Browne apologises in troops pay row
The defence secretary, Des Browne, was forced to apologise to the House of Commons today, after the Conservatives claimed that his promise that British troops would not lose out when their allowances were rejigged was in contradiction to his official briefing notes.
Mr Browne had told the Commons in October that the changes would "not take one penny away from anybody", despite an official memo admitting that there would be "potential losers" from the reorganisation.
Despite the prime minister partly coming to the rescue of Mr Browne at prime minister's question time today, Mr Browne later wrote a note to the Speaker, Michael Martin, apologising for any confusion.
Misleading the house is a grave offence among MPs, and the Tories immediately hit back, claiming that the apology was not good enough.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "It's welcome news that Mr Browne accepts he made comments which contradict his own internal briefings.
"What we need to know now is what he intends to do about it. Servicemen and women serving on the frontline will rightly feel let down by this sleight of hand from the Labour government.
"It is clear the MoD is giving with one hand whilst taking with the other."
In his letter to Mr Martin, Mr Browne said: "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."
In a detailed defence of the changes to service personnel allowances for spending time away from their families at PMQs today, Mr Blair insisted that no British troops would lose out under the changes in allowances and that "everyone gains money".
However, quizzed by the Tories on the issue at what was the final PMQs of 2006, Mr Blair ducked the issue of whether Mr Browne owed MPs an apology, but set out on his own lengthy explanation of the reconfiguration of the monies.
Insisting that: "Overall, no one loses money and everyone gains money," Mr Blair set out a lengthy defence of the measures - so much so that Mr Cameron was left joking that after stepping down as prime minister he could play civil servant Sir Humphrey in a remake of Yes, Prime Minister.
But Mr Cameron called on Mr Browne to apologise for misleading the house over the allowance changes, insisting: "The point is simple: the defence secretary was briefed one thing and said something else."
Mr Blair said an additional £60m was being paid in allowances for British troops, but admitted that for the Grenadiers, in particular, it would be the case that "it's not that they will receive less money. It is that the money they were going to receive under the present allowance may be less than they thought they were going to get."
In a heated clash, Mr Cameron said: "The defence secretary said changes in allowances would not take one penny away from anybody. Will you confirm that government briefing now shows this isn't true?"
Mr Blair conceded the issue was complicated but said: "Let me explain what's happening in relation to these allowances.
"At the present time for the navy and Royal Marines there are two different allowances that are being amalgamated together.
"In respect of one of those allowances, which is the longest service at sea bonus, that itself is split into two different types of payment.
"When they are amalgamating all of it into one allowance, which is going to be called the longer separation allowance, they are deeming the amount of credits under that particular part of the service at sea bonus to be roughly at 60%.
"That will mean within that bonus there are those people who will have actually accrued more than 60% - so within that bonus they may receive less than otherwise they would.
"However, that is more than compensated for by the fact that the new allowance is going to be paid at a bigger higher rate - £25 rather than £12.80 - and all personnel are going to be credited with an extra 100 days as the deemed separation."
Mr Blair joked that he had been memorising that answer all morning long.
Mr Blair went on: "The letter that the second sea lord sent to the navy and the marines is correct, that people will not lose under that benefit.
"In relation to the other allowance, which is called the accumulated turbulence allowance ... that allowance, at the present time, kicks in when 280 days are served.
"That is now going to be amalgamated so there is this one separation allowance. I'm told it is possible that some of those who are getting at present that allowance may receive less than they otherwise thought they would.
"However, the majority of them will receive more under the separation allowance and quite apart from all of that the new operational allowance, tax free at £2,200 a year, means that overall no one loses money and everyone gains money."
The MoD document, leaked to the Daily Telegraph, was written by the director general of service personnel, Chris Baker.
It set out the government's case for removing long service separation (accumulated turbulence) bonuses, but concluded: "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)."
A week later, on October 30, Mr Browne told MPs that the reconfiguration of allowances did "not take one penny away from anybody or from the armed forces... Money is not being taken away from anybody."
He said recently-introduced bonuses for serving in conflict zones meant the "total effect" would be "additional money for our armed forces".
An MoD spokeswoman said today: "There is no question of the secretary of state deliberately misleading the house.
"The new operational allowance of £2,240 brought in by Mr Browne is not connected with changes linked to existing allowances, which were decided upon some years ago."
A separate leaked memo from Lieutenant Colonel David Russell-Parsons, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, apparently stated that 505 of his troops stand to lose £1,350 each through the scrapping of the separation allowance.
The memo, written in September, warned MoD chiefs that withdrawing the bonuses would send an "appalling message" to troops.
In response to this article explaining the reactions to the Royal Marines pay mixup that seemingly took away all of the extra allowances they recieve on deployment I am just so confused I don't even want to read this again in case it makes my head hurt. I am by no means unintelligent but I just seriously cannot work this out at all. I think they're fixing the mixup but who knows this just goes way over my head!