CO885-(18-19) — Page 753

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

124

20 July 190SJ

CROWN

AGENTS ENQUIRY COMMITTEE:

Mr. E. G. ASTROBUS.

2620. Hyw does anybody know what he is likely to get--I do not think he does know, and that is one of the points we feel. We are given to understand now that the scale is up to £600 for heads of departinents, but there were cases before that where people got more, My predecessor got £830. When I was given £600 I remained at that for some time; I asked why I did not get more, and I was told that was the maximum, but I had not any knowledge of it up to that moment.

2621. Is there no regulation at all-There is nothing written; £450 to £600 is supposed to be the salary of the heads of departments.

2022. Does moldy know what his annual increment 12-No, nobody knows.

2823. The theory is that a man gets what he is worth? --Yes, that is the theory. The theory for the last few years has been that a section head gets £15 a year rise, and 1 think he does generally get it now, but he has been liable to have it cut down to £1) a year all

outh!.

2621. Why-For no reason.

2625, (Mr. Leatles,) No reason assigne—No.

2626. (Mr. Baib g. What steps are taken by any member of the staff to secure the ordinary annual in- erment? Does he make application for it --No, it is done by the setutor Crown Agent at the beginning of the year.

2627. He has the list placed before him. I suppose? I place the list before him.

2628. With the recommendations from heads of departiments ?¬·lle gets recommen-lations from heads of "departments.

2629. And upon those does he usually art-Yes, I think so. Of late years the increments have been, as 1 say. £15 to the section heads pretty generally.

260. Is it an unusual course for a man's increment w be stopped or abated?—Yes, it is an unusual course, but it is liable to abatement.

2631 (Sir Francis Moratt.) Do you mean that it is practically liable-that a man lives in some anxiety about it-He does; that is to say, the salary has been raised by £15 a year for some years, but one year, about five or six years ago, it was £10 all round, which caused a great deal of trumble,

2632. (Mr. Harris.) All run the office?-The third class.

23. It was not a personal reduction; you are not speaking of a reduction of a particular man, but reduc tion of a class! – The reduction of a class.

2634. (Mr. Leathes.) Would a man ever find that his income had actually diminished one year with another? →Xo.

2635. Have you ever known a case of reduction of salary-No, only reduction of increment; his salary would not go down.

20865, (Sar Mhort Spice.) What is the understanding when they are engaged -1 think there have been a good many understandings; that is to say, as a rule there is not much understanding. A boy coines prac. tically from school and he is offered £90 a year and he takes it, but there have been cases in which more has been promised.

2837. When anyone has been selected to a higher post what has been done?-Then he is given a salary.

2838. No arrangement is made with regard to the future?-No.

2639. When the £15 increment is lowered to £10 is there any explanation given 7--No; the case in point was one particular year, but it was rectified after wards, that is to say, it was not put right for the future, but in future years the increment went back to £15 to nearly everybody again.

2640. But is nothing said when the ordinary incre ment is reduced from £15 to £107-Nothing was said.

2641. And no reason given for it? No. I do not re- member any revison.

2042. That there had been less efficiency-No, nothing of the sort.

2643. (Mr Bailey.) You feel then, I take it, very much that you are subjected to the feelings or the action of the Crown Agents at any particular moment?

Yes, that is so.

2014. That is, that the scale may be improved, or that it may be made worse for you ?-Exactly, that is

So,

2615. (Mr. Leathes.) Might it be said that this sys tem caused a great deal more anxiety than it had in the way of practical effects? Is not the lowering of the increment so rare as to be of very little discipli- nary effect-Yes, I think so.

2646. And on the other hand everybody is anxious? -Everybody is anxious; that is mure what it is.

2617. (Chairman.) Is the view of the staff that their annual increment, or the reduction of it, is due in any way to the success of the business of the office, whether they are having a large loan, and therefore getting a large commission (--No, it has nothing what- ever to do with that.

2648. Then the view which was put before us by a certain witness that the people worked harder because they thought they would get more money jî more work accrued to the office, in your view cannot be sustained? --So, I never heard of it before; I never understood that was put forward.

21. I never securs to the staff that their emolu- ments depend on the amount of business done!--No, I am sure it des uut.

