DOCSLIB.ORG

0048-As1 Iban Report on the Audit of the Financial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
0048-As1 Iban Report on the Audit of the Financial NATO UNCLASSIFIED 29 June 2015 DOCUMENT C-M(2015)0048-AS1 IBAN REPORT ON THE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALLIED COMMAND OPERATIONS FOR 2013 ACTION SHEET On 26 June 2015, under the silence procedure, the Council noted the IBAN report IBA-AR(2014)20 attached to C-M(2015)0048 and agreed the recommendations contained in the RPPB report, including its public release. (Signed) Alexander Vershbow Deputy Secretary General NOTE: This Action Sheet is part of, and shall be attached to C-M(2015)0048. NATO UNCLASSIFIED NHQD9364 NATO UNCLASSIFIED 22 June 2015 DOCUMENT C-M(2015)0048 Silence Procedure ends: 26 Jun 2015 16:00 IBAN REPORT ON THE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALLIED COMMAND OPERATIONS FOR 2013 Note by the Deputy Secretary General 1. I attach the International Board of Auditors for NATO (IBAN) report on the audit of the financial statements of Allied Command Operations (ACO) for the year ended 31 December 2013. 2. The IBAN issued a qualified opinion on the ACO financial statements for the year 2013 as well as a qualified opinion on compliance for the financial year 2013. The IBAN report, although showing improvements by ACO in many areas, also illustrates that many of the weaknesses identified in previous audit reports have not yet been fully corrected. While some progress has been made, particularly in clearing outstanding observations from previous years, the positive impact expected with the adoption of the NATO Accounting Framework has not yet materialised. 3. The IBAN report has been reviewed by the Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB), which has provided its own report with conclusions and recommendations to Council. 4. I consider that no further discussion regarding this report is required. Consequently, unless I hear to the contrary by 16:00 hours on Friday, 26 June 2015, I shall assume that the Council has noted the IBAN report IBA-AR(2014)20 and agreed the recommendations contained in the RPPB report, including its public release. (Signed) Alexander Vershbow 3 annexes Original: English NATO UNCLASSIFIED -1- NHQD8799 NATO UNCLASSIFIED ANNEX 1 C-M(2015)0048 IBAN REPORT ON THE AUDIT OF THE ALLIED COMMAND OPERATIONS (ACO) CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL FOR 2013 Report by the Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) References: (a) IBA-A(2014)222 & IBA-AR(2014)20 (b) BC-D(2015)0033-FINAL Background 1. The present report by the Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) contains the RPPB’s observations and recommendations concerning the International Board of Auditors for NATO (IBAN) report (reference (a)). The report is based on the full review of the audit report provided by the Budget Committee (BC) (reference (b)). 2. The RPPB notes and agrees with the conclusions and recommendations of the BC as laid out in their report (reference (b)), which form the basis of the Board’s discussions. RPPB Conclusions 3. The IBAN has issued a qualification on the 2013 ACO Financial statements as well as a qualified opinion on compliance for the financial year 2013. ACOs continued inability to receive an unqualified opinion and the expectation for improvements was set out as part of the RPPB Report on the audit of the ACO 2012 financial statements (reference (b)). While some progress has been made, particularly in clearing outstanding observations from previous years, the positive impact expected with the adoption of the NATO Accounting Framework has not yet materialized. The current IBAN Report contains 9 observations and recommendations on the financial statements, many dealing with aspects of property, plant and equipment (PP&E) where greater progress was hoped for. 4. ACO needs to provide evidence that comprehensive accounting records for all property have been established and maintained. The lack of such records is impacting its financial statements. To do this ACO will need to work with third parties (particularly NCIA and NSPA) and to extend best practices to theatres of operation. The current IBAN Report on ACO sets out the results of an endemic problem in the NATO organization to account for third party procurement and inventory management involving multiple commands, multiple agencies and multiple inventory systems. Many of these bodies and systems were designed to operate independently with stand-alone capabilities. Difficulties in consolidation and centralization, including those for financial accounting, inventory and reporting, point to the need to better align the various different processes, systems and standards that have been adopted over many years. 5. There is clearly further scope for additional work by ACO in conjunction with the NATO Agencies assisted by the Head of Financial Reporting Policy and the IBAN to ensure the maximum benefits of the new Accounting Framework are realized. This may need to involve the Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) at some point if additional clarifications are required. NATO UNCLASSIFIED 1-1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED ANNEX 1 C-M(2015)0048 6. The IBAN has highlighted difficulties at Headquarters JFC Naples in complying with procurement policy and the estimation of contract technical specifications. While these are pointed out in the report as headquarter specific; ACO needs to ensure through its internal controls that the issues are not wide spread and that in-house expertise is augmented when complex contracts are involved so as to provide bidders with accurate contract technical specifications. 