Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label attachment file name title previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

972379

	registered interest
	date	12/09/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Written Statement of 24 July 2018, Ministry of Defence - Update, HCWS 909, when his Department was first aware that military personnel would be unable to receive their 0.9 per cent non-consolidated one-off payment as a result of issues with the online payroll system.
	tabling member constituency	Caerphilly
	tabling member printed	Wayne David
	uin	173998
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/10/2018 answer text <p>The non-consolidated aspect of the pay award has never previously been a part of the remunerative offer for Service personnel and, as a result, the Department has always been aware that additional time would be required to build this feature into the system. The delay was not a result of issues with the online payroll system.</p><p>We are currently working to deliver the one-off payment, which is planned to be made to Service personnel by the end of the financial year, backdated to 1 April 2018.</p> answering member constituency South Staffordshire answering member printed Gavin Williamson grouped question UIN 173999 question first answered 09/10/2018 15:09:13 answering member 4108 label Biography information for Sir Gavin Williamson
	tabling member	1398 label Biography information for Wayne David

972450

	registered interest
	date	12/09/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Written Statement of 24 July 2018 on Ministry of Defence -Update, HCWS909, when (a) his Department's online payroll system will process and (b) service personnel will receive the 0.9 per cent non-consolidated one-off payment.
	tabling member constituency	Caerphilly
	tabling member printed	Wayne David
	uin	173999
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/10/2018 answer text <p>The non-consolidated aspect of the pay award has never previously been a part of the remunerative offer for Service personnel and, as a result, the Department has always been aware that additional time would be required to build this feature into the system. The delay was not a result of issues with the online payroll system.</p><p>We are currently working to deliver the one-off payment, which is planned to be made to Service personnel by the end of the financial year, backdated to 1 April 2018.</p> answering member constituency South Staffordshire answering member printed Gavin Williamson grouped question UIN 173998 question first answered 09/10/2018 15:09:13 answering member 4108 label Biography information for Sir Gavin Williamson
	tabling member	1398 label Biography information for Wayne David

947412

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Written Statement of 24 July 2018 on Ministry of Defence -Update, HCWS909, when the 0.9 per cent non-consolidated one-off payment will be implemented.
	tabling member constituency	Llanelli
	tabling member printed	Nia Griffith
	uin	167982
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2018 answer text <p>The Ministry of Defence is working with its pay administration providers to agree when the non-consolidated payment will be implemented and will update Service personnel as soon as possible.</p> answering member constituency South Staffordshire answering member printed Gavin Williamson question first answered 05/09/2018 14:59:15 answering member 4108 label Biography information for Sir Gavin Williamson
	tabling member	1541 label Biography information for Dame Nia Griffith

947413

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when his Department first received a copy of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s 2018 report.
	tabling member constituency	Llanelli
	tabling member printed	Nia Griffith
	uin	167983
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2018 answer text <p>The Ministry of Defence responded to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's 2018 report on 24 July 2018.</p><p>This pay award affects approximately 190,000 UK Regular and Reserve Forces personnel, who will receive an above inflation increase of 2.9%. Supported by strong evidence on recruitment and retention issues, the award takes into account the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified personnel.</p> answering member constituency South Staffordshire answering member printed Gavin Williamson question first answered 05/09/2018 15:00:28 answering member 4108 label Biography information for Sir Gavin Williamson
	tabling member	1541 label Biography information for Dame Nia Griffith

947464

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 29, paragraph 3.23, of the Armed Forces Pay Body Review Report 2018, for what reason the Review Body’s recommendation of an across-the-board increase of 2.9 per cent in base pay for 2018-19 was not accepted.
	tabling member constituency	Llanelli
	tabling member printed	Nia Griffith
	uin	168004
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2018 answer text <p>For the 2018-19 award, the Government gave the Armed Forces a 2% consolidated uplift, and 0.9% as a bonus. The payment of a bonus element will ensure that total annual income will be increased by 2.9%, therefore meeting the spirit of the AFPRB recommendation.</p><p>This is the largest pay increase for the Armed Forces since 2010.</p><p>The Government values the advice of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) and works closely with them to ensure that they have all the evidence necessary to complete their work.</p> answering member constituency South Staffordshire answering member printed Gavin Williamson question first answered 05/09/2018 15:01:28 answering member 4108 label Biography information for Sir Gavin Williamson
	tabling member	1541 label Biography information for Dame Nia Griffith

858619

	registered interest
	date	09/03/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many armed forces personnel in specialist positions have been informed they are no longer eligible for specialist pay and are required to repay it.
	tabling member constituency	Leeds North West
	tabling member printed	Alex Sobel
	uin	131874
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/03/2018 answer text <p>It will take some time to gather the information required to answer the hon. Member's question and I will write to him shortly.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 14/03/2018 16:42:44 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
	tabling member	4658 label Biography information for Alex Sobel

856195

	registered interest
	date	06/03/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral contribution of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence of 5 March 2018, Official Report, column 15, whether he plans to set out parameters for revised armed forces pay in his letter to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to commence the annual pay round; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Llanelli
	tabling member printed	Nia Griffith
	uin	131361
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/03/2018 answer text <p>The Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Chair of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) on 7 December 2017 setting out parameters for the 2018/19 pay round. A copy of this letter can be found on the gov.uk website at the following address:</p><p>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-secretary-gavin-williamson-letter-to-chair-of-afprb.</p><p>We look forward to receiving the AFPRB's 2018 report in due course.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 12/03/2018 16:08:12 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
	tabling member	1541 label Biography information for Dame Nia Griffith

