MoD to cut 1000 staff jobs.

[Al R]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7058708.stm

Almost a third of civilian posts at the London headquarters, off Whitehall, will be cut by 2010, said the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union. Admin, finance and personnel staff will be affected by the cuts. The union reacted with "fury" to the news, claiming that new senior jobs were being created while other posts are being cut back.

It said £50m of ongoing savings which could be reinvested in operations would be released per year by reducing the head office staff by 25% - which would be the loss of about 1,000 civilian jobs and 300 military posts. The PCS warned further cuts to civilian support staff, as well as the disruption of relocating staff, would undermine the MoD's ability to support the armed forces.

[wokkameister]

Surely that's not 300 military posts lost, but 300 people back to the front-line where they are needed?

[L J R]

would undermine the MoD's ability to support the armed forces.
What MoD Support would that be then?

[BEagle]

"......the MoD's ability to support the armed forces"

Riiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhht.....:hmm:

[Airborne Aircrew]

Didn't they just spend a gazillion pounds building a place to put all these people? That was good planning...

Or is that another place for other people to "support" the forces from the comfort of their $1000 chairs?

[ZH875]

They will be cutting staff at High Wycombe soon, so they may be able to give everybody a desk and chair in a position that they can find day after day.

[Lamenting Navigator]

Airborne Aircrew: they didn't build the place, they re-fitted it, then started closing all the other London buildings and started squeezing everyone in to the one. Not everyone fits, it seems. Great planning.

[dallas]

Almost a third of civilian posts at the London headquarters, off Whitehall, will be cut by 2010
Interesting how we suddenly don't need all their jobs doing...

new senior jobs were being created while other posts are being cut back.
In keeping with recent tradition...

It said £50m of ongoing savings which could be reinvested in operations
If Defence is as overdrawn as is rumoured, I can't see £50m being spent on operations - it'll be put towards the deficit of those annoying ops.

[splitbrain]

Woah, steady guys. There's a few of us MOD civs doing a worthwhile job, training the techies of tomorrow for example.

Oh wait, we're about to be sold off like unwanted cattle aren't we :rolleyes:

[airborne_artist]

What will they do with all those chairs that were procured at such expense? :E

[soddim]

It is a cull long overdue. When I served in the Ministry there was a buff- coloured phone book that contained the names and numbers of all those in MOD listed against phones. In common with many others I had nothing better to do one week than count the names, divide by three to arrive at roughly the number supporting the air force and then calculate how long it would take to get them all airborne in the aircraft currently on inventory. The answer was six weeks - not much of a measure of anything, I guess, but it passed a week away!

[Jimlad1]

"Interesting how we suddenly don't need all their jobs doing..."

Not really, its a case that the MOD has been told by Treasury to cut 25% of its posts whether it likes it or not! The jobs will still exist, but they'll be done by fewer people.

As usual people turn this into a vitriolic rant against the MOD CS. I fail to understand why people in the forces, who pride themselves on possessing the last bastion of decent manners, can be so shockingly rude to people who have made the clearly fatal error of not joining the forces, and instead doing a normal desk job instead. Most MOD CS are decent people who try to help as best they can, many have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans and for every jobsworth out there, you'll find hundreds of decent people.
If this was the RAF losing 1000 people now, you'd be screaming bloody murder. How about having the decency to accept that these people face a very uncertain future tonight, and stop gloating about it?

[greycoat]

and how many of the ranks in MOD have a front line role? Most mil ranks start at SO2 and rise to 4*. How many of these jobs are there merely to maintain the rank structure needed to justify 3* deployed Force Cdr posts. Read across to HQs and just how over ranked are the forces? Anyone see the Bremner Ford Fortune spoof interview with the RN Admiral on Sunday ...

[Op_Twenty]

Jimlad1 - It's not about you not being part of the forces, but the RAF is losing 1000's too - not so much by cuts anymore but by walking. I'm only going to take so much mate, I've worked hard to get where I am and yet I try to progress my career in an ever diminishing service. If the RAF get cut then you get cut too. That's how it is - sounds fair to me, live with it - guys in the RAF have been living with it for years.