2650. It never occurred to you, for instance 7-- Sever: I have looked upon the oflice as in such a good position that there was not any anxiety at all upon that point.

2651. Of course when you first joined the office that was not the rase, was it ?--It was in a fairly good posi- tion. I think; 1 could not till you what the reserve fund may have been then, but there was a good deal of money invested, and the allice was very small -in fact, 1 should think it was in as good a position proportionately then as it is now.

2652, of course, you are aware that at the com- mi ne ment the office was in a very difficult position?

Yes, very difficult indeed..

2653. But now it has been going on so long that it never occurs to anybody that there would be any dith culty about the salaries being paid? -No. 1 am sure

it does not.

2851. (Mr. Gibson.) And they are quite satisfied as to the security for their pensions, too?--tquite.

2855. (Chairman.) There is no anxiety on the score of the solvency of the office -- No, I am sure there has been no feeling of that sort.

1

2056. You say in your second item the staff has increased in numbers during the last thirty years from 26 to 190, in order to deal with the increased work. This means increased responsibility to the heads and deputy heads of departments. Their salaries have, however, not increased in the same ratio"; have you anything to say upon that Only the fact, which I think is a fact, that the salaries have increased hardly in any ratio at all as compared with the work. brought here--I do not know whether it is worth while your looking at it—a statement of what the salaries were in 1978 and what they are now, which shows what we mean to express here. It seems to us, speak ing as from the staff, that while the Crown Agents have got remunerated for extra work the staff have been left pretty well where they were. That is said without any disloyalty to the Crown Agents. I do not know whether I might show that to you (handing in a statement).

2657. Will you point out to us the particular figures upon which yn rely? In the first column I see are the salaries in 1978, and in the second column the salaries in 1909?—Yes, what I feel is that an 1878 the staff salaries were somewhat nearer to the Crown Agents' salaries, whereas now the highest of the staff's salaries is £700 a year below the Crown Agents, and the ordinary head of department gets less than half.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Mr. E. G. ASTROBU

2658. You mean that while in the ease of the second and third Crown Agents their salaries have very nearly doubled, and in the case of the first. Crown Agent he gets half as much again, the chief clerk remains as before I do.

959. And that, you think, is hardly reasonable?—I » not think it is reasonable.

2660, (M). Gilon.) With regard to the salaries of the Urown Agents in 1878, is it not the fact that they more entitled to additional remuneration from other pes? I think the senior Crown Agent got an extra 10 a year from some source or other, but I do not monk there was anything extra for the others.

gil, (Mr. Lathes,) Were they not allowed to take irectorships?--I do not think they were directors of anything, unless it was of the St. Lucia sugar factory.

2002, (Mr. Bailey.) At that time were the chief clerk and accountant forbidden to take directorships? Was at not equally open to them to hold directorships?-- Lay were not forbidden.

23. Are they forbidden now, do you know ?—No, Ney are not.

*661, (Mr. Beatles,) Do they do so. may I ask ? — Y. I know of a case.

2005. (M. Bailey.) Criticising this, am I right in sing there are more heads of departments, al so than there were in 1878, that is to say, that the work has been divided up into a larger number of tions? - Yes, there are three more heads of depart-

1.

2000, Only three mor? Yes.

2007. Your own post seems to have absorbed two others since 1878-Yes; that is to say, in 1878 the of clerk was also the head of the General Stores banch, and now the chief clerk is the accountaut, Ps. He is chief clerk and accountant - Yes. 2969, (M). Harris.) In fact, the chief clerkship is really given to the senior man; is not that it?--No, I was not the senior man.

2070, Mr. Bailey.) The work of the accountant 1 take it, is at least as great in 1908 as it was a. 1982. It is much greater, and of a very different kal. It is entirely changed.

2671, (Chairman.) With regard to your third point, you say,The uncertainty with regard to the salaries naturally causes dissatisfaction, and a simple solution of the difficulty would be the establishment of a fixed Such a Castata approved by the Secretary of State. system used to be in fore, but it was discontinued in I Can you tell us how that came about, what the system was before, and why it was abandoned ?— The system before was practically that which is stated In 1878.

