23 March 1922]

feeling that the paragraph which I have quoted does not really do justice to the efforts of my officers to secure the kind of economy which your Committee had in view. Further, may I point out that the sum of £112,000 referred to by your Committee as the Stationery Estimate for the Ministry of Labour for last year, was not supplied by the Ministry of Labour, but was prepared by the Stationery Office; and so far as my Department is aware, was based by the Stationery Office upon figures for 1914-15. Mr. Watson accordingly requested your Committee to refer for further information on the point, to that Department, it being in a position to furnish the same (Please see the paragraph 397 of evidence). The Ministry's actual expenditure on stationery for 1920-21 was £225,000, and the estimate for 1921-22 is £226,000, so that the comparison which has been made between the two estimated figures is misleading and has led to the erroneous conclusion that the Ministry has more than doubled its expenditure on stationery within the last year. If it is realised that the figure of £112,000 is based upon the supply of unemployment books of forms to four millions of insured workers and that the insured population was increased in 1920 to 12 millions, I think it will be admitted that the large increase is not unreasonable, especially when account is taken of the greatly enhanced cost of both paper and printing. You will, I am sure, wish to place this letter before your Committee.-T. J. Macnamara."

"Ministry of Labour, Montagu House, Whitehall, 24th December, 1921.-Dear Archer-Shee, You will remember my writing to you on the 29th September last regarding paragraph 3 of the Report of the Select Committee on Printing Debates, etc., which, in my opinon, did an injustice to the continuous efforts made by the Ministry of Labour to secure economy in matters relating to printing and stationery. You acknowledged my letter on the 4th October and promised to bring it before the Committee when the House re-assembled. In the absence of a further communication from you, I assume that this has not a far been done. With great respect, } think this is a pity-Yours faithfully. T. J. Macnamara."

Chairman.

1. Now I have read those letters, do you understand what they are about?—I would like to refresh my memory on this

matter.

[Continued

2. The letters will be printed on the Minutes, and you can give us your answer with regard to this next week?-Yes.* 3. Now I would like to say at once that I think it will be impossible for you, at one meeting, to deal with all the points we want to know about. What I was thinking was that we might take the conclusions of the Committee on National Expenditure this afternoon and ask you if you can carry those into effect. You know what those conclusions are; you have them in front of you. Will you take the first one: "That the restrictions on the activities of various Departments suggested in our Reports should lead to a further reduction in the Estimates for the Stationery Office approximating in 1922-23 to £150,000." Can you do that? -I have done that, and I have added another £100,000.

Viscount Ednam.

4. Making it £250,000?-Yes.

Chairman.

5. Therefore the saving is £250,000?The reduction in the Provisional Estimate is £250,000.

6. Had you done that before the Geddes Committee had this in front of them? The Provisional Estimate was made in the middle of last year.

7. But when you were before them, giving evidence did you tell them that you were going to reduce it? They were working on my Provisional Estimate

then.

8. Did they ask you about this at the meeting of the Committee?-I was asked whether I could say how much I could reduce my own estimate by, in consideration of the cuts they were making in other Estimates. My answer to that was: "If you will tell me what your cuts are in the other Estimates I will tell you by how much I can reduce my Estimates." When I got the first and second Reports, I was then able to form a rough idea; of course, only a rough idea.

9. However, they are reduced by £250,000? Yes.

Mr. Bowerman.

10. Was that reduction mainly in regard to printing?-It is general; it is all round.

11. Is that by reducing the quantity of work to be given out, or does it mean that reduction of bonuses and that kind

* See Q. 163.

23 March 1922]

of thing have contributed to the reduction? There again it is a reduction all round.

Chairman.

12. Is it less ordering of supplies from the Departments?-Restricted supplies owing to the anticipated shrinking of the Public Services.

13. They will not need as much? They will not need as much and they will not be able to have so much, because I shall have less money.

Mr. Bowerman.

14. That is stationery, chiefly?—Stationery and printing.

Chairman.

15. Everything the Government prints is passed through the Stationery Office? -Yes. I think you will find the subheads on the page below the Conclusions.

