The mysterious case of the MOD and the £600,000 magazine bill...
As the year draws to a close,
and Humphrey had begun contemplating the drafting of his ‘2012 assessment, 2013
predictions’ piece, he was dismayed to see that the year is ending as it has
begun – with a nonsensical piece of journalism attacking the MOD for the size
of its magazine subscriptions.
The MOD has confirmed spending
approximately £600,000 per year on a variety of magazine subscriptions (which
equates to roughly £2.10 per full time military and civilian in Defence). The
reaction from the media has been one of outrage that at a time when we are
firing soldiers left right and centre, we’re spending enough money to keep at
least 6 Brigadiers in post on magazines.
The reality as ever is more
complex. The MOD has tried to explain that in fact MOD Main Building is not
full of civilian staff sipping lattes, air-kissing and reading GQ, Cosmo and
Loaded, while working in an environment out of ‘Absolutely Fabulous’. Instead
the majority of the magazines subscribed to are more akin to those found in the
‘this week’s guest publication’ section of the Missing words round of Have I
Got News For You.
A lot of the subscriptions
relate to professional journals, for instance in the engineering or health
areas. These are expensive publications to obtain, but are a necessary part of
ongoing professional development. One of the challenges MOD has is that its
areas of business are so broad, and its staff work in such diverse ways, that it
has to secure a lot of different professional journals. While one could debate
their worth, the reality is that this is not an exclusively MOD only
arrangement – these publications are valued across their respective sectors.
Either MOD commits to providing its staff with access to the best training
materials and journals, or it holds back, and then provides more reasons for
disillusioned staff to walk away as they see a lack of commitment to their
ongoing professional development.
A small number of magazines
were ordered to include the more popular ‘fun’ magazines like GQ or FHM. These
certainly are not going into the MOD Offices, but instead form part of the
welfare package for troops at places like Headley Court, or deployed at sea.
Over the last few years there has been huge efforts made to increase the
welfare support offered to troops deployed, and Humphrey can attest from
personal experience that it genuinely makes a real difference to have a
magazine to flick through on the very rare downtime that one gets on an
Operational Tour. The total cost to the taxpayer is miniscule, but the
difference it makes to troops moral is enormous. The irony is perhaps that
watching journalists spend years complaining about the quality of UK troops
welfare, they are now complaining that such provision costs money.
The final major component is
things like the subscriptions to magazines like Janes Defence Weekly, which
some parts of the MOD receive. While it is easy to say ‘do net research’ or ‘get
someone to compile it for you’, that is perhaps a little misleading. In a busy
office environment, where staff cuts and increased workloads mean people are
ever busier, it is hard to find the time to sit down and collate information on
all the major defence matters of the week – this is a full job. Publications
like Janes allow immediate and unclassified collated reporting, in order to
ensure that people have access to a useable product, and one that is of
reasonably credible provenance (unlike some of the garbage that exists on the
internet).
Humphrey has often made use of
publications like Janes to stay abreast of developments or other reasons. To
suggest that MOD could scrap Janes subscriptions to save a small amount of
taxpayer funding would actually be incredibly counterproductive. You would
genuinely need more staff to do the necessary collation, writing, analysis and
dissemination of open source material, which would cost significantly more
cash, and struggle to have the same effect.
The problem here seems to be
that Newspapers increasingly see the argument about defence expenditure as Item
A incurs more costs than Z soldiers (of whom the Army is making 18000
redundant). It is easy to make an argument for manpower, and more difficult to
make an argument for less immediately credible items like magazine
subscriptions. The problem is though that they don’t look at the expenditure
and try to work out how many staff would be needed to provide the same level of
support as exists via such subscriptions. It would take dozens of staff to
provide a level of service to MOD equivalent to that already enjoyed by having
subscriptions to magazines like Janes. The reality is that if these were cut,
then not only would MOD lose vital access to information, but it would also
need to spend more taxpayers money to replicate the lost capability.
The challenge though is trying
to move the Defence debate away from the simple ‘number of soldiers = good,
anything else = bad’, which is where most journalists appear to be parked at
present. There is no easy way to do this, but it is frustrating that the
Department appears to be being criticized for taking a course of action which
develops its staff, supports morale and saves the taxpayer money, when this is
exactly what for years the media have been demanding that MOD should be doing.
I'd agree with you on most things with regard to the press and it's outrage. However on this one I'm not, they aren't really right in detail but, to me, they are broadly speaking. I suppose it's different in different depts, but in my neck of the woods, and all the places I've worked, they could be gotten rid of totally and I doubt it would make much of a difference. I don't mean things like Janes which clearly has a place. Outside of HQs there are a lot of magazines, either from outside the MoD or internal publications that add little to anyone's career or even interest levels. Most end up as trap 2 reading material. I'm not saying it should be cut totally but I'd safely say most could be without any impact at all.
ReplyDeleteWas there much outrage in the press?
ReplyDeleteThe stuff I read was actually pretty balanced, highlighting that some of them are used in recovery centres and hospitals etc.
Still, £600k is a lot of anyones money so scrutiny should be a given
I wonder if there is scope for savings by moving to electronic delivery for these publications
Change line item to 'Journal' subscriptions & the outrage dissolves as all becomes clear.
ReplyDelete@ TD
ReplyDelete'I wonder if there is scope for savings by moving to electronic delivery for these publications'
Thing is, it already is done. Anything important is emailed to everyone anyway or linked to a DIN, things like NEM, pension changes etc.
I know that's not quite what Sir H means, re professional publications, but still there's room to cut back.
'
I wonder if those "magazine subscriptions" include items like Jane's (where MoD has online access, but also needs some paper copies of some of the publications)? They're not cheap - until you try to do without and get the same information in-house.
ReplyDeleteIt's a sad fact that, since we can't afford to observe and monitor everyone everywhere, at least twice to my knowledge we've sent the RN off to an unpredicted time of trouble with Jane's Information Group being the most complete and up-to-date intelligence available at STARTEX. (Falklands and Libya, at the very least)
Is £600k a lot of money?
ReplyDeleteJust to throw a comparative out there, storm shadow costs a million pounds.
A single fighter pilot costs £12million per year?
(200 hours at 60k per hour?)
If its waste, fine, can it, but bigger fish....