819157

	registered interest
	date	09/01/2018
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Living Overseas Allowance for each station.
	tabling member constituency	West Dunbartonshire
	tabling member printed	Martin Docherty-Hughes
	uin	121834
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/01/2018 answer text <p>Local Overseas Allowance is paid to cover the additional local day to day living costs of service personnel when serving overseas. The current rates of Local Overseas Allowance for Main Stations are attached. Rates are updated periodically to reflect changes to currency exchange rates which affect the Forces Fixed Rate. I am withholding information regarding the rates of Local Overseas Allowance for Small Stations as its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests and release information provided in confidence.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 16/01/2018 16:21:17 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood attachment 1 file name Main Stations.pdf title 121834 - MOD Local Overseas Allowance
	tabling member	4374 label Biography information for Martin Docherty-Hughes

805412

	registered interest
	date	12/12/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the starting salary for (a) cooks and (b) stewards is in (i) the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, (ii) the Army and (iii) the Royal Air Force; and what the starting salary is for stokers in the Royal Navy.
	tabling member constituency	West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
	tabling member printed	Andrew Bowie
	uin	119083
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/12/2017 answer text <p>Details are available at this link:</p><p>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/armed-forces-pay-review-body-forty-sixth-report-2017</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 19/12/2017 15:01:50 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
	tabling member	4601 label Biography information for Andrew Bowie

782704

	registered interest
	date	02/11/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will meet armed forces veterans and personnel in Weaver Vale constituency to discuss armed forces pay.
	tabling member constituency	Weaver Vale
	tabling member printed	Mike Amesbury
	uin	111139
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/11/2017 answer text <p>Defence Ministers regularly meet and speak with members of the Armed Forces and veterans about a range of issues, including terms and conditions of service. If the hon. Member would like to contact my office, I would be happy to meet him to discuss this issue.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 07/11/2017 17:39:17 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
	tabling member	4667 label Biography information for Mike Amesbury

773934

	registered interest
	date	19/10/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on lifting the public sector pay cap for members of the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Aberavon
	tabling member printed	Stephen Kinnock
	uin	108710
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/10/2017 answer text <p>The Secretary of State for Defence has not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on lifting the public sector pay cap for members of the Armed Forces.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 27/10/2017 13:17:40 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	4359 label Biography information for Stephen Kinnock

772106

	registered interest
	date	17/10/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent discussions he has had with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body on levels of pay for the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Coventry South
	tabling member printed	Mr Jim Cunningham
	uin	108346
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/10/2017 answer text <p>I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 10 July 2017 (Official Report, column 10) to Question 900299, to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr Amesbury)</p><p>Ministers are in regular contact with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body as part of the annual pay round process. I gave oral evidence to the review body in November prior to its 2017 report, and I expect to meet it again prior to its 2018 report.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 20/10/2017 13:35:12 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
	tabling member	308 label Biography information for Mr Jim Cunningham

760659

	registered interest
	date	14/09/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the total salary commitment of each service of the armed forces is by country and region.
	tabling member constituency	Edinburgh North and Leith
	tabling member printed	Deidre Brock
	uin	105100
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/10/2017 answer text <p>The attached table provides details of total annualised salary for payments of UK Regular Armed Forces by Service, country and region as at 1 July 2017.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 10/10/2017 14:48:01 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood attachment 1 file name Table for Question 105100 -Total Salary for payments of UK Regulars by Service Country and Region at 1 July 17.xlsx title 105100 - MOD Statistics on Armed Forces Pay
	tabling member	4417 label Biography information for Deidre Brock

750657

	registered interest
	date	11/07/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the 2017 UK Regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey Results 2017, published on 25 May 2017, what discussions he has had with the Pay Review Body for Armed Forces on (a) the changes in levels of satisfaction and (b) how pay could help address those changes.
	tabling member constituency	York Central
	tabling member printed	Rachael Maskell
	uin	4132
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2017 answer text <p>Defence Ministers have had no discussions with the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) since the 2017 results of the UK Regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey (AFCAS) were published on 25 May 2017. As part of informing the AFPRB's annual process, the Ministry of Defence provides papers of evidence and takes part in oral evidence sessions, all of which refer to AFCAS where relevant.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 19/07/2017 15:01:22 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
	tabling member	4471 label Biography information for Rachael Maskell

749761

	registered interest
	date	04/07/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent discussions he has had with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body on levels of pay for the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Kingston upon Hull North
	tabling member printed	Diana Johnson
	uin	900313
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/07/2017 answer text <p>I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury).</p> answering member constituency Sevenoaks answering member printed Sir Michael Fallon question first answered 10/07/2017 15:55:48 answering member 88 label Biography information for Sir Michael Fallon
	tabling member	1533 label Biography information for Dame Diana Johnson

