CO885-(18-19) — Page 732

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

whimuth C.O.885

19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

82

6 July 1918.]

CROWN AGENTS' ENQUIRY COMMITTEE:

Mr. F. R. Rouse, C.M.G.

ing the salaries of the heads of departments by Löller 100 and their assistauts by so much, but they were nt assigned to each individual case.

1718. As regards one or two cases which you men- nomed. Mr. Pearl for instance, when they joined the other of the Crown Agents somewhat late in life with special qualifications, do you consider those cases justified a departure from the ordinary rule of the Twethin maximum perision --Not the two-thirds rule, but I would give them the professional qualiti cation.

1719, An addition of years!-Yes, no specific years have ever been assigned to any appointment in the Crown Agents Office. Mr. Marsh, the engineer, was another case who was brought in later on in life.

1720. With regard to the basis of assessment it is tite rule, is it not, in the Civil Service that only the regular fixe emoluments form the basis of pension? 1fefer to the system of poundage in the Crown Agents' Office which is, of course, a fiuetunting and uncertain a mount-But it was a very small thing when we took exception to it first,, I think the Agents at that time wished to continue it. Early in my time when I was settling the approval of their pensions. I said that was an emolument that would not be allowed by the Trea suzy to the ordinary Imperial Civil Servant, but I think they had allowed the particular officer to draw a certain amount of it, and they wished to have his pen- sion based upon it; and we did not stop it at that time. Our theory was that we acted upon the prin- ciple of the Act, bitt not on every regulation or minute

f the Treasury.

1721. Another point with regard to that is that, whereas the Colonies are really paying the pensions. this poundage rate is derived from Imperial funds. and therefore you are charging the Colonies with a pension contribution for which no service has been rendered to the Colonies, and for which they have not prid?--You, I think it is objectionable.

1722. And you would think if this office was to be brought more into line with the Civil Service rules such things as the poundage should be excluded 7-Yes, but that is a comparatively small matter.

1723. You are aware that the amount has grown of late years-It grew before 1 retired, and then it struck ine that the income-tax had been raised to 1s. 24. in the £ just at the time of the South African War, and that that was what had practically done it.

1724. Are you aware of any other place where pound- age or head money received is paid over to the staff of the office as a whole and not distributed merely to the individuals who do the work?-No, it has not come within my experience.

1725. Are you aware that in other cases such pay: ments or such funds are credited to the office recotint! Take the India Office for instance, the payment they get from the Inland Revenue is credited to the Govern ment of India?-I was not aware of that. But when I first came into this office in 1969 there were certain men in the office here who got poundage from income-

x.

1720. Do you see any reason why this receipt should not be credited to the Crown Agents Offer like the other commissions they receive?—No, unless they make their men do it out of office hours; I never know how they arranged matters.

1727. The point is that it is not a payment for work done? The Crown Agents are responsible for collect- ing this income-tax just like officers in banks may be. la that is not within my knowledge.

1728. (Mr. Harris,) I would rather like to follow up one or two of Mr. Gibson's questions. You spoke of the income-tax poundage as being a small matter, but we had it in evidence that it amounts to about 4 per cent, on the salaries right through the staff. The you not think that such an addition spread over the Crown Agenis staff really emphasises any objection that exists to the pensions or the income-tax poundage. Is 4 per cent. such a very small matter? That may be the case now, but I do not remember any case I ex-

amined where it came to more than £20 in all, if so much.

1729. (Chairman.) Sir Ernest Blake stated that the staff were very grateful for it as it practically enabled them to pay for their holidays, and he described it in another part of the evidence as a delightful windfall, so that it cannot be such a very small matter now?— It may have been growing, and of course the income- tax has got permanently higher.

1730. (Mr. Harris.) If you were criticising a pen- sion ease of the Crown Agents' staff at the present time, would you take exception or not to the pound- age-Yes, I should, on the ground that it is not a pension provided from the Crown Agents Office, but if the Crown Agents had taken this poundage and paid it to their inen we need not have known of it at All.

1731. That brings us back to Mr. Gibson's point- that it really ought to come into the accounts-They were never dealt with. I remember a Treasury cir cular saying that nobody in this office was to draw any money from poundage, but that circular was not consider at the time to apply to the Crown Agents, and it was never applied. I always imagined that the Crown Agents had practical power to distribute it as they pleased. We did not interfere in any way.

1732. (Sir Francis Muwatt.) It is me of the many advantages of private patronage-It was work done for the Imperial Government. A Colonial officer coming on leave does not pay income-tax until he has been here for six months, but if he stays a day over the six months he is liable to the six months tax. 1 believe. The Crown Agents' clerks have to look after these cases. 1 will not say exactly what the date is, but it is not quite such a simple straightforward mat ter. If a Colonial pensioner lives in this country he pays income-tax, but if he chooses to live abroad he is not liable to pay it. He is not bound to draw his pay and pension through the Agents.

1733. (Chairman.) Is that so-1 think you will find it is $4. I know there have been disputes about it, A large number of the Mauritius pensioners, a Colony I was twice in. live in France.

1734. (Mr. Harris) Do you remember any, other point on which you had to take exception to the basis in which the pensions of the staff of the Crown Agents were calculated? There was one case of a poor man who went off his head, and as he had not had 10 years' service under the Imperial Act, he would only have had a gratuity, but they said he was not likely to live a year, and they preferred to give him a pension. 1 think we sanctioned it for a year, then it was for 3 years, and I forget how it en led. locked up in a mad-house; and his wife and children

charitable claim on the Crown Agents, really made a

1785. Might we ask how it was that these cases were enrried contrary to the principle of the Superannua- tion Arts?--I think the Crown Agents argued that it was not contrary to the principle, and I think I argued that it was, according to the best of my recol Letion now.

