View Full Version : MPs ‘misled over troop payments’
Torygraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/13/narmy13.xml) Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, was accused of misleading Parliament last night after he told MPs that plans to scrap allowances for troops who spend long periods away from home would "not take one penny away from anybody".
Mr Browne came under fire after a leaked Ministry of Defence document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, revealed he had been told a week before his statement in the Commons that there would be "losers" under the reforms. He was one of a handful of people who received the memo, which was stamped "Restricted - policy".
The memo - written by Chris Baker, the MoD's director general of service personnel policy - was sent out the day after it emerged that thousands of soldiers faced losing hundreds of pounds under proposals to scrap so-called long service separation (accumulated turbulence) bonuses. Mr Baker's memo spells out the Government's case for scrapping the allowances, and introducing a new system of payments, before concluding: "It has always been recognised and accepted that there will be a few potential losers as those who have qualified due to high separation are unable to do so [under the reforms]." The memo added that Tony Blair had been briefed on the issue.
The full impact of the changes was underlined last night by a separate leaked memo from Lt Col David Russell-Parsons, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, which revealed that more than 500 of his troops stand to lose £1,350 each. Despite the clear warning in Mr Baker's memo that some soldiers would lose out, Mr Browne brushed aside concerns about the allowances raised by Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, at the end of October.
Instead, Mr Browne told the Commons that "the reconfiguration of the allowances does not take one penny away from anybody or from the armed forces. . .Money is not taken away from anybody." In his memo – written in September – Lt Col Russell-Parsons said his men will have spent around 20 months away from home on a series of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia between Aug 2004 and Nov 2007. He estimated that 505 of his men would have qualified for £1,350 each under the old system. He warned that withdrawing the allowances – which started to be phased out last month – would send an "appalling message after a seven-month tour interval". Retaining the payments would be a "key signal to the soldiers of their value over a considerable period of additional turbulence." Lt Col Russell-Parsons added that his troops were looking forward to their deployment in Afghanistan "without concerns of a considerable loss of money".
Last night, Mr Fox said: "It is very clear that Parliament, the public and the Armed Forces were all misled and are due an apology. The Secretary of State promised there would be no losers when clearly he understood there would be." He added: ''This slashing of pay is very damaging to morale and yet another kick in the teeth for our brave Armed Forces."
Responding to the memo from Lt Col Russell-Parsons, an MoD spokesman said: "The Secretary of State's office now has a copy of the memo and the department will be looking into it to make sure no soldier has been treated unfairly."
Soldiers shed blood for shameful MoD (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/13/do1302.xml)
According to a report on Radio 6 today, a government study has decided that one of the main reasons that there is such a shortage of new recruits joining up, is because of all of the peace protests that have been taking place recently.
Who pays these idiots to come up with this rubbish?
Overstretch, low pay, cut benefits, lack of respect from civillian strata, unjust wars, shoddy equipment etc etc......
But NOOOOOOOO, it's the hippies fault.
PompeySailor
13th Dec 2006, 08:26
Well, having left after 22 years in the last week, I have now been told that it could take up to 30 days to receive my final pay, pension payment and lump sum. The JPA help desk is unable to help (funnily enough) as they cannot "see" me on the computer yet. This is despite all the literature stating that the final payment is made within 10 working days of your final date (HMS NELSON A-Z Guide to Release dated 22 Aug 06, Section 04.1, just in case they need a reference....). In addition, you won't get a P45 for the same period (you need to fill out a P46 with a new employer) so you could get walloped on an Emergency Tax Code if you get another job on leaving. The RN tried to ensure that all personnel leaving between November and December completed their documentation early enough to ensure that there would be no hiccups, yet I have been told that they are having to fight almost every case on a case-by-case basis to get the records straight and get the payments made. Yet again, time served counts for nothing once the paper-shufflers get their hands on it all, and considering the amount of "office parties" and "christmas shopping days" they are all getting off, at least someone is having a fun time, rather than being sat on the phone trying to get it sorted out. I must apologise for clearly keeping "Heidi" awake on the phone, as she had something far more important to be doing rather than her job. Conversely, the Tax Office have been great.