731441

	registered interest
	date	21/06/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make representations to the Treasury to (a) lift the public pay sector cap and (b) allow the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to make recommendations on pay rises without that pay gap restriction.
	tabling member constituency	Easington
	tabling member printed	Grahame Morris
	uin	342
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/06/2017 answer text <p>Defence Ministers have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer covering a wide range of topics including pay. The independent Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) provides advice annually to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on pay levels for members of the Armed Forces. In reaching their recommendations the AFPRB consider a number of factors. These are laid out in their terms of reference, published at the beginning of each of their annual reports.</p> answering member constituency Bournemouth East answering member printed Mr Tobias Ellwood question first answered 29/06/2017 15:11:44 answering member 1487 label Biography information for Mr Tobias Ellwood
	tabling member	3973 label Biography information for Grahame Morris

722967

	registered interest
	date	20/04/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 51, paragraph 4.49 of the 46th Report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body, published on 28 March 2017, on what basis his Department calculated that the future accommodation model would result in savings of £500 million over 10 years.
	tabling member constituency	Llanelli
	tabling member printed	Nia Griffith
	uin	71485
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/04/2017 answer text <p>The 2015 Spending Review committed the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to savings of around £500 million from accommodation over the next 10 years through reduced running costs, capital receipts and savings. Inefficiencies in the current model mean that it costs the MOD around two pounds for every pound of effective accommodation subsidy Service personnel receive; by making the model more efficient we aim to realise these savings and also create a fairer model that provides Service personnel with more choice.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 25/04/2017 11:37:53 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	1541 label Biography information for Dame Nia Griffith

714477

	registered interest
	date	28/03/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to paragraph 2.73 of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body 46th Report, what steps his Department is taking to promote cohesion between Regulars and Reserves as part of the Whole Force approach.
	tabling member constituency	Llanelli
	tabling member printed	Nia Griffith
	uin	69623
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/04/2017 answer text <p>The Services are committed to achieving culture change to break down barriers between Regulars and Reserves and improve cohesion. This is being addressed through a number of programmes.</p><p>We continue to invest in more integrated training and in equipment for the Reserves. Reserves have access to the same equipment and technology as Regulars across all the Services. Army Reserve Units are now commonly paired with Regular Units and train alongside them using the same modern equipment and, when required, may also deploy with them. The Army also employs individual reservists alongside Regular personnel, for example in intelligence roles. The Maritime and RAF Reserves are most often used to provide individuals and small teams for specific roles. Their training is designed to integrate them with the Regulars.</p><p>We have streamlined the process for transferring from the Regulars to the Reserves to enable people with key skills to share their knowledge and expertise. We are also actively working to identify any policy or process issues that may hinder the use of reservists and to remove these barriers wherever possible.</p><p>We have developed a set of indicators of culture change and we have put in place a process through which the Services will assess their progress against these indicators and provide evidence of that progress to senior leadership in the Department. This will allow the Ministry of Defence to identify and share examples of good practice as well as issues to be addressed.</p><p>These initiatives have begun to have a positive effect. In the 2016 Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, almost two thirds of Regulars who had served alongside Reservists rated them as professional, with a similar number rating the Reserves' contribution as valuable. This is a firm foundation on which we can build and we are working to do so.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 04/04/2017 14:30:55 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	1541 label Biography information for Dame Nia Griffith

714481

	registered interest
	date	28/03/2017
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 28, paragraph 3.34 of the 46th Report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body, published on 28 March 2017, what the implications are for his policies on recruitment and retention payments; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Llanelli
	tabling member printed	Nia Griffith
	uin	69607
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/04/2017 answer text <p>The Ministry of Defence takes seriously the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Recruitment and Retention Payments (RRP) are paid at Departmental discretion to recruit and retain individuals in specific cadres. It is, therefore, right that RRP is removed when the Department is no longer able to retain the services of an individual to whom RRP is paid.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 18/04/2017 15:16:57 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
	tabling member	1541 label Biography information for Dame Nia Griffith

647128

	registered interest
	date	28/11/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that levels of salary for armed forces personnel reflect changes in salaries for non-service personnel.
	tabling member constituency	Strangford
	tabling member printed	Jim Shannon
	uin	55260
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/12/2016 answer text <p>The independent Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) provides advice annually to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on pay levels for members of the Armed Forces. In reaching their recommendations, the AFPRB consider a number of factors including the need for the pay of the Armed Forces to be broadly comparable with pay levels in civilian life.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 01/12/2016 16:04:35 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	4131 label Biography information for Jim Shannon

573618

	registered interest
	date	02/09/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans his Department has to review the eligibility for the operational allowance for service personnel.
	tabling member constituency	Argyll and Bute
	tabling member printed	Brendan O'Hara
	uin	44267
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/09/2016 answer text <p>We review eligible locations every six months as standard but Ministers have no plans to change the qualifying criteria.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 45090 question first answered 08/09/2016 13:57:40 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	4371 label Biography information for Brendan O'Hara

