General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, has never been shy in coming forward with his views about the treatment of the men and women under his command. His latest foray is about pay, and the argument he puts across, comparing, unfavourably, the wages of his youngest soldiers with those of traffic wardens and policemen, is controversial.

Knowing what the Army’s 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds — and the young commandos of the Royal Marines — are expected to endure in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly the latter, facing up to the daily threats of roadside bombs and suicide bombers, it is easy to see why Sir Richard feels their bravery, commitment and professionalism should be recognised in their pay packets.

Young soldiers last year received a 9 per cent pay rise, and yet they continue to earn less than police officers, and, according to General Dannatt, traffic wardens who are paid on average about £17,000 a year.

No disrespect to traffic wardens, but the hostile terrain and climate in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, let alone the presence of an insurgent force intent on targeting the British and other foreign troops, cannot be compared with walking the streets of even the most unfriendly parts of urban Britain.

However, the comparison is a little disingenuous, because soldiers receive considerably more than a basic wage which currently stands at £16,227 for an 18-year-old private living in single accommodation and preparing to deploy for a six-month tour of Afghanistan. In addition he will get £2,380 as an operational allowance for serving in Afghanistan, a longer separation allowance worth £1,132, and subsidised accommodation. The Ministry of Defence claims that these allowances, plus a number of other financial benefits, increase the total package to £22,854.

However, whether or not soldiers are paid worse than traffic wardens or police constables (£21,009 to £32,985), the issue of pay for the Armed Forces cannot be dealt with in isolation. The more important argument raised by Sir Richard and, incidentally, by many others, including Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, is whether this country should now be prepared to spend more on defence because of the continuing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is not a matter for the MoD to decide, it’s one for the Government as a whole, as well as the electorate. At present the Government spends about 2.4 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence which puts £34 billion into the MoD’s coffers to cover, among other things, equipment, accommodation, welfare and salaries. The costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are paid for out of the Treasury’s reserves.

Thirty four billion pounds is no mean sum. But, as the defence industry keeps on pointing out, the cost of equipment is rising well above inflation, between 8 per cent and 12 per cent, and the MoD’s budget has not been under such pressure for 30 years. For Sir Richard to get his way on pay, the Treasury would either have to rewrite its comprehensive spending review settlement for the MoD, or the Government would have to decide that the time was right to raise the proportion of the GDP spent on defence from 2.4 per cent to at least three per cent. Is this what taxpayers want, knowing that the extra money will have to be found from the Department of Education or Transport or the NHS? It seems unlikely.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Margot Fonteyn: In her footsteps
• Forget beautiful people, let's have wonky Brits
• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power