29 July, 1926.]

[Continued.

a pension of £84 a year from the Ministry of Pensions, and there was a lump sum due to him by way of arrears of pension.

Sir Fredric Wise.

8072. How much later did you discover that? About six months; when the thing came along for audit. I then wrote to the War Office, and said these facts had not been before the Treasury, and they should go back to the Treasury and ask them whether the cash recovery should be waived, seeing that there were two new factors, namely the arrears of pension and the £84 a year pension which the Treasury had not known of. (Sir Herbert Creedy.) That we have done. (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) The Treasury decided not to give sanction, and this item is in the air; it is not written off, and it will be for this Committee to give directions as to it.

Major Salmon.

8073. What was the lump sum?-(Mr. Crosland.) £135.

Chairman.

8074. The two cases are clearly in this position that the Treasury has refused to sanction the write-off.-(Mr. Fass.) We are not prepared to take the responsibility for the write-off; we think it is right that a case should be made to the Committee by the War Office for the action taken by them.

Chairman.

8075. Perhaps, Sir Herbert, you could tell us why you agreed to the write-off. Upon the face of it, it seems rather extraordinary that, if these sums were due to the man and the fraud was not in any doubt at all, a deduction should not have been made, or the sums withheld, in view of what he had taken belonging to the taxpayers. (Sir Herbert Creedy.) I am not mentioning this officer's name because he is trying to make good. He rose from the ranks; he had a very distinguished career in the war; he got the Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross, three war medals and the Belgian Croix-de-Guerre. He was appointed a

County Recruiting Officer. The little bit of money that he had drawn by way of war gratuity he, like so many others, had invested in a business which failed. He was therefore thrown back on his salary as Recruiting Officer to maintain himself and his family. He had no pension. Unfortunately, as people do, he succumbed to temptation, he got his Accounts muddled and he then borrowed these sums of which you have heard, the £72. He was CourtMartialled by General Court Martial, and sentenced to be cashiered, which, of course, is the most awful thing that can happen to any officer. The Court recommended him to mercy, and (there is a curious human touch about it) the Solicitor who defended him at the CourtMartial was so impressed with the nature of the case that he took him into his own office. With all that before us we felt, firstly, that it would not be in accordance with justice to add a further penalty to the penalty imposed by the CourtMartial, which was one of cashiering; and they made no recommendation as to any money being stopped from him; and we felt, further, that to keep this not very large sum of money away from him was to make it almost impossible for him ever to retrace his steps.

Mr. Briggs.

8076. How much was it?-£48.

Chairman.

8077. This is the smaller of the two cases? Yes. I submit it is merely a case

of humanity and equity. Of course, I am not suggesting that the Treasury are not human.

8078. What about the second case?That is rather similar, that is the question of withholding a pension.

8079. In this case the amount involved is very much larger?-The Treasury have approved of everything except, I believe, the point about not withholding the disability retired pay. (Mr. Fass.) It is the same point; we thought it our duty to bring this case before the Committee as a case of principle, and to leave it to the War Office to defend paying over to the man money which ought to have been retained.

29 July, 1926.]

Mr. Briggs.

8080. In this case there was money to to paid over, in the previous instance there was no money to be paid over?— In both cases there was money; there was a grant in the previous case. (Mr. Crosland.) There was a balance of £48. (Sir Herbert Creedy.) In this case there is the question whether we should make any recovery from his retired disability pay. It is only £84, and it is really blood money. He lost a thumb and suffered permanent facial disfigurement in Gallipoli. We thought to stop his blood money was rather severe. He also was tried by General Court-martial and cashiered.

Major Salmon.

8081. The only point I am rather concerned about is, whatever our view may be, whether this may not be considered to be a precedent?-No, I can assure you each of these cases is treated on its merits.

8082. We do not want to create a precedent for this kind of thing?-No.

Mr. Briggs.

8083. I think one's view as a member of the Committee would be rather affected by discovering the depth of feeling, the sympathetic feeling, shown by the War Office? They were both extraordinary

cases.

Chairman.

8084. Our decision on this point will of course remain over until we come to make our Report. Paragraph 37 deals with Store Accounts, Sir Malcolm?—(Şir Malcolm Ramsay.) There I have nothing to add to what I have said in the paragraph. The Store and Supply Accounts generally have not thrown up any questions that I need bring before the Committee, except the one I mention: that in Egypt we had thought that the stock accounts had got on to a satisfactory footing in 1924; since then the Ordnance Depot has proved to be still not all that it should be. Perhaps Sir Herbert will be able to say what steps they have taken to put that right?-(Sir Herbert Creedy.) In Egypt? (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes, at Cairo. (Mr. Crosland.) The more recent reports from Egypt show that the

[Continued.

accounting arrangements appear now to be satisfactory. We have had no further trouble reported. (Sir Herbert Creedy.) The last report I saw from my local auditor there was quite satisfactory.

