Civil servants at the Ministry of Defence are to share more than £41.3m in "appraisal-related annual bonus payments" less than four months after they were criticised by a Commons watchdog committee for allowing procurement costs to overrun by £2.6bn.
A group of 186 senior staff are to receive an average of more than £7000 each on top of their salaries. By contrast, an infantry private fighting on Afghanistan's front line is paid just £15,600 a year.
In addition, 13 special "fixed term appointees" to the MoD are in line to pocket £22,000 apiece from the public purse and another four are still negotiating their bonus terms. A further 52,000 junior civil servants are to receive an average of £761 a head.
The figures for MoD bonus payments were revealed by Derek Twigg, Under-Secretary of State for Defence, in a parliamentary written answer.
In September, a damning Commons Defence Select Committee report revealed that the MoD's 20 biggest projects were £2.6bn over budget and a total of 36 years behind schedule.
It also said MoD staff were "not held to account for a project's failure" and accused the ministry of massaging figures after it was claimed that it had shuffled money between individual project accounts to make it appear that £448m had been trimmed from overall costs.
Defending the bonus system, a Whitehall spokesman said: "The MoD simply has to compete with the private sector if we are to secure the best civilian staff.
"The department had about 90,000 staff, of whom only roughly 2000 are based in London. The bonuses do not amount to a lot per person. Bonuses are given to reward excellent performance and achievement.
"Those who have delivered the best results, and shown real leadership in doing so, receive the biggest bonuses. Those who have delivered least receive nothing."
Junior soldiers who have to spend six months in Afghanistan or Iraq are entitled since last spring to a £2300 "operational allowance" at the end of tours.
A total of 89 service personnel were killed on operations in 2007. The death toll for both deployments since 2001 now stands at 260.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article