16. We will go back to that afterwards, where you have not been able to do it. Then No. 2: That a modification of the procedure under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, should, whilst retaining the principle of a half-yearly Register, lead to a saving in expenditure on printing of £85,000 "?-That I have not been able to do this year. The spring Register for this year was too far advanced to bring into effect this suggestion, and after consultation with the Home Office it was found that if the suggestion is given effect to, the autumn Register must be the full Register; because the local elections, as a rule, take place in November, and it was thought better that the full Register should be available in the autumn for those local elections. I understand the intention is to give effect to that for the spring Register of next year; but the incidence of the cost of that on my Vote will fall on the following year.

17. Does that mean for 1922-23 there will be no saving?-I will give effect to it in 1923-24.

18. Supposing you had not gone on, if you had stopped and said: "All right, whatever we have done, so far, we will scrap," what would have been the saving? -Do you mean for the spring Register of this year?

19. Yes? It could not have been got out to time; the whole thing was too far advanced.

36453

[Continued

21. I do not quite understand what the "modification of procedure "' is. Car you explain that? I understand they are considering the proposition of having a yearly Register, are they not?-No, it is not a yearly Register; at present there are two Registers.

22. But there have been questions asked in the House lately about the proposition of a yearly Register?—Yes. Legislation will be required for that. The modification can be done without legislation, I understand. Instead of having a complete Register every six months, there will be a complete Register in the autumn. Then a list of additions and deletions for the following spring, with the previous autumn Register will make the spring Register.

Chairman.

23. Therefore what you are aiming at is one Register a year really. Which wou'd be the more economical: giving them the yearly Register that they are asking questions about, or carrying on this procedure? Which would be the easier way of saving money?-I should say probably the yearly Register only.

24. But could you put that into effect? -That would require legislation.

25. But your recommendation is a yearly Register? No, I have not made any specific recommendation.

26. You have just now said that yo! thought a yearly Register would be better? So far as saving of money on my Vote is concerned, a yearly Register and nothing more, would be cheaper, although not so very much cheaper.

27. What about the £85,000? That is a suggestion, first of all, to have halfyearly Registers, but a modified Register for the second one.

A 2

23 March 1922]

28. But the point is, if you had this modified Register which they have suggested here, that would bring about ultimately a saving of what? You have already given as the estimate of the cost of this sort of work, £85,000 roughly?— It is less than that now, because there has been a reduction in printing wages since that was made. It is about £76,000 now, but that is a detail.

29. But if they had an annual Register, you would not save anything like this money? I should save more.

Viscount Ednam.

30. It is just a question of whether the convenience of having additions and alterations half-yearly would be better than the small amount which would be saved on a yearly Register. You will be able to tell us that, probably, from a general point of view. It would be very much more convenient to have at any rate alterations half-yearly?-Quite.

31. At the end of the year your Register is not going to be much use to you?-No.

Mr. Bowerman.] If the Controller would express an opinion upon that point, I think it would be useful.

Chairman.] Presuming that the greatest advantage to the Member would be to have these alterations in the autumn, and you could save a certain sum of money, say approximately this sum recommended by the Geddes Committee, would you save so much more in the annual list that it would be worth while our suffering, as it were, from not having it complete, in order to gain economy for the State? Would the amount be so much greater-that is really the point -that we have to put up with the inconvenience of not having an up-to-date Register for the sake of saving money?

Viscount Ednam.] That is really a question for Parliament to decide, is it not?

Chairman.] It is a question for his figures, first.

Witness.] I am afraid I cannot give an official answer to that, because really the policy in regard to the Representation of the People Act is not one for me; that is a matter for the Home Office.

32. I am not speaking of policy; I am speaking of the question of expenditure should one or other be decided upon. For instance, if we, as a Committee, recommend this particular method of a half

[Continued

yearly Register, and then brought up to date in October, and that was put into force, we would save the State some money, and that would probably please most of the Members. But if the saving was, we will say, for instance, another £50,000 by only having it once a year and no corrections, then we, in the interests of economy, would recommend that. We could not do one or the other reasonably unless you tell us what the difference would be in the saving. It is nothing to do with policy; it is a question of expense.

Viscount Ednam.