[Yeller_Gait]

Jimlad

If this was the RAF losing 1000 people now, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

By my reckoning, the RAF was 90 something thousand back in the early 90's, now down to 40ish thousand. That equates to about 3000 per year decrease in numbers for 15 years or so, being conservative. I admit that a lot of that decrease has been voluntary, but on the basis that the MOD are still cutting the RAF , then if it had not been voluntary there would have been even more redundancies.

I am sure that there is still scope to lose a lot of air ranks as well, but I do not see the MOD sacking them unfortunately. The RAF is so top heavy it is ridiculous, not just with air ranks, but that we have one officer to every two airmen ........


Y_G

[blogger]

Ya whoooooo such big news............ not.

Year ago 47,000 raf service persons. As of April 2008 we will be 41,000.

Looking at the manning interenet site promotions are not happening because there are no Cat A or Cat B or even Cat C folks to promote in some trades.

Well the black hole has begun folks and it is only going to grow. The way around it is to offer the older guys more years....... oh they are trying that at present an extra 3 years to some ranks in some trades to plug the gaps. Well the recycle bins are full in my office.

So what next promotion for guys after 2 or 3 years in rank......!

Sorry the black hole is getting bigger by the day. I would like to care but I cant' give a to$$ 19 days to do.

A Civvy asked me today why am I leaving what would it take to stay....I told her ....we have gone too far and ...it's now too late..... the raf back is broken..I have no feelings for the RAF any more.

Just dont care lost the plot given up totally. 25 years service cut 5 years short. oh and the 3 extra they tried to offer......Boll0cks.

Just another rat who's had more than enough.

[LFFC]

So, I just need to get this clear in my mind.

We tax payers have just committed to spend £2.3 billion over 30 years to refurbish and maintain MOD Main Building in Whitehall (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1290333.ece), and now the government has decided to cut 1000 MOD jobs in that building and move another 800 civilians away from it!

Another master stroke of forward planning! Or maybe the Scottish Office will move in to take up the space?

I wonder when the Treasury will see similar job cuts and large numbers of its Civil Servants being moved away from it's London offices?

[Archimedes]

LFFC - In answer to your final quesiton: at about the same time Satan telephones British Gas to say that his heating appears to have failed and that he'd welcome an early visit since there's a thin sheen of frost over his entire domain....

[LFFC]

Archimedes,

Actually, I think I've just found the answer in the Lyons Report (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/4/5/lyons_ch6.pdf) (look at Table 6.1), and the Treasury are taking a hit - 18 people out of a potential 1152!

[covec]

It is a personal tragedy for those involved - I can only hope that some of those who are affected are those responsible for:

1. Overzealous penny pinching: actuals?
2. Closing bases, units, disbanding/merging Regiments
3. S**te kit: fuel tank protection?
4. JPA
5. Being overly partisan wrt going to war and supporting politicians for their
own gain
6. Appalling pension/illness payouts to injured frontliners
7. Closing military hospitals.

[In Tor Wot]

COVEC I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it isn't going to be those to$$ers as they have protected their 6 for years.

The areas that I have heard about are the very ones that are supporting the frontline predominantly the DI environment. :ugh:

The reason given being that it costs too much to maintain all the property in London, therefore everyone must fit into MB, 'rusticate' or depart. The next masterstroke will probably be the renting/selling of valuable inner city office space in the form of the Old War Office Building.

Whilst I have every sympathy for those that are about to lose their jobs they surely didn't think that with ever diminishing uniforms the civilian support structure would remain untouched. I find it very difficult to believe that we need more CS than the combined strength of the Army and RAF.

BTW when is Abbey Wood going to reduce in line with the rest of the Services?

[TheInquisitor]

If the entire MOD CS disappeared overnight, would we really notice? What is it they actually do?

I'd hazard that we'd be able to continue fighting the way we are now - only with less trivia...

[Truckkie]

At least these guys may have some sort of union spokesperson who can fight for their rights or maybe call strike action to highlight their plight.

I guess their redundancy payoffs won't be a pittance either!

Front-line troops being cut all the time - about time that MOD followed suit.

[Pontius Navigator]

If the entire MOD CS disappeared overnight, would we really notice? What is it they actually do?
I'd hazard that we'd be able to continue fighting the way we are now - only with less trivia...

The endgame is killing people. The bit before that is detering them from trying to kill you.