Good news is that I kept a Government Procurement Card, which I have threatened to use if they don't sort their sh1t out. They have 10 days, otherwise I am going internet shopping with it, and they can wait 30 days for payment.
airborne_artist
13th Dec 2006, 09:08
Good news is that I kept a Government Procurement Card, which I have threatened to use if they don't sort their sh1t out. They have 10 days, otherwise I am going internet shopping with it, and they can wait 30 days for payment.
Tell that to the men in the black Omega ....
But put in a claim for lost interest on the amount owed once it's late. Tie them up in knots, and cc it to your MP.
PompeySailor
13th Dec 2006, 09:17
Tell that to the men in the black Omega ....
But put in a claim for lost interest on the amount owed once it's late. Tie them up in knots, and cc it to your MP.
I am keeping a running document on phone calls, etc, for this one. It's just disappointing that they almost seem duty-bound to cock it all up for you right to the bitter end. It will go in to my former Boss so that he can see how poorly things are run (as he has direct responsibility for this!), and that no certificate signed by 2SL is enough to make up for them making life awkward when all you want is an easy transition to civilian life.
The "man in the Black Omega" can swing one. I know a man in a Black London Taxicab about 130 miles north of Portsmouth who would be only too happy to point out the error of his ways!
Wyler
13th Dec 2006, 09:43
Left on 30 Nov. No final pay statement hard copy so I will have to figure my Tax myself. No P45, blank stares all round. Started new job on 1 Dec so am on Emergency Tax Code. No way to find out any info because I have been 'dumped' by the system and no-one wants to talk to me anymore.
My Boss asked if I had kept my uniform 'just in case'. It went in the landfill on 1 Dec. I will never ever touch one again.
PompeySailor
13th Dec 2006, 10:11
Left on 30 Nov. No final pay statement hard copy so I will have to figure my Tax myself. No P45, blank stares all round. Started new job on 1 Dec so am on Emergency Tax Code. No way to find out any info because I have been 'dumped' by the system and no-one wants to talk to me anymore.
My Boss asked if I had kept my uniform 'just in case'. It went in the landfill on 1 Dec. I will never ever touch one again.
Ask your employer for a P46 and make sure that you tick the box which says that it's your primary employment. It's appalling, to be honest, and I am going to get an IFA to work out the daily interest chargeson a high interest savings account from Day 10 (which is the date my literature states) to the Day that they pay me the lump sum, and Small Claims Court them for it. I would not let my kids join this current circus if it was the only job in town.
Handy link here for small claims court documentation....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6170209.stm
KENNYR
13th Dec 2006, 10:15
ORAC, I am surprised that you are surprised by the Governments U-Turn on payments to the troops. You didnt actually expect them to keep their word did you.
Times have definately changed since I left the mob in '89. I received all my grants, final payments and hearing loss compensation within days of leaving.
Bladdered
13th Dec 2006, 11:27
For Pompey
Just to give you some reassurance. I left the RAF on PVR right in the middle of Navy JPA rollout - yes I was concerned that I would not get my gratuity within the month (I had fixed my mortgage to take effect from 1st November expecting to be able to pay off a big lump sum before interest rates went up). The gratuity arrived in my account within 8 working days - no complaints. Hope it works as well for you!
ed
Oh and meant to mention that P45 followed only days behind - only problem is that final payslip went to old work address - durgh...... left there 3 months ago!!
mutleyfour
13th Dec 2006, 12:33
Here is the Right Honourable gentlemans reply:
In a letter sent to the Speaker of the House at 1130 this morning, the Defence Secretary said:
"This morning, as you will be aware, Liam Fox is reported as accusing me of misleading the House in an answer I gave on 30 October (Column 14).
"I do not believe I did mislead the House.
"Having looked again at the complete answer I gave, I do not think it was misleading. If however any part of it gave a misleading impression, then it was unintentional, and obviously I am sorry.
"I was trying to correct a misunderstanding of the reform of the separation allowances. These reforms were decided three years ago. I have reviewed them and sought assurances from the department that there is no reduction in the total amount of money for allowances for service personnel as a result.
