Defence Vetting Agency: Removal of Agency Status

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

As part of the programme of work associated with defence reform within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) ceased to have the status of an executive agency from 1 October 2011.

The DVA was formed in April 1997 bringing together the four National Service Vetting (NSV) organisations serving each of the armed services and the MOD. Since that date the DVA has successfully delivered NSV services to the MOD and its industry contractors, and has also provided similar services to a wide range of other Government Departments. Today it is by far the larger of the two UK Government shared service providers of NSV.

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, announced on 22 March 2011, Official Report, columns 49-50WS, the intention to establish a new Defence Business Services (DBS) organisation, bringing together the delivery of a range of corporate service functions to support all areas of the Department from one organisation. The DBS was launched in July, and the NSV function undertaken by the DVA will be provided under a new business model renamed as DBS National Security Vetting.

This change in operating status will have no impact on the DVA’s customers, and will deliver efficiencies and wider savings to Government. In particular, it will reinforce the DVA’s ability to deliver planned business improvements from its new Cerberus IT system to drive up service to its internal and external customers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had on the medical care of wounded service personnel and veterans.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Given the importance that the whole Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, place on this issue, both he and I have numerous discussions with ministerial colleagues and others across the Department, Government and the community and voluntary sector on a regular basis.

[Derek Twigg]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the concerns expressed by families recently about the care for seriously wounded and injured service personnel who will have to be discharged from the armed forces because of their injuries—including about their care in the NHS thereafter. What mechanisms have he and his colleagues put in place to ensure that those service personnel get the same standard of care as that provided currently by Defence Medical Services?

[Mr Robathan]

I think the hon. Gentleman and I would agree a great deal about this. We are extremely concerned about the future of many badly injured service personnel when they leave the armed forces, and that is why we have put in place a transition protocol. It is also why I often have meetings with Ministers in the Department of Health—indeed my next one is on Wednesday—to discuss how, going forward, we can better serve those who are badly injured. I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman will know of the Army recovery capability that was put in place by the previous Administration, which is similarly helping very badly injured people to go forward with their lives in future.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The question I was about to ask was properly asked by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), so I shall sit down.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Effective medical support is essential to any operation, so will the Minister join me in wishing 22 Field Hospital a successful forthcoming tour of Afghanistan, particularly as some 30 servicemen and women from 22 Field Hospital are in the Public Gallery watching these proceedings?

[Mr Robathan]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in wishing 22 Field Hospital a good tour. May I say to any Member of the House on either side who has seen the excellent work done by our medical personnel—both regular and reservist—out in Bastion and elsewhere that we should be very grateful to them for the hard work they do? Many reservists give up several months of their time to help our armed forces.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are committed to the Army recovery capability introduced by the last Labour Government. A key element of that was the tracking of personnel in the health service once they had left the armed forces. Is that still part of the programme, and if so, when will the deadlines for implementation be met?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we are pursuing the policy of the last Government, because on this occasion it was quite right. We are indeed tracking personnel. I am afraid that this is a work in progress, but I will ensure that he receives an update when there is something to update him on.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the close collaboration between the Ministry of Defence and the NHS in dealing with traumatic injuries through the joint unit. Bearing in mind that the NHS does not provide the same level of care for our wounded military personnel, is there not a case for the NHS and the MOD setting up a joint unit to deal with ongoing treatment?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The question of how the transition protocol works is very important, particularly when it comes to health issues. We already have a national centre in Birmingham— the Queen Elizabeth hospital—and I was at the opening in January; it deals with trauma in particular. We are going forward with the Department of Health to ensure that proper treatment is available. We will announce a report on prosthetics shortly, because we must make proper treatment available for people who are injured in the service of their country, and who suffer throughout their lives as a result.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the co-operation on training and support of British armed forces with armed forces in the middle east and north Africa; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T3. The Royal British Legion has said that the creation of the chief coroner“is essential to improving bereaved Armed Forces families’ experience of military inquests” and that Government proposals will“fail to meet the needs of bereaved Armed Forces families.” The Secretary of State’s rant about his budget shows that he has not read the Royal British Legion’s proposals, so will he, in the quiet moments that I am sure will follow later this afternoon, take the time to explain to the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice that failing to introduce a chief coroner will be a betrayal of our brave military personnel?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

As I thought had been made pretty plain earlier, this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, not the Ministry of Defence. However, I hope that everyone in the House would agree that the important thing is that well-trained coroners do a good job in their inquests on deceased service personnel. That is what we are working to achieve, and I know that the Ministry of Justice is determined that that shall happen.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T8. Members of the armed forces often have to move very quickly and with short notice, which can affect the education of their children, particular if it happens when school has already started. Will the Minister therefore congratulate the George Spencer academy in my constituency, which intends to change its policy so that priority is given to such children, especially those moving to the Chetwynd barracks, which is also in my constituency?