536566

	registered interest
	date	14/07/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, what impact the fixed one per cent pay increase has had on (1) retention, and (2) recruitment, in the (a) Army, (b) Navy, and (c) Royal Air Force.
	tabling member printed	Lord Touhig
	uin	HL1240
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 20/07/2016 answer text <p>The Government greatly values the important work of the Armed Forces. The independent Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) annually reviews Armed Forces' pay to ensure that it remains comparable and adequate to recruit, retain and motivate personnel. Having considered all the evidence presented to them during the last pay round, the AFPRB recommended that a one per cent increase in base pay across the board was appropriate; a recommendation which the Government accepted in full. In addition to the one per cent pay rise, Service personnel have benefited from the introduction of a new pay structure in April 2016. As well as retaining incremental pay scales, 'Pay 16' seeks to rebalance pay to better reward our most highly skilled personnel while addressing many of the concerns Service personnel had raised regarding the previous pay structure.</p><p>Pay restraint was one of the many difficult decisions the Government had to make to put the UK's public finances back on track. However, the overall remuneration package remains competitive with a non-contributory pension scheme, subsidised accommodation and access to free medical and dental care.</p><p>Research suggests that individuals joining the Armed Forces rate factors such as training, qualifications and promotion more highly than pay. For example, the 2014-15 Recruit Trainee Survey reports that the top four most important factors influencing recruits' decisions to join the Armed Forces were: challenge and adventure (93 per cent); keeping fit (93 per cent); gaining skills and qualifications and the appeal of the lifestyle. Similar findings are found in research regarding Service personnel's intentions to stay in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey 2016 reports that the top five factors increasing Service personnel's intention to stay in the Armed Forces are: job security; dental and healthcare provision; pension; and mental health provision.</p><p>The Services closely monitor recruitment and outflow. They have introduced a wide range of initiatives to increase recruitment numbers, which include targeted marketing, specific recruitment events, and improvements in the recruitment process. Instances of high outflow are mitigated through a variety of management actions which include extensions of Service, financial retention initiatives and inter-Service transfers. However, it should be recognised that some churn in strength, particularly in the lower ranks, is welcome and helps to refresh the Armed Forces.</p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 20/07/2016 15:31:55 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
	tabling member	542 label Biography information for Lord Touhig

524426

	registered interest
	date	10/06/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what account he took of the pattern of complaints relating to terms and conditions made through the service complaints procedures in reforming the pay structure for the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	East Renfrewshire
	tabling member printed	Kirsten Oswald
	uin	40216
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2016 answer text <p>The new Pay 16 structure was specifically established in response to Service personnel criticisms of the old pay model. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has developed the new pay model as a simpler, more transparent system which provides Service personnel with greater pay predictability. It addresses some of the concerns about the previous pay model reported by personnel through both the Service Complaints system and the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey (AFCAS) and in feedback from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). I fully expect these changes to be positive for morale overall.</p><p>Many personnel will experience an increase in pay as a result of the new pay model, and no one will take a cut in core pay on implementation. We have taken steps to ensure that personnel are aware of the range and nature of the pay reforms that began on 1 April 2016 and comprehensive internal communications activity has been undertaken to explain the changes. This included Departmental guidance to help personnel understand their new pay statement and any changes. Personnel, including those under pay protection, continue to remain eligible for any Government-approved pay award. Pay protection has been put in place to ensure that no one will take a pay cut on implementation of Pay 16 and this arrangement will exist for at least the first three years to ensure that no one is disadvantaged.</p><p>The new pay model is not designed as a cost saving exercise, but is a rebalancing of pay to make more efficient and effective use of the Armed Forces pay bill; the AFPRB will continue to recommend pay rates for all personnel. As we go forward the Service Complaints Process and AFCAS will be primary sources which inform our assessment of the benefits realised through the pay reforms. <strong><br></strong></p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 39957 40217 question first answered 15/06/2016 14:10:41 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	4413 label Biography information for Kirsten Oswald

524427

	registered interest
	date	10/06/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to take account of the levels of satisfaction with pay reported in the Regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey in his setting of pay policy for the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	East Renfrewshire
	tabling member printed	Kirsten Oswald
	uin	40217
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2016 answer text <p>The new Pay 16 structure was specifically established in response to Service personnel criticisms of the old pay model. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has developed the new pay model as a simpler, more transparent system which provides Service personnel with greater pay predictability. It addresses some of the concerns about the previous pay model reported by personnel through both the Service Complaints system and the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey (AFCAS) and in feedback from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). I fully expect these changes to be positive for morale overall.</p><p>Many personnel will experience an increase in pay as a result of the new pay model, and no one will take a cut in core pay on implementation. We have taken steps to ensure that personnel are aware of the range and nature of the pay reforms that began on 1 April 2016 and comprehensive internal communications activity has been undertaken to explain the changes. This included Departmental guidance to help personnel understand their new pay statement and any changes. Personnel, including those under pay protection, continue to remain eligible for any Government-approved pay award. Pay protection has been put in place to ensure that no one will take a pay cut on implementation of Pay 16 and this arrangement will exist for at least the first three years to ensure that no one is disadvantaged.</p><p>The new pay model is not designed as a cost saving exercise, but is a rebalancing of pay to make more efficient and effective use of the Armed Forces pay bill; the AFPRB will continue to recommend pay rates for all personnel. As we go forward the Service Complaints Process and AFCAS will be primary sources which inform our assessment of the benefits realised through the pay reforms. <strong><br></strong></p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 39957 40216 question first answered 15/06/2016 14:10:41 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	4413 label Biography information for Kirsten Oswald