33. It is a question of how much over and above this £85,000 we would save by having a yearly Register.-I am not sure that I could tell you that this afternoon. I would not like to hazard a guess or trade on my recollection, but I have those figures in my office and I could tell you next week.*

Mr. Bowerman.

am

that

34. I do not know whether 1 an justified in asking the Controller to give expressions of opinion, but would the value of a list published once a year be as great as the value of a list published twice a year?-If I may say so, seems to impinge on questions of policy. Mr. Bowerman.] Then I will not pursue it. My meaning was that an expression of opinion from the Controller, who has had charge of this matter right through, would be very useful to this Committee.

Chairman.] He may be in a position at the next meeting to say something on that point.

Witness.] Obviously an electoral list every half-year must be more correct than an electoral list only once a year.

23 March 1922]

37. But you cannot do it this year?That is so.

38. Therefore that is one of the recommendations of the Committee to the Stationery Office which cannot be carried out on this year's Vote?-But it will be brought into effect at a future date.

39. But you are not going to delete that from your figures in the next lot of figures? No, I cannot take it out of my next year's estimate.

Mr. Bowerman.

40. With regard to the use of the words " modification of the procedure," is there implied in that some alteration of the Jury Lists to be incorporated with the ordinary lists by means of an asterisk, or something of that kind? I was reading something about a suggestion of that kind? I believe there is some suggestion under consideration in regard to the Jury List, but I am under the impression that the modification referred to here is the dropping of the complete Register once in a year and the adaptation of the previous Register with lists of additions and deletions for the second one.

41. Nothing beyond that, so far as you know?-Not so far as I know.

Viscount Ednam.

42. When are the dates? May and October are the present dates for the half-yearly Register, are they not?April and October, I think it is, when they become available, commonly known as the spring and the autumn Registers.

Chairman.

43. Then No. 3: "That the estimate for the Department for 1922-23 should be fixed at £2,761,348, a reduction below the Provisional Estimate of £402,502, and the amount for supplies to Liquidation Departments at £25,000 instead of £50,000 shown in the Provisional Estimates, a total reduction of £427,502." Will they be your figures?-There were so many amendments in my Provisional Estimate, by the Geddes Committee, that I do not quite know how they arrive at these figures, but approximately they will be the figures. My net Vote, as approved now, is £2,679,937.

44. That is more than the amount?. No, that is less than they recommend, because they recommend that it should be £2,761,348.

36453

[Continued

45. I mean, it is a greater saving?Yes, but into that has been put £85,000 for the Representation of the People Act printing, but off it has come the other amount, the £100,000, that I took off in addition to the £150,000; and there are various adjustments of the figures since I sent in my Provisional Estimate.

46. Therefore although you will not be able to save the £85,000 this year on the Registers, you will still be able to more than equal the amount of saving that the Committee recommend in total?-That is so.

47. Is it a fact that all these savings have been made only by the Geddes reductions in all other Departments, and that you could not have saved any of this money on your own initiative, had this Committee not sat?-The savings on the Stationery Office Vote as the result of the Geddes Committee are the result of actual reductions in other Departments. Had those Departments gone on without being reduced in size, obviously I should have had to have gone on supplying them with the means of carrying out their work.

48. But the cheaper cost of paper, and all that sort of thing, would have reduced the cost, would it not?-Yes, my estimates would have come down. My Provisional Estimate had come down a lot.

49. They make a point here in regard to the staff being maintained on a temporary basis and not any more being put on to the permanent staff. That is, that you keep these people on, on a temporary basis, as I understand it, and that you do not make any more appointments to the permanent staff?-I do not think they quite mean that. I think they mean that I should not transform all my staff into permanent staff. There is a little misunderstanding there. I budgeted for the last year or two in terms of permanent staff when making my estimate.

50. They say on page 114: "In view of this we make no recommendation but suggest that the whole question should be thoroughly reviewed before the expiration of the period, the staff being maintained on a temporary basis "?-Is not that with regard to printing works?

51. Yes, but it appears again, I think, somewhere else. At page 111 it says: "The Department is of opinion that better results are obtained from permanent staff. While in no way dissenting from this view, there is obviously a time of contraction of Government activity ahead of us, and we consider it would be more prudent to wait until a more A 3