7. ACO has made progress in settling observations from previous year’s audits, with 4 of 6 observations settled. While one of the remaining observations dealing with Foreign Military Sales will be reviewed by the Head of Financial Reporting Policies as it impacts entities NATO wide, the remaining observation involves further work with the Agencies to put in place a timeline for the finalization of processes to mitigate procurement risk for operations. This observation, outstanding since 2011, needs to be given greater management attention as it involves ongoing and future operations. 8. The ACO Financial Controller has reviewed the financial statements in accordance with agreed policies and does not have any issues which he wishes to highlight for consideration by the RPPB before it concludes its recommendations to Council. 9. The RPPB concludes that the subject audit report does not contain information which, according to the NATO Policy on Public Disclosure of NATO Information, shall be withheld from public disclosure, and in line with the agreed policy in PO(2015)0052, recommends that Council agree to the public disclosure of the 2013 ACO Financial Statements and of the subject IBAN report. RPPB recommendations 10. The Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) recommends that Council: (a) note the present report along with IBA-AR(2014)20; (b) endorse the conclusions outlined in paragraphs 3 through 9; (c) note that the resource committees intend to continue to monitor the status of outstanding audit observations; (d) in line with the agreed policy in PO(2015)0052, agree to the public disclosure of the ACO 2013 Financial Statements and the associated IBAN report (IBA- AR(2014)20). ---000--- NATO UNCLASSIFIED 1-2 NATO UNCLASSIFIED ANNEX 2 C-M(2015)0048 Summary Note for Council by the International Board of Auditors for NATO (Board) on the audit of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Allied Command Operations (ACO) for the year ended 31 December 2013 The Board audited the Allied Command Operations (ACO) Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2013. The total budgetary spend (commitments plus actuals) for ACO against Budget Committee (BC) funded budgets in 2013 amounted to EUR 1,201.8 million, compared with EUR 1,242.6 million in 2012. In addition to the execution of the MBC budgets, ACO also incurred EUR 73.4 million (2012, EUR 81.4 million) of other expenditure (reimbursable, trust funds, etc.) and EUR 1.16 million (2012, EUR 4.95 million) of NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP) project expenditure. The Board issued a qualified opinion on the 2013 Financial Statements and on compliance for the year ended 31 December 2013. During the audit, the Board made 9 observations and provided recommendations. These findings are in the Letter of Observations and Recommendations (Annex 3). The main findings are listed below. Observation 1 impacts the audit opinion. 1. Property, plant and equipment (PP&E) and inventory are materially misstated 2. Incorrect application of inventory valuation methods 3. ACO is relying on work that is outsourced to NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), but it does not review NSPA’s performance 4. Legal agreement with NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA) for provisions of services at International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is missing 5. Confirmation of year-end assets and liabilities outstanding between NATO entities should be performed 6. Some materials delivered to Afghanistan were not used and became obsolete 7. The process of writing-off equipment in theatre needs to be enhanced 8. Non-compliance with the new Representation Allowance rules 9. Incorrect contract technical specifications and non compliance with the International Competitive Bidding requirements at Headquarters Joint Force Command (HQ JFC) Naples The Board also followed up on the status of observations from its previous year’s audit. These findings and status are summarised in the follow-up section of the Letter of Observations and Recommendations (Annex 3). NATO UNCLASSIFIED 2-1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED ANNEX 2 C-M(2015)0048 This page
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TRANSFORMING the BRITISH ARMY an Update
    TRANSFORMING THE BRITISH ARMY An Update © Crown copyright July 2013 Images Army Picture Desk, Army Headquarters Designed by Design Studio ADR002930 | TRANSFORMING THE BRITISH ARMY 2013 TRANSFORMING THE BRITISH ARMY 2013 | 1 Contents Foreword 1 Army 2020 Background 2 The Army 2020 Design 3 Formation Basing and Names 4 The Reaction Force 6 The Adaptable Force 8 Force Troops Command 10 Transition to new Structures 14 Training 15 Personnel 18 Defence Engagement 21 Firm Base 22 Support to Homeland Resilience 23 Equipment 24 Reserves 26 Army Communication Strategic Themes 28 | TRANSFORMING THE BRITISH ARMY 2013 TRANSFORMING THE BRITISH ARMY 2013 | 1 Foreword General Sir Peter Wall GCB CBE ADC Gen Chief of the General Staff We have made significant progress in refining the detail of Army 2020 since it was announced in July 2012. It is worth taking stock of what has been achieved so far, and ensuring that our direction of travel continues to be understood by the Army. This comprehensive update achieves this purpose well and