523915

	registered interest
	date	08/06/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on morale among members of the armed forces of the transition from Pay 2000 to the new Pay 16 pay structure.
	tabling member constituency	East Renfrewshire
	tabling member printed	Kirsten Oswald
	uin	39957
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/06/2016 answer text <p>The new Pay 16 structure was specifically established in response to Service personnel criticisms of the old pay model. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has developed the new pay model as a simpler, more transparent system which provides Service personnel with greater pay predictability. It addresses some of the concerns about the previous pay model reported by personnel through both the Service Complaints system and the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey (AFCAS) and in feedback from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). I fully expect these changes to be positive for morale overall.</p><p>Many personnel will experience an increase in pay as a result of the new pay model, and no one will take a cut in core pay on implementation. We have taken steps to ensure that personnel are aware of the range and nature of the pay reforms that began on 1 April 2016 and comprehensive internal communications activity has been undertaken to explain the changes. This included Departmental guidance to help personnel understand their new pay statement and any changes. Personnel, including those under pay protection, continue to remain eligible for any Government-approved pay award. Pay protection has been put in place to ensure that no one will take a pay cut on implementation of Pay 16 and this arrangement will exist for at least the first three years to ensure that no one is disadvantaged.</p><p>The new pay model is not designed as a cost saving exercise, but is a rebalancing of pay to make more efficient and effective use of the Armed Forces pay bill; the AFPRB will continue to recommend pay rates for all personnel. As we go forward the Service Complaints Process and AFCAS will be primary sources which inform our assessment of the benefits realised through the pay reforms. <strong><br></strong></p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 40216 40217 question first answered 15/06/2016 14:10:41 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	4413 label Biography information for Kirsten Oswald

516203

	registered interest
	date	27/04/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to his Department's press release, A new pay model for the Armed Forces, published on 7 January 2016, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the reformed pay structure on the number of complaints about terms and conditions received through the service complaints process.
	tabling member constituency	East Renfrewshire
	tabling member printed	Kirsten Oswald
	uin	35825
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/05/2016 answer text <p>The changes associated with the new Armed Forces pay model have been extensively communicated, both prior to and since their announcement in January. These communications are expected to address a significant proportion of the questions and concerns that might otherwise have been raised as service complaints. Whilst it is impossible to predict how many service complaints might be raised, planning is in place for a means of dealing with them if they do arise in volume in a way that is fair, effective and efficient and does not overwhelm the system.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 05/05/2016 13:43:52 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	4413 label Biography information for Kirsten Oswald

