asked the Minister for Defence if he will state, with reference to his reply to Questions Nos. 39 and 40 on the Order Paper for the 23rd November, 1950, (a) the considerations which governed the increases in pay referred to in his answer, and (b) whether, with reference to the disproportionate increases revealed by his said reply, he will now adjust the rates of pay of junior officers and other ranks in conformity with the increases given to senior ranks.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Rates of Pay.
Major de Valera
The main consideration which underlay the fixing of the new pay scales introduced on 1st September, 1949, for officers of the forces was the extent of the military responsibilities of officers of different ranks. I am satisfied that the scales of pay for the different officer ranks are now broadly proportionate to the degrees of responsibility, and I do not propose to alter the ratios of the different scales to one another by increasing the pay of junior officers.
With regard to soldiers, a flat increase of 1/- a day in pay, as well as 3/6 a week in "wife's allowance" for married men, was granted to all ranks. As the Deputy will have observed from the Official Report of my reply to Questions Nos. 39 and 40 on 23rd November last, this resulted in the highest percentage increases for the lowest paid soldiers. I do not propose to review the pay of soldiers from the aspect of a flat percentage increase all round.
Major de Valera
Is the Minister aware that, on the answer he has given, for a major-general and a colonel ranging in salary from £1,000 to £1,400, the increase of 16 per cent. in the case of a major-general and of 21 per cent. in the case of a colonel works out at about £200; that, in the case of a captain, the increase works out at less than £100; that, in the case of lieutenants and junior ranks, the increase does not exceed £50 in the year; and that there was no increase in the case of second lieutenants? Relating the figures given by the Minister in regard to N.C.O. ranks in an interview to the Independent to the official figures in the Estimates for commissioned ranks, will the Minister not reconsider these adjustments of pay? The consideration that the Minister has already mentioned is very well guarded in the scale as it existed. The existing scale before the increases were granted—will the Minister agree?—was graded with responsibility. What is the case for giving men who have salaries in the region of £1,000 a year an increase of £200 and giving men on the lower scale an increase of less than £50?
Is the Minister aware that grave dissatisfaction exists among the junior officers of the Army at the manner in which the increases were allocated? In view of that and in view of the necessity of keeping the junior and fighting elements satisfied with their conditions, would the Minister reconsider the manner in which the allocations were made?
I would ask the Minister favourably to reconsider at the earliest possible moment two ranks in the Army, lieutenants and captains.
Major de Valera
And second lieutenants.
There is no such rank. It is only temporary.
Major de Valera
It lasts for a long time sometimes.
In those ranks you have young men who get married and have young families and the responsibility of starting in life and that is where you have discontent. It is a legacy you got from the last Government.
Major de Valera
Since the Army are a group who have no organisation to voice their claims at the moment I would like to have permission to raise this on the Adjournment.
Before permission is given to raise this thing on the Adjournment surely I should get an opportunity to reply to the supplementaries?
Major de Valera
I beg the Minister's pardon.
Deputy Major de Valera put a supplementary that covered the percentage and amount of the increase in pay given to certain higher ranks as against what was given to certain lower ranks. The position is—and he can be informed by his colleagues of this—that in the previous review of pay in the Army about 1946 or so a claim was put up by Army officers that their ranks and pay should be equated to certain ranks and pay in the Civil Service. The Government of the time gave favourable consideration to that claim but postponed the final adjudication on it for two years or three years. The two years or three years were up on the 1st September, 1949, and that claim was granted in full. In other words the rates that then became applicable to officers in the Army were those in the demand put forward by them which was considered sympathetically by the previous Government but postponed and put into operation in my time. That did result in a very much higher increase——
To the higher officers.
I am trying to answer —and a lesser increase lower down, but they were the different comparative rates as between Army ranks and corresponding Civil Service ranks. I do not think, therefore, as I have given all the information available, that it would be reasonable to raise the matter again.
Major de Valara
I appreciate that.