertise to set off a nuclear explosion - possibly in the UK. A British security source said: "It appears that Al Qaeda are now deliberately recruiting extremely intelligent people who have both the knowledge and the resources to potentially create a nuclear bomb or identify nuclear targets".

Under the headline 'Skint MoD will axe 900 nuke base cops', today's Sun reports that the MoD is considering a "suicide" mission: slashing the military police force which guards the UK's nuclear installations. A defence source is reported to have said: ""These guys guard nuke depots and weapons silos round the clock as well as intelligence units, docks and training facilities - every sensitive military building in Britain. They also watch over barracks housing the loved ones of troops fighting on the front-line"

So there you have it: just as Al Qaeda is planning to use weapons of mass destruction, the MoD is planning to leave the doors to the UK's nuclear installations unlocked for them.

We can all sleep safely with labour!

The Mail: Big Bang scientist 'admits plotting Al Qaeda atrocity'
The Sun: Skint MoD will axe 900 nuke base cops

A Fox in the hen house

Tory shadow defence minister Liam Fox has said that he is determined to hold a Strategic Defence Review as soon as he is sat behind his desk at the MoD.

He also ominously says that what will govern the Review will be “the budgetary constraints within which we will have to operate”.

We know what that means: stringent cuts in the defence budget can be expected soon after a Tory government is installed.

Mr Fox has already promised a cull of civilian personnel in the MoD along with vague references to other "efficiency savings". But we've heard all this many times before; we know empirically that the defence bureaucracy always seems to escape the knife.

No, it will be frontline services - in the true sense of the word - which will again have to suffer the deepest cuts and the pressure will be on the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force to surrender large chunks of their budgets in favour of the Army.

Although the Army has been doing most of the fighting, bearing the brunt of the consequences of recent foreign policy initiatives, it has actually been on the receiving end of only 10% of the total spending on military equipment (based on actual and planned spending between 2003-18).

When it comes to new equipment it is the RN and RAF which get the lion share with £billions allocated to aspirational projects (Future Aircraft Carriers, SSBN nuclear subs, Eurofighter Typhoons) which have little relevance to the type of conflicts in which UK Armed Forces are currently engaged, or likely to be engaged in in the foreseeable future. The RN and RAF may be supporting the Army in Afghanistan, but they haven't been fully involved in a major operation since the Falklands in 1982.

Under both Tory and Labour governments the Armed Forces have seen their budget whittled away year on year so that in real terms it is now stands at just about half of what it was at the end of the Cold War (from 4% to 2% of GDP). In today's economic climate and with current social and educational imperatives, the military can only expect their finances to get worse. Nor can they rely on other departments' continued acquiescence in the exceptional transfer of state funds (the Urgent Operational Requirement programme).

What is clear is that there is an imbalance between the aspirations of politicians on the world stage and their willingness to provide the resources to match these aspirations. What is compounding the problem is that military budgets are still operating within the framework determined by the last Defence Review carried out some ten years ago. At that time UK's foreign policy was about the long-range projection of British influence around the world and, as a consequence, behemoths tramped over any calls their might have been for regiments and battalions.

A lot has changed over the last ten years. Now it is all about counter-insurgency and anti-terrorism and, as is obvious in Afghanistan, what such conflicts need are boots on the ground, in large numbers.
A general election is a good time for a real public debate on defence policy. The guys risking their lives on the frontline deserve clearly defined war aims, the resources to carry them out and the knowledge that the public supports them.

Tories turn their guns on the MoD

At the their party conference yesterday Liam Fox, shadow defence secretary, promised that a Tory government would look to cut the running costs of the MoD by as much as 25% to free up extra cash for spending on frontline troops.

It is astounding to read that the cost of running the MoD itself accounts for 20% of the total defence budget - that's one hell of a lot of tea and biscuits! But with 85,000 civil servants sitting behind their desks in the MoD, you can understand where it all goes.

