§ 2. £39,400 to complete the sum for Exchequer and Audit Department.
§ *MR. MORTONasked as to the hours worked by the clerks and other officials at this office. He did not think they worked as hard as other people, although they were better paid.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the work done by this Department was some of the most valuable done by any Department of the State.
§ MR. MORTONsaid he quite agreed that the Exchequer and Audit Department did valuable work for the nation. He had fully recognised that by inducing. 1117 the City Corporation to adopt a similar system, with this difference, that in the City the accounts were examined before they were paid, and not after, as in the Exchequer and Audit Department.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 3. £41 to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
§ SIR F. BANBURYreferred to the fact that there was an increase of £2,126 in the item for wages, salaries, and allowances. He asked for an explanation of that, and also as to the charges for police, Unless he was mistaken, some few years ago the duty of guarding the Mint was performed by soldiers, and in his view, in the event of a riot, an armed military; force would be much more efficient than a police guard. He was not prepared to accept cheapness as a sound excuse for the change.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the alteration was made by the predecessors of the present Government, and he was sure the hon. Baronet would agree that they could not fairly use the police for guarding the Mint without recouping the local authorities a fair proportion of the cost.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not objecting to the payment, his point being that the duty of guarding the Mint could be more efficiently done by armed soldiers than by unarmed policemen. There was an opportunity of saving a thousand pounds while securing greater efficiency.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he would like to consult his right hon. friend the Secretary for War on the subject. He believed there were objections at the time to taking the soldiers for the duty, and he would not like on his own responsibility to go back to that system. However, he would speak to his right hon. friend about it. With regard to the increase of salaries, a portion of that increase was due to the ordinary increment. The sum of £2,000 had been added for wages in connection with the very great increase of coinage work.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)asked why there was a larger 1118 loss on the gold coinage this year than in the previous year.
§ *MR. MORTONsaid there was an appropriation-in-aid of £340,000, whereas only £138,800 was accounted for in the Vote. He wanted to know what had become of the £200,000 odd. He also wanted to know how many hours a day were worked in the Department. His hon. friend might not have the particulars of the hours of labour, but perhaps he would be able to give them the information on the Report stage. He found outside that objection was taken to an eight hours day for workmen as being too few, and he would like to know whether in this Department they worked six or eight hours a day, because over £200,000 had to be accounted for.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could answer the hon. Gentleman that there had not been a loss of £60,000 on the coinage; on the contrary the profits this year were greater than they had ever been before.
§ *MR. MORTONWhy do you say £340,000 when you only account for £138,000?
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the figures which the hon. Gentleman referred to were shown in two places. With regard to the loss on gold coinage referred to by his hon. friend opposite, it was greater last year than the year before owing to fluctuations over which they had no control whatever.
§ MR. LEIF JONESsaid that with regard to the silver coinage he saw under Subhead G an allowance of 8 per cent. to bullion brokers on the purchase of silver bullion for coinage, the amount being this year £500, which was ten times as much as was taken last year. He might also observe that loss on coinage, the coinage of silver was only £1,500 which was £500 less. What he wanted to understand was why the loss was so small in a year when the profits on coinage were so great, and the amount of silver bullion bought was great also.
§ *MR. MORTONsaid that what he wanted to get from the hon. Gentleman was where the £200,000 had gone to. He also wanted an answer with regard to the hours of labour in the Department.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the hours of labour in the Department were quite sufficient to deal with the whole of the coinage requirements of the Empire. The whole of the work was done, and there was no object in keeping those engaged under lock and key after their work was done.
§ MR. MORTONIs it eight or six hours?
§ MR. RUNCIMANThat depended on the work before them. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what had become of the£200,000. It had gone into the Exchequer in relief of the taxation which the hon. Gentlemen and others had to pay in the present year.
§ MR. MORTONIt does not say so.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid it was stated. The extra £500 to which his hon. friend had referred was largely due to the new coinage. There had been a very large increase in the demand for silver coinage, and the amount which appeared referred to silver coinage which existed long ago. A very large amount of silver would be added to the currency during the next two years.
§ *MR. MORTONsaid he would try to find out where the £200,000 had gone to.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid they had nothing to do with the £200,000 on this Vote, and it was out of order to discuss it.
§ MR. MORTONsaid he had failed to get a reply from his hon. friend as to the hours of labour, but he would repeat the question on the Report stage.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 4. £8,153 to complete the sum for National Debt Office.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked why in this Department there has been an increase of salaries by £832. The total of the salaries last year was £15,419, and this year it was £16,251. This was an excellent Department, and if it was necessary there ought to be an increase of salary, 1120 but he would like to know the reason of the increase.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the reason was that they had paid larger remuneration to the London broker, because of the great increase of his work caused by recent Acts which had been passed. He had been really underpaid considering the amount of work he did, and it had been thought desirable to augment his remuneration.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was aware of the £500 which had been added to the gentleman's remuneration, and he was very glad it had been increased to £1,500; but that did not quite explain the figure of £832.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the balance of the increased figure was largely due to increments in the ordinary course.
§ MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)inquired whether the increase was due to additions to the staff, or to the fact that the salaries had been increased.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was dealing with the National Debt Office, and the number of the staff was not exactly the same, being seventy-eight as against sixty-seven. The ordinary increments were fixed by the rules and regulations, which had not been varied.
§ Vote agreed to.