§ 3. Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for War what economies have been secured in payments for domestic staff allowed to officers living out in married quarters in Germany.
§ Mr. HeadI regret that it is not possible to give an estimate of the cash value of the economies made over the years.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases so-called economies have proved to be not economies at all because extra maids and other staff have been engaged to replace batmen not on the strength? Will the Minister look into this matter, because it is proving a costly expenditure which falls on the Exchequer and is out of relation to modern needs?
§ Mr. HeadI think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that, because the cost of the matter to which he is referring does not fall on the taxpayer.
§ 4. Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for War why he considers it necessary for officers in married quarters in Germany to have the services of a maid and a batman at public expense.
§ Mr. HeadArmy officers in quarters anywhere are entitled to batman service, and Germany is no exception. No married officers in Germany are provided with maids or other domestic service at public expense.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopBut is it not true that, whilst these officers may not be provided directly at public expense with maids and batmen, nevertheless allowances are provided for domestic purposes which they use in this way? Is it not also true that in many cases increased allowances have been made out of public funds to enable them to employ extra maids? Should this not be looked into, as it is out of date and unrelated to our conditions here at home?
§ Mr. HeadI do not think that this is out of date. An officer has been, and is, allowed a batman, and I believe that to be a correct rule which is followed by almost every army I know. In this case there are maids in lieu of batmen and, as I have said, the cost does not fall on the taxpayer.