Skip to main content

UNFAIRNESS TO BRITISH SERVICEMEN IN FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

EDM (Early Day Motion) 500A1: tabled on 16 February 1994

Tabled in the 1993-94 session.

This motion has been signed by 5 Members. It is an amendment to an existing motion.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

This is an amendment to an existing motion

This motion was originally tabled by Nick Ainger on 01 February 1994. This is amendment number 1.

View details of the original motion

Suggested amendment

leave out from 'House' to end and add 'congratulates those British troops serving with the UNPROFOR mission in former Yugoslavia supporting and protecting aid convoys; refutes any ill-informed suggestion that United Kingdom service personnel are treated unfairly by comparison with other nations; deplores the impact on the morale of United Kingdom troops that such distorted comments make; to the contrary, believes that the current arrangements for paying United Kingdom service personnel in the former Yugoslavia are both fair and justifiable and compare well with other nations; further notes that the basic salary of United Kingdom service personnel is, in general, significantly higher than the other nations' troops, for example the basic pay of British junior non commissioned officers is some 70 per cent. higher than their French counterparts, some 55 per cent. higher than their Belgian counterparts and some 35 per cent. higher than their Norwegian counterparts; and considers that the payment of such levels of salaries to United Kingdom service personnel throughout their career, irrespective of where they serve, is much more equitable and beneficial to them than the temporary payment of danger money.'.

Original motion text

That this House congratulates those British troops serving with the UNPROFOR mission in former Yugoslavia supporting and protecting aid convoys; but notes with concern that they receive the lowest additional allowances of any of the UN troops currently serving there; believes that the British total additional monthly allowance of $58 for a single serviceman and $229 for a married serviceman is miserly compared with Canada's $992, Norway's $1,178, Finland's $1,757, the Netherlands' $1, 810 and Belgium's $3,000, particularly as the British Government receives $1,058 per month from the United Nations for every serviceman who is serving with UNPROFOR; and is shocked that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in his written answer to the honourable Member for Pembroke, Official Report, columns 424-5, 28th January, stated he had no information on the additional allowances paid by other countries, when his Department had been provided with that information in November and December 1993; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to end this unfair treatment of British troops and bring their monthly additional allowances up to the average paid by all other countries contributing troops to UNPROFOR and to explain to the House why information made available to the Ministry of Defence in November and December 1993 was not drawn to the attention of the Minister for the Armed Forces before 28th January 1994.