Now I like to think part of my job is aimed at killing people. To that end I could leave for 2-3 months, may be more, and the ship would continue on course. After a period of time the way would be lost and another boot in the right direction would be needed.

But that is not my only job.

My other jobs involve keeping other people in jobs - health and safety - environmental pollution - conservation.

All niff naff and trivia which did not even feature on the horizon 20 years ago. Now they are all industries in themselves. Anyone ever meet a Health and Safety Advisor who actually gave any real advice? "You need a risk assessment" - no advice on what was at risk!

Aircraft overfuelled, spill in the drains? "Off you go, meet your take-off time." Not now, unit inquiry.

Need a bit of realistic low flying, OK over the moors. Not now - sheep, bird breeding or what have you. Maybe even a horse rider.

Just how many CS are employed who only run these systems?

[Jimlad1]

"We tax payers have just committed to spend £2.3 billion over 30 years to refurbish and maintain MOD Main Building in Whitehall (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1290333.ece), and now the government has decided to cut 1000 MOD jobs in that building and move another 800 civilians away from it!"

Nope, its shutting St Georges Court and OWOB and moving the remainder into MB - MB is staying open and full to capacity. Whether anyone wants the OWOB is another question mind you...

[Pontius Navigator]

Now someone asked the question:

"As for asking what the MOD do, I was going ask the same question about half the RAF I've ever had to come into contact with? My answer was sit around, do little and generally mank about life while slagging off anyone who has the misfortune to not wear uniform:E"

Well the answer of course is that is what they are paid to do in an ideal world. Well in a real ideal world of course there would be no armed forces anywhere, but in our real world, if everything is ideal, there would be no conflict because of the fear of effective retribution.

Now in the present conflicts there is clear over-stretch but if there was no one <<sit around, do little and generally mank about life >> we really would be in stook. Even in WW2 there were many who were not employed in fighting. They may have been resting or they may have been there 'just in case.'

Yes, there will be people in jobs for years and years. Some of these people in 'cushy' billets may be there for 2 reasons. They like the job - no one else wants the job. The job however needs to be done.

They may, to the uninitiated, appear to do very little. In practise they may be bringing great skills and experience to the party.















:}

[Jimlad1]

Fair answer Pontius - although I had decided in the interests of decency to edit my post slightly!

However to say "They may, to the uninitiated, appear to do very little. In practise they may be bringing great skills and experience to the party." -

Much the same can be said about MOD staff - its just that people never bother to find out what MOD people actually do and assume they do very little.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

For those of you without access to the MoD Centre Truth Factory:

Permanent Under Secretary Bill Jeffrey and Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup today launched detailed plans for a smaller, smarter, better, faster Head Office - and invited views from staff at all levels.

