A computer hard drive with the private details of armed forces personnel is missing, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
The portable drive contains the names, addresses, passport numbers, dates of birth and driving licence details of around 100,000 serving personnel across the Army, Royal Navy and RAF, along with details of their next of kin.
It also contains data on 600,000 potential services applicants and the names of their referees.
The drive could not be accounted for during an audit conducted by MoD contractor EDS as part of the ongoing Cabinet Office review of data security being conducted by Sir Edmund Burton.
Officials said they were "not ruling out" the risk that bank account details of personnel were held on the drive, which belonged to its IT contractor EDS.
..EDS are a key partner in the Metrix consortium to deliver training in the biggest PFI ever at St Athan.
That this House welcomes the announcement by the Ministry of Defence of the halt to Package Two of the Defence Training Review which sought to privatise the staff who train the armed forces in driving armoured vehicles as well as in foreign languages; further welcomes that training will therefore remain at Worthy Down and Marchwood in Winchester, Southwark Park in Portsmouth, Leconfield in Hull, Aldershot, Beaconsfield and Chicksands in Cambridgeshire; but is concerned that pushing ahead with Package One, which includes engineering and mechanical training, would represent poor value for money to the taxpayer and lead to a loss of skills vital to those on the front-line as many staff would be unable to relocate to the new national training base; and is further concerned that Package Two may be pushed through despite the evaluation that it is unaffordable for the private sector to deliver
| Labour Party |
|---|
| Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Drew, David |
| Gibson, Ian |
| Hamilton, David |
| Jones, Lynne |
| McDonnell, John |
| Simpson, Alan |
| Wareing, Robert N |
| Liberal Democrats |
|---|
| Hancock, Mike |
| Hemming, John |
| Holmes, Paul |
| Russell, Bob |
| Conservative Party |
|---|
| Bottomley, Peter |
A detailed briefing has been sent to MPs to encourage them to support and sign the motion. The contents of the briefing can be viewed below.
This PFI/PPP consists of a program to:
* Rationalise defence training across MoD.
* Reduce the number of sites where training is conducted.
* Use a PFI model to build the new training infrastructure to
replace the current training and accommodation facilities.
* Privatise training support and delivery.
The program is worth £19 billion over 25 to 30 years and is divided into 2 separate packages. Although not opposed to PPP/PFI for the provision of infrastructure, we are extremely concerned about the assumption that the staff providing the services within and around facilities should automatically transfer.
PCS therefore welcomed the announcement on 25 October 2007 that package 2 of the Defence Training Review (DTR) was to be halted. This was because the package which includes staff that train the armed forces in driving armoured vehicles, lorries and jeeps as well as languages, was considered to be unaffordable. Therefore this training will remain in the public sector at the current sites for the ‘foreseeable’ future.
The main sites that will be remaining in the public sector are: Worthy Down and Marchwood in Winchester, Southwark Park in Portsmouth, Leconfield in Hull, Aldershot, Beaconsfield and Chicksands in Cambridgeshire.
PCS Concerns
However, PCS is still concerned that the dangers of privatisation and job losses for our members are every bit as real now as they were before the announcement.
The transfer of package 1 is still going ahead and we have reason to believe that the Department may hand over parts of package 2 to the Metrix consortia (comprising of QinetiQ Group, Land Securities Trillium, Nord Anglia Education, Raytheon, EDS, Curry & Brown, City & Guilds, Open University, Augusta Westlands, Laing O’Rourke, Serco and Sodexho) in the future, without fair and open competition.
Package 1 which includes aeronautical engineering, mechanical engineering and communication information systems training has already been awarded to the Metrix consortia and will see the concentration of training at St Athan in Glamorgan. There are estimated to be 1,100 staff in scope for transfer to the private sector. Currently these staff deliver training services in numerous locations across the country.
The recent criticism of Qinetiq by the National Audit Office, have added to the concern to our members in scope for privatisation. In particular 400 British job losses against a background of huge profits.
Loss of skills
In discussions with MoD PCS has consistently raised concerns over the risk to defence training of instructional and support staff not transferring to the preferred bidder. A recent PCS survey indicated that 95% would refuse to relocate. Whilst MoD recognises this as its primary risk it has not addressed the scenario, nor indeed offered any solutions. Instead MoD state that such a risk will transfer to the bidder and is therefore not the concern of the department.