should be read widely. I wish to highlight four particular points: • Our success in establishing Defence Engagement as a core Defence output. Not only will this enable us to make a crucial contribution to conflict prevention, but it will enhance our contingent capability by developing our understanding. It will also give the Adaptable Force a challenging focus in addition to enduring operations and homeland resilience. • We must be clear that our capacity to influence overseas is founded upon our credibility as a war-fighting Army, capable of projecting force anywhere in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Monday Volume 550 17 September 2012 No. 45 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 17 September 2012 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 619 17 SEPTEMBER 2012 620 development should not be approved in the green belt, House of Commons and boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. Monday 17 September 2012 Simon Danczuk: As we all know, Rochdale is surrounded by some of the most beautiful countryside in the United The House met at half-past Two o’clock Kingdom—[Interruption.] Can the Secretary of State assure me and residents of Rochdale that we will not PRAYERS have to swap some of our green-belt land for house building? [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Mr Pickles: For a moment I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to put that to the vote; I would have been on BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS his side. The Planning Inspectorate looked at Rochdale QUEEN’S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS) metropolitan borough council’s core strategy, and as the hon. Gentleman will know, consultation ends next The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House, That Her Majesty, having been attended Monday. It was extended to allow consideration of the with its Address of 17th May, was pleased to receive the proposed release of 55 hectares of green-belt land on same very graciously and give the following Answer: the South Heywood development, but that has now been excluded from the core strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Regarding the Appointment of All Honorary Colonels in the British Army
    Army Secretariat Army Headquarters IDL 24 Blenheim Building Marlborough Lines Andover Hampshire, SP11 8HJ United Kingdom Ref: FOI2019/13423/13/04 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.army.mod.uk XXXXXX 09 January 2020 xxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear XXXXXX, Thank you for your letter of 06 December in which you requested the following information: “a. A current list as at 6 December 2019 of all the Honorary Colonels in the British Army b. An explanation as to how these appointments are advertised to ensure a wide diverse group as possible have an opportunity to be considered for these appointments c. An explanation as to how individuals are then selected for an appointment as an Honorary Colonel” I am treating your correspondence as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000. A search for the information has now been completed within the Ministry of Defence, and I can confirm that the information in scope of your request is held and is below. In response to first part of your request please find attached a list of Honorary Colonels in the British Army. Some of this information is exempt from release under section 40 (Personal Data) of the FOIA. Section 40(2) has been applied to some of the information to protect personal information as governed by the Data Protection Act 2018. Section 40 is an absolute exemption and there is therefore no requirement to consider the public interest in deciding to withhold the information. In response to second part of your request please note that appointments are selected by nominations after basic criteria is met.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Minutes
    House of Commons Defence Committee Formal Minutes Session 2013-14 Defence Committee: Formal Minutes 2013–14 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rory Stewart MP (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) (Chair) Mr Julian Brazier MP (Conservative, Canterbury) Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Mr Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Sir Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Ms Gisela Stuart MP (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston) Derek Twigg MP, (Labour, Halton) John Woodcock MP (Lab/Co-op, Barrow and Furness) The following were also Members of the Committee during the Parliament Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) (former Chair) Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Mr John Glen MP (Conservative, Salisbury). Mr Mike Hancock MP (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South) Mr David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Penny Mordaunt MP (Conservative, Portsmouth North) Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Alison Seabeck MP (Labour, Moor View) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 8 the Invasion