2672. This is more or less a scheme fixed by the Secretary of State -It was approved by the Secretary of Sinte.

2673. It was not varied?-It was not varied, as a rule there was ono variation, that is to say the accountant was fixed at £500 to £000, while in 1878 accountant had just been appointed from out- side, and he was getting £450. I do not know how

a

that came about.

DHA, (M), Gibson.) But even then there were no fixed increments approved by the Secretary of State; there were only minima and maxima? That is so.

975. (Chaisman.) What happened in 1885?—That Tolo not know, but as a matter of fact the system did end at the end of 1884. I think there had been sone correspondence in 1880, but I have not got it.

2678, (Mr. Gibson.) You are not aware whether the senor Crown Agent or any of the Crown Agents of the day expressed dissatisfaction with that system -I do

not know.

2677. I take it there would be some record in the office, would there not, of the reason for the change?— I have been unable to find any, but I expect the Colo- nial Office would have a record of it.

2078, (Chairman.) When did the increase in the Crown Agents' salaries commence-I could not say exactly,

125

20 July 1908.

1

2670), (Sir Albot Spicer.) Was it in the year 1885 that there was a complete re-organisation of the staff, and the system was commenced of taking in a number of boys? No, that was much later on than 1955. should say we took nu boys until, at any rate, 1895.

280), (Mr. Iruthes,) When you speak of a fixed syn lem you are no doubt aware that the increment of every Government officer depends upon the good pleasure of his superior?—I know that."

2681. And you would allow an amount of discretion i - Yes, with The Crown Agents,

2682. (Mr. Gibson.) You are of opinion that the ordinary Civil Service system of increments is suffi- ciently elastic to enable the head of a department to reward the efficient man and to punish the ineficient? - -Yes. I do not think a man "requires a special re- ward, as a rule, beyond his ingreinent if he can be punished by want of his increment.

2683. Of course, the Civil Service system does admit of special increments, you are aware?-I did not ktrow.

2684. (Mr. Leathes.) The Second Division specially? -1 was not aware.

2645, (Sir Francis Mowulf.) The two alternative scheme the Civil Service were explained to you just now, and one of them you thought would be the best applicable to your department?—Yes.

2686. That was practically the scheme of the Ex- chequer and Audit Office?—Yes.

2657. This is how it stands here: Principal clerk by himself; senior clerks, £550 by £20 to £700; cluef examiner, £350 by £15 to £500; and finally, examiners (the body of the office), £100 by £10 to £200, and they may possibly go to £350. Applying that senle to your department, I want to know how many will come in each class. There is one principal clerk in your de partment?-There are practically two; there The chief clerk and accountant, and the head of the engineering branch, who stands by himself.

is

20×5, (Mr. Gibson.) That is rather a technical ap- pointment, and it might possibly be dealt with by itself?--Yes.

2649, (Sir Francis Mowatt.) Senior clerks: what rate would that wed?—Excluding myself, there are

S. Vel,

2000. Just mention the class!--The heads of depart ments.

2001. (Mr. Gibson.) Might you not say the head of the Engineering Inspection branch is also to a certain extent special? Would you not say there would be five: the elit. cashier, the head of the miscellaneous depart- ment, the registrar of inscribed stocks, the head of the shipping branch, and the head of the stores branch?

Yes.

2092. (Sir Francis Mowatt.) Taking the head of the inspecting branch as separate, there are five what I should call heads of departments ?—Yes.

2693. In the case of the third class, which you call the deputy heads, how many of these are there?--1 think there are ten, but I have not got the list. There are eleven, including the technical frað.

21. Below that there would be nothing but ab- stractors and boy clerks?—No, there are the heads of

ctions; that would be the £100 to £350 class. 2095. How many of those are there --Twenty-three. 2696, (Mr. Gibson.) Some of these are engineering special assistants?--Yes.

2697, (Sir Francis Moentt.) And below those come the abstractors? - Yes.

2008. Taking the five heads of departments they would be at the rate of £550 to £700, the ten deputien would receive £350ta £500, and the 23 would be from £100 to £350?—Yes.

2699. Then comes the engineering branch, and you say there is one representing a principal clerk, what do you call him The head of the Engineering and Works Department, and also the head of the Engineer- ing Inspection Branch.

2700, (3fr. Leathes.) It would hardly he' possible to fill such posts by competitive examination -Quite im- possible.

'