Chairman.

707. There is nothing in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report with regard to this Vote?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) No, Sir.

Sir Reginald Blair.

708. Turning to the Vote itself on page 181, I observe under the heading, "Claims Abandoned," about the middle of the page, this remark: "Sub-head S includes £298 5s. 10d. claimed from shipowners but

not recovered." Is that under Sub-head S on page 178, "Subsistence, conveyance, and other expenses of seamen "?-(Mr. Mead Taylor.) It is probably in respect of that. We get a few small claims in the year which may be on the border line of certain sections of the Merchant Shipping Act which we are not able to reclaim, or in a few cases it may be due to the insolvency of a small shipowner. It is a very small amount.

709. Does that not mean that the £298 is not recoverable and that you have written it off?-It is written off, yes.

Chairman.

710. In paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, on page xii., he states that under a new Bankruptcy Fees Order the fees have been increased. Have they been increased sufficiently? The Department does not seem to have paid its way this year: Is that because of the break in the new system, or for some special reason? (Mr. Mead Taylor.) I think the fact that our Vote for next year is a token Vote will explain to the Committee that we expect the fees to take care of the expenses.

711. This deficiency is transitional as it were? Yes.

Mr. Stewart.

712. These are the fees all over the country, are they not?-Yes.

713. Do they cover bankruptcies in Ireland? Not in Ireland.

Chairman.

714. Turning now to the Vote itself on page 183,"Extra Receipts. Fees making up the sum of £50,000 odd": Those

36106

are not dealt with as appropriations-inaid? They go into the Fees Account.

715. They are transferred to the Treasury? They are shown at the foot of page 183.

716. Other fees are treated as appropriations-in-aid, are they not?-Our appropriations-in-aid are drawn from the Fees Account. The Treasury make advances to cover the expenses of the Department from the Fees Account, and as you will see on page 182, we were only able to draw £62,000 as an appropriation-in-aid because the Fees Account was so hard up; but in the ordinary course the Fees Account is sufficient to enable an appropriation-in-aid sufficient to cover the vote.

717. That is what I understand, but what is the difference between those which go to appropriations-in-aid and those which go as extra receipts?-(Mr. Watson). Might I explain as regards this Account, Sir? The fact of the matter is that the revenue which goes to cover the expenses of the Bankruptcy Department is made up from three sources. It appears first of all as the Income arising on amounts which were the property of the Bankruptcy Department in 1861 which

C 4

re

In

were transferred to the Exchequer. The income which would have arisen from that Fund is first of all taken in diminution of the amount to be covered from the Fees Account. addition to that there is a Fees Account with the Paymaster General into which is paid cash fees collected by the Board of Trade, the value of Fee Stamps which are collected by the Inland Revenue and the dividends on sums being balances unclaimed in the Bankruptcy Account. It is necessary to bring that account into one Central Fund in the PaymasterGeneral's hands, so that there may be one account into which all the funds and income of the Department are paid. Out of that is set aside and paid over in a lump sum as appropriations-in-aid such an amount as will in normal years cover the whole expenses of the Department.

[Continued

It so happened that during this time before the fees were increased the amount available in that fund was insufficient to cover the whole of the expenses of the Department, and there has been a shortage in consequence. Now that the fees have been put up by something like 50 per cent., it is anticipated that in future years the whole expense may be covered as it has been in the past.

718. Am I right in the view that it is treated as an extra receipt and paid to the Treasury into the Fees Fund and then so much is paid back out of the Fees Fund and treated as appropriations-in-aid?— That is so.

719. Thank you. If there are no further questions on pages 183 and 184 that finishes Vote 10. I think Mr. Mead Taylor also answers for Vote 19 of the Unclassified Services.

Chairman.

720. Referring to the note at the middle of page 576, it is stated that the amount of £23,000 odd, which has been repaid is not surrendered but under the terms of the Act is made available for the purpose of granting further advances to exporters ?-(Mr. Mead Taylor.) That is the position.