[Mr Robathan]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating that school. She will know that admissions codes can now allow favourable treatment for children of service personnel, and we must not forget that the Department for Education has introduced the pupil premium, which will also benefit service children. We have also put £3 million forward to assist schools that have a disproportionate number of service children when they have problems. In general, though, service children do rather better in education than other children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I recently visited the Brentford air cadets, squadron 342, in my constituency and was really impressed by the training that the young people are given in respect, discipline and community responsibility. What more can we do to encourage more young people to get involved in the cadets?

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because I, too, absolutely support the cadet forces. They do fantastic work that is very much in tune with the Government’s policy of the national citizen service. They keep children off the streets and give them excellent training and discipline, which I think we all applaud. We also have the youth engagement review, but I will brief her on that later if she would like, because you, Mr Speaker, would stop me if I went on too long now.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. The Secretary of State and I have a considerable number of constituents who work at the MOD’s Abbey Wood site in Filton. There is real uncertainty there at the moment about how many jobs will be lost, what new work will be sent there and what work will be lost. Could he give some certainty to the people working at the plant about the future of their jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

What future does the Secretary of State envisage for the Ministry of Defence police?

[Mr Robathan]

The Ministry of Defence police are, sadly, as everybody else is, touched by the strategic defence and security review because of the £38 billion black hole that we were left, but I envisage a future for the Ministry of Defence police—providing security for our service personnel and their families—and I visited them in Portsmouth dockyard only last month.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The future of European security will be enhanced by military capability, interoperability and co-operation; it will not be enhanced by an unnecessary duplication of military headquarters. What more can we do to convince our European colleagues that that is not a sensible proposal, particularly at a time when defence budgets are falling across the continent?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Ministry of Defence has invested considerably in additional reserve forces, which are welcomed by many of us across the House. What steps might the Secretary of State be able to take to ensure that the jobs of our reservists, such as those serving in 6th Battalion The Rifles in my constituency, will be protected, especially given that 10 of them are returning from Afghanistan this week?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue, and I pay tribute to those reservists who go out to Afghanistan, including those from 6 Rifles. We have the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, both of which should protect reservists deployed on operations, but he is quite right to raise the issue, which we keep under close review.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Ministry of Defence medical services has a good record of engagement with the carers of wounded service people, but when servicemen are transferred to the NHS system, carers are often told that, because of patient confidentiality, they cannot be engaged with and information cannot be shared. Will the Minister ensure that such continued engagement with carers takes place for service personnel, especially those with traumatic brain injury or mental health problems, once they enter the NHS?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, of which I was not aware. Practitioners in the NHS certainly should get full medical records from the military medical services. If she were able to raise some specific cases with me, I would be most interested to hear them, and I look forward to hearing from her.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The reason why so much public money has been invested in BAE technology is to protect British interests and British jobs. What steps can Ministers take to ensure that jobs at Brough and other BAE sites are retained in this country and not shipped abroad?

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

What further support are the Government going to give to ex-service people who belatedly discover that they have post-traumatic stress disorder?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue, not least because PTSD can take many years—up to 16 years—to show itself. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the report of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), called “Fighting Fit”, which leads a way forward.

Things are not perfect yet, but we are going forward. We are deploying additional mental health nurses across the country in NHS hospitals and we are working closely with Combat Stress to ensure that ex-service personnel get the opportunity, through both a call line and otherwise, to get treatment as necessary. It is extremely important that they get that treatment.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Today is world homeless day. What recent progress has the Secretary of State made in reducing the number of ex-service people who find themselves homeless?

[Mr Robathan]

This looks like my afternoon.

Although there are homeless ex-service personnel, in fact their number is much less than one might expect. Analysis has shown that those ex-service personnel who are homeless very often left the forces some 20 and more years before.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is 3.8%.