The MoD is renowned for waste and budget overspend, all at the expense of the guys fighting on the frontline. As Liam Fox said: "The procurement process has failed to deliver on time. The top 20 major procurement programmes have a cumulative delay of 483 months. The expected cost overruns in the next 10 years alone amount to £16bn … The simple truth is that Gordon Brown as chancellor was never willing to fully fund Tony Blair's wars".

If, as the Tories insist, their cuts would not hit defence projects or the numbers in the Armed Forces, then civilian jobs must be what is in their sights. You must admit: 85,000 civil servants doing the admin for the 99,000 in the Army does sound a tad disproportionate.


Coincidently yesterday was also the day that it was announced that General Dannatt would be joining a new Tory government as, at the least, its military advisor. Can we take this 25% cut as the first manifestation of The General's revenge on the bureaucrats who conspired against him when he was CGS?

BBC: Tories 'to cut MoD costs by 25%'

Chinook MK3s: nine year criminal delay

Eight Chinook MK3 helicopters have not been able to be used since they were bought back in 2001 because the MoD tried to save money by designing its own software for them.
In what has been described by the chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee as as “one of the most incompetent procurements of all time”, Boeing warned the MoD that the avionics system software would be too complex for them to write their own

code but of course the MoD thought it knew better. For eight years the Chinooks have been sitting in a hanger gathering dust while the MoD's computer people failed to come up with their own bespoke software. The MoD has now conceded that it can't in fact adapt the helicopters into the high-tech model they planned and have been forced to settle for the original, utility version. So the eight Chinooks which could have been in service in 2001 will now be in service in 2010 and their cost has increased from £259million to £500million.

The Army has been crying out for helicopters and lives have, at the least, been put at risk because there aren't enough of them in Afghanistan.

The Chinook fiasco is not "embarrassing", it's downright criminal.

The Times: Missing software kept Chinook Mk3 helicopters in Wiltshire hangar
The Times: Chinook turns out to be one of the MoD’s most embarrassing purchases

After 12 months, discussions start on free bus passes for injured soldiers

The MoD's Service Personnel Command Paper published in July 2008 expressed a commitment to introduce concessionary bus travel for injured service personnel in Great Britain - it was already operating in N. Ireland).

Having given the highly complex bus pass proposal some serious thought, bureaucrats at the MoD estimated that it would take them nearly three years to get the scheme off the ground. That's right: three years. Unbelievable, isn't it?

12 months down the line and something has started to happen, at least in Wales; the Welsh Assembly has agreed to begin negotiations with the MoD to extend their bus pass scheme to include injured soldiers.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the bureaucrats at the MoD have now to determine what type of injury will qualify for a free bus pass. These deliberations will take them at least another 18 months and therefore the Welsh Assembly is saying: "We hope to be in a position to complete this change by April 2011".

The Royal British Legion, almost with an audible sigh, say ".. it is not anything new as it was a commitment under the command paper issued in July, 2008"

This is the item in the Command Paper:
"2.29 Concessionary Bus Travel. By 1 April 2011, the statutory bus concession in England will be extended to include Service personnel and veterans under the age of 60, who were seriously injured in service and who are resident in England. A similar scheme already exists in Northern Ireland. Scottish Ministers will consider by April 2009 how to take forward this proposal as part of the three year review currently being carried out on the Scotland-wide Free Bus Scheme for Older and Disabled People. The Welsh Assembly Government is also undertaking a review of its concessionary fares scheme and this will include plans to extend eligibility to concessionary bus travel for Service personnel and veterans who were seriously injured in service."

Whenever I go on a bus these days, the only people travelling seem to be ones with bus passes. It surely can't be that difficult to extend this to include all those covered by the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

BBC: Free bus passes for forces plan
MoD: Service Personnel Command Paper 2008

government to clawback another benefit from injured troops

Having already started legal proceedings to clawback compensation paid to wounded soldiers, Defence minister Bob Ainsworth and his labour mates are now looking to further reduce the allowances paid to wounded troops by as much as £3,000 per year.