721. With regard to that, are the repayments being made as they ought to be, or is trouble being experienced?— As a matter of fact there are not a great many repayments due at present, but there are a few cases in arrear. They do not amount to a large sum. The position as regards the collection of the advances made under the original scheme is being watched very closely, and I can inform the Committee that although the Finance Department of the Board of Trade is no longer responsible (this is now the responsibility of the Accounting Officer of the Department of Overseas Trade) by arrangement with the Finance Department we are making an examination by way of Departmental Audit once a quarter and watching this very closely, because we realise the importance of accounts not remaining in arrear. The amount is very small. If the Committee wish it, the

manager of the Department is here who can himself tell you of any difficult cases.

722. I think it is sufficient really if you are satisfied about it?-I am satisfied, and with few exceptions the Accounts are being paid as they are due. The advances part of the scheme has, of course, come to an end. We have a few obligations outstanding, but it has substantially come to an end. The scheme now is being developed on the guarantee principle-guaranteed bills.

723. This is the old scheme?-This is the old scheme.

Sir Reginald Blair.

724. Why is it that the £505 6s. 8d. interest collected has not been treated as an appropriation in aid in this account? It has been paid over to the Exchequer.

Chairman.

725. I suppose it was not provided in the original Vote that it was to be an appropriation in aid: Is that the reason? -That is so; we have got no appropriation in aid for interest. (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) As a general rule the Estimates

do not provide for appropriations in aid unless the amount can be foreseen with certainty and exceeds £1,000. Then definite provision is made on the Estimates. If provision for appropriating in aid is not made, any casual receipts must go to the Exchequer.

726. Any amount under £1,000?Whatever the amount is-it might be a million which came in unexpectedly; unless Parliament sanctions its appropriation to the gross estimate it must be paid over to the Exchequer.

Sir David Davies.] On page 577 the cost of administration appears to work out at 1 per cent. Is that considered a reasonable amount.

Chairman.

727. What do you say to that? I do not think any percentage really would help one on business of this sort. The Department had to be established with a very experienced officer at the head; it is a very unusual type of business, and I think for the first year the expenses

[Continued

were about £3,500, and these are the costs or expenses up to the 31st March, 1921. I should have thought it was really quite a reasonable figure. This type of business is what one might call high banking.

Sir David Davies.

728. How are the charges made out?— Is it on the amount of the work they do or the money advanced-is it a percentage on that? It is by way of a percentage. In the days when these advances were made the percentage was 3 per cent. if the advance was for one year, 4 per cenɩ. for the next year if the advances were for two years, and 5 per cent. for the next year if the advances were for three years.

729. That would be a charge of the Bureau ?-Yes.

730. It appears to me to be high and that is why I asked the question?—I should not have thought so myself for the amount of the work and the nature of the work.

Chairman.

731. This was a service (the Vote being on page 449) for providing road transport during the railway stoppage?— (Sir Malcolm Delevingne.) That was the origin of the Vote.

732. Is it kept alive for other similar purposes? It has been up to this year. 733. Is it still alive at the moment we are speaking?-At the moment.

734. The first point which occurs to me is as to Sub-head D: "Bulk storage of petrol and repayment of duty." Can you tell me why that duty was repaid? You answer for this, do you not, Sir Malcolm?-I answer as Accounting Officer, but the details are spoken to by the representatives of the different Departments. (Mr. Mead Taylor.) Mr. Macaulay, I think, ought to explain this. It is a Ministry of Transport question.

735. This is a large sum of duty received by the Government and afterwards repaid by them?-(Mr. Macaulay.) I do not think the Ministry of Transport had any

connection with this particular Sub-head. The only expenditure we accounted for was £257,000, which is mainly £250,000 under Sub-head C, "Stores reserved by Disposals Board." (Sir Malcolm Delevingne.) I can give you an explanation.

736. Let us have your explanation, Sir Malcolm? (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) The position is this, that at the Government request certain oil companies which had large stocks of petrol in bond withdrew those stocks and paid the duty and deposited the spirit in Depots throughout the country where it would be handy for issue in an emergency. As a matter of fact the stocks never passed into general consumption and on the 1st January, 1921, under the Finance Act, 1920, the duty of 6d. a gallon was repealed. Had the owners, that is to say the oil companies, left their oil in bond, as they would naturally have done, they would have cleared it in the normal course after January, 1921, free of duty, but by complying with the wishes of the Government to make the stock available at con

venient centres in the country they had paid the duty of 6d. a gallon which would not otherwise have been incurred. For that reason the Government who had pocketed the 6d. refunded it subsequently.