Major Salmon.

8085. The stocktaking in February, 1925, revealed deficiencies and surpluses of £656 and £1,891 respectively, arising mainly from faulty accounting?—Yes.

8086. I understand now you are rather giving them a testimonial for doing it so well. This is dated February, 1925?-Yes. (Mr. Crosland.) We had a report a year later than that.

8087. You have a report later than this? (Sir Herbert Creedy.) Yes.

Chairman.

we

8088. Paragraph 38 deals with war reserves, and I think have already covered that paragraph in part, have not we, Sir Malcolm?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) You have alluded to that. The object of this paragraph is to make quite clear to the Committee what is the scope of this certificate as to war reserves. Put shortly, its effect is that the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance certify that the stores which have been put in their custody are there intact.

Major Salmon.

8089. What is the meaning of the statement in the middle of the last subparagraph, "with the exception of temporary deficiencies to the aggregate value of £78,865 "?-Those are deficiencies in the reserves, and they are due to special and temporary causes. (Mr. Crosland.) That would mean that the Army Council had approved up to and including a certain financial year that the reserves should be so and so, but by the end of that financial year the Quartermaster-General or the MasterGeneral of the Ordnance has not been able to get quite up to that figure, owing perhaps to delayed deliveries from contractors, or some temporary cause of that kind.

8090. But it does not mean there is a deficiency in stocktaking?-No.

8091. It does not mean that there is a deficiency because stores have been used for current use or sold?-No.

29 July, 1926.]

8092. The question I asked was, how did the £78,000 become a temporary deficiency. The answer was, as I understood it, that you had sold? That the Army Council having approved a reserve of a particular standard up to the end

of a particular financial year, the

Quartermaster-General or the MasterGeneral of the Ordnance might have been unable to accumulate that reserve by that date owing to delayed deliveries from contractors, or some temporary cause of that kind.

8093. Yes, but did he ever have those goods in stock?—No.

8094. They were goods he had to purchase to maintain an authorised level? -to reach a certain level. (Sir Herbert Creedy.) This was due mainly to short delivery of ammunition, I think. Malcolm Ramsay.) That is so, it been ordered but not delivered. large extent the deficiency was due to the fact that the manufacturers had not delivered the goods.

(Sir had To a

Chairman.] Having dealt with the report very exhaustively, I will put the whole of the Accounts to the Committee for questions.

Sir Fredric Wise.

8095. I notice, from page 11, that the Army on the Rhine cost £1,780,000; has that been reduced?-(Mr.

[Continued.

8098. Would it take a great deal of trouble to put in the figure for 1914?— (Mr. Crosland.) I believe it was about £700,000. (Sir Herbert Creedy.) You would allow for the change in values, of

course.

8099. I would allow for that if I had the figure? Supposing it was £700,000, it would not mean that the size of the force was four times as great.

8100. No?-But I could easily give you the size of the force and the cost in 1914, and the corresponding figures for this year.

8101. On page 99, Sub-head K, Works Buildings and Lands, what do you mean by "Internal Credits"? I notice they appear several times? There is explanation of that at the beginning. It is a Cost Account phrase which will not appear again.

an

8102. It will not appear again?-No. 8103. Then it does not matter?-You will find the explanation on page 4.

8104. Is it a liability?-No; it is credits to other Votes, charged off other Heads or Sub-heads.

8105. I notice that; it means that it is going to other departments?-Of the Army, yes.

That is only the Head I cost; the total charge for the Army on the Rhine would be on page 13. (Sir Herbert Creedy.) If you look at the last line but four on page 13 you will see it is £1,863,000. That is the total cost of the Rhine Army; for the current year the estimated cost is £1,854,700.

8096. I notice the cost for Egypt is £2,861,000; how does that compare with the amount in 1914?-It would be very much greater, because we have a considerably larger force in Egypt.

8097. Why have we? because we have given them Home Rule?-For the protection of the Suez Canal and the maintenance of internal order.

you

8106. What is the liability attached to buildings; could you tell me if there is any liability. For argument's sake, supposing a barracks is going to cost and have spent £1,000,000 on it, what is the liability over the following period?-I think you will find that under Vote 10 of the Current Estimates. (Mr. Fass.) As a matter of fact, I happened to look this up only the other day, and the outstanding amount is just £1,500,000.

Chairman.

8107. Have you anything to add, Sir Malcolm? (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) No sir.

8108. Have the Treasury anything to add? (Mr. Fass.) No sir.

8109. I can only thank you, Sir Herbert, very warmly on behalf of the Committee, for your attendance.