At the moment soldiers unable to work due to battlefield injuries receive an allowance of £57 per week and 12,000 veterans are currently in receipt of this additional benefit. In a bid to get back some of the £millions the MoD has squandered on its failed defence contracts, the government is planning to axe this injury benefit as from next April.

Coming at a time when British troops are suffering their highest rate of battle injuries in Afghanistan, this latest kick in the teeth from the government has been called "morally indefensible" by the chairman of the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association.

An MoD spokesperson glibly said: "Anyone who is unhappy with the outcome of a claim has the right to appeal." And you know where that will get you; even if you win, the government will bring a lawsuit against you.

The Mail: Wounded soldiers up to £3,000 worse off a year after secret benefits axe

MoD civil servants take their seats on the gravy train

While Corporal Reynolds has his sights on a Taliban leader called Mula, back home civil servants have their sights on a mula of a different kind.

Civil servants in the MoD are not simply content with picking up massive bonuses for sitting behind desks in Kabul, they aim for much higher stakes. They aim to cash-in on the skills they have picked up at the MoD by going for lucrative jobs in the private sector - particularly, it seems, the armaments industry.

A recent investigation by the Daily Mail has found that:

• The MoD handed a £1.7billion contract for Lynx Wildcat helicopters to a company that later hired the department's top civil servant.
• The MoD's former chief operating officer of defence equipment and support - which put him in charge of £billions worth of procurement contracts - took up a consultant post at Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems.
• A former chief scientific adviser at the MoD joined Finmeccanica (supplier of the Lynx) as non-executive director.
• A former British representative in Iraq was made vice president and managing director of EDS Defence - which two months previously had won a £4billion contract for the MoD's new information infrastructure, called the ATLAS project.
• etc, etc.....

Considering that during these gentlemen's fiefdom major defence projects ran years over forecast and £millions over budget, it is surprising that commercial companies would even consider giving them jobs sweeping the floors.

Tory MP Douglas Carswell said the revelations raised 'disturbing questions' and has written to the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, asking them to consider investigating the Future Lynx deal.

The Mail: Cashing in on the MoD gravy train: 130 civil servants defect to private sector in a year

Afghan posting: clerk £50,000 ..... soldier £2,000

A civil servant sent to shuffle paper behind a desk in a safe, air-conditioned office in Kabul picks up a bonus of £50,000 for a six month posting; a soldier risking his life fighting in the dust and dirt on the frontline gets a £2,000 warzone allowance for his six month tour.

An MoD spokesperson said: "Civil servants get allowances to recognise the challenges they face".

What! This is unbelievable. But then the double standards and hypocrisy of the government should not, I suppose, come as a surprise any more.

We've seen their attempts to claw back the meagre compensation paid to injured soldiers while handing over £450,000 to a civil servant with a strained thumb.

We've seen them spending £millions on office refurbishment at the MoD while military families were having to live in squalid conditions.

We've seen top former MoD civil servants taking up lucrative directorships in the armaments industry while the projects they were meant to manage when at the MoD are years behind schedule and £millions over budget - all at a time when the troops are deprived of the equipment they urgently need and lives are put at risk as a consequence.

The Sun: £2K for troops, £50K for clerks.

MoD's enlightened approach to online messaging

In an unexpected move the MoD has decided to put its trust in the guys on the frontline and let them use online social networking websites to keep in touch with their families and friends back home. The MoD is actively encouraging soldiers on operations to describe what they are up to in Afghanistan - especially if they do so in a positive way. The MoD has even agreed to support those who are prepared to run their own blogs.

Of course there will be guidelines but essentially the word is "use your common sense and don't give away operational secrets"

This enlightened approach is in marked contrast to what happens in the US military where tight controls remain in place.

The Guardian: UK troops encouraged to use Twitter and Facebook in the field

Government bounced into bringing forward review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has rushed back from his holiday beach to announce a review of the compensation paid to members of the Armed Forces who are injured in the line of duty.

This evening he said: "I cannot allow the situation to continue that leaves the public in any doubt over my or the Government's commitment to our servicemen and women. Therefore, in order to deal with this complex issue in the most sensitive, effective and fair way possible, I have ordered the planned review of the compensation scheme to be brought forward from next year. The review will begin immediately in consultation with stakeholders including Service charities and families."

