SIR, TREASURY (S.16751) to WAR OFFICE (22nd August, 1922). I HAVE laid before the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury your letter of the 13th ultimo (10/3520 (F.1)) submitting the Ordnance Factories Estimate for 1922-23. 3. Their Lordships sanction the proposal to re-open the Supplies Suspense Account and to transfer thereto the sum of £250,000 from the 1921-22 surplus. They also agree that the maximum balance to the credit of this account should be fixed at the above figure, any balance in excess thereof being surrendered to the Exchequer. I am, etc., R. S. MEIKLEJOHN. APPENDIX No. 41. (PAPER forwarded by Sir Charles Harris, G.B.E., K.C.B., on 24th July, 1923.) A.-DOUBLE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO AN OFFICER. (Qns. 5882-5896.) The War Office was first made aware that the gratuity had been paid in India, by a letter from the India Office dated 4th February, 1921, reclaiming the amount. After a fruitless attempt to communicate with the officer at his last known address in England, from which it appeared that he had returned to India, his bank was asked for his address on 3rd June and replied that they would re-address letters. The officer was written to accordingly, c/o the bank, on June 15th. No answer having been received, the case was referred to the Public Prosecutor on 9th September, 1921. After enquiries had been made from the Indian Government he advised, on 6th April, 1922, that in view of the difficulty of securing from India the evidence necessary for a successful prosecution and of discovering the officer, criminal proceedings were impracticable. The letter written to the Commander-in-Chief, India, by the War Office on 23rd March, 1920, 4 days after the cable had been sent, contained the following sentence: Shortly after the (Gazette) notice appears instructions will be given to the Paymaster-General, Whitehall, London, to whom he should apply accordingly." This, though clear enough from a War Office point of view, appears to have failed to make the officials in India realise that a double payment might occur unless they took special steps; and they did not communicate it to the paying officer in India, who paid the amount about 10th April, 1920, nor did they specially report the payment to the War Office. It was not considered that the Indian Government could be held pecuniarily responsible for these omissions. B.-LIST OF SCHOOLS, ETC., ESTABLISHED SINCE the War. (Qns. 6003 and 6014.) The following schools, technical establishments, etc. which appear in the Army Account for 1921-22 were not in existence before the War:· (14) (15) (16) Machine Gun School. School of Military Administration (has absorbed the pre-war School of Cookery). School of Farriery. Command Schools of Sanitation.* (17) Army Service Corps College (title now Army Service (19) (21) Head III. B. (5) (5) Head III. C. (6) (b) School for training Instructors, Army Education, Small Arms and Machine Gun Experimental Estab- (8) Chemical Warfare Committee. (9) (10) Chemical Warfare Experimental Station, Porton. (16) Experimental Section, Royal Engineers.* Sub-aqueous Sound Research { Contribution &C. AT THE ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL C.-COST OF "ACCOMMODATION COLLEGE. (Q. 6006.) The item Accommodation, fuel, light, furniture, £18,186, is made up as follows: Rental value of War Department Buildings (rough estimate, including public quarters occupied by the staff) Repairs to buildings Furniture and cleaning £ 9,920 367 1,476 426 5,997 £18,186 The figure of £6,867 shown in comparison for 1920-21 did not include the residential accommodation either of staff (shown that year under cost of staff) or of students (not shown in this account at all.) In such matters the standardisation of the arrangement of expenditure in the accounts is not yet perfect. * These Establishments have since been closed. D.-COST OF ACCOMMODATION AT THE DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL, DOVER. (Q. 6012.) The item of £29,649 shown in the account is made up as follows:- £ 13,668 5,927 Rent charge (payable in cash) 54 Total from Office of Works 19,649 Rental value of buildings (rough estimate, based on cost) 10,000 £29,649 Owing to lack of information, the charges for rates on these two institutions are not included in the Account for 1921-2. (Proportion of Supervision to Labour, nearly 50 per cent.) (b) p. 71. Ordnance Workshops. Supervision and Administration Labour 52,000 399,303 (Proportion of Supervision to Labour, about 13 per cent.) (c) p. 73. Mechanical Transport Depots. Supervision and Administration Labour 123,000 254,885 Per cent. of total cost. 19.97 40.11 (Proportion of Supervision to Labour, about 48 per cent.) (d) p. 74. Mechanical Transport Companies. (Proportion of Supervision to Labour, about 37 per cent.) 6.11 46.37 25.25 52.21 12.5 34:0 All these accounts are summaries of a large number of separate accounts