"It is wrong to suggest, as Liam Fox did in his question, that these reforms were about cuts. They were about reforming an out of date system and making it fairer overall. They had the full support of the Chiefs of Staff, and the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, as well as the Department.
"Most importantly, I also wanted to correct the entirely false link which some have drawn between these reforms, decided three years ago, and the introduction in October of the new operational bonus. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
"Contrary to what Liam Fox suggested on the 30th of October, there is no question of the Government giving with one hand and taking away with another. The operational bonus is paid for by £60m of new money agreed with the Treasury, precisely to ensure that no money will be taken away from pay or allowances or any other area of Defence.
"Everything I have done in this area has been to increase the amount of money paid to service personnel. As I have said many times in the House, support for our forces on operations, including pay and conditions, has been one of my highest priorities since coming into this job, and will continue to be so.
"As this is a matter of public interest, with your permission Mr Speaker I shall publish this letter on my Department’s website and in the House of Commons Library, as well as copying it to the opposition spokespersons and the Chair of the HCDC."
I have reviewed them and sought assurances from the department that there is no reduction in the total amount of money for allowances for service personnel as a result Which in no way refutes the allegation, which was concerning the effect on individual soldiers, not the forces as a whole - and they could not be confused as he quotes both, too wit: - "the reconfiguration of the allowances does not take one penny away from anybody or from the armed forces".
And as the memo from Lt Col Russell-Parsons shows, it takes money away from over 500 "anybodies" - his men... :suspect:
Commons debate - 30th Oct: (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2006-10-30a.12.0&s=speaker%3A11189)
Liam Fox: ......The Secretary of State told us that he did not know about the planned changes to the separation allowance, which will mean cuts to the income of many of our front-line combat troops, when he announced the recent bonus payment. Can he now confirm that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have decided that those cuts will go ahead? That is a clear case yet again of this Government giving with one hand and taking with the other, and—what is worse—undermining the morale and motivation of our troops, to boot.
Des Browne: ....If he had made even the most cursory inquiry into the matter, he would have discovered that the reconfiguration of the allowances does not take one penny away from anybody or from the armed forces. It makes sure that the allowances are paid fairly across all the services. Money is not being taken away from anybody.
How do you know when a politician is lying........His lips move. :hmm:
What incentive is there for a 16-22 year old to join the forces?
Any young lad or lass who catches a glimpse of the news or reads the odd newspaper is very unlikely to sign for Queen and Country nowadays.
Perhaps Labour is hoping for a return to national service.
This poxy country certainly doesn’t learn does it?
Vote Tories to build the nation up and instill pride then when were doing well vote the reds in to tear it down and turn it into a slum, repeat, rinse, repeat.
KENNYR
13th Dec 2006, 14:15
Well said GPMG !! The only way to change the Government is to get rid of all the mamby-pamby left leaning liberal pinko gay loving political parties and have them vote WITH the Conservatives against Labour instead of having Labour win by the narrowist of margins every time. All those wasted votes for the Monster Raving Loonie Party etc. could be put to much better use........by giving us a Conservative government.
If the government made all salaries tax free for the men/women overseas fighting for Queen and Country there might not be a retention problem any more. If the Armed Forces got rid of the beaurocratic civvies now in charge of the messing, pay, stores, procurement etc the service personnel might get back to living a decent life again.
Letsby Avenue
13th Dec 2006, 14:17
Did Anyone catch a very flustered T Bliar at PMQs trying to expain these allowances and why exactly no-one had been mislead? :confused:
Roguedent
13th Dec 2006, 14:17
I take it from this post, the overall idea is to take away LSA and give you only Op allowance?? :confused: I may be totally wrong here, and probably am, but you only get Op allowance for certain Blair led disasters in the world. :ugh: What about the poor soldier:{ who has to spend months in Belize. He will get nothing for being away. The X factor that was so well talked about really has turned into a bad TV programme on ITV:mad: :mad:
endplay
13th Dec 2006, 14:33
Not often I attempt to defend a politician but the review of allowances was undertaken on a tri-service basis by SP Pol and the restructuring of LSSA from 3 levels + a bonus to its new LSA of 10(?) levels was with full support all round. The major driver was that hardly anyone ever got the bonus payment due to timing restrictions. What's happened in the interim is, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq which has pushed many more people into bonus territory.