At a meeting with senior military and civilian staff in Main Building on 23 October 2007, the Department's two most senior officials outlined proposals for a new way of working in Head Office with fewer senior committees, more direct accountability, less briefing, and better decision-making. The proposals should mean better jobs in Head Office - but will involve a 25 per cent reduction in posts. The Streamlining programme follows on from the MOD's Capability Review, and will clarify and simplify the way the Department operates. It will ensure an efficient Head Office focused only on strategic tasks, that only performs the functions which need to be carried out there. The aim is to produce an organisation which is more agile and better suited to today's circumstances. This will require people in Head Office to improve the way they work collectively. Roles and responsibilities will be clearer, and personal accountability for decisions will take the place of always seeking consensus. It will end the practice of over-briefing and unnecessary or duplicated staff work - with senior officers setting an example. A clearer focus and better ways of working will also enable us to reduce the size of Head Office. PUS and CDS stressed that Head Office staff were conscientious, hard working and continued to deliver results - Streamlining is not a criticism of them rather the processes and working practices imposed on them. It recognises the pressure on the defence budget and reductions taking place elsewhere in defence which Head Office must reflect. The key proposals are: Streamlining involves a 25 per cent reduction in the size of the Head Office. This will mean reductions in London of around 1,000 civilian and 300 military posts over the next 2-3 years, generating ongoing cost savings of at least £50 million. This will release resources for the front line. There will be a Departmental early release scheme to help manage the consequences for our civilian staff. Future decisions on the location of organisations currently in London but not in the new Head Office may mean the relocation of a further 800 posts. A new style of working will require less consensus. Individuals will be responsible for making recommendations, consulting as necessary but with any differences of opinion exposed for decision rather than massaged down to a lowest common denominator. There will be clearly defined roles and responsibilities throughout the Department, with greater direct accountability at 4-star and 3-star level, including Chiefs of Staff as TLB holders; A new Board structure will engage Ministers regularly and early, encourage corporate behaviour to deliver the best outcomes for defence, and ensure decisions are followed up through a Defence Operating Board under 2nd PUS and VCDS. Sub-committees will be heavily cut in favour of accountable individuals; A new Strategy Director and a more strategic Defence Board will ensure the Head Office focuses on the long-term and engages in wider Government policy; We will improve the efficiency and coherence of corporate services which depend on IT, and further work will look at the best way of delivering financial and admin services to the London buildings and to groups of TLBs; Starting today, senior management across Head Office will be conducting briefings about the Streamlining programme to inform and engage staff in their area. Members of staff will have the opportunity to be involved - not just in this consultation, but in designing and improving the areas in which they work. Recognising that people at working level know best which processes are broken, which blocks frustrate them, and which work doesn’t add value, workshops will be held in every area to identify these and look to sweep them away. In parallel, a formal consultation period is now underway with Trades Unions. This will last for a period of 30 working days, from 23 October 2007 until 4 December 2007. PUS and CDS have encouraged staff to feedback their views to the Streamlining team either through the Trades Unions, the management briefing process or directly via e-mail to [email protected]. As far as possible, streamlining will minimise, and preferably avoid, compulsory redundancies and there will be a Department wide Early Release Scheme. No decisions have yet been made on relocation of posts, but any relocations would be subject to full consultation and follow existing departmental policies. The changes will maintain adequate resources and decent working conditions, once detailed proposals are known these will be subject to further consultation including equality and diversity impact assessments. In a press statement, Defence Secretary Des Browne said: "This package of measures will radically change the way the MOD works. It will make the department more agile and better able to respond to the needs of those on operations. Operations are rightly where the focus of the MOD should be. "Ministers, Chiefs of Staff and our most senior officials will lead this process by example and with greater direct accountability for areas and budgets." During the briefing to senior staff, PUS Bill Jeffrey said: "None of what I have said about working style and the scope for a leaner, more effective organisation is intended as a criticism of our hard-working staff in the Head Office. We achieve great things, and I for one am very grateful for it. But, at a time when the pressures on Defence are as intense as they are, it is incumbent on us to look for ways of scaling down while still discharging our core functions. Other parts of MOD have been through the same process. "I suspect also that most of us in this room recognise the picture of a Head Office that is staffed by good people doing their best, but whose working style and processes tend to be over-elaborate, in which everyone has to have their say, sometimes more than once. We need to find ways of cutting out the inessential, being ready to drop lower priority tasks, and devising processes that are simpler, brisker and ultimately more effective. "That is the task of the next, more detailed phase of the work. I do not underestimate its difficulty, but one thing I'm sure of is that to have any chance of success we need to involve in it the staff who know the business best." The Streamlining programme will be carried out over the next two - three years. Detailed information on the proposals has been published on the Defence Intranet today, along with the presentation slides used by PUS. The Streamlining ‘core script’ contains further question-and-answer material.

Page Publisher: DGMC-NEWSDESK
Last Updated: 23/10/2007

With regard to the questions over what all these people do; much of it is to do with Governance and Accounting requirements. That is, running the labyrinth of rules the Government (and Treasury) require from publicly accountable bodies; plus (as Pontius Navigator mentioned) the myriad growth industries like H&S, Equal Opportunities, Environmental Safety, Investors in People, ISO 9001 2000 (and similar) etc. A lot goes on in the MoD Head Office and it must absorb a lot of the Chief Executive's (sorry, I meant CDS) time and effort. Of course, I'm forgetting that CDS works for PUS, which would account for the order of precedence in the announcement credits.

[Not_a_boffin]

I suspect ITW and Pontius may well have hit the nail on the head. While Jimlad rightly points out there are a lot of CS who do their best to support the front line by trying to make the system work, there are a multitude of posts that have sprung up over recent years that don't. Diversity and equality monitors anyone? The H&S mafia? The media types who can't even get their facts right half the time? The personnel types who invent and then monitor "competencies"?