of similar units, and it is not possible, in the time available, to produce specific explanations of the figures. The corresponding figures for the year 1922-23 are now nearly ready, and detailed investigation will be better devoted to them. The following general considerations should be noted:- (a) As stated in evidence (Q. 6032) the figures for supervision and (b) The proportion (13 per cent.) is not high in this case. & (d) War Office. C. HARRIS. APPENDIX No. 42. (PAPER handed in by Mr. A. E. Watson, C.B.E.) EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITHOUT TREASURY SANCTION. iske Q. 682.) Treasury Chambers. SIR. THE Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have had before Them a letter dated 13th December, 1922. from the Comptroller and Auditor General transmitting a copy of Query No. 2, 1921-22, addressed to you and your reply thereto, together with your Report of 17th February la-t (23 23) regarding the contract referred to in the query. The Comptroler and Auditor General states that he cannot regard it as satisfactory that a contract for £93) should have been extended to £13,000 without the previous sanction of Their Lordships, and he has drawn attention to the matter in his report. My Lords observe that you placed an order for additional work costing £12,091 on an original contract for work of £930 only with the original firm without fresh competitive tenders and without obtaining Their sanction to the extension of the contract. They have taken note of the circumstances considered to have justined this course, which They admit were exceptional, and They are glad to learn that you now agree that Treasury authority should have been obtained. My Lords understand that with the restoration of normal conditions a lump sum tender is now required in every case, and this question will therefore not arise in future. My Lords have taken this opportunity of considering whether Treasury authority should be obtained by your Department:— (a) for the allocation of any contract whatever without tender; and (b) for important variations within the total of an original contract. As regards (a) the question was considered in 1921 and Their Lordships agreed that Works services might be entrusted to maintenance contractors without competitive tender within certain limits. Your Department was allowed to give work to maintenance contractors up to £1,000, without going to competitive tender if in its considered opinion it was impracticable, owing either to the urgency of the service or the nature of the work, to invite competitive tenders. A similar discretion up to £3,000 was allowed provided that you personally approved. Above that limit Treasury authority was to be sought. On consideration, My Lords are of opinion that no useful purpose is served by a distinction between the approval of your Department and your personal approval and, subject to the extension of the £1,000 limit to £3.000, They agree that the arrangement made in 1921 should stand. With regard to (b), My Lords are of opinion that it would be impracticable to make an absolute rule that competitive tender should be required in all cases where work is in progress; and that it is necessary, therefore, to allow you a certain discretion in placing with the original contractors contracts without competitive tender for variations found to be necessary in the progress of the work upon the original contract. They consider that the limit suggested in respect of work to be given without competitive tenders to maintenance contractors would also be suitable in these cases. They accordingly authorise you, where in your opinion it is impracticable in such circumstances to invite competitive tenders, to place contracts for any specific variation without competitive tender with the original contractors within a limit of £3,000 without Treasury authority; such authority to be sought, however, for any specific variation in excess of that amount. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, The First Commissioner of Works. R. S. MEIKLEJOHN. INDEX. A. A.G.S. Manufacturing Company.-Loan to, on second debentures and loss, Abbasia, R.A.F. Engine Repair Depôt.-Store accounts App. (pp. 618, Aboukir, R.A.F. Stores Depôt.-Store accounts App. (pp. 618, 621). Acton Pensions Office.-Card index and file system, Coles 2121--Number Aden.-Financial arrangements under consideration, Harris 5824- Admiralty Chart Factory.-no Connection with Ordnance Survey, Hurst 2482-4; Codling 2485Establishment of, and object, Codling Aerodrome Construction.-See under Air Ministry. Admiralty Marshal.-Payments from Customs and Excise vote to officials Afghan Mission (Ceremonial).-Government Hospitality Fund expendi- Agricultural Development Grant.-Niemeyer 3029-30, 3105; Ramsay 3105. Agricultural research: Agreement with industry re, Fass 2404; Floud Lactose factory: Difference between grant and expenditure, explana- Agriculture |