[Mr Robathan]

I hear from the Opposition Front Bench that the figure is 3.8%, and one might expect more than that. We do work with Veterans Aid in London, among others, to ensure that the maximum support available is given to ex-service personnel who, unfortunately, find themselves homeless.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the campaign by the Royal British Legion Scotland to get a Ministry of Defence hospital unit based in Scotland? I understand that the tendering process for that is due to commence in 2013. Will the Minister look into the issue and try to get a better geographical spread for such units?

Defence Equipment and Support: Recruitment

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Anas Sarwar]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of recruitment and retention rates for Defence Equipment and Support staff based in (a) Glasgow and (b) Bristol.

[Official Report, 6 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 546W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Robathan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) on 6 September 2011. The original answer failed to take account of organisational changes that took place in April 2011 but which were not recorded on the departmental HR management information system until August. The data provided in the original answer covered the period August 2010 to July 2011 only.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

Defence Equipment and Support currently employs around 100 civilian staff in Glasgow and around 5,500 civilian staff at its headquarters in Bristol. The significant difference in numbers means that direct comparisons cannot readily be made. In the year to July 2011, about 2.5% of Bristol staff and about 1% of Glasgow staff left through retirement or resignation compared with around 4.5% for Defence Equipment and Support as a whole.

The restrictions on recruitment across the whole of the Ministry of Defence mean that there has only been external recruitment into critical or specialised posts. In the year to July 2011, we recruited around 150 new staff in Bristol and none in Glasgow.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Robathan]

As at 31 August 2011, Defence Equipment and Support employed around 200 civilian staff in Glasgow and around 6,700 civilian staff at its headquarters in Bristol. The significant difference in numbers means that direct comparisons cannot readily be made. In the year to August 2011, about 2.2% of Bristol staff and about 0.5% of Glasgow staff left through retirement or resignation compared with around 4.1% for Defence Equipment and Support as a whole.

The restrictions on recruitment across the whole of the Ministry of Defence mean that there has only been external recruitment into critical or specialised posts. In the year to August 2011, we recruited around 160 new staff in Bristol and none in Glasgow.

Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

In accordance with the Cabinet Office’s recent guidance on public bodies, which took effect from 1 April 2011, I have launched a review of the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation (CAC). This review will examine the Committee’s functions, as well as its corporate governance procedures. The review is due to be completed later this year and I shall inform the House of its outcome.

Management of Unsolicited Mail at Christmas

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I wish to inform the House about the annual unsolicited mail campaign the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will be running in the lead-up to Christmas, which is 100 days from tomorrow.

This Government are dedicated to the care and welfare of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those deployed on operations. This is reflected in the comprehensive Deployed Welfare Package which is constantly reviewed to ensure we give appropriate support to our deployed service personnel. A key part of that package is ensuring the safe and timely delivery of free personal mail from family and friends. In the past this mechanism has also been used by the general public to show their support by sending unsolicited goodwill parcels through the mail system.

Previously, this has resulted in huge volumes of unsolicited goodwill parcels which have overwhelmed the in-theatre postal and logistic capacity, resulting in a considerable delay to personal mail from family and friends. British Forces’ Post Office (BFPO) estimates it will handle approximately 22,500 parcels per week over Christmas this year (the eight-week period between mid-October and mid-December) as opposed to 10,000 over a “normal” eight-week period. In 2009, unsolicited mail added 64 tonnes to BFPO’s logistical effort. In addition to the impact on personal mail, which can be severely delayed as a result, delivering unsolicited packages over the “final mile” to forward operating bases and patrol bases puts increased pressure on essential in-theatre resources. Additional helicopter journeys and road convoys are required, both of which take essential transport assets away from their primary task and place our personnel at increased personal danger.

It is for these reasons that the MOD will, for the fourth consecutive year, be repeating its unsolicited mail campaign. The campaign was so successful last year it reduced the volume of unsolicited mail by 90%. Key to the success of the campaign is to encourage the British public to show their support through one of the recognised MOD service charities rather then sending unsolicited goodwill parcels.

All service personnel on operations over Christmas will receive a seasonal gift box from the MOD-endorsed charity, “uk4u Thanks!”. The charity continues to work closely with the MOD, using free space in the existing supply chain to deliver the boxes well before Christmas, without impacting on the normal mail system. Other charities which help to support deployed troops with welfare items include SSAFA, Afghan Heroes, Support our Soldiers and Thank the Forces.

