PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
k bo k k li
Reference :-
C.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO'
19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
94
Toddy 1985.
CROWN AGENTS' ENQUIRY COMMITTEE:
Sir M. T. OMVANNIY, G.C.M.G., KAB., 18.0,
1942. As to the Crown Agents themselves, should they have no masters-They have masteis, masters under wirm it has always been a pleasure to me to serve, and 1 have nothing whatever to complam of with Regard to the supervision which the Secretary of States, reises over The Office so long as it does not travel into d rails, al Tong as it does not attempt to del with technical questions, which 1 to not think the mrs of this Olice are competent to deal with. au my own opinion the puble works which the Crown Agents have to deal with were better and more expe di carried out b fore there was so much report- ing god counter reporting and cross-reporting to the
at Office.
1923. The thing is getting worse, you think!—I think it is getting worse, but I may be quite wrong? I am an old & gey, and possibly I am very much weddol to the system utbr v.liich I worked for 23 years. I do not say whether I worked sueressfully or not, but at all vents the Office was very prosperous, and hugh the criticism from the Gdonies went nstantly, as far as my recollection serves me, both in its financial transactions and in its merean- tile transactions, it was very successful, and I hope it
still.
་ ་་
1947 Your view is definitely that you think it should not be brought any nearer to the Civil Service ? -- Yes, I nu strongly against anything which would tend to make the Crown Agents" Öffie, Jess essentially a financial qni mercantile house.
1945. Coull you tell us why it has never ben sng- gest to form an office on Crawn Agents' lines för Indra. if it is such a very much better plan, instead of its ling a Department of the India Olie ?--I am not sure that it would not be a great improvement.
1916. Has it ever been suggested seriously or pat forward as desirable within your recollection to take the Indian Store Department outside the Tulia Ollier in th same way as the Crown Agents' Office is outside the Colonial Oilice ?--I do not know what measure of independence the Stores Department has in the India Office, but I should imagine very little. I really den know how far the working of that De partment is sucessful, but I do know, I am quite con; vinced, that the Crown Agents du purchase stores and materials for the Colonies direct from the manufac ferers on extremely advantageous terms as impared with what any mereantile house could do. Whether they do their business on better terms than the Inhan Store Department I cannot say, because I do not know. I ever went into that at all.
1917. One last question, berause you have practic. ally answered all the questions about the staff. You say you would not alter the status of the staff, anul that the Crown Agents' control, such as it is. should be quite as great as at present, but there is one remain- ing question with regard to the recruiting of the staff. A present you recruit them under a system of your wn. but as they are under the control of the Scers- ry of State, in the last resort, it has been suggesıml that you might recruit them by the other methel on Surely Civil Service lines: What do you say as be that? I do not think you will find a
very large number of mercantile or financial offices whe would lect their staff by any means of competitive examina-
tion.
1918. But they are not subject to the Secretary of State-No. I should want as a Crown Agent simply to get the men who will do my work.
1949. In your view, could you get them on Civil Service lined not know. All I know is that the staff which the Crown Agents had when I was there luring all these years was an extraordinarily efficient staff.
לי Tt
1950. You did get the
31 wanted 2- Yes, we did get men who roull do our work and do it well.
1951, (Sir Albert Spicer). You got a good many from the Civil Service, did you not?—No; that has been
later.
1932. Pil you not get a certain number?--No, Some of my very best then were ex-non-commissioned officers. many of them from my old corps, two or three fo
the Afillery, and they were certainly extraordinarily
ficient.
1923, (Chaircon.) Clerks? Some of them rose to positions of cousulerable_importance in the oflice; the Head of the Registry Department was an ubl ex- sergeant major of Artillery who had a must extra- oplinary gift of dealing with figures, and was a wonnierfully gl worker and a tuan who could be absolutely trusted under every circumstance.
1951. (Mr. Gibson.) Would you expect men recruited at that time of life to fill the higher places in the ottire: In two or three cases they did, lit those wero really exceptions. We generally took in young men of about 18, but, mind you, we were quite independent, and if a youngster did not give promise out he went on a month's notice; whereas it requires an earth- quake to remove a Civil Servant.
