Is it time for a 'Custom of Reasonable Silence'? Thoughts on Gen Houghtons comments about defence funding

The former Chief of the Defence Staff, Baron Houghton of Richmond (more widely known to many as General Sir Nick Houghton) has courted controversy in the media today by suggesting that Defence is not properly funded, and was not properly funded in 2015. In comments on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme he said:

“We have slightly deluded the public of late that we have a defence programme that frankly we know is unaffordable… We are to an extent living a lie” (LINK)

These comments caused a veritable storm with some praising the General for his intervention, while others saw it as an untimely and potentially hypocritical position to take.

Humphreys strictly personal view is that interventions by retired very senior officers have become a depressingly familiar theme in recent years. There appears to be a well-worn trend of Service Chiefs staying relentlessly ‘on message’ at every opportunity while serving, telling the men & women who look up to them for leadership, that all will be well, that decisions make sense and that there is a plan to make it work. As they come to the end of their time there is usually a slightly risqué interview with a national newspaper where they’ll obliquely hint at concerns over funding and issue a veiled threat that they’ll be watching with interest or concern. There is then a period of silence, followed at some time later by an attack on the Government of the day for failing to fund Defence properly. These interventions have attracted increasing levels of cynicism from many commentators, who note wryly that people only seem to develop an ability to tell the truth once their pension is secure…

While the ‘secure pension’ line is in itself a myth (anyone who has served long enough to be a 4* has already got a secure and generous pension for life waiting for them the moment they retire), there is perhaps more substance in the view that it is inconsistent to say one thing, and then barely two years later say something completely different.

Most people in Defence will probably harbour private concerns at one stage or another about the nature of their organisation, the pace of cuts or structural changes and what they perceive to be lack of investment in their area. This is entirely natural, particularly in large organisations like the Armed Forces that regularly change their focus, structures and roles, and where if you are in a small unit in a remote part of the system, it is easy to feel that you’re not privy to the bigger picture.

The challenge for SNCO’s and Officers is to motivate and lead their people at times like this, when there is relentless negative coverage on the possible outlook for defence funding or reading in the paper that your ship / regiment / squadron will be axed. They must persuade people to keep the faith, that there is a plan and that things do make sense, and not to lose hope. This is a real leadership challenge, taking a disaffected workforce and keeping them engaged, particularly if they feel the system is letting them down.

This leadership challenge is at its hardest after big reviews like the 2015 SDSR, which will often have major changes involving unit moves, disbandment’s, redundancies and other career changing impacts. At times like this it is essential for the chain of command to have faith that Senior Officers have signed up to something that works and makes sense –  uniformity of message from the most senior 4* to the most junior Private is vital to keep people believing.

There are very few people in Defence who actually take decisions, one of the great ironies of the system is that the more network-centric, agile and enabled it becomes, the harder it gets to find people actually empowered to make something happen. Therefore the Service Chiefs carry considerable weight as the individuals who make the really tough decisions on approving the force packages and structures, or looking at where to make cuts to fund enhancements elsewhere. Other more junior personnel may create and staff these proposals, but the buck will stop at 4* level.

Therefore it is disheartening to see a recently retired CDS actively go on the offensive and claim that the most recent review wasn’t fully funded and that we are living a lie. As recently as 2015 in the RUSI Christmas speech, General Houghton said publicly of the SDSR:

“I think that the defence review has delivered a remarkably good outcome… So, as I say, the outcome of the review itself was, I believe, a very good one… In capability terms the review has allowed us to lift our level of equipment investment to £178 billion over the next 10 years. This, in turn, will allow us to plug many of the capability gaps that worried us, as well as investing in new capabilities… “

“I want to offer you 5 themes which I think better demonstrate the sophistication of the Review’s outcome and how we envisage the character of the future force and the defence organisation that generates it. They are: utility; agility; strategy; innovation and partnership… Collectively they are at least part of the response that I would make to the consistent and, I fear, sometimes unimaginative criticism of those who can only judge the competence and capability of armed forces through the input metric of platform and manpower numbers” (LINK)

This positivity sits at considerable odds with his intervention today, which is even more surprising when you consider that he is essentially condemning the findings of the Review that he was responsible for leading.

