CO885-(18-19) — Page 682

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

IFC.O.885

|||||||||||||||

19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

10

12 June 1908.]

CROWN AGENTS' ENQUIRY COMMITTEE:

Sir E. BLAKE,

that it was necessary that compensation should be made out of the Office Fund.

194. (Sir Ralph Moor.) You would accept the respon- sibility when he was an inspector who caine within the expenditure authorised by the Secretary of State?—- Yes.

195. And if he was an inspector outside that you would throw the responsibility upon him?—Yes.

196. (Sir Albert Spicer.) When you employ an out- side inspector you look to him?—Yes, he is merely en- ployed for the job.

197. Have you ever recovered from them ?—Yes, we have once or twice.

18. How often?-Not often. It is a very strong measure to penalise an engineer.

199. (Mr. Bailey.) It is done with quantity sur veyors pretty frequently.—I wish it were done. I built a house once, and I should have liked to penalise my quantity surveyor.

200. (Sir Albert Spicer.) These gentlemen have been employed by you and not by the Colonial Government? -Yes, but still, after all, we could not control these men. It is very rarely, I may say, that such a thing happens.

201, I am taking the exceptional cases that I have come across?—Very few cases have occurred.

202. I wanted to see what was in your mind with ngard to the difference of responsibility.-There is no doubt that by the creation of this department we have taken a great deal more responsibility upon our selves.

203. But, at the same time, you have brought it more within control?-We have brought it within our control, and it is working excellently, and we are not the least afraid of it.

204, (Sir Ralph Moor.) In the case of the outside inspector, your argument would be: “We employ him for the Colony and he acts for the Colony; we get the best men we can to do the work, and we expect it to be all right?"-Yes; if it were a bad case, and we could not get any damage out of him, we should

imply never employ him again.

205. And probably disallow his fees?—He would probably have got his fees beforehand.

206. (Mr. Harris.) Was that case you mentioned suine time ago, where the Secretary of State held you responsible for £600, the case of an outside inspector? - It was simply this--that a consulting engineer went to Jamaica to report on the condition of the Jamaica Railway, which he said was disgraceful, and that they wanted new rolling stock; he estimated the cost of the roiling stock at so much, and then, without telling us, he improved the character of the rolling stock, and spent £600 on it more than his estimate, and wo were held responsible. We knew nothing about it until it had all been done, and it was an outrageons decision.

207. On whom would you have thrown the respon sibility? The consulting engineer had corrisponded with the local engineers, the railway people on the sput.

208. Could you not have recovered from the engineer after all? It would be most extraordinary thing; you do not realise the position. I should like you to suggest that to any one of standing. They would say, "If you do anything of that kind we will have nothing more to do with you."

209. (Sir Albert Spier.) Was that consulting engi neer chosen by you?-He was recommended by the Crown Agents to the Colonial Office to make this report on the Jamaica railways. It was a very hard case, because, after all, this estimate was imbedded in a biggish report, and the report was not acted upon for a long time afterwards, so that it had slipped the memory of everybody.

Of

210. (Mr. Harris.) But it would have been hard on the Colony? They got better rolling stock. course, it was an oversight; the consulting engineer ought not to have done it, but it was a mere over- night The Colony got £600 worth of value, and we paid for it. Their own officers knew that they were getting better rolling stock, but they had never told the Colonial Government.

211. We will suppose that the expense created an excess, and the Government had to go to the Legisla ture and the Legislature said, "No; we put down £5,000 and you are £600 over; we will not vote it" We have nothing to do with that; all 1 say is that it was an iniquitous thing to make ús responsible for a thing we did not even know about.

212. (Chairman.) It is a long time ago, but I do not think it is reasonable to say that the decision was iniquitous; that is rather a strong word.-It is a very strong word, but you must remember that it rankled; it is the only case in my career of 30 years in which I have had such a thing happen, and I con. sider it is most iniquitous.

213. It did not do any real harm to the Crown Agents Office, did it?—Yes, because actually the Governor wrote an article in a magazine calling attention to this fact, and then when the article was called attention to in Parliament the Colonial Office was so unjust that they did not answer it.