1955. (Chairman.) I understand, shortly, you think the present system works extremely well
should
like to quality that by saying the system as I know 12 -I do not know what changes have been introduced sine, but the system as I knew at certainly was a thoroughly practical, good working system and gavo excellent results, and I cannot conceive any reason. for altering it.
1956. (Mr. Gahon.). We have been told today by Sir Ernest Blake that the intellectual level of the higher staff is not quite up to the mark, and that the bram of the office must rest with the Crown Agents; anul We rather gathered from him that the clerical staff were machines. Assuming that is the case, does that not rather tend to show that the right class of mun has not been reruited, although they are capable of doing the routine I am sorry to hear it, because 1 am bound to say in my time my chief geronutant, the head of my sins department, and the head of my works department. were all very competent men, and very rapable of rendering me all the assistance I could require. Mind you, the ultimate decision and the ruling must always rest with the Crown Agent, bus Sir Ernest Blake may have passed through on unfor- tunate peril perhaps. I am sorry to hear you say that, because certainly it was not the opinion I gath- er from the Office while I was there: I was very prand of my principal men, who were excellent men.
1957 Anyhow, your view is that, as a rule, you won take, wherever you could get them, the men in at the bottom, and if found fit they would work to the top? Yes. I would take them in young, and if they did not give me satisfaction at the end of the first year they wonhl go,
1958. You woubl not bring in nuen for the higher posts from outside? It would be a very exceptional thing indeed to do that,
1959. (Mr. Leathes.). You do not think you want two classes, anything like the first nud second classes of the Civil Servicë? No, the less classification of that kind you have the better. I think. My clerks were in one bly, and the only exceptions were the heads of the different departments, but I beliese now they have an elaborate system of classification.
1960, (Mr. Gilaon.) Was the Secretary not in exist ence during your time-No, and 1 cannot say how it has worked or what is the advantage of it.
1861. You were in this fire at the time of that appointment, and the appointment was make with your concurrence-Yes, I have no doubt Sir Ernest Blake gave good reasons why the Secretary should be appointed.
1962. And from this office- I do not know that it was ever laid down as a condition that the Secretary should be taken from this office.
1963. You would say that if such a post is created ur dus exist, it ought to be open to the members of the staff in the Crown Agents' Office? | shoubi have thought it on the general principle that you would like to give as many prizes as you rombd to your staff to work for. I think it is very discouraging by the staff to bring men in to the higher appointments from gutside,
1964. (Mr. Leaflet } [ assume that you mean that Crown Agents should have absolute control of the
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
Sir M. P. DuMANNEY, G.(^.M.G., K.C.B.. 1.5.0,
1 do
salary as well as the position of the staff? Yes, they always obtained the Secretary of State's approval to the general distribution of the scale of salaries. not quite know why they should not have been given more discretion in that matter, and I should be in- clined to give them more discretion. So long as their general penditure was within their authorised buil- get, so to speak, I would have fet them distribute it as they like. I do not know whether that is the case now
or lot.
1995. (Al. Harris.) That beings me to a questions | proposed to ask. Assuming that the full power of dis- missal was preserved to the Crown Agents, do you see any reason why the Secretary of State should not lay down the scales of salary absolutely as in a Crown Col my "I do not see any reason why he should,
1966, Do you see any reason why he should not ’— Except that the Crowni Agent is a far better posi tion than anybody in this office can be to say what should be pand to a man for the work he does in the Crown Agents' Ofice,
19867. (Charymen.) I will put Mr. Harris's question in this way should the salary in your view be attached to the office or to the mă? Mr. Harris says if the Secretary of State laid down the salaries, the salaries would attach to the office held by the man; in your case the salary attaches to the man?—Yes.
1968. You are in favour of the salary attaching to the man?--YUA.
1:00, (M), Harris.) Why should not you put the man in the post instead of making the test for the man — Because my object always was to recognise the I individuality of my people as much as possible. knew every man and exactly what he was worth; I knew exactly how he was working, and it was a very useful thing to be able to say to a man at the end of the year. You have been slack this year, and I am only giving you £5 increment,” or “ You have done well and I will give you a £10 increment.” I think myself that that is a far more chcient system, and one far more likely to get good work qut of your men than having a hard and fast line of salaries and in- crements. It carries out the principle I always con- tombol for-that the staff have got to feel that the Crown Agents are their masters.
