Chairman.

we

1648. In connection with Vote 1 might take the two papers which you have been good enough to hand in. Paper No. 2 says on the first page: Existing rates of officers' pay are subject to revision in 1924, and thereafter at intervals of three years, with reference to the cost of living. The revisable portion, however, is limited to 20 per cent. When the rates promulgated in 1919, this condition expressed as follows:- The new rates of pay have been drawn up in the light of the present high cost of living, and it has, therefore, been decided that 20 per cent. of the rates should be regarded as detachable and liable to alteration, either upwards or downwards, according as the cost of living rises or falls.'"

were

was

That was in 1919.-(Sir Walter Nicholson). Yes.

1649. Do I understand that means that only 20 per cent. of the rise which was permitted in 1919 is to be subject to the cost of living? No, 20 per cent. of the whole existing rate of pay.

1650. 20 per cent. of the existing rate of pay, that is to say, if the pre-war pay was £100, and it was raised to £150, the

20 per cent. would be taking on the £150 and not on the £50?-Precisely.

1651. In view of the great reduction in the cost of living do you consider that that is sufficient? I do not think it would become me to express an opinion on the decision of the Government. The Government will review the situation before August, 1924, and if it appeared to them that on broad public grounds the reduction contemplated by their predecessors in 1919 was insufficient, I take it they would represent the matter to Parliament.

1652. But if it was a contract entered into how could Parliament interfere with it? From the point of view of the personnel concerned unquestionably it is a contract that they would not expect to see modified, but I take it one must assume that Parliament is omnipotent in such matters, and, if it thought there were public grounds for going back on a contractual obligation, it could conceivably be done.

30 April, 1923.]

[Continued.

of great difficulty." Am I right in thinking that airmen correspond to the private soldier in the Army?-Airmen are of all ranks below that of a commissioned officer.

1654. It is the private soldier practically? It corresponds to the noncommissioned officer and private.

1655. So their pay was raised in 1919 on account of the high cost of living, and yet no provision was attached which would enable the Government to reduce that pay if the cost of living went down? -It was raised because it was considered to be inadequate. I take it the cost of living in 1919 was an element in the determination of that new rate, but it was not the sole element.

1656. I see there are a considerable number of additions to the officers' pay. Looking at your paper No. 1, on page 5a I see there is Marriage Allowance, Outfit Allowance, Funeral Allowance, Service Gratuities, and a variety of other matters. Would not it be possible to fix a certain rate of pay which would include everything? Allowances were intended to meet the varying conditions under which an officer may serve. As a matter of equity it is necessary that different conditions should be met by different emoluments. I think broadly that is the answer to your question.

1657. I can quite understand that where there is a war or anything of that sort, or where an officer is ordered to a hot climate, there might be additions, but in the ordinary way is it necessary to have all these additions? Was there any marriage allowance to officers in the Army before 1915?--I think not (Mr. Bland.) No.

1658. Why should there be such an allowance now when we are hard up?(Sir Walter Nicholson.) I think one must take that to be a decision of the Government. Public opinion during the war called for the recognition of the married state of both officers and men, and that has been continued in a modified form since the war.

1659. On page 6a of paper No. 1 I see "Rates of pay for contract officers." It appears that a certain number of officers of the Medical Branch are engaged on annual contracts. What is a contract officer?-A temporary officer. That sentence describes the nature of his con

tract, which is a special arrangement for medical officers.

1660. Is a contract officer an ordinary medical man who is engaged for a certain time? That is so.

Mr. Hannon.

1661. Or a dental surgeon ?-Dental surgeons are attached from the Army.

Chairman.

1662. Why do you engage a man for a certain time in peace time?—I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I can have it looked up. An officer who is here tells me the reason is that immediately after the war we could not get all the doctors we wanted, and that is still so to a certain extent. These officers are wanted either for temporary duty, or are ineligible by age or other conditions for the ordinary service.

1663. Do they serve in England?-In England or abroad, but I believe mostly in England, in order to release officers who are young enough to go abroad. Certainly some of them have been abroad. 1664. You mean young medical officers? -Yes, medical officers.

Mr. Hannon.

1665. Contract officers are doctors only? -Doctors only.

Chairman.

1666. Coming to the allowances set out on page 7a of the Estimates, I see a Group Captain and Chaplain, after 18 years' service, has two batmen. What does a Chaplain want two batmen for? -He is an officer of considerable status.

1667. Yes, but the ordinary clergyman in a vicarage does not have so many batmen. Why should a clergyman in the Air Force have batmen. What is a batman?-A batman is a personal servant.

1668. Why does he want two?--I think it is clear, as officers advance in rank, there is a certain dignity to be kept up which is recognised in all walks of life.

1669. Regardless of expense?—Not regardless of expense, I think.

1670. Do even dukes have more than one valet?-A batman is not only a valet.