3507. Paragraph 20 deals with the Beet Sugar Subsidy?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) I put this in, because this is the first time that the payments of the Sugar Subsidy appear in the Account. The payments are strictly in order nad calculated according to the Rules.

3508. I think this paragraph describes the machinery by which you fix the payments? Yes.

3509. Would you like to add anything on the paragraph, Sir Francis?-(Sir Francis Floud.) The paragraph describes exactly what the procedure is. We are satisfied that the precautions that are taken in conjunction with the Excise Officers are sufficient to guarantee that payment is only made in those cases where it is provided for by the Act. The Committee are, of course, aware of the fact that this was the first year of the Subsidy, and it applied to only three factories; since then there has been a considerable development. There are 10 factories at work this year, and we expect 14 or 15 next year.

Sir Robert Hamilton.

3510. Have you anything to add to the explanation given of item F on page 171, with regard to County Agricultural Committees. Practically the whole of the Giant was saved?-The position there was that during the last Government it was desired to revive the work of County Agricultural Committees, and to encourage them to take a more active interest in agricultural development in their counties, and letters were addressed to them suggesting that if they were in a position to submit to the Ministry any well-considered scheme for agricultural development, the Ministry had been provided with funds to aid them.

As u

matter of fact, the response to that request was a very meagre one; there were very few schemes indeed sent in, and those that were sent in and were satisfactory, we found we were able to assist

[Continued.

under our ordinary Agricultural Education regulations, and it was not therefore necessary to draw to any extent on this sum of £60,000 which was provided under that sub-head.

3511. Can you suggest why the response was so meagre ?-I think in a time of agricultural depression, and at a time when all local authorities were strongly imbued with the spirit of economy, they were very reluctant to put up any schemes for spending more money; that was one reason. In the second place, I think they did find real difficulty in proposing schemes beyond their ordinary business of developing agricultural education and research. That really does comprise the most important direction in which these County Agricultural Committees can assist in the development of agriculture, and anything beyond that is bound to depend far more on the initiative of the farmers themselves than on the initiative of the local authorities.

3512. This Vote is by way of assisting the authorities' schemes?—Yes.

3513. It is not for the payment of the schemes put up by the County?-It was provided in order that if schemes were put up which we considered were really desirable, we should be able to assist them financially.

3514. To assist them, but not to undertake the payment of the scheme?-It would depend rather on what sort of scheme it was.

3515. It would go to the extent of undertaking the whole scheme?-It might.

Sir Fredric Wise.

3516. Your travelling expenses are enormous; £62,000 odd. Is there any chance of a reduction there?-We watch this very closely. I agree they are large, but of course a very large part of the staff of the Ministry is engaged in the country, and has to do a good deal of travelling. Our largest expense arises in connection with diseases of animals, and dealing with foot and mouth disease, for instance, which has been particularly heavy in the last four years. In addition to that, we have a staff dealing with agricultural education and plant diseases, all of whom have to do a considerable amount of travelling. I think any department which has to maintain the numbers of outdoor staff that we have, cannot avoid a considerable expenditure in travelling; in fact, it is a

29 April, 1926.]

necessary part of their work, they cannot do without it. So far as the actual cost of the staff is concerned, it is watched very closely, and any unnecessary extravagance in travelling is prevented as far as possible, and I think successfully.

Major Salmon.

3517. What number of staff would be entitled to come under B?-Under "Travelling?"

3518. Yes. About 400 would be the number of the regular travelling staff.

Sir Fredric Wise.

3519. What sort of salary are these men paid? They vary from £250 up to £800.

3520. If I remember aright, you took on special men to deal with the foot and mouth disease, did not you?-We have had to. We have had, during the recent pressure, to engage temporary staff in addition to our ordinary permanent

staff. As a matter of fact the expense of that temporary staff is not charged on to the Vote Account, but on to the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account.

[Continued.

Ministry, who deal with it ordinarily: then when there is a serious outbreak of disease we have to get extra men, whom we engage temporarily on a short engagement, and their salaries and travelling expenses are paid out of the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account.

Major Salmon.

3527. Has this Travelling Account grown to a large extent?-Yes, it is a good deal more than it was.

3528. Have the staff grown with it?Undoubtedly. The staff of the Ministry now is considerably larger than it was before the War.