It won't be any of those that get the chop. Our wonderful government has mandated that these "functions" are undertaken and monitored and so they'll be alright. The people who'll get hit are almost certainly (as per usual) the admin folk who do things like run the CBO / registry, sort the travel, maintain the diaries, have a remote idea about IT - in short those who know how to make things happen. If DI are taking any sort of big hit that's verging on insanity, given the current state of play.

[TheStrawMan]

Ah Streamlining thats the buzz word now is it.

I supposed they have Streamlined the Navy-Less ships
Streamlined the Army- less men and regiments
Streamlined the RAF- less aircraft and privatized the maintenance.

So Less ships+Less Army+Less Aircraft= Less boys and girls sitting behind desks in the MOD.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Oh wait a minute aren't we fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and protecting our island from terrorists shouldn't that mean.
More ships+More troops+More aircraft= More boys and girls sitting behind desks in the MOD.

Makes perfect sense to me. Oh dear I think I said that before now I'm confused.

Taxi for the Straw Man please

[BEagle]

Dear Jockstrap,

Does "Recognising that people at working level know best which processes are broken, which blocks frustrate them, and which work doesn’t add value, workshops will be held in every area to identify these and look to sweep them away." mean that you are actually going to listen to your 'people at working level' in order to 'identify and look to sweep away' the utter shambles of JPA?

If not, why not?

[Wader2]

a new way of working in Head Office with fewer senior committees, more direct accountability, less briefing, and better decision-making.

Oh good. Please can we cascade this to lower levels?

I used to have two, one-day, meetings per year with the rest of the business by phone or letter.

Now I have, on addition to one of the one day meeting where we acually do work, 2 H&S Meetings and 4 Commander's Briefs and the other one day meeting has been taken over.

My chain of command has gone from 5 established posts of which usually only 2 or 3 were manned between SO2 and 2* to about 11, all fully manned. Better yet, the original CoC is still in business and I work to them too.

Names? Certainly Sir.

[tucumseh]

Well, 1300 looks like 1388, according to my arithmetic.

It's certainly not 30% across the board. At least one department shuts altogether (and no, I haven't a clue what they do either, so no great loss). Many of the other losses seem to be consolidating financial posts into a "one-stop scrutiny shop". This'll be fun, as doing proper scrutiny is actually frowned upon. Either PUS has won the day and managed to overturn the bizarre ramblings of successive Mins(AF), or this cut reflects reality - they haven't done proper scrutiny for at least 15 years. DCDS' personnel staffs take a big hit, but as they don't have many Service staff left to "manage"..........

In short, if I were at the front line, I'd be pleased at this. It will have little or no practical effect on acquiring kit.

Now, what about a huge cull of the hundreds of unneeded posts that were created when PE split up and DLO was formed? The latter had, and still have under DE&S, whole teams to "manage" projects which, when in PE, were scaled at about an hour every other Monday morning. One aircraft project I could name had a 40 (forty) fold increase in manhour resources.

[TheInquisitor]

ONLY the MoD could refer to a mass sacking as:
a Department wide Early Release Scheme.
Classic stuff.

[bayete]

Greycoat did you mean this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6h8i8wrajA
I liked this one form a while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrzovxAsGLE&NR=1

[tucumseh]

I’d like to think that the reduction in “finance” posts reflects the simple fact that, in the MoD, “financiers” don’t actually manage finance in the vast majority of cases – the project manager does. A myth has grown up around these posts, and the grade/rank attached to them has increased with it. Most of them have little responsibility and are not accountable for how the money is spent, yet most IPTs have financiers far more senior to those who DO, for mundane things like airworthiness. (And if you don’t think civvy PMs are hunted down for slaughter if there is even a hint that they can be blamed, think again).

Now, what next? The other great myth is Commercial (contracts). The mantra is that they alone can commit the MoD to contract, and are therefore deserving of similar inflated grades/ranks as financiers. This, of course, is rubbish. Commercial (in)activity is perhaps the greatest problem PMs face in trying to meet time, cost and performance.