Ainsworth and Brown are spitting in the wind if they think the public believes in their "commitment".

What amazes me is how out of touch the government is, how cut off they are from the people. Not only that but the MoD must also have the worst PR company going.

The bombshell that exploded when the MoD took its own to court in order to claw back injury compensation payments from two soldiers was met with silence from ministers and fumbled, defensive damage limitation from the MoD.

Behind the scenes ministers obviously panicked as the government has been bounced into bringing forward the scheduled review of the compensation scheme.

Ainsworth's assurances that the review will have a positive outcome is welcomed ."I can offer an assurance, however, that new arrangements will benefit those with claims under the existing scheme, including those mentioned in the current court case."

MoD: MOD brings forward review of Armed Forces Compensation Scheme
BBC: MoD payout review to start early
MoD: Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

From Operation Panther's Claw to Operation Clawback

The day after (the day after!) Brown was claiming victory in Operation Panther's Claw, the news has broken that the MoD is seeking to claw back some of the compensation awarded to two injured soldiers - one wounded on the battlefield in Iraq.

The money the government is trying to get back is that paid out (approx £25k each) for the suffering caused to the soldiers from health problems which arose as a result of their original injuries. Of course this additional suffering wouldn't have happened if the guys hadn't been injured in the first place.

This is typical of the labour government's hypocrisy and duplicity when it comes to its treatment of Britain's Armed Forces. Just when you thought they couldn't stoop any lower, they slither deeper into the gutter.

After years of refusing to review the insulting amounts awarded under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, Brown and Co were eventually forced in 2007 to increase the compensation paid to soldiers whose lives - and the lives of their families - had been shattered fighting for their country. It was the long and hard-fought campaign, spearheaded by the mother of Ben Parkinson, against an intransigent government that eventually achieved recognition for the debt the country owes these guys.

A posting on today's MoD Blog seeks to offset the criticisms raised in an article in last Sunday's Telegraph, 'Injured soldiers deserve better', by saying that "you mustn't forget the Income Payment for Life" that's paid out in addition to the lump sum. How generous they are! You'd almost think it's their money. Too right the guys should receive a pension for life; they've got to live with their injuries for life.

The labour government is quite happy to pay out £millions in compensation and redundancy payments to their friends in the nationalised banks and are quite happy to sit back and say "sorry, we can't do anything about the £millions being paid in bonuses to city bankers". But when it comes to paying out a few quid to wounded soldiers: yeah, we'll stop that.

What the labour government, through the MoD, is doing today beggars belief. The bloodiest campaign yet fought is just drawing to its close and Brown has been saying: "The efforts of our troops in Helmand have been nothing short of heroic.There has been a tragic human cost. But this has not been in vain."

"A tragic human cost" - but Brown can't stomach the real cost.

Of course the two injuried soldiers who are about to be dragged through the courts are simply test cases; are being used in a much bigger game. Hundreds of soldiers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan (no surprise that the government doesn't release the figures) and the government doesn't want to have to be handing over the bankers' cash to injured squaddies.

NB. One of the two soldiers is back fighting in Afghanistan as ministers sitting in Whitehall scheme to take back his compensation.

BBC: MoD seeks to cut soldiers' payout

The Mail: The soldier whose compensation the Government is fighting to reduce ... back on the frontline in Afghanistan

MoD accused of "workplace cruelty" by sticking with IE6

Members of the Armed Forces will carry on using Microsoft's outdated Internet Explorer 6 browser, contravening the government's own advice on internet security.

According to parliamentary written answers received by labour MP Tom Watson, the majority of government departments still require staff to use IE6. Most have plans to upgrade to the more secure IE7, and some to IE8, but the Ministry of Defence has no plans to change.

The MOD is implementing a secure desktop computing service for 300,000 users worldwide through its Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) programme, but defence minister Quentin Davies said: "DII currently uses Internet Explorer 6 and at the current time does not have a requirement to move to an updated version."