3529. Has it grown the last two years? --No, it has rather gone down as com pared with two years ago.

3530. Would the travelling expenses have gone down or up?-I think the travelling expenses probably have not altered very much, because much of the reduction in staff has been in the offic itself.

3531. Not in Inspectors?-No.

3532. We have no cheaper means of travel than spending over 10s. a day on officials moving about?-I do not think you can have. A great many of our people, of course, use their own motors, and they get the ordinary rate of allowance for them, which is not an extravagant one, I think. As I say, all their travelling accounts are examined, and if there is any evidence that there has been any waste or unnecessary travelling, their attention is called to it, and it is stopped. I think I can say, generally, there is not any unnecessary travelling, and it is impossible for these people to do the work they are employed to do unless they do a great deal of travelling. I will take our livestock officers, who deal with the enforcement of the Livestock Scheme; it is their special business to travel about their districts the whole of their time to examine the milking records and inspecting bulls and all the other things they are employed for; they could not do their work at all unless they were constantly moving about.

29 April, 1926.]

Mr. Harmsworth.

3535. To start with the subject now under discussion, what is the increase in the number of these Inspectors compared with before the War?-I am afraid I have not got all the details of that, but the total staff of the Ministry before the War was 659, and at the present time it is 1,586; but I have not got the individual figures for the increases in my head.

3536. Is that enormous increase in staff principally due to the legislation which has been passed since the War?Yes, it is entirely due to the fact that additional duties or augmented duties have been placed on the Ministry, which have got to be provided for by extra staff.

3537. I suppose it would be impossible to do the work with less staff unless the House of Commons repealed some of the legislation? That is really the position. If you take the Land Settlement Act, for instance, and the Agricultural Wages Act and certain other special things, and then, in addition, the large expansion of agricultural education under the Corn Production (Repeal) Act, that really accounts for the main bulk of the additional work and the additional staff. 3538. In the of Inspectors, I suppose a large number were set up by those Acts; a large number of Inspectors was made necessary?—Yes.

case

3539. I think you said that the total amount of money for Salaries, Wages and Allowances had gone down?-No, I think I said numbers.

3540. I thought when you answered Major Salmon you said they had gone down? I thought he was asking me in comparison with two years ago, and I think I said the numbers of staffs had gone down as compared with two years

ago.

3541. The number between 1923-24 and 1924-25 has gone up?-Yes.

3542. What would be the reason for that? To a slight extent the numbers have gone up; the figure for the 1st April, 1924, was 1,400; 1925, 1,490; 1926, 1,586. The reduction came, I see, in the earlier years, compared with 1920 and 1921.

3543. That staff mcludes inspectors?Yes.

[Continued.

3544. Is it an increasing amount, or would it be decreasing in the new Estimates?-There is always, of course, every year a certain amount of increase in the staff expenses owing to normai increments of salary, which ordinarily is offset by a certain saving on the retirement of some of the higher paid people; but the present position of the Ministry, and I think in most Departments of the State, is that we have got a bad age grouping; we have got a lot of men who are comparatively young at the top, and we have a lot of people of rather mature ages in the lower ranks, and you have not, therefore, quite the normal compensation between the normal increments in salaries and the reductions due to retirements on pension. I think that is fairly common throughout the Service at the present time. (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes, that is right; it is certainly the case in my office.

3545. Do you find throughout the agricultural community that there is a tremendous demand for a great number of these services which have caused the enormous increase? (Sir Francis Floud.) Of course, it varies. As far as agricultural education and research is concerned, which is one of the largest items of expenditure, there is, no doubt, an increasing desire on the part of the farmers that those services should be advanced. It was at the farmers' own instigation that the additional sum of £1,000,000 was provided as a part of the settlement when the Corn Production Act was repealed. With regard to some of the other activities, like the Land Settlement, no one would pretend that the farmers, particularly, are keen on that; the demand comes from a different class, the men who want the holdings. As regards a thing like the Agricultural Wages Act, there again the demand comes from the labourer rather than the farmer, but we have to cater for all the different classes of the agricultural community. I do not think there is any substantial item of our expenditure which is not welcomed by some section of the agricultural community.

Chairman.

I think last day, as the Committee will recall, we had dealt with the Account of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries up to page 174.