I recognise that it might seem counter-intuitive to ask the British public not to send parcels to troops at Christmas, but due to the impact of unsolicited mail I ask for your full support in directing the public towards MOD-recognised charities.

Service Voter Registration

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report of a survey on service voter registration levels in 2010 conducted by Defence Analytical Services and Advice in January 2011. As in previous years the survey was conducted to provide an estimate of the numbers of armed forces personnel who are currently registered to vote, and to assess the success of our information campaign.

I welcome the survey. It indicates that 75% of service personnel are registered to vote, up from 69% in 2009 and 60% in 2005. This represents the highest level of service registration since I first raised the issue back in 2005. Of those registered in 2010, the majority (77%) chose to register as ordinary rather than service voters. The level of voters registered as overseas voters has remained at 1%.

We recognise that there is still work to be done. Alongside the challenges presented by service mobility and the high proportion of young personnel in our armed forces, the results of the survey will help to inform how and where we should best concentrate our efforts in the future. We continue to work closely with our colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission to further improve the quality and timeliness of information available to our service personnel and their families. It remains our firm commitment to improve arrangements for the service community to enable them to play a full part in the electoral process.

Ofsted Report (Armed Forces Initial Training 2010-11)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Today Ofsted publishes its third report on welfare and duty of care in armed forces initial training, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Following visits to 11 armed forces initial training establishments, Ofsted reports that recruits and trainees feel that their welfare needs are met and well supported.

The armed forces remain committed to ensuring that the training they provide is both efficient and effective, recognising the need to continuously evaluate what works well and areas that need improvement. Ofsted inspection suggests that review processes in training establishments are improving and in one location the overall effect is judged to be “outstanding”.

We need to continue to provide effective training in the face of resource and operational pressures, while providing a supportive training environment that enables instructors to bring out the best in young recruits and trainees without lessening the tough nature of armed forces training.

Defence

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Ministerial Corrections

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

The Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) was approved as a non-departmental public body in June 2009 and will be established soon. It is expected to be established later this year and it will continue the work previously undertaken by the Defence Science Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL).

SACMILL’s purpose will be to provide: advice on the biophysical, biomechanical, pathological and clinical aspects of generic classes of Less Lethal Weapons; independent statements on the medical implications of use of specific Less Lethal Weapons; advice on the risk of injury from specific Less Lethal Weapons systems striking specific areas of the body in a format that will assist those responsible for developing policy and, separately, guidance to users, as well as operational users themselves in making tactical decisions.

As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full-time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.

The total cost to the Department for DOMILL legacy work undertaken during the financial year 2010-11 was £39,355.56, principally for travel and subsistence costs. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12; a similar level of expenditure as the previous year is expected.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Robathan]

The Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) was approved as a non-departmental public body in June 2009 and will be established soon. It is expected to be established later this year and it will continue the work previously undertaken by the Defence Science Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL).

SACMILL’s purpose will be to provide: advice on the biophysical, biomechanical, pathological and clinical aspects of generic classes of Less Lethal Weapons; independent statements on the medical implications of use of specific Less Lethal Weapons; advice on the risk of injury from specific Less Lethal Weapons systems striking specific areas of the body in a format that will assist those responsible for developing policy and, separately, guidance to users, as well as operational users themselves in making tactical decisions.

As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full-time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.

The total cost to the Department for DOMILL legacy work undertaken during the financial year 2010-11 was £39,355.56, principally for Defence Science and Technology Laboratory daily rate staff costs. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12; a similar level of expenditure as the previous year is expected.

Defence Vetting Agency

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Key priorities have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) for financial year 2011-12 to deliver national security vetting and related services for Defence personnel and for contractors working for the Ministry of Defence. Vetting for its repayment customers across Government will be delivered against standards set in individual joint business agreements with the agency.

Following Defence reform, it is likely that vetting services will be provided under a new business model from 2012, and I expect the DVA to be disestablished as a next steps agency from April 2012. The following key priorities are for its final year of operation. They also reflect the introduction in March 2011 of a major new vetting management and information system (Cerberus). As is common in such substantial transition programmes, short-term operating difficulties have been encountered. These are, however, being resolved, and the expected benefits should be delivered within the period covered by the key priorities.

Maintaining quality

Key priority 1: External validation of quality of defence vetting cases.