214. (Mr. Harris.) I think I understood you to say just now that in a short time you would have to come to the Secretary of State to put practically the whole 200 men you mentioned on the establishment 7-Yes, and then shall be able to show him what the result of the re-organisation will be. I might read you perhaps a few figures which will give you some idea of what we have done. In 1900 "the cost of the staff, which consisted of 68 members, was £21,234; in 1907, with 200, it is only £28,800, Now I think that is a very strong commentary on the economical lines on which the re-organisation has been carried out.

215. (Chairman.) Your salaries are lower ?-We have increased the staff enormously and yet the increase in the cost is comparatively small.

216. Because the increase of the less highly paid people has been greater in proportion ?-We are diminishing the higher grades.

217. That you have done as you have said earlier in your evidence, because so much of the work in routine -Yes.

.218. (Mr. Harris.) And yet in mentioning this pro- bable necessity you at the same moment spoke about ita being impossible to gauge the fluctuations of work? -So it is.

219. Is there not an inconsistency there which the Committee ought to have before them? If you cannot gauge your fluctuations how can you fix your 2007- We should ask authority, but it does not follow that we should spend it. For instance, supposing our work fell off we should immediately begin to reduce. We should not fill up vacancies. We should have to fill them up at the top but not at the bottom.

220. You should drop at once below your establish- ment? Yes, that is what we always have done,

221. (Chairman.) But you will always have a certain amount of casual labour, although you propose to get rid of as much of it as possible? That is so.

222. What proportion on the average do you sug- gest 7-I do not think you can go into proportions.

223. What is the proportion at this minute? That is an easy thing to answer. How many men are on the permanent establishment and how many are em- ployed on casual work?-We have over 50 out of 200- one-fourth, you see-whom we could cut off instantly. 224. Except that they are busy?-Yes, they are busy, but I mean they have no security of tenure and a week's notice would be enough for them.

225. You have roughly 200 permanent men at this moment? We have 150 who ought to be considered permanent and 50 who could be dismissed.

220. (Sir Albert Spicer.) They are not at the present moment permanent; there are only about 60 per- manent? That is so, but the men in the fourth class ought to be put on the establishment, and they will be put on the establishment.

227. You are asking that there should be a large increase of the permanent staff? Yes, we shall have to submit to the Secretary of State that there should be a recugnised addition to our establishment, because it follows that when the Secretary of State gives us work we must have the staff to do it.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

Sir E. BLAKE.

228. Is there any pressure from the office that they should be put on the permanent staff?-1 believe that these youngsters desire that they should be put on the permanent staff, and that is quite natural, but what has prevented my doing it is that I have wanted to get rid of these redundant men in the upper part. They have been reduced very rapidly of late.

229. (Mr. Gibson.) What will be the effect of putting them on the permanent establishment? Will they qualify for pension ?-They are qualifying for pen sion now, but then they would have the absoluto knowledge that subject to good behaviour their future Was secured,

30. (Sir Ralph Moor.) It would give them security of tenure-It would-fair security.

231, (Chairman.) At present they are piling up years for pension 7-Yes,

232. But they have no security of tenure?-No, we could dispense with them, because they have distinctly all been put upon probation.

233. You could dispense with them at a month's notice?-Humanity would come in there, and we should be bound to treat them as well as we could

231. But technically-Technically I suppose they could be dispensed with at a month's notice.

235. (Mr. Harris,) Might one ask what is the ordin- ary tenure then, because I rather gathered you to say that you hold in your hand the power to send any- body away immediately --We hold in our hand the arbitrary power, but we should always exercise it with judgment, discretion and justice. If any clerk defied one in any way he wouldd go instantly.

236, (Chairman.) How would his security of tenure be increased by being put on the permanent establish- ment 1 is the sentimental idea that he toes not know whether he will remain. You see, the contro- versies that are going on are very damaging to our allica; the Crown Agents Office is always being attacked, and, as I have said, the Colonial Office do not stand up for us, and consequently the staff get to think. We do not know where we are." A consider- ablo number of our lads leave us when they pass examinations, because they say, "Oh, we do not know what the future of the office will be." We lose a considerable number of desirable lads in that way. Very often they want to come back to us and say they are very sorry they left because they find the work is 50 very dull outside, and that our work is so much better.

£37. (Sir Albert Spicer,) Might we know what the leakage has been, the number of those who have left during the last four years-not through dismissals, but those who have left because of insecurity, or because they have got something better?-I think we could supply you with that.

