Part of Oral Answers to Questions — Communities and Local Government – in the House of Commons at 6:06 pm on 16 October 2007.
Don Touhig
Labour, Islwyn
6:06,
16 October 2007
I am coming to an NAO report now. MOD officials appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will take a closer look at an idea that I examined when I was a Minister. Today, many service families aspire to own their own home and we must to do all we can to help them achieve that. We could perhaps give them a grant of, say, £30,000 towards their mortgage. That cost could be offset by savings elsewhere on other benefits. Alternatively, the Department could act as a guarantor for a certain proportion of any mortgage applied for. The Americans do that with their veterans, for example. One of the major advantages of such a scheme is that the lender is protected against loss and a favourable mortgage is obtained by the service family.
The issue of home ownership will become increasingly important in the coming years as we move towards super-garrisons. It also extends choice to the services and meets a legitimate aspiration. The quality of service accommodation, alongside military pay and training, has a massive impact on recruitment and retention, which are the two great challenges facing us.
Recruitment is an ongoing challenge. Our strong economy increases the challenge. I entered the House in 1995 in a By-election, and I remember that almost every door that I knocked on in my campaign was answered. In the last General Election, hardly any doors were answered, because the area now has a strong economy and almost full employment. The forces now have to compete for recruits and show that joining is an attractive proposition.
Retention is also an issue with some 20,000-plus people leaving the services each year. The skills that our servicemen and women gain during their time in the forces are desirable to those who run business and industry in the private sector. Imagine a married serviceman who has returned from a second or third deployment in the field being greeted by his wife. She will probably say, "Thank God you are back. I worried about you the whole time you were away. Now you have skills that you can sell outside in the private sector. The children are growing up and we are living in awful service accommodation." How can we retain those people in the forces? We need to do more, and the deployed welfare package does help with retention.
Let us not forget that our forces were given the best public sector pay deal this year. In fact, armed forces salary growth has exceeded growth in the whole economy in all but one of the last five years. Contrast that with the record of the Conservatives who, rather than supporting our service personnel, cut the army by 36,000 during their last five years in government. With that record, where is their commitment to our armed forces?
Dr. Fox, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, but is no longer in his place, was a little coy when pressed about what they would do on public spending if they were in power. I do not know why he was coy: he should take a lead from his leader, Mr. Cameron, who said in a webcast interview recently:
"There is no magic pot of money we can dip into to spend...on our armed forces."
There we have it. If the Tories were in power, there would be no more for the armed forces. As so often in the past, the Tories are long on promises, but short on delivery. The party that cut the defence budget by £0.5 billion a year between 1992 and 1997 has not changed at all. If, God forbid, they were one day elected to power, the outlook for the armed forces would be cuts, cuts and more cuts. Contrast that with the record of this Government—increasing pay, improving equipment, updating medical care and accommodation, and constantly seeking to improve the package available to veterans. The Government are committed to delivering for our servicemen and women, and long may that continue.
Of a male MP, sitting on his regular seat in the House. For females, "in her place".
In a general election, each constituency chooses an MP to represent it by process of election. The party who wins the most seats in parliament is in power, with its leader becoming Prime Minister and its Ministers/Shadow Ministers making up the new Cabinet. If no party has a majority, this is known as a hung Parliament. The next general election will take place on or before 3rd June 2010.
A by-election occurs when a seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant during the lifetime of a Parliament (i.e. between general elections) because the sitting MP dies, resigns, is elevated to the peerage, or becomes ineligible to sit for some other reason. If a vacancy occurs when the House is in session, the Chief Whip of the Party that formerly held the seat moves a Motion for a new writ. This leads to the by-election taking place. Prior notice does not have to be given in the Order Paper of the House. There is no time limit in which a new writ has to be issued, although by convention it is usually done within three months of a seat becoming vacant. There have been times when seats have remained empty for more than six months before a by-election was called. The sitting party will obviously choose a time when they feel confident of success. Seats are often left vacant towards the end of a Parliament to be filled at the General Election though this is not always the case and by-elections have sometimes occurred just before the dissolution of Parliament. While a vacancy exists a member of the same party in a neighbouring constituency handles constituency matters. When the new Member is elected in the by-election, all outstanding matters are handed back. Further information can be obtained from factsheet M7 at the UK Parliament site.
The Conservatives are a centre-right political party in the UK, founded in the 1830s. They are also known as the Tory party.
With a lower-case ‘c’, ‘conservative’ is an adjective which implies a dislike of change, and a preference for traditional values.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
The shadow cabinet is the name given to the group of senior members from the chief opposition party who would form the cabinet if they were to come to power after a General Election. Each member of the shadow cabinet is allocated responsibility for `shadowing' the work of one of the members of the real cabinet.
The Party Leader assigns specific portfolios according to the ability, seniority and popularity of the shadow cabinet's members.
Annotations
Caroline Taylor
Posted on 17 Oct 2007 1:29 pm (Report this annotation)
I think this a good point, retaining qualified, skilled servicemen should be a priority and the main reasons for servicemen leaving is the poor treatment of them and their families. Like anyone else they want to feel appreciated and what better way of appreciation to sort out pay to a more generous level especially as they're working days are a lot longer than the average man on the street and a generous package (the x factor) for work carried out on deployment. They're work is just as risky as those doing security work so why shouldn't they be paid additionally to their normal pay. What you don't understand is these people put their lives on the line for our country, not something we all would offer to do, whatever happened to the pride of Britain? A small price to pay for a difficult and often horrific tasks completed.