It is one thing to make a carefully timed intervention many years, or decades, after leaving the Service and comment with the benefit of wisdom and distance from serving about your personal concerns about how the Government of the days defence review may impact on the security of the nation. It is unlikely that anyone you served directly with will still be serving, and while your words carry weight, they do not come borne from direct exposure to the specific review.

It is frustrating to see so many retired officers publicly state post retirement that they harboured doubts and concerns about issues. But there comes a point where Humphrey feels like saying to the 4*’s who are doing this – ‘You had the ear of the Prime Minister and the right of access to them. You could have raised these concerns. You could have resigned on principal. You could have used the democratic process appropriately and stepped away with dignity rather than implement something you clearly don’t fully believe in, and then spend time making statements to your people about how good it is, only to openly contradict yourself once you no longer serve – what message do you think this sends?’

Service life is a calling where people can be expected to put their lives in the hands of others, and risk everything for the Service. They take pride in the core values and ethos – for example, the so-called C2DRIL (Courage Commitment Discipline Respect Integrity Loyalty) at the heart of the Royal Navy ethos. How can a junior officer have confidence in their leadership chain of command that they are doing something right and proper when they see very senior officers openly misleading their people. Military personnel are told to demonstrate moral courage, and arguably to say ‘all is well’ and then later on say something different does not set the right example.

The commonly used riposte is that senior officers shouldn’t try to intervene in the democratic process to make their views clear. This is absolutely correct, it is not appropriate for a serving officer to openly step up and engage in political games (although it wasn’t that long ago in the early 20^th Century that you could be both a serving regular officer and MP). But there are ways and means to express your concerns privately and if still not redressed, then resignation is always there as an option.

It is frustrating to see someone who wasn’t prepared to resign on principal over his concerns about the SDSR findings to now feel that they can criticise it publicly. To stage a direct attack on the Government of the day, exposing your clear doubts over a defence review findings and funding that was a result of a defence review occurring barely 2 ½ years ago while you were CDS, and when many of your peer group are still serving and worked on it is arguably inappropriate.

To publicly expose private doubts, having spent so long telling the people that looked to you for leadership that ‘all is well’ makes a mockery of the concept of honesty and integrity. It calls into question too the trust that people will have in the currently serving leadership, for they will know that the current Service Chiefs worked directly with Gen Houghton. They will reasonably want to know whether the current Chiefs shared (or still share) his private doubts. Frankly, this intervention undermines the position of the existing Service chiefs for any reasonable journalist will want to ask them (particularly those who served with Gen Houghton) whether they share his views or not.

One of the great strengths of the UK is that the lack of a written constitution has led to the emergence of a great many conventions and practises that have become custom. Perhaps it is time for a new one to emerge, namely ‘the custom of reasonable silence’.

Such a custom would ask that those retiring very senior officers undertake not to publicly pronounce on Defence issues in a political manner until such point as the next Strategic Defence Review has been completed (which should be every 5 years) or until all their 3 & 4* peers serving when they left have retired.  The aim would be to perhaps prevent the next CDS or Service Chief from dealing with broadsides from recently retired peers who made the decisions that they are now attacking the Government over.

It would provide a gentle air gap too, much like public servants are not theoretically permitted to take up employment for a period after leaving government, perhaps too it is appropriate to not let influential retired officers be in a position where they can try to sway the debate on Defence until they are no longer current on, or directly linked to, the issues of the day. A reasonable silence would give the current Service Chiefs the ability to lead and take difficult decisions without concern that their predecessors will publicly stage an intervention that could cause them immense difficulties.

Defence will always remain an emotive subject, but it is vital that people have confidence that very senior officers can deliver difficult decisions in an objective manner. The men and women of our armed forces deserve better than the sight of their former CDS until less than two years ago openly undermine the work he had done and imply that he’d helped perpetuate a lie on the British public, and by extension the people who would go in harms way on his command.  A custom of reasonable silence would be very helpful indeed…