737. Is that the same explanation which you were going to give, Sir Malcolm ?— (Sir Malcolm Delevingne.) Exactly, sir.

738. A little lower down I find this under 66 Notes":"After the demobilisation of Emergency Road Transport for the railway strike of 1919 it was disclosed that 17 motor cycles and four motor lorries had been lost, burned or otherwise unaccounted for, owing to the adverse conditions under which the Organisation was obliged to work. The value estimated at £4,087 10s. Od. has been sanctioned as a write off by the Treasury," and so on. Now with regard to that I think last year (I am speaking now to Sir Malcolm Delevingne) we asked you about certain discrepancies about the number of motor lorries which had been received and returned before this emergency and after it?-I did not answer; I think you asked the representative of the Ministry of Transport about it.

739. Were you here, Mr. Macaulay?(Mr. Macaulay.) No. (Mr. Mead Taylor.) Mr. Aldridge who is here from the Ministry of Food is acquainted with this particular item.

740. Then perhaps Mr. Aldridge will answer? (Mr. Aldridge.) Those were the lorries and motor cycles supplied to Hyde Park for the purposes of the London Milk Scheme in 1919.

741. This is another part of the same thing?-Quite.

742. Does this account for all the transport vehicles that could not otherwise be accounted for?-Yes, the whole of them. The discrepancy was reduced to four lorries and I think 17 motor cycles.

743. Is it known what became of the four lorries?-A lorry is not a handy thing to lose.-Two were burned; they caught fire and were burned and returned to the Slough Depot, where they came from, as scrap iron. They were useless for anything. One was stolen and afterwards recovered, and we repaid the innocent buyer 50 per cent. of the price he paid for it. There was only one which was totally unaccounted for.

744. There was one totally unaccounted for? Yes. (Mr. Watson.) That was out of a total number of about 1,250.

Mr. Myers.

745. The observation was made just now that this service was being maintained in readiness for action if required. What did it cost to maintain the service in that condition?-(Mr. Headlam.) Perhaps I might say that no provision is taken for this in 1922-23. There is provision in the year which ends on the 31st of this month, but nothing is taken for next year.

746. Such services as are necessary to be performed will be done by the officials of the various Departments as part of their ordinary duty with one or two small exceptions?-(Mr. Mead Taylor.) There will be no special vote for it.

Sir Reginald Blair.

747. Was any one prosecuted for the loss of these vehicles?-(Mr. Aldridge). We could not ascertain how they were stolen.

748. There was not a single prosecution? Yes, there was a prosecution in the case of the one stolen and afterwards recovered.

749. That is the only case?-That is the only case.

Chairman.

750. This Vote is on page 206, and I notice that the amount spent on salaries, wages and allowances under Sub-head A was rather heavy compared to other Departments. I mean that the war bonus and so on accounts for an increase of nearly 25 per cent. In other Departments it runs to 10 and 20 per cent., and occasionally it is as high as this. Am I right in thinking that the fact that there were no vacancies in your staff had something to do with that—that is to say, that the staff was full up?-(Mr. Roland Wilkins.) That would be one of the factors, but, quite apart from that, one would not expect to find a uniform percentage throughout the different Departments in the Service. Much would depend on the actual grading of the Office that is to say, the ratio of higher paid to lower paid posts-and also on the state of the personnel, the question whether the actual officers of the different grades were young or old.

751. As to the appropriation in aid, Sub-Head D, I notice that the amount estimated and the amount realised are exactly the same to a penny. That is rather unusual in a Department. Can you tell us how that happens?—The explanation is very simple. Those are fixed charges to quasi-public bodies, not, of course, the ordinary Departments, for perform the work of audit.

whom we

752. Of course it follows that they all came in in due time?-I cannot recollect a case of default on the part of one of those bodies.

753. Or delay apparently?-We would, of course, watch that.

754. You have been very fortunate in that respect. In the Note to SubHead A, I see it is stated: "The amount includes payments to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor of war bonus," but not their salaries?-Not their salaries.

755. That also is another reason why the amount of war bonus would be rather high in proportion to the salaries inIcluded in the Vote?-Yes.

756. Rather more than a year ago the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General was raised from £2,000 to £3,000, and that was ratified by an Act passed at the end of the Session last year? That is so.