My understanding of this was that it came into effect with JPA so RAF first, then Navy then Army when they come over. Unless that's changed the guardsmen could get the best of both worlds, a bonus then a higher rate of LSA.
It geniunely wasn't a money saving exercise when conceived but the circumstances may have corrupted the original intent. The road to hell etc.
Still, my old dad never apologised for giving me an unjustified shoeing on the basis that I could have it for something I'd previously got away with.
SidHolding
13th Dec 2006, 15:22
Endplay, I agree with your understanding of the allowances and when JPA was rolled out to the RN, 500 or so Marines had started their deployment and were on track to receive the accelerator bonus.
JPA changed that in Oct (or was it Nov, anyway...) and now the reconfiguration of the allowances package takes more than a pretty penny away from the guys undertaking what is arguably the most demanding task any member of our Forces is currently involved in!! Therefore, Browne DID misrepresent the house.
He should hold his hands up and pay the Marines the bonus under the old system, I don't think anyone will begrudge them that.
Grumpy106
13th Dec 2006, 15:43
I was told by the (now) 3* who brought JPA in for the RAF that they knew people would lose out on the accumulated turbulence bonuses but that so few people qualified for them that it was acceptable. Thus no-one in the RAF has received one since we got JPA, the RN will now not get any and the Army will follow suit shortly. He also tried to tell me that the extra levels of LSA (increased from lower, middle and higher to 14 different levels, with Levels 1, 2 & 3 being spookily exactly the same as the old levels) more than made up for the loss of the bonus, which is untrue. I would have now qualified for the first £1350 and would be well on my way to my second, and the levels of LSA in no way work out the same amount of money. Had I been in the RN I would have got my first bonus, and in the Army would have qualified for both, prior to their entry into the wonderful world of JPA.
Hence all 3 Services will now suffer the loss of these bonuses for which more and more personnel are now becoming eligible.
For Mr Browne to say no-one would lose out is either plausible deniability or he has been misled - you decide.
timex
13th Dec 2006, 17:10
For Mr Browne to say no-one would lose out is either plausible deniability or he has been misled - you decide.
Or C....he's lying again
Ginseng
13th Dec 2006, 17:30
Interesting to see him reiterate the line that this was not about cuts, but a fairer way of cutting the same cake. Much the same, of course, was claimed for AFPS05 - it was to be a "cost neutral" exercise. Why then is the MoD now estimating that long term savings to be made from the change to AFPS05will amount to about £120 Million per year?
Ginseng
Ginseng
13th Dec 2006, 17:35
Recent answer to a searching Parliamentary Question. It pays to stay in touch!
Regards
Ginseng
Blacksheep
24th Dec 2006, 12:54
You should receive your P45 in your hand the day you leave. If you don't, they should be paying your wages up to the day that you do receive it. Don't forget to claim any back pay.
Ginseng
24th Dec 2006, 19:25
Commons Hansard for 28 Nov 06:
Pensions
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the significant long term savings from the reformed armed forces pension arrangements introduced in 2005 referred to in the answer of 7 November 2006, Official Report, column 1487W; and if he will make a statement. [101275]
Derek Twigg: The new Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS 05) was broadly intended to be ‘cost neutral’ at the time of introduction in April 2005 in comparison with AFPS75. The main reasons for introducing the new scheme were to modernise the schemes benefits and at the same time ensure affordability in the future as factors such as increased longevity took affect.
The scheme’s actuary is confident that there will be significant long term savings if a comparison is made between the emerging costs of the new scheme and the costs that would have resulted if we had continued exclusively with the old scheme.
The estimate is that the eventual long term savings will be in the region of £120 million per year once the vast majority of personnel are active members of the new AFPS 05—in about 20 years time. An accurate net present value at this point in time could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Regards and Merry Christmas to all
Ginseng
Blacksheep
26th Dec 2006, 00:52
...in about 20 years time. An accurate net present value at this point in time could only be provided at disproportionate cost.Anyone attempting to make a cost benefit analysis at net present value out to twenty years ahead, either doesn't understand the process, or is "spin doctoring". In commercial use we manage seven years at best and CBAs are generally restricted to five. Beyond that it isn't possible to estimate the effect of external factors.
threepointonefour
27th Dec 2006, 11:19
... in about 20 years time. An accurate net present value at this point in time could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
To quote the Daily Mail's "The Great 2006 Sell-Off" Quiz from Tues 27th Dec ...