Tom Watson expressed his dismay at the response. "Many civil servants use web browsers as a tool of their trade. They're as important as pens and paper. So to force them to use the most decrepit browser in the world is a rare form of workplace cruelty that should be stopped."


Kable: MoD sticks with insecure browser

MoD loses Human Rights appeal

The Court of Appeal has today ruled against the MoD and decided that the Human Rights Act does apply to British troops when deployed abroad, even when fighting on the battlefield. The judgement means that the MoD has a legal duty to make sure that troops are supplied with proper equipment.The MoD had appealed against a ruling made in the case case of Pte Jason Smith, who was killed in 2003 in Iraq, that sending soldiers out on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could amount to a breach of their human rights.

The MoD will now be taking their case to the House of Lords.

If it means that the guys on the frontline get the right equipment, that's all to the good..... as long as it doesn't compromise operations in the field.

BBC: MoD loses battlefield rights case
The Telegraph: Government loses soldiers' human rights appeal

NAO: Operations being compromised

The National Audit Office yesterday published its report "Support to High Intensity Operations". This report looks at how effective the MoD has been at supporting large-scale operations in Iraq and Afghanistan especially in terms of:

- the equipment provided and how it gets to the frontline, and

- the level of training the guys receive before they're deployed and the support they get once they have been.

The NAO recognises that "the provision of support for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is made more difficult because they operate in remote locations and harsh conditions."

Equipment

• Upto March 2009 the MoD has secured £4.2billion of extra funding from the Treasury for Urgent Operational Requirements - helicopter upgrades, improved vehicle protection, early attack warning systems for bases and electronic counter-measures.
• Apart from Vectors, the vehicles purchased or upgraded have generally met the MoD's targets although there have been shortages of spares for some vehicles particularly when used in a role different to that originally intended (e.g. Mastiffs in Afghanistan).
• Armed Forces personnel throughout the chain of command in both Iraq and Afghanistan say that UOR equipment had performed well overall, including that procured to enhance protected mobility.
• The availability and serviceability of the helicopter fleets on operations have exceeded MoD targets though sometimes at the expense of fleets back in the UK.

Logistics

• Despite the challenging operational environments, the MoD successfully delivered around 300,000 personnel and 90,000 tonnes of freight to Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years. The Department has not consistently met its supply chain targets for the timeliness of delivery (Afghanistan 57% on target, Iraq 71%) but there are signs that the supply chain is becoming more resilient.

Pre-deployment training

• For Iraq and Afghanistan, pre-deployment training is responsive to lessons identified in theatre and commanders are confident of its quality. But it is constrained by a number of factors: insufficient time for training, difficulties in replicating operational environments and shortages in training equipment.

Support and welfare on operations

• There is widespread confidence in the medical services provided on the frontline. Survival rates from severe injuries have improved especially since the introduction of Medical Emergency Response Teams.
• Accommodation at bases meets most needs and personnel are generally satisfied with it, although conditions at forward operating and patrol bases are more austere. More permanent structures are replacing tents.
• The Deployable Welfare Package, which aims to provide welfare support to personnel on operations to maintain their emotional and physical wellbeing, is generally being successfully delivered in operational theatres although there are some problems at peak times.
• Both the Army and the RAF are struggling to meet "harmony guidelines" which should be determining the frequency between deployments.

Major problems

• There have been shortages of spares for some vehicles and insufficient equipment on which to conduct pre-deployment training.
• Equipment provided for operational training is not always at the same level as that deployed in theatre, making training less realistic.
• The MoD’s performance against supply chain targets has been variable and lower for the highest priority demands.
• There is a significant difference in the provision of welfare packages at main operating bases and at forward operating and patrol bases.

National Audit Office: Support to High Intensity Operations

Defence projects continue to overrun and go over budget: now there's a surprise.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has just published its "Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report2008". This is their take on the similar report from the National Audit Office published in December 2008. And just like the NAO, the PCA paints a depressing picture of the MoD's management of the country's major £multibillion defence projects.........