The belief that a single training specialist included in the bidding consortia can deliver the same high standard provided by the current training delivery staff is questionable. If, large numbers of training staff decided against moving to the private sector, it is extremely unlikely the bidders could replace them with equally experienced instructors. DTR therefore raises the specter of an incalculable skills drain in specialist training.
Compulsory redundancy
The situation for civil servants in training support is even more alarming.
These staff are non mobile grades (they should not move from within one hour travel of their home address for work) but will still transfer on day one of the contract to the new employer. Non mobile staff will therefore be in a compulsory redundancy situation as work is moved from their current workplace to the proposed training academy at St Athan.
TUPE will offer no protection, and employers will invoke the ETO (Economic, Technical or Organisational reasons) as their authority. Therefore, DTR raises a similar situation as experienced by PCS members in DWP, where staff were transferred to the private sector and shortly thereafter made redundant. The MoD has acknowledged that this is an inevitable consequence of their decision.
Lack of accountability
PCS is concerned that the department will not to be able to control the costs of DTR. The contract’s length and the unprecedented first breakpoint after fifteen years will almost certainly lead to spiraling costs. Numerous factors could influence training requirements, including future deployments, new equipment and the quality of new recruits. The changing nature of Britain’s defence response will also impact upon the training requirement, and for these changes the private sector will exact a high financial price.
A recent NAO report into MoD contracts noted that over 50% of contracts had to be altered due to changes in specification. In a 25 year contract in an area as fast moving as defence and its associated training requirement, it is obvious that a large number of contract amendments will be made, and the contractor will charge accordingly.
Cost to local economies
PCS believe there will be economic dislocation felt in the regions as a result of the DTR. The impact on the local economies of the closure in areas such as Humberside, West Midlands and elsewhere will be enormous. For example, an economic impact assessment at Blandford estimates that the loss in demand for output in Dorset will be £276 million, the loss of the equivalent of 1,216 full time jobs. In many of the impacted areas MoD is largest employer.
Conclusion - A risk to the military frontline and a privatisation too far PCS believe that DTR will have a potentially disastrous impact on front line troops. The requirement for fully trained and proficient troops has never been greater and once the in house capacity is lost, there is no likelihood of bringing the training back into the public sector. Furthermore, when this is set against the current level of deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, PCS questions the wisdom of creating the inevitable dislocation in training that DTR privatisation will cause.
We ask MPs to support our call to halt the privatisation of defence training personnel by signing the early day motion 739.
We also ask MPs to write to the Minister Baroness Ann Taylor to raise concerns about DTR.
The Child Soldiers Training For War In America's Schools
The militarisation of youth in poor, black American public schools continues to supply the Bush wars with new recruits :
Dozens of teens dressed in uniforms provided by the US Marines stand at attention in the gym of a Chicago public high school as a drill sergeant goes through a list of the day's do's and don'ts.One in 10 public high school students in Chicago wears a military uniform to school and takes classes -- including how to shoot a gun properly -- from retired veterans.
That number is expected to rise as junior military reserve programs expand across the country now that a congressional cap of 3,500 units has been lifted from the nearly century-old scheme.
Proponents of the junior reserve programs say they provide stability and a sense of purpose for troubled youth and help to instill values such as leadership and responsibility.
But opponents say the programs divert critical resources from crumbling public schools and lead to a militarization of US society.
"To call these young people child soldiers might be technically inaccurate, but it does reveal the truth of it," said Oscar Castro, a spokesman for the National Youth and Militarism Program, an advocacy group.
Military recruiters already have the right to give presentations in public schools and to access databases with the contact information of all public school students whose parents do not remove their children from the list.
While military officials say the junior reserve programs are not used as recruiting tools, about 30 to 50 percent of cadets eventually enlist...
This is particularly troubling given that the programs are concentrated in low-income and minority neighborhoods, said Sheena Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Chicago branch of the American Friends Service Committee which lobbies against the programs.
"If you want to teach discipline and leadership then do it for everyone and don't make them wear (military) uniforms," Gibbs said. "Students (at regular schools) protest that they have to still share books but the military academy has laptops."
At Chicago's Marine Military Math and Science Academy, the first public Marine academy in the nation and the fifth military academy run by the city's school district, it's easy to see how signing up for service would be a logical post-graduation step.