The man was

17350. And the Crown Agents prevailed?--Yes, it was generally thought that we should not interfere too much with the Crown Agents in such matters, as they had the control of the appointment of their staff and their salaries, and I know that amongst some Under-Secretaries there was a feeling als, that they should be left more free to deal with pensions.

1736. It was a case of non-interference: but do you se any objection to stiffening up the control of that point? I always thought it should be laid down that all pensions and gratuities were granted in accordance with the Superannuation Arts, and as far as possible as the Treasury had laid it down in their minutes.

1737. (Chaiemaa.) is then any other special point you would like to bring before us?—There were ques tions in connection with the verification of the Agents' Balances, but perhaps you have gone into that with the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Mr. F. R. Roush, C.M.G.

1738. Would you like to tell us about that?—The Crown Agents inake advances to the Colonies from their general funds, and we were not in a position to verify that.

1739. (Sir Francis Mowatt.) In anticipation of a loan, do you mean ?--Yes; suppose a Colony had borrowed half a mullion, and that they did not want to spend the whole of that at once, the agents would make advances from that to other Colonies in antici pation of loans, but they did not tell the Colony whose moneys they were actually advancing, what they had done with the money. They merely returned it in their statements. "Lent out at interest," without say ing to whom they has lent it.

17-40. (Chairman.) Did you query that in your day or did the Secretary of State query it? Was the point ever raised in any concrete form –The point was dis- cussed. The agents sometimes looked upon themselves as bankers, and said: "We must make the best use of the money." and then if anything happened they would turn round and say they were not responsible. A banker virtually lends A's money to B. but the tanker is responsible and A is not responsible.

1741. (Sir Francis Mowatt.) In fact, they lent out the money obtained from the loan to Colony A to Colony B. and with the interest received from Colony B for the advances they reduced the liability for

83

26 July 1908.

interest to Colony A-Yes, that was their view, but if there had ever been any default of a Colony, or they could not have raised the money for the other Colony, a difficulty would have arisen as to who was liable. I thought the moneys advanced to Colonies ought all to be advanced from the Crown Agents' own funds if they wished to be their bankers, and not direct from one Colony to another in any way.

1742. (Mr. Harris.) Would they have denied lia- bility, do you think?-Ultimately the impecunious Colonies went to the Treasury; the Crown Agents advanced money at one time to several of the West Indian Colonies with the authority of the Secretary of State, and several of the smaller West Indian Cole- nies in those days became more or less bankrupt. Eventually they had to get grants from the Treasury to pay off all their debts until they became clear"; they went to Parliament, in fact.

1743. Do you mean that they could not have raised a loan in the open market to cover it?-It was merely the question of the verification of the balances which camo to me, and the difficulty of saying exactly where this money was. I did not like to certify that this money was lent out at interest unless I knew who it was lent to, or saw somebody's receipt for it and an acknowledgment that the loan was still du

The witness withdrew.

Adjourned to Friday next at malf-past. 10 o'clock.

NINTH DAY,

Friday, 10th July, 1908.

At the Colonial Office, Downing Street.

PRESENT:

COLONEL J. E. B. SEELY, D.S.Q., M.P. ¿Chairman).

Sir ALBERT SPICER, Bart., M.P. S. M. Leathes,_Esq.

C. A. Hannie, Esq., C.B., C.M.G.

A. J. HARDING (Secretary).

The Rt. Hon. Sir F. MowATT, G.C.B., L.5.0.

Sir RALPH Moon, K.C.M.G.

R. BAILEY, Esq., "M.V.O., L.8.0.

H. J. GIBSON, Esq., C.B.

Mr. Eowind Wylki.8, called and examined.

1744, (Chairman.) Will you tell the Committee what your special experience is with regard to the Crown Agents? The particular point upon which I should

very pleased to have the opportunity of giving evidence is the direction given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a Circular issued in 1904, and which direction has. I understand, lately been renewed. namely: It is hardly necessary to emphasise the rule that all orders for goods which are to be obtained in the Unitesi Kingdom, or in any country, British or foreign, which is not adjacent to the Colony should the placed orally, but shoubi be sent to the Crown Agents."

·

1745. Before you go on 1 want you to tell the Com- ittee what your experience is, how you came to know about the Crown Agents, who your firm are, what "perience you have had personally, and how long- My arm has been established in Ceylon as a firin sPic 194, but my unele went out in 1844, I think,

1706. What is the name of the firm? It is now Walker, Sons & Company, Lamited, Ceylon. It is an engineering and industrial firm employing something like 1,300 natives, and with about 30 Europeans, fore m. Bird managers, to look after them.

e 21

1717. Have you yourself been there -1 was resident there from 1976 to 1993. „Since then I have been resi- dent au boking after the business at this end, mak- ing periodical visits to Ceylon.

1718. And you are a director of the firm-The managing director.

1749). Before you go on with that part of the evidence which you wish to give us. I think you remember that our Secretary informed you that it would not be worth our while or your while to inquire as to whether the Secretary of State was well advised in issuing theso instructions; that is not so much the point of the inquiry as we should like to direct it to you, but the question is in your business have you found that the system of working with the Crown Agents has worked Well or bally. Have there been delays or has there Teen promptitude, have there been difficulties or no dibeulties, and so on! You see, as far as W

incerned we have no business relations, you may say, with the Crown Agents; we are barred from that brause we are in the Colony.

an

1750. There are, as you know, occasions when sup plies can be purchased locally. Have you sold

L 2