A typical ongoing example, which you can read on the freely available MoD Contracts Bulletin. On an aircraft close to our heart here, a safety system (A) is required. It is part of a larger system (B), and the two must be complementary and integrated. The bulletin infers (and this attitude is borne out when speaking to people) that this is the first time such a system has been procured, so they get lots of resources. They have bought (B) and not (A), so (B) languishes unused. The contracts bulletin for (A), issued belatedly, makes no mention of (B) and so a lengthy process of clarification questions and data gathering begins, as the potential bidders are completely in the dark. Then there’s tender, selection, negotiation etc.

But, another IPT has introduced this system of systems 10 years ago. They’ve made all the mistakes associated with this novel system, and a “lessons learnt” paper exists for those who follow. However, this current IPT have not the slightest scoobie about this, and because they have absolutely no prior experience in the general field are making even more mistakes.

A simple database would save time, money and effort, and negate much of the manpower resource. Instead of a commercial TEAM faffing around (also in the dark) for many months, while the aircraft lacks this safety system, all they need do is spend a couple of hours updating the original submissions/approvals/contracts and move on. That is, cite precedent. Dictate suppliers. Ensure commonality. Say, “Here’s the contract company X found acceptable, we expect you to agree. You’ve got 24 hours”. Just a thought, but it’s been proven to work; albeit to the annoyance of a few 2*. But, with this news about financiers, perhaps there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

You may find this boring, but Faster, Cheaper, Better IS possible; but only if you analyse what’s actually wrong, instead of issuing 30% cut targets and walking away, or saying (as many here do) “get shot of the civvies”.

And I do appreciate the impact this has on people. But the phrase “Department wide Early Release Scheme” is telling. For some years now, people who have been desperate to retire early, some whom are terminally ill, have been refused. This scheme will allow them to go, and others will be redeployed. The Unions banging on about redundancies is bluster. It will be natural wastage.

[greycoat]

Bayete, yep that's the one. Wonder if an RAF one is in the pipeline to complete the set?

[Gnd]

:cool:Actually, I think it is great, the Civil servants get paid about 50% of a serving bod (maybe, it's because it is less dangerous) but the amount of work (admittedly depends on your speciality) is the same. We could employ twice as many civil servants to do the jobs of the expensive War dodgers at home then all the money saved (this is the great part) could be spent in Dover or the like? Gosh, is this just cynical or could it actually work?

Spend the savings in Lynham then the Army could have their home in Benson, I love the area so lets do it!!:eek:

[nivsy]

Tucumseh,

Maybe - just maybe the advert placed in the Contract Bulletin was prepared by Project Manager and his faithful "techies" for commercial release into the bulletin.

Commercial officers (at any grade) are quite frankly sick and tired of poor specifications, business cases and investment appraisals which often lead to the late publication and ultimate contract placement. Commercial officers are not sitting around being idle, and often have to take the roll of PM & Financier while offering a degree of social work "assistance" to project managers when their programmes goes heywire!

And I smile, heaven only knows what would happen if Commercial people did not have the right to solely commit the department. There are so many instances when PM's have told contractors to get on with things without appropriate contractual cover which has left the MoD wide open to liabilities and claims.


Nivsy

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

One of the very good reasons why Inventory Managers (in those IPTs that have them) have the "what constitutes a contract" principle hammered home to them on their support chain training courses and are strongly encouraged to gain CIPS qualification. They have separate binds about PMs and contracts wallahs, though.

[tucumseh]

Nivsy

While I understand all you say, I think I need only cite long standing MoD policy.

Technical Project Managers MUST be able to fulfill ALL roles in their team, including Requirements Manager and ILS Manager (both of which have typically been serving officer posts since about 1995, as jobs had to be found for the huge surplus!!), Commercial, Finance, Quality, Risk, Engineering Authority, Support Authority and so on. ALL of these are learned at grades beneath the lowest PM grade, and they must display competence in them before promotion.

In further clarification, successive CDPs and Junior Ministers have directed that this requirement does NOT apply to non-technical PMs, or direct entrants. Nor are, for example, commercial or finance staff required to be able to fulfill jobs other than their own (although clearly many can).

Of course, we both know there are many PMs, both technical and non-technical, who cannot ever hope to achieve this level of functional competence. In my opinion, they should not be in the job.

Hope that makes my position clear. I don't make up the rules, but I have them in front of me.

You can always predict the problems on a project by the PM's background. And vice-versa.