§ 25. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War what were the reasons for granting a special ration allowance, in the absence of barrack accommodation, of 1s. per day to soldiers on the administrative staff at Salisbury in 1901, and continuing it for eleven years until October, 1912, and then reducing it by 50 per cent., although in the interval the cost of living has risen, and the purchasing power of money decreased, by over 10 per cent.; and whether it is the opinion of the general officer commanding the district that the recent deduction of 3s. 6d. per week in such allowance in an expensive town such as Salisbury, and in the absence of the proficiency pay enjoyed by other arms of the Service, is calculated to affect injuriously the efficiency of this branch of the Service?
§ Mr. H. BAKERThe record of the reasons for granting the allowance has been destroyed, as I have already stated; and I am consequently unable to say what the reasons were. The reason for withdrawing the allowance is that, as matters stand to-day, there is no sufficient ground for treating those concerned at Salisbury differently from those similarly situated elsewhere.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDoes the hon. Member suggest that because the records have been destroyed these men are to be deprived of this allowance of 3s. 6d. for a week which they have received for eleven years?
§ Mr. H. BAKERNo, Sir, nothing of the kind. The records were destroyed in the ordinary course; and, so far as the allowance is concerned, I think these men have been very fortunate in retaining it so long.
§ Sir R. POLE-CAREWMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considers that to treat soldiers in this way is likely to be good for recruiting?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter of opinion.