506354

	registered interest
	date	08/04/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the average annual salary was for each military rank in the (a) Army, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Royal Navy in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the level of such salaries in each of the next five years.
	tabling member constituency	Westmorland and Lonsdale
	tabling member printed	Tim Farron
	uin	33199
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/04/2016 answer text <p>Information on the mode average annual salary for each military rank in the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy between Financial Years (FY) 2009-10 and 2014-15 are set out in the tables below.</p><p> </p><p>The average used in the tables is the mode, the most frequently occurring salary at that rank.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1a:</strong> This table shows the Illustrative rates of annual military salary (in terms of Navy ranks) for Navy Personnel as at 1 April 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2011-12 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2012-13 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2013-14 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2014-15 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2015-16 (£)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Officers Annual salary</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Admiral (Level 4)</p></td><td><p>114,678</p></td><td><p>114,678</p></td><td><p>114,678</p></td><td><p>115,911</p></td><td><p>117,070</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Commodore (Level 1)</p></td><td><p>97,030</p></td><td><p>97,030</p></td><td><p>97,030</p></td><td><p>98,172</p></td><td><p>99,154</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Captain (Level 1)</p></td><td><p>81,310</p></td><td><p>81,310</p></td><td><p>81,310</p></td><td><p>82,381</p></td><td><p>83,205</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Commander (Level 9)</p></td><td><p>77,617</p></td><td><p>77,617</p></td><td><p>77,617</p></td><td><p>78,737</p></td><td><p>79,524</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lieutenant Commander (Level 9)</p></td><td><p>57,199</p></td><td><p>57,199</p></td><td><p>57,199</p></td><td><p>58,025</p></td><td><p>58,605</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lieutenant (Level 9)</p></td><td><p>45,090</p></td><td><p>45,090</p></td><td><p>45,090</p></td><td><p>45,741</p></td><td><p>46,199</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sub-Lieutenant (Level 7)</p></td><td><p>30,369</p></td><td><p>30,369</p></td><td><p>30,369</p></td><td><p>30,807</p></td><td><p>31,115</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sub-Lieutenant (Level 5)</p></td><td><p>24,615</p></td><td><p>24,615</p></td><td><p>24,971</p></td><td><p>25,220</p></td><td><p>25,472</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Other Ranks annual salary</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Warrant Officer I (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>46,753</p></td><td><p>46,753</p></td><td><p>47,428</p></td><td><p>47,902</p></td><td><p>48,381</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Warrant Officer II (Level 9 H)</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,876</p></td><td><p>44,315</p></td><td><p>44,758</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Chief Petty Officer (Level 9 H)</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,876</p></td><td><p>44,315</p></td><td><p>44,758</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Petty Officer (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>36,929</p></td><td><p>36,929</p></td><td><p>37,462</p></td><td><p>37,836</p></td><td><p>38,215</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Leading Rate (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>33,182</p></td><td><p>33,182</p></td><td><p>33,661</p></td><td><p>33,998</p></td><td><p>34,338</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lance Corporal (Level 9 L)</p></td><td><p>24,230</p></td><td><p>24,230</p></td><td><p>24,580</p></td><td><p>24,826</p></td><td><p>25,074</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Able Rating (Level 2 L)</p></td><td><p>17,736</p></td><td><p>17,986</p></td><td><p>18,245</p></td><td><p>18,428</p></td><td><p>18,612</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong>Table 1b:</strong> This table shows the Illustrative rates of annual military salary (in terms of Army ranks) for Army Personnel as at 1 April 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2011-12 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2012-13 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2013-14 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2014-15 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2015-16 (£)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Officers Annual salary</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>General (Level 3)</p></td><td><p>112,476</p></td><td><p>112,476</p></td><td><p>112,476</p></td><td><p>113,687</p></td><td><p>114,824</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Brigadier (Level 5)</p></td><td><p>100,964</p></td><td><p>100,964</p></td><td><p>100,964</p></td><td><p>102,145</p></td><td><p>103,167</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Colonel (Level 2)</p></td><td><p>82,321</p></td><td><p>82,321</p></td><td><p>82,321</p></td><td><p>83,402</p></td><td><p>84,236</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lieutenant Colonel (Level 2)</p></td><td><p>67,920</p></td><td><p>67,920</p></td><td><p>67,920</p></td><td><p>68,900</p></td><td><p>69,589</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Major (Level 6)</p></td><td><p>53,661</p></td><td><p>53,661</p></td><td><p>53,661</p></td><td><p>54,436</p></td><td><p>54,980</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Captain (Level 2)</p></td><td><p>38,932</p></td><td><p>38,932</p></td><td><p>38,932</p></td><td><p>39,493</p></td><td><p>39,888</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lieutenant (Level 8)</p></td><td><p>31,147</p></td><td><p>31,147</p></td><td><p>31,147</p></td><td><p>31,596</p></td><td><p>31,912</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2<sup>nd</sup> Lieutenant (Level 5)</p></td><td><p>24,615</p></td><td><p>24,615</p></td><td><p>24,971</p></td><td><p>25,220</p></td><td><p>25,472</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Other Ranks annual salary</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Warrant Officer I (Level 4 H)</p></td><td><p>44,448</p></td><td><p>44,448</p></td><td><p>45,089</p></td><td><p>45,540</p></td><td><p>45,995</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Warrant Officer II (Level 9 H</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,876</p></td><td><p>44,315</p></td><td><p>44,758</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Staff Sergeant (Level 7 L)</p></td><td><p>38,256</p></td><td><p>38,256</p></td><td><p>38,808</p></td><td><p>39,196</p></td><td><p>39,588</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sergeant (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>36,929</p></td><td><p>36,929</p></td><td><p>37,462</p></td><td><p>37,836</p></td><td><p>38,215</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Corporal (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>33,182</p></td><td><p>33,182</p></td><td><p>33,661</p></td><td><p>33,998</p></td><td><p>34,338</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lance Corporal (Level 9 H)</p></td><td><p>28,940</p></td><td><p>28,940</p></td><td><p>29,357</p></td><td><p>29,651</p></td><td><p>29,947</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Private (Level 7 L)</p></td><td><p>22,359</p></td><td><p>22,359</p></td><td><p>22,682</p></td><td><p>22,908</p></td><td><p>23,138</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Note: The Rank of Lance Corporal was introduced in 2008 in the Royal Marines.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1c:</strong> This table shows the Illustrative rates of annual military salary (in terms of RAF ranks) for RAF Personnel as at 1 April 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2011-12 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2012-13 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2013-14 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2014-15 (£)</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Financial Year</strong> <strong>2015-16 (£)</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Officers Annual salary</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Air Chief Marshal (Level 3)</p></td><td><p>112,476</p></td><td><p>112,476</p></td><td><p>112,476</p></td><td><p>113,687</p></td><td><p>114,824</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Air Commodore (Level 3)</p></td><td><p>98,995</p></td><td><p>98,995</p></td><td><p>98,995</p></td><td><p>100,157</p></td><td><p>101,158</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Group Captain (Level 3)</p></td><td><p>83,336</p></td><td><p>83,336</p></td><td><p>83,336</p></td><td><p>84,427</p></td><td><p>85,272</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Wing Commander (Level 9)</p></td><td><p>77,617</p></td><td><p>77,617</p></td><td><p>77,617</p></td><td><p>78,737</p></td><td><p>79,524</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Squadron Leader (Level 9)</p></td><td><p>57,199</p></td><td><p>57,199</p></td><td><p>57,199</p></td><td><p>58,025</p></td><td><p>58,605</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Flight Lieutenant (Level 9)</p></td><td><p>45,090</p></td><td><p>45,090</p></td><td><p>45,090</p></td><td><p>45,741</p></td><td><p>46,199</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Flying Officer (Level 6)</p></td><td><p>29,587</p></td><td><p>29,587</p></td><td><p>29,587</p></td><td><p>30,014</p></td><td><p>30,314</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Pilot Officer (Level 5)</p></td><td><p>24,615</p></td><td><p>24,615</p></td><td><p>24,971</p></td><td><p>25,220</p></td><td><p>25,472</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Other Ranks annual salary</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Warrant Officer (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>46,753</p></td><td><p>46,753</p></td><td><p>47,428</p></td><td><p>47,902</p></td><td><p>48,381</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Flight Sergeant (Level 9 H)</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,252</p></td><td><p>43,876</p></td><td><p>44,315</p></td><td><p>44,758</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sergeant (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>36,929</p></td><td><p>36,929</p></td><td><p>37,462</p></td><td><p>37,836</p></td><td><p>38,215</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Corporal (Level 7 H)</p></td><td><p>33,182</p></td><td><p>33,182</p></td><td><p>33,661</p></td><td><p>33,998</p></td><td><p>34,338</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lance Corporal (Level 8 H)</p></td><td><p>27,592</p></td><td><p>27,592</p></td><td><p>27,991</p></td><td><p>28,270</p></td><td><p>28,553</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Junior Technician/Senior Aircraftman (Level 9 H)</p></td><td><p>28,940</p></td><td><p>28,940</p></td><td><p>29,357</p></td><td><p>29,651</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The 2015 Summer Budget confirmed that the Government would fund public sector pay awards at one per cent for four years from 2016-17 onwards. Recommendations on individual salary levels are made annually to the Government by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 18/04/2016 16:25:07 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	1591 label Biography information for Tim Farron