"In the last year, the 20 biggest projects suffered a further £205 million of cost increases, and 96 months additional slippage. This is the worst in-year slippage since 2003. The total forecast costs for these projects have now risen to nearly £28 billion, some 12% over budget. Total slippage stands at over 40 years, a 36% increase on approved timescales. The number of Key User Requirements reported as being “at risk” of not being met has also increased from 12 to 16 in the last year.
This is a disappointing set of results, particularly because the problems are being caused by previously identified failures such as poor project management, a lack of realism, not identifying key dependencies and underestimating of costs and timescales."

The Committee identified 8 major areas of weakness but the most worrying conclusion to come out of the project review is that project delays are putting Britain's frontline troops at even greater risk. Poor project management at the MoD is having a "detrimental impact on operational capability" and causing "gaps in front-line capability". Not only that but things are actually getting worse!

Commons Public Accounts Committee: MoD Major Project Report 2008

National Audit Office: Ministry of Defence Major Projects Report 2008

Whitehall Pages: MoD responds to NAO's MoD major projects report

MoD-Notice does not apply to social chat

nuLabour in its paranoid death throes is increasingly cracking down on the long-held liberties of British citizens. One of its victims is freedom of speech.

Reading today's newspapers you would therefore not be surprised to see several articles accusing the MoD of banning Service personnel from social networking websites.

The MoD has strongly refuted these claims asserting that service personnel "are perfectly entitled to express their opinions on issues unrelated to work without seeking any authorisation". It is only on matters relating to defence that restrictions apply and prior authorisation must be sought; the military censors do not put a virtual blue line through social internet chat..... not yet anyway.

The MoD's policy is defined in its Defence Instruction and Notice "Contact with the Media and Communicating in Public". In line with the recommendations of the National Recognition Study this policy expressly encourages dialogue with the public:
"All members of the Armed Forces are encouraged to engage with the public about what they do."

"New and emerging internet technologies present significant opportunities for communicating with the public. Service personnel are encouraged to use self-publishing on the internet or similar channels to communicate with the public directly..."

"Day-in-the-life" or online diary type articles appear reasonably regularly in the press. These would obviously have been passed over the censor's desk. But unfortunately they would also have been subject to MoD spin-doctoring.
"Presentational aspects are an integral part of all MoD activity and decision-making. It is a core task of all personnel to consider how to portray their activities in an interesting and accessible way, for both the internal and external audiences."

Many of us would welcome the opportunity to read blogs containing first-hand, un-spun posts from service personnel, especially from the frontline, but it would be naïve of us to expect such accounts not to have been subject to censorship.

MoD: Defence in the Media: Soldiers not banned from Facebook etc

Telegraph: Soldiers banned from MySpace and Facebook

On a related matter, the MoD was accused of poor PR in an article in PRBlogger (Ministry of Defence PR staff uneducated about online?) for its failure to refute a negative report which appeared in the Economist. In its response to PRBlogger the MoD made the interesting comment that it does in fact refute significant inaccuracies appearing in the mainstream media but it does so anonymously, using pseudonyms. As an example the MoD referred ot its comment on an article in The Mail - ironically about the alleged ban on using social networking websites - where it used the pseudonym "DH".

MoD: Discussion on www.prblogger.com
The Mail: Soldiers banned from using MySpace and Facebook

War is Dell: another EDS/MoD success story

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has just reported that the Armed Forces' Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) programme is so far behind schedule that not only is it costing £millions more to implement but also that it is putting the country at risk as national security is having to rely on obsolete systems.

The Basics

• The MoD needs high quality, fully integrated information technology to achieve its goals, both on operations and in the UK.
• It is currently replacing hundreds of existing computer systems with a single new system, called the Defence Information Infrastructure (DII). This is being developed by the ATLAS consortium led by the infamous, many would say disastrous, US IT company EDS.
• The MoD intends to have some 150,000 terminals supporting 300,000 users at more than 2,000 sites, with additional capability on deployed operations and Royal Navy ships.
• DII must be able to handle material classified as Restricted, Secret and Top Secret.
• The DII programme began in March 2005 and will cost an estimated £7.1 billion by 2015, if fully implemented.
  

