10.4 We believe that PJHQ continues to be the right national construct for the command of operations; the model is respected and copied internationally. We have heard that it has some detractors, but that past failings have generally resulted from ill-discipline and behaviours both within and beyond PJHQ, rather than from shortcomings in the PJHQ model itself. There is some evidence that like the Head Office it allows itself to be drawn down into the tactical level. We believe that re-clarifying the respective roles of Head Office, PJHQ, national deployed commanders, and the single Services, and ensuring consistent application would help.
10.5 PJHQ's role should continue to centre around the 'direct, deploy, sustain and recover' functions. It must play the key role in ensuring continuity of UK operational approach in support of coalition command, but continuing care is needed in limiting its 'direct' function in multi-national operations. Equally, however, it needs to draw on single Service
10.4 environmental understanding and take account of their Full Command responsibilities. Under our proposals in Part 9, PJHQ would be under the administrative command of the JFC, which would assume the Chief of Joint Operation's TLB function and his broader responsibilities for Joint Warfare Development and the Permanent Joint Operating Bases. This would allow him to focus purely on his operational function, for which he should remain directly accountable to CDS.