Q25. How many times has the Treasury redefined the length of the economic cycle, used in the testing of the 'Golden Rule' since Labour came to power in 1997?
A. Three
Only another 6 reassessments to go then ... I wonder if the unexpected savings, resulting from the cost-neutral switch to APS05, might unexpectedly rise further over next 20 yrs. Maybe next time we ask, there will be a negative decrease in savings?
There was an interesting exchange in the House of Commons yesterday when Liam Fox questioned Des Browne on eligibility for the Operational Bonus. Here are some excerpts from the full Hansard transcript (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071016/debtext/71016-0007.htm):
Dr Fox. I am sure that I do not need to remind either the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Armed Forces that the Kuwait border is only 30 miles from the Basra air base. As a result of that small difference, service members will lose out on hundreds of pounds a month, although their American counterparts receive the same bonus regardless of whether they are in Iraq, Kuwait or Qatar. If the Secretary of State made it clear that those allowances will apply to all those in the region, and not just those in Iraq, that would be a major step forward.
Looks like Liam Fox is suggesting that Kuwait should be included in the areas that qualify for the Operational Bonus. To which Des Browne replies:
Des Browne: That is a classic example of the sort of thing that I was talking about. Based on absolutely no research, not even the courtesy of asking the MOD whether what he has described is the reality, the hon. Gentleman has asserted his case at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. But it is not true.
:)
The discussion continues:
Dr. Fox: Good.
Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman says, “Good.” Perhaps he will now explain the basis on which he made the assertion in the first place. Is there a factual basis for it, or did he make it up for political advantage?
Dr. Fox: I am delighted that those operational bonuses will apply, because those issues have been raised with us by members of the armed forces so that they can get clarification from the Government. If it is clear that we will get such clarification, I will be delighted—and so will they be.
Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman now says to the House that he was asked to inquire. Why did he choose to inquire by asserting an untruth at the Dispatch Box, rather than asking me or a Minister?
Dr. Fox: Excuse me, but I thought that the purpose of the House of Commons was for us to be able to question Ministers directly. It is an entirely appropriate place to raise such issues. Now that we have clarification on those, perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify other issues— [Interruption.]
I wonder who has their finger on the pulse?
Pontius Navigator
17th Oct 2007, 21:13
I think the issue is one of 'no surprises'.
The sort of thing that you might expect when there is a rapport between honourable people.
Now I have an MOU which actually has a 'no surprises' clause in it but then it is between MOD and a Quango so no surprises there.
Knowing your own policy is a bit like making love to a beautiful woman....
http://webster.fh-hagenberg.at/staff/burger/gasoline/allegro/images/tonySwiss8549-200.jpg
Roland Pulfrew
17th Oct 2007, 21:48
Thanks LFFC!! Excellent - only I now have Chablis all over my laptop.
Des Broone not knowing his own policy? Surely not!!
The plot thickens. This exchange in the House of Lords (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/03.htm)today certainly doesn't clear things up.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we also send our condolences to the family of Lance Corporal Sarah Holmes, mentioned by the Minister. Two days ago in the other place, my honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary raised concerns that personnel serving in Kuwait on Operation TELIC are not entitled to the operational bonus. The Secretary of State said that this was not true, yet a Written Answer sent last December to the Member for the Forest of Dean stated:
“The specified qualifying locations for the operational allowance are the geographical boundaries of Iraq”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/06; col. 933W.]
Can the Minister clear up this confusion? Are all personnel serving in Kuwait and the Gulf entitled, like their American counterparts, to the operational bonus? If not, are Her Majesty’s Government looking at ways in which this could be rectified?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I should point out that we have not specified the location of the support troops that we have in the region down to a particular country, so I cannot comment on the location of troops in Kuwait or other places, but I shall certainly be able to look further into the noble Lord’s point on the definition of the operational bonus. I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.