What's gone wrong

• The implementation of DII has suffered from major delays.The Committee questioned the choice of the Atlas consortium - especially EDS which was been responsible for other troubled Government IT projects including the notorious Child Support Agency system - to deliver the programme. Committee chairman Edward Leigh described EDS as "a company whose track record of delivering Government IT projects has not been exemplary" and said that the consortium had "underestimated" the complexity of the software it was creating.
• Whereas 62,800 terminals should have been installed by the end of July 2007, only 45,600 were in place at the end of September 2008!
• The main causes of delay were the programme’s over-optimistic assumptions about the condition of the buildings into which DII would be fitted and the consequent selection of an inappropriate and unresponsive methodology for installing terminals.
• DII also provides a range of core software such as word processing, email, internet access and security to run on the new system. This should all have been available in June 2006, but less than half of the requirement had been delivered two years later in June 2008!
• The slow pace of software design has been caused primarily by the ATLAS consortium’s inability to meet the MoD's requirements.

The result

• The MoD’s existing computer systems have had to be used for longer than intended, with the increased risk that one or more of them will fail.
• The forecast cost of the DII Programme has also increased by an estimated £182 million.
  Although the MoD has been able to protect benefits of the programme, some benefits will materialise later than planned.
• The programme is 18 months behind schedule. Currently implementing 3,400 units per month, the rate need to increase to 4,300 if the MoD's latest deadlines are to be met.

So there you have it.

HofC Public Accounts Committee: Defence Information Infrastructure
The Sun: £1billion MoD PC blunders
The Register: MPs bitchslap MoD mega-IT architecture project

EDS strikes again!

Not for the first time EDS, the MoD's primary IT supplier, has lost vast amounts of highly-sensitive personal data. This time a hard drive containing information on 100,000 serving military personnel and 600,000 potential recruits has gone missing - names and addresses, passport and driving licence details, doctors' names, religion and possibly also bank details have gone walkabout.

Since the hard drive has gone missing from one of EDS's "secure" areas, it is believed that the data would not have been encrypted.

Despite all the assurances given following previous data losses, EDS's security systems have failed yet again. This is the company which has been walking away with £millions of British taxpayers money for providing the MoD with (guess what?) secure defence and personnel systems!

The MoD (along with other government departments) will no doubt continue to enter into lucrative contracts with EDS, ignoring not only EDS's incompetence but also the harm the company is doing to the morale of British servicemen and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One can only wonder why the MoD continues to do business with these cowboys.

Link> The Sun: MoD data on 1m is missing
Link> ZDNet: EDS loses unencrypted armed-forces data
Link> The Guardian: MoD loses hard drive holding military personnel data

Army strength continues to decline

Although technological advances are radically improving the effectiveness of each individual soldier, the number of men on the ground remains vital to overall operational success.

The latest manning figures published today, however, show that the total strength of the British Army has reduced from 112,750 in April 2004 to 104,000 today. Four and a half years ago the Army had 8.5% (8,750) more personnel than it does today; it had 1% more (1,090) 6 months ago.

The number of recruits joining the Army has shown a reduction on the position 6 months ago whilst the number of those leaving has increased. Unfortunately these latest figures reverse the trends of the previous 12 months.

The latest figures also show that the Army is top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough indians: 1,000 too many officers and 4,400 too few other ranks.

Because over all three services the manning position is not so bad, the MoD is naturally putting a positive gloss on things. But the poor figures for the Army are a cause for concern, especially as the operational demands being placed on the Army show no sign of decreasing. It is also disappointing that the recent recruitment and retention drives seem to be having little impact.

Link> MoD: Latest Armed Forces manning figures released
Link> MoD DASA: TSP01 - UK Regular Forces Strengths and Changes
Link> The Telegraph: British Army has too many officers and not enough rank-and-file soldiers