    SECTION 8 THE INVASION Contents Introduction and key findings ........................................................................................... 3 The military Coalition ....................................................................................................... 4 The UK contribution ................................................................................................... 5 Command and control ............................................................................................... 7 The US campaign plan .............................................................................................. 9 The UK’s planned role in offensive operations ........................................................ 12 The invasion ................................................................................................................... 15 The decision to take military action .......................................................................... 15 The Chief of the Defence Staff’s Directive ............................................................... 16 Offensive operations begin ...................................................................................... 18 The launch of the main offensive ............................................................................. 19 The air campaign ..................................................................................................... 27 The maritime campaign ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EUFOR Forum 86
    Edition #86, Jan. - Mar. 2014 INSIDE: Change of Command in the Multinational Battalion in BiH Training Branch Visit to Combined Training EUFOR Chief of Staff Gender in the Defence Handover-Takeover Ceremony Sector of BiH Main Planning Conferences for Forthcoming Exercises Operation Commander Farewell Parade COM EUFOR Soldiers of EUFOR ALTHEA, and the double use of Comrades, armed forces for the As we all know, in early Feb- benefit of civil affairs, ruary legitimate demonstrations, as well as military af- that began peacefully, suddenly fairs, is the most eco- became, in some instances, vio- nomical way of doing lent. BiH took centre stage in the this. The double use of eyes of the world again as we saw forces includes the use pictures and video footage of large of armed forces and protests and burning buildings. their assets for other Nothing like this had been seen in crisis tasks, such as air this country for over 15 years. medical evacuation, emergency engineering capabili- ties, disaster relief efforts, etc. While these protests, based on social and econom- ic dissatisfaction, were not a substantial threat to the This period has also seen us reach the end of Gen- safe and secure environment (SASE) of BiH, they are eral Sir Richard Shirreff’s tenure as Operation AL- definitely a sign that security and stability does not THEA’s Operation Commander. During this tenure, simply occur naturally and without effort. As in any General Shirreff has pushed forward with the project other country and society in the world, this has to be to dispose of surplus arms, weapons and explosives created by the citizens, their elected representatives but his main effort was also in the development of our and their institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Army 2020
    House of Commons Defence Committee Future Army 2020 Ninth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/defcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 29 January 2014 HC 576 [Incorporating HC 803-i, Session 2012–13] Published on 6 March 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 Future Army 2020 1 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) (Chair) Mr Julian Brazier MP (Conservative, Canterbury) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Sir Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Ms Gisela Stuart MP (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston) Derek Twigg MP (Labour, Halton) John Woodcock MP (Labour/Co-op, Barrow and Furness) The following Members were also members of the Committee during this inquiry. Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Penny Mordaunt MP (Conservative, Portsmouth North) Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152.
    [Show full text]
  • 280/287 Movement Control Squadron Royal Corps of Transport
    ‘The Phoenix Squadron’ By WO2 (Retd) Derek C Donald 287 MC Sqn RCT(V) 1939 to 1994 280 MC Squadron The Phoenix Squadron 280/287 Movement Control Squadron Royal Corps of Transport Personal Reflection and History of the Squadron by WO2 (Rtd) Derek C Donald Served January 1966 to January 1994 1 December 2020 Page 1 Foreword The views and recollections expressed in this document are those of the author and WO2 (Rtd) R Sutherland and are not to be construed as the views of any other Squadron member unless they are prepared to confirm so in writing. Acknowledgements WO2 (Rtd) R Sutherland and WO2 Bill Henderson, Perth for their notes on the pre 1966 units. Lt Col (Rtd) Bob Pow TD for the 1984 Squadron and the Officers and SNCOs photograph. Major (Rtd] Carol Campbell-Hayes for the 1993 Squadron photograph. Major (Rtd) Ray Taylor for the spur to get this down on paper. The members of the Squadron I served with for their comradeship and sense of humour in both good times and difficult times, and, Especially WO1(Rtd) Don Strange and WO2(Rtd) Jim MacCallum (RIP)for their critical reading of this work. Major (Rtd) Steve Holman TD for his updating work and the securing of the Sqn ‘Mess Tin’. Page 2 Introduction. The 280 - 287 MC [Movement Control] Squadrons, Royal Logistics Corps, which was disbanded in 1999, was the last of a proud succession of Specialist Squadrons who can trace their origins back to at least August 1939. The two units were specialist squadrons as opposed to independent squadrons, which tended to be based in a location with a drill hall.