1970. (Mr. Gibson.) It does not lead to favouritism or caprice, and another thing is what happens if a man is not known to his chiefs?-The Crown Agents ought to know their staff.
1971. (Mr. Harris) Do you not think they might know them just as well on the other system, and do you not think you might really have a greater sense of weurity, and get better work out of them ?—No, I think it far better that they should know that their suers in the office depenols upon their work, and not upon their position in it. Tat perfectly clear about that.
1972. Du you not think the reflex netion of that perhaps is to place the Crown Agents in a peculiarly Strong position, which brings out that telency in unwillingness on the part of the employers, the Crown Colonics," which the Chairman began by mentioning 7
I am afraid I do not quite follow.
1973. I will put it in another way: do you not think that the idea that the Crown Agents are an autocracy, possibly grinding down their staff, as an outsider might say, will lay them open to a great deal to criticism on the part of those outside-Yes, but I go back and say that the man who is going to accept the position of Crown Agent must be prepared for criticism, any quantity of it, and of the strongest and hottest possible description.
1971. (Sir Albert Spicer,) Can you tell me during your period of office what was the sort of percentage of loss of your staff year by year?- Do you mean by
dismissal
95
1 July 1908.
1975. By retirement, because they felt they could I TO- do better elsewhere? Very few ever left us. member two cases of men who left us to better them- sives, but at the moment I cannot remember more, and both of those happened to be non-commissioned stlivers 1 had particularly selected myself. I do not know why they were discontentes, Tat they were, and seeing they were lisententel, I was only 100 There were a few delighted that they should go. instances of dismissal, and, of course, there were losses from invaliding and death, and that sort of thing.
1976, (31. Brathes.) I suppose the dismissals would be mostly in the first year; it would be very unusual to dismiss a man who had been with you a number of years! That is au
1977. (Sir Albert Spicer.) Did you have many dis- missals-No, I am glad to say:
1978, (M), dikom.) Do you maintain, therefore, that the result of your present system of absolute con- and over the salaries is that the staff are as satisfied as under the Civil Service system?—I have every reason 10 believe that the staff in my day was a very rom- tented and happy staff; they always sand xó, ami always seemed si, and I pushed some of the men for ward, and kept other men back; but I think the genes ral fling in the office was that one endhonysteroid. Üy ado justice mud that if a man did not get his fierement it was b-enuse he did not deserve it.
1979, (Mc. Harris.) Supposing somebely following you, and working on the same lines, had of perhaps quite the same happy way of pushing forward and keeping back. do you not think the system might break down -The best of systems will break down if you have not got the proper people to carry it out.
1980), (Mr. Louthes.). Does not your systern require quite exceptional qualities in the heads of the depart- tients, and is not that the reason why we have not got it in other departments 2-As I said, it is very much the way in which other mercantile and financial houseg
hal with their staff.
1981. But they are liable to go bankrupt, and they have their penalties for inefficiency -Yes, but that brings me to another point; you must remember that when I was appointed Crown Agent. I was told in my letter of appointment that nuless under my manage- ment the income of the office was sufficient, I was not to expect either salary or pension, so that I had every possible incentive to make the office efficient,
1989, (f7airman.) In poiset of fart you got both by your own efforts ?—Yes,
1993. That incentive being removed, do you think the system will still work, or would you like to go back to that system? That would make it more" like a romnu reiäl house with a vengeance?—Yes, I have al- ways said: "Put the Crown Agents in exactly tho same position as Cox and Company”; you serúre to them certain clients, and in return thể beretary of State says: “You must render me certain accounts, you must furnish me with certain certificates and documents to satisfy me that your business has been carried out with integrity and to the advantage of the Colonies. but beyond that I do not go; you can give yourselves any salaries you like and your staff any Salaries you like, and you may work your own tive absolutely independently,' Of course, that will
never be done.
194. (Mr. Gibton.) Cox and Company might lose their clients. might they not; nobody is bound to the
Yes, they have always got their regiments, and the salaries of the regiments are always paid through them.
1995. (Chairman.) It is a fair parallel to the Crown Agent? Yes, but it is an ideal which the Crown Agents I am afraid, will never attain to.
The witness withdrew.
Adjourned in Monday next a* 10,86 o'clock.