455264

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to paragraph 3.58 of the 44th Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, published in March 2015, when the review of military commitment bonuses was completed; and if he will publish that review.
	tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
	tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
	uin	28471
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/03/2016 answer text <p>Following our initial evidence to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) in 2014 we undertook to conduct a more fundamental review of commitment bonuses during 2015, once New Employment Model proposals had matured. Our intention was to submit further evidence to the AFPRB. However, as announced on 23 November 2015, and detailed in the Government's National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, a decision was taken as part of this wider review to phase out commitment bonuses. This decision reflected the view that there was insufficient evidence to prove a tangible retention benefit from these payments. All such payments will now cease from 1 April 2021, providing affected personnel time to adjust their financial plans to take account of any payments for which they are no longer eligible.</p> answering member constituency Portsmouth North answering member printed Penny Mordaunt question first answered 01/03/2016 16:57:01 answering member 4017 label Biography information for Penny Mordaunt
	tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

455853

	registered interest
	date	23/02/2016
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of planned changes to pay and allowances on the morale of the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Bermondsey and Old Southwark
	tabling member printed	Neil Coyle
	uin	903775
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/02/2016 answer text <p>The new pay model being introduced in April 2016 will be simpler, transparent, and more efficient. It responds to Other Ranks’ dissatisfaction with the current model, retains incremental pay, and no one will take a cut in core pay on transition to the new pay model.</p><p> </p><p>I fully expect this to be positive for morale overall.</p> answering member constituency Portsmouth North answering member printed Penny Mordaunt question first answered 29/02/2016 17:14:58 answering member 4017 label Biography information for Penny Mordaunt
	tabling member	4368 label Biography information for Neil Coyle

432729

	registered interest
	date	26/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 33 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, if he will set out the elements of the new pay model for members of the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17898
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/12/2015 answer text <p>We will provide further updates on Armed Forces Pay Reform in 2016.</p> answering member constituency Portsmouth North answering member printed Penny Mordaunt grouped question UIN 17899 question first answered 03/12/2015 16:26:03 answering member 4017 label Biography information for Penny Mordaunt
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

432731

	registered interest
	date	26/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 33 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, what estimate he has made of how many serving members in each branch of the armed forces are likely to be affected by the new pay model for members of the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17899
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/12/2015 answer text <p>We will provide further updates on Armed Forces Pay Reform in 2016.</p> answering member constituency Portsmouth North answering member printed Penny Mordaunt grouped question UIN 17898 question first answered 03/12/2015 16:26:03 answering member 4017 label Biography information for Penny Mordaunt
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

432732

	registered interest
	date	26/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what cost savings his Department plans to make from phasing out the commitment bonus for members of the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17900
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/11/2015 answer text <p>The estimated saving from phasing out the commitment bonus for members of the Armed Forces is £118 million over the remainder of this Parliament and some £50 million a year thereafter.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 30/11/2015 17:00:13 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

432734

	registered interest
	date	26/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of how many serving members of each branch of the armed forces are likely to be affected by the phasing out of the commitment bonus for armed forces personnel.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17901
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/12/2015 answer text <p>Commitment Bonuses are being phased out over the next five years as there is insufficient evidence they significantly influence retention in the Armed Forces.</p><p>In Financial Year 2014-15 approximately 14,000 Service personnel claimed a Commitment Bonus payment. Eligibility for Commitment Bonuses ceases with effect from 1April 2021, providing eligible Other Ranks with the opportunity to claim any payments they might have already included in their financial plans.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 17903 question first answered 01/12/2015 16:33:52 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

432737

	registered interest
	date	26/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how he plans to reinvest the savings achieved by phasing out the commitment bonus for members of the armed forces in the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17902
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/12/2015 answer text <p>The savings generated by the decision to phase out commitment bonuses for the Armed Forces form part of the overall Ministry of Defence efficiency package for this Parliament.</p><p>As detailed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (Cm 9161), efficiency savings will enable investment in a broad range of high-priority capabilities such as counter-terrorism and military surveillance to help protect the UK and our interests abroad, the procurement of a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft to increase further the protection of our nuclear deterrent and our new aircraft carriers, and funding to ensure our Armed Forces continue to be provided with the equipment they need and force protection when they are deployed.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 01/12/2015 16:33:15 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

