asked the Minister for Defence whether it is proposed to pay to members of the Defence Forces an increase in pay similar to that granted to civil servants; and if so, if he will state the annual cost thereof.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pay of Defence Forces.
It is proposed to grant to certain classes of the Defence Forces increases in pay based generally on those recently awarded to certain classes of civil servants. As all details of the scheme of increases for the Defence Forces have not yet been settled, I am unable at this stage, to give an estimate of the annual cost of the increases.
Is the Minister not able to give the extent of it, without giving the exact figure?
So long as I am not held too closely to it—about £200,000.
Would the Minister further state at what level or rank does the increase stop?
That is one of the matters that has to be clarified yet.
Could the Minister not give us some even general indication on that line?
You will know next week, anyway.
From generals down.
asked the Minister for Defence if he will state the total amount which will be expended in pay to privates in the Defence Forces during the current financial year and the amount similarly expended during the last financial year.
The Vote for Defence for the current financial year provides for an estimated expenditure of approximately £1,350,000 in respect of the principal emoluments, in cash and kind, of privates (including seamen) of the permanent Defence Force. This figure is made up of the following elements:—
|
£ |
|
|
Rank pay and insurance |
787,000 |
|
Marriage allowance |
130,000 |
|
Rations and ration allowances |
285,000 |
|
Clothing |
83,000 |
|
Travelling warrants on leave |
5,000 |
|
Accommodation, etc. |
60,000 |
The corresponding provision for privates in the Vote for 1957-58 was approximately £1,262,000. The actual expenditure on privates is not separately recorded in my Department and could not be ascertained without an inordinate expenditure of staff time. It may be taken, however, that the actual expenditure in 1957-58 was not appreciably different from the estimated figure mentioned.
May I ask the Minister a simple question? Why did he not give me the information as asked in the question—what was the actual pay of the private soldiers in the Army last year and the pay estimated this year? Would the Minister give us that information now? What was the actual pay received by the private soldier in the last financial year?
As Deputy McQuillan knows, the emoluments of private soldiers consist of different elements. I have given him the different constituents of the total figure of £1,350,000—rank pay and insurances, £787,000; marriage allowances, £130,000; rations and ration allowances, £285,000; clothing £83,000; travelling warrants on leave £5,000; and accommodation, etc., £60,000.
Would I be in order in suggesting to the Minister that he is afraid to give the true figures to this House?
That is not a question.
Namely, that the civilians and the civil servants draw greater pay than the private soldiers do in the Army.
That is not a question.
Those are the correct figures.
He is trying to mislead the House.
Question No. 43.
I have given the correct figures for privates, £1,350,000.
That is ridiculous. That is not the payment of the private soldier. The Minister is deliberately trying to mislead the House.
I have called Question No. 43.
There should be some way to ensure that the Minister will not try to mislead the public. He is deliberately misleading.
Surely the cost of the marriage allowances——
He is attempting to do the same in his reply to this question.
I must draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that he is not asking questions but making statements. He said the Minister is deliberately misleading the public. Does the Deputy withdraw that?
No, Sir.
The Deputy must withdraw it.
I will not withdraw it. I say and say deliberately that the Minister is deliberately misleading the public and the House.
The Deputy said the Minister is deliberately misleading. He will have to withdraw it or leave the House.
I will not withdraw it. I cannot withdraw it, in conscience.
I do not like to name the Deputy, but I must name him, for refusing to obey the instructions of the Chair. Is the Deputy prepared to withdraw the statement?
No.
I must name the Deputy.