238, I asked the question, because your last answer seemed just a little contradictory of what you said before, that you did not lose many?-We lose a cer- tain number, because they think they have a better opening in the Civil Service than they have with us. They leave for no other reason.

230. (('hairman.) What we have to inquire into is not only what they are paid, but what pensions they get. and how that compares with the Civil Service, so far as you know?—We have always gone on the basis of giving them the maximum of what is given in the Civil Service, but in the past a great number of cur men have entor d the service comparatively Inte in life, or with certain qualifications, and to have riven them the bare pension which their service had earned would have been hard for men who had done excel- lent service. That, in the natural course of things, will correct itself very much; we are now bringing in men who are young, and they will easily make their forty years.

210. Have you got a definite scale of pensions?— No, we deal with each ease on its merits," but unless there are exceptional circumstances we do not give a man more than he would get if he were in the Civil Service.

241. And that is how much 7-It is 1-60th for each year of service.

242. Commencing from the first *--- Yes.

11

[12 June 1908,

243. When does the time of each person expire ?-- That is a matter in our discretion.

244. It might be when he was 50 or when he was 70?--The Secretary of State might demur if we put a man on pension before he was 60, but if, for instance, the interests of the office required it, I should certainly recommend that a man should be put on pension.

245. How far are both the payments and pensions and the dismissals and retirements subject to the con- trol of the Secretary of State -They are only so far subject to his control that he can always query them.

240. You have to notify him-We notify it to him. As regards the matter of pension we always intimate to him what we propose to do. For instance, a case has occurred now, and I hold a very strong opinion upon it. A man is retiring who is a little over 60 and who has served over 30 years. He entered our service when he was 30 years of age; he was a trained accountant, and I have suggested that he should be given a little more than his bare half salary on the ground that he entered late in life, and this, becau of this Committee, has been vetoed, and I think it a very hard decision.

247. What do you mean by "because of this Commit- toe"?—The Secretary of State has said that he cannot authorise anything more than the bare pension unt!! this Committee has reported, and I think it is a very hard decision. Here is this man, who was brought in as a qualified man, and who has been an excellent clerk.

We suggested a very modest addition to his pension and it has been vetoed, and I think that is a very hard decision.

248. As I understand the veto, the statement is that pending the inquiry which we are about to hold. Lørd Crewe regrets that he feels himself unable to sanction the payment of a higher rate of pension to this gentle- man, Mr. Stephens-That is so.

249. That is no doubt a reasonable view for the

Secretary of State to take when we are actually inquir ing into the matter.—I was merely applying the pran- ciple that has always existed in the office.

250. Of dealing with each case on its merits?—Yes. 251. You say "This seems to me to be an exception- ally good man and he ought to have rather a larger pension ?"--Yes, he is a man who entered the service comparatively late in life, and who, instead of serving for 40 years, has only served for 30 years. He has been a good clerk, and I should be glad to mark that fact, that he has been of good service to us, by giving him a slightly larger pension. That is all.

252, (Sir Ralph Moor.) He had no special qualifica- tions?Yes, he was a trained accountant.

253. (('hairman.) I notice the way it begins_showa what happens. You begin your letter addressed to the Under Secretary: "I have the honour to request the approval of the Secretary of State to a pension we pro. pise to award Mr. Stephens, the deputy head of the Checking and Shipping Department," and there is au account of his service showing that his total emolu. menta amonnted to £470. "The pension would in ordinary circumstances be £235, but in consideration of his having entered our service somewhat late in life we propose to increase the amount of pension to £240 a year" not a very large sum.-It is a very modest sum; if we are not fit to do that I think we are not fit for our positions.

254. Including the junior staff all retirements are notified to the Secretary of State?-Yes; Sir Francis Hopwood naked if there was any necessity for it, and I said it had always been a matter of practice to do it, and we loyally carried it out, but personally I consider it would be far better to leave it to the discretion of the Crown Agents and for the Secretary of State to express disapproval if we did anything which was improper. That is the way in which all our work is done; the Secretary of State delegates work to us. and if it is not well done he calls us to account, but he doeg not perpetually pull us up and thwart us over matters. If he did the office might as well be abolished to-

morrow

255. As an onlinary rule the Secretary of State does not interfero wih your proposals for pension ?--He does not.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

BEPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

6 21

B 2

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

:r─ 4l─T al