61766
19
120406/17
6174
20
266
in respect of his 10 years' resident service, and he would be debited with 18 months' half pay leave in respect of the leave already taken.
5.
The arrangement for rent allowances, dealt with in paragraph 5 of your despatch under reference, is so unfavourable as compared with the existing scheme, which was approved in Mr. Long's telegram of the 4th May, 1917 that I have for the time being allowed that scheme to stand. I am now satisfied that the suggestion in paragraph 6 of my confi- dential despatch of the 11th December, 1919, that an officer might pay half the rent of the house occupied, did not make sufficient allowance for the extremely high cost of local accommodation of every description; and the added limitation that the amount to be paid by Government should not exceed 8% of salary would involve heavy additional expense to the more junior officers concerned. For example, a married officer on £450 is entitled, under the existing rules, to rent a house at 8125 a month, towards which he pays $40. If he paid half the rent, his contribution would be £62.50, and with the proposed 8% limitation, he would be required to pay 895, Similarly an officer on £1,500 would pay, for a house rented at $200, 850 under present rules, and 8100 under both the half-rent rule and the 8% limitation rule. It is manifestly unfair that an officer drawing £450 should pay practically the same rent that an officer drawing £1,500 pays for considerably better accommo- dation.
6.
There is the further point that if an officer who occupies Government quarters is required to pay 6% on salary by way of rent, it is bound to cause great dissatisfac- tion if an officer of similar standing who cannot be provided with Government quarters has to pay a rent out of all propor- tion to that of his more fortunate colleague.
7.
It appears to me that the most satisfactory solution is that officers should pay 6% on salary for accommoda-
#
count
tion
Page 270Page 271
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.