432739

	registered interest
	date	26/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what timetable he has set for phasing out the commitment bonus for members of the armed forces.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17903
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/12/2015 answer text <p>Commitment Bonuses are being phased out over the next five years as there is insufficient evidence they significantly influence retention in the Armed Forces.</p><p>In Financial Year 2014-15 approximately 14,000 Service personnel claimed a Commitment Bonus payment. Eligibility for Commitment Bonuses ceases with effect from 1April 2021, providing eligible Other Ranks with the opportunity to claim any payments they might have already included in their financial plans.</p> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster grouped question UIN 17901 question first answered 01/12/2015 16:33:52 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

432220

	registered interest
	date	25/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the projected savings for his Department arising from military pay restraint in the 2015-16 financial year and in each of the next five such years; and what proportion of those savings will arise from (a) pay rises limited to one per cent and (b) the ending of military commitment bonuses.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17753
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/11/2015 answer text <br /><p>The estimated military paybill saving in 2015-16 from pay restraint is £98 million.</p><br /><p>The Summer Budget confirmed that the Government would fund public sector pay awards at 1% for four years from 2016-17 onwards. The estimated military pay saving is £1.8 billion over the next five years as detailed below.</p><p>Figures are all in £millions.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>2016-17</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2017-18</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2018-19</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2019-20</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2020-21</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>80</p></td><td><p>180</p></td><td><p>366</p></td><td><p>602</p></td><td><p>625</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>Commitment bonuses which have not proven effective are to be withdrawn in full with effect from 1 April 2021. The estimated saving from ending commitment bonuses is £118 million over the next five years as detailed below.</p><p>Figures are all in £millions.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>2016-17</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2017-18</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2018-19</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2019-20</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2020-21</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><p><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>35</p></td><td><p>48</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> answering member constituency Milton Keynes North answering member printed Mark Lancaster question first answered 30/11/2015 17:04:22 answering member 1544 label Biography information for Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

432226

	registered interest
	date	25/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he plans to change the payment of annual increments to military staff between 2015-16 and 2020-21.
	tabling member constituency	Garston and Halewood
	tabling member printed	Maria Eagle
	uin	17751
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/11/2015 answer text <p>This Government has no plans to remove incremental pay or annual pay increases for serving members of the Armed Forces.</p> answering member constituency Portsmouth North answering member printed Penny Mordaunt question first answered 30/11/2015 16:54:23 answering member 4017 label Biography information for Penny Mordaunt
	tabling member	483 label Biography information for Maria Eagle

427067

	registered interest
	date	09/11/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the Government's policy is on the provision of incremental annual pay rises for personnel of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Romford
	tabling member printed	Andrew Rosindell
	uin	15679
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/11/2015 answer text <p>As part of its New Employment Model programme, Defence is developing a new pay model which will be simpler, more transparent and provide Service personnel with greater pay predictability, removing some of the unpopular and divisive features of the current pay model. However, the details of this new pay model, including incremental progression arrangements, cannot be finalised until the outcome of the Spending Review is known.</p> answering member constituency Portsmouth North answering member printed Penny Mordaunt question first answered 16/11/2015 17:16:36 answering member 4017 label Biography information for Penny Mordaunt
	tabling member	1447 label Biography information for Andrew Rosindell

223910

	registered interest
	date	26/02/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many service personnel have been overpaid after they applied for accelerated incremental progression payments; how much has been overpaid; how much will have to be paid back by service personnel; what the average amount to be repaid by a serviceman or woman is; and by what date such repayments must be made.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	225641
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225422 225423 225424 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

223912

	registered interest
	date	26/02/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of forgiving debt owed by service personnel who applied for accelerated incremental progression.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	225642
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225422 225423 225424 225641 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

223914

	registered interest
	date	26/02/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what information his Department has given to service personnel who have been overpaid because they applied for an accelerated incremental progression; when the guidelines for who was eligible for such payments were changed to invalidate the extra pay; how many people applied for such payments before the guidance in Joint Service Publication 754 was changed; and who was responsible for changing that guidance.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	225643
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225422 225423 225424 225641 225642 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

223579

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, at what rate Accelerated Incremental Progression payments have been made in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	North Durham
	tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
	uin	225421
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225422 225423 225424 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:08 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223582

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many members of the armed forces have had to repay money as a result of errors in Accelerated Incremental Progression payments in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	North Durham
	tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
	uin	225424
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225422 225423 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223585

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what method his Department uses to calculate money owed by members of the armed forces as a result of errors in Accelerated Incremental Progression payments.
	tabling member constituency	North Durham
	tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
	uin	225422
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225423 225424 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:08 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223587

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what provisions are in place to ensure that service personnel receive adequate notice when they owe money because of errors in Accelerated Incremental Progression payments.
	tabling member constituency	North Durham
	tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
	uin	225423
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225422 225424 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

57919

	registered interest
	date	04/06/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what annual percentage increases in starting rates of pay (a) lieutenant colonels, (b) majors, (c) captains, (d) lieutenants, (e) sergeants, (f) corporals and (g) privates in the Army have received since 1982.
	tabling member constituency	Cardiff South and Penarth
	tabling member printed	Stephen Doughty
	uin	198821
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/06/2014 answer text <p>The annual percentage increases awarded by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for the starting rates of pay of the specified ranks are shown in the table below. There was no annual percentage increase in 2011 and 2012 but all privates were awarded a £250 rise. <br><br></p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 16/06/2014 14:32:02 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry attachment 1 file name 20140616 - 198821 Stephen Doughty.doc title Table - Part of answer to 198821 previous answer version 256 answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	4264 label Biography information for Stephen Doughty