To achieve at least a 98% satisfaction rating with 200 cases independently selected and reviewed from a random sample of security cleared (SC) and developed vetting (DV) cases completed in the preceding 12-month period.

Key priority 2: Delivering excellent customer service to all our customers.

To maintain customer service excellence accreditation.

Restoring service delivery

Key priority 3: For all routine defence cases received after 1 January:

a. 85% of counter-terrorism checks (CTCs) to be completed within 25 calendar days,

(improved from 30 days);

b. 85% of SCs to be completed within 25 calendar days, (improved from 30 days);

c. 85% of DVs to be completed within 95 calendar days, (improved from 100 days).

Key priority 4: For all defence priority cases received after 1 October:

a. 95% of CTCs and SCs to be completed within 10 calendar days, (no change);

b. 95% of DVs completed within 30 calendar days .(no change).

Key priority 5: Completing defence aftercare cases received or scheduled for action after 1 October:

a. Take into action all aftercare incident reports (AIRs) within seven calendar days of receipt, (no change);

b. Take into action 95% of scheduled aftercare within 30 calendar days of the scheduled date of review, (no change)

c. Taking into action (where appropriate) 95% of security appraisal reviews within 21 days of receipt, (no change).

The above timeliness targets represent net performance that excludes delays outside of the DVA’s control.

Business Improvement

Key priority 6: Business transformation

By 30 September 2011 produce a transition plan to implement the move to the Defence Business Support Organisation during autumn 2011, and remove agency status by 31 March 2012 (new).

Ministry of Defence Police and Guarding Agency

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Key priorities for 2011-12 have been set for the chief constable/chief executive of the Ministry of Defence Police and Guarding Agency (MDPGA). These priorities are linked to the delivery of the agency’s key outputs of providing an effective policing and guarding service. In brief, the eight key priorities are:

Key Priority 1

To support the secure and uninterrupted operation of the UK’s nuclear deterrent

a. To retain substantial assurance from the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) Strategic Weapons Project Team (SWPT) and DE&S Principal Security Adviser (PSyA) quality assurance inspection process.

b. To have delivered at least 98% of Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) and Ministry of Defence Guarding Service (MGS) agreed UK customer tasks at nuclear sites.

Key Priority 2

To support the defence main effort in Afghanistan

a. To have achieved 100% of Her Majesty’s Government/Ministry of Defence (MOD) approved requirements for Afghanistan national police capacity building.

b. To have 100% of all Defence community police officers (DCPO) positions occupied.

c. To assist the MOD in the detection and recovery of military materiel theft.

Key Priority 3

To ensure the protection of Defence people, assets, information and estate

a. To have delivered at least 95% of MDP and MGS agreed UK customer tasks at non-nuclear sites including MOD trading funds.

b. To assist the MOD in preventing and detecting fraud and corruption, and any subsequent recovery of losses.

c. To assist the MOD in the investigation of security and data loss.

Key Priority 4

To provide a response to Defence major incidents

a. To have passed the annual Nuclear Guard Force assessment.

b. To provide a police operational and major incident surge capability that meets the Department’s statement of requirement.

c. To achieve the MDP public order standard.

Key Priority 5

To meet the security requirements of all non-MOD repayment customers

To have delivered 100% of MDP and MGS agreed UK customer tasks at non-MOD payment sites.

Key Priority 6 -

To maintain MDP and MGS operational and professional standards

To have met and maintained 100% of MDP and MGS accreditation and compliance for:

a. MDPNet accreditation;

b. NPIA Firearms Training Licence;

c. MDP Level 2 Investigation Programme;

d. ACPO accreditation for Police Dog Training Instructors;

e. Information Assurance Maturity Model Level 3;

f. National Crime Recording Standards/Scottish Crime Recording Standards;

g. National Standard for Incident Recording;

h. Diversity through incorporation into the MOD’s new Equality Act framework.

External MGS accreditations for:

a. The National Security Industry Gold Standard;

b. Security Industry Authority Standard.

Key Priority 7

To ensure that the agency transition programme is on track

a. To have achieved 100% of agreed agency transition programme milestones for 2011-12.

b. To have achieved a “Your Say” engagement score that exceeds that of the central top level budget parent unit.

Key Priority 8

To ensure that the MPDGA delivers on budget

To deliver specified outputs within 1% of authorised control total.