Major Salmon.

3547. Are the expenses going up at the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew?(Sir Francis Floud.) Very little. There is very little variation from year to year; there has been an increase compared with pre-war, because of the general rise in salaries, but there is no increase in staff to speak of.

3548. No increase in the personnel? -Very little. There has been a small increase in one department, the Herbarium, in order to clear off arrears of work, that is all.

3549. I was under the impression last year that we were going to know what was the total cost of the Royal Botanical Gardens, the buildings and the maintenance of the buildings, and so on?-I think that is included in the Estimates for this year. It is distinguished separately in the Estimate for the Ministry from the services rendered by other Departments. It is separated up between the Ministry and Kew. For instance, in Class I, that is the Office of Works Vote;

4 May, 1926.]

Kew Gardens there is £17,950 for 1926. That is the addition which ought to be made to the amount shown in the Ministry's Estimate; that represents the expenditure by the Office of Works on Kew.

3550. Do the Estimates themselves make it quite clear that that is part of the expenses?--Yes. On page 134 of the current Estimates are given the figures shown in the Ministry's own Estimate, and, added on to it, the expenditure that we are concerned with, that appears on the Votes of other Departments.

3551. I thought Sir Malcolm Ramsay was going to arrange that there should be some note sent round dealing with the total amount when we were dealing with Kew?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) It was left rather vague by the Committee. As far as the Account goes, I have to follow the form of the Estimate voted by the House, and under the Vote is included, of course, all the expenditure which is controlled by Sir Francis.

3552. My point is this, that when you are criticising, or making observations upon, the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, it is rather difficult to realise that there is £18,000 more of expenditure than is shown on the face of the account before us? (Sir Francis Floud.) I agree, but of course that applies to a great deal of the other expenditure as well. The statement on page 134 of the Estimates, for instance, includes the Vote for office accommodation for the Ministry, which, strictly speaking, of course, ought to be spread over the different departments of the Ministry; but it would make the Estimate rather complicated if you had to put additions and footnotes for almost every subhead to show the proportion of the general charges for buildings, etc., which should be attributed to that particular service.

3553. On the other hand, when you take the Appropriation Account and take your total figure, how does that come out in comparison with the Estimate? Taking the total figure on page 177 of the Account, it is £2,202,230, is it not?--Yes, that is the expenditure.

3554. But as a matter of fact the expenditure is more than that when you take into account certain other charges?-Oh yes, that is so.

3555. That is increased by very nearly £200,000 is it not?-Yes, somewhere near that. There is £130,000 on the Estimate, but what was actually expended I cannot say offhand.

[Continued.

3556. But really it is that?--Yes. 3557. I quite see your point, but would it not be possible, if we cannot have all the details, to put just a footnote showing the total of this figure so as to make it a comparable figure to the actual Estimate? What is the practical difficulty in that?—(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) One could put notes, but there is a separate statement now laid before Parliament showing the gross cost of every Department, which brings together the whole of the figures. That is a statement prepared and published every Spring by the Treasury, which shows the con:plete cost of every Department including rates, heating, water, buildings and so forth.

we

3558. The point that I should like to put to you is: is it not possible, when are considering this Appropriation Account, to have that paper before us so that we could better visualise what the total expenses of a particular Department may be. What are the real difficulties in having that before us?-(Mr. Watson) There is no difficulty at all. (Mr. Phillips.) It is an ordinary return laid before Parliament by the Treasury. It is only a question of your Secretary obtaining copies, I take it.

Chairman.

3559. What is the precise paper that you mention?-(Mr. Watson.) I can tell the Secretary the name and number of the paper, but I have not one here.

3560. There will be no difficulty in doing that?-No.

Major Salmon.

3561. If we could have that it would facilitate matters; we should then get a full picture of the whole thing.-(Sir Malcom Ramsay.) I may say in the old Appropriation Accounts until comparatively recently there was a statement, on the lines of the separate paper, showing the total cost of each Department, published as part of the Appropriation Accounts, but we found that that statement, which was prepared by my Department, was inaccurate, because it had to be got out in a hurry, on incomplete data; to get it right would have delayed the publication of the Appropriation Accounts. Therefore that particular Appendix has been taken out of the Appropriation Account, and now it is a separate paper prepared by the Treasury.