    [Show full text]
  • The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
    Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 6 July 2016 for The Report of the Iraq Inquiry Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors Volume VII Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6 July 2016 HC 265-VII 46561_24b Viking_Volume VII Title Page.indd 1 17/06/2016 13:02 © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identifi ed any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474110136 Web ISBN 9781474110143 ID 23051601 46561 07/16 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fi bre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Offi ce 46561_24b Viking_Volume VII Title Page.indd 2 17/06/2016 13:02 Volume VII CONTENTS 8 The invasion 1 9.1 March to 22 May 2003 131 9.2 23 May 2003 to June 2004 207 9.3 July 2004 to May 2005 397 9.4 June 2005 to May 2006 489 46561_24b Viking_Volume VII Title Page.indd 3 17/06/2016 13:02 46561_24b Viking_Volume VII Title Page.indd 4 17/06/2016 13:02 SECTION 8 THE INVASION Contents Introduction and key findings ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-04785-3 - The Direction of War: Contemporary Strategy in Historical Perspective Hew Strachan Frontmatter More information The Direction of War The wars since 9/11, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have generated frustra- tion and an increasing sense of failure in the west. Much of the blame has been attributed to poor strategy. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, public enquiries and defence think tanks have detected a lack of consistent direction, of effective communication and of governmental coordination. In this important new book, Sir Hew Strachan, one of the world’s leading military historians, reveals how these failures resulted from a fundamental misreading and misapplication of strategy itself. He argues that the wars since 2001 have not in reality been as ‘new’ as has been widely assumed and that we need to adopt a more historical approach to contemporary strategy in order to identify what is really changing in how we wage war. If war is to fulfil the aims of policy, then we need first to under- stand war. Hew Strachan is Chichele Professor of the History of War at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of All Souls College. Between 2004 and 2012 he was the Director of the Oxford Programme on the Changing Character of War. He also serves on the Strategic Advisory Panel of the Chief of the Defence Staff, on the UK Defence Academy Advisory Board, and on the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Foreign Policy listed him as one of the most influential global thinkers for 2012 and he was knighted in the New Year’s Honours for 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Hospital Chelsea 2019.Indd
    Royal Hospital Chelsea Account 2018-19 HC 49 £10.00 Royal Hospital Chelsea Account 2018-19 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 1 of the Chelsea Hospital Act 1876 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 15 January 2020 15 January 2020 HC 49 £10.00 The National Audit Office (NAO) helps Parliament hold government to account for the way it spends public money. It is independent of government and the civil service. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Gareth Davies, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether government is delivering value for money on behalf of the public, concluding on whether resources have been used efficiently, effectively and with economy. The NAO identifies ways that government can make better use of public money to improve people’s lives. It measures this impact annually. In 2018 the NAO’s work led to a positive financial impact through reduced costs, improved service delivery, or other benefits to citizens, of £539 million. © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • Ceteris Paribus: Gender, Roles & the UK Military
    2014 Ceteris Paribus: Gender, Roles & the UK Military Boot Camp & Military Fitness Institute 8/15/2014 Contents Page Introduction 2 Definitions 2 Ministry of Defence Policy 2 Legislation 3 Pay and Gender 3 Roles by Gender 4 Exclusion Reasoning 4 A Woman’s View 6 Elite and Special Forces 7 Gender in Statistical Terms 8 NATO Rank Codes and Service Designations 10 Gender by Rank and Service 11 Objective Criteria and Standards 17 Equality and Diversity Training 18 Gender Equality: Awards and Slapped Wrists 19 References 20 - 1 - Introduction The ‘women in the military’ theme generates great debate regarding what women should or should not be ‘allowed’ to do in the military. There is a broad spectrum of opinion from suggestions that women have no place to others suggesting everything should be available. The role played by women in the UK Armed Forces was formally recognised after World War II with the permanent establishment of Women’s Services. Further significant changes took place in the 1990s, and from 1998 onwards women were allowed to serve in the front line onboard ships, as pilots of combat aircraft, and in combat support roles in the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers. This article will initially present underpinning definitions and then the current policy on women serving in ground close-combat roles, followed by the legislation that underpins this viewpoint. The article will then highlight which jobs and roles are currently denied to women, moving onto pay and gender, followed by the exclusion reasoning and two interesting viewpoints. The article will then move to the position regarding women and elite and special forces, before looking at gender in statistical terms.
    [Show full text]