§ Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is aware that cases of irregularities of a grave nature have been found in the pay accounts of individual officers, Royal Air Force, who have been obliged to deal with Holt and Company; if so, whether the question of retaining this firm as Army agents can be reconsidered;
(2) whether the payments made to demobilised ex-offices by Holt and Company, purporting to be a final settlement of the whole of their pay and gratuity accounts, were not properly to be so regarded by the officers concerned; and, if so, why are attempts made to re-open the accounts after a lapse of two and a half years, and to demand the refund of sums which, even if paid in error, were received in all good faith?
Captain GUESTAs regards the first question, I am aware that, in a limited number of eases, over-issues of pay were made to officers, and that the bankers responsible for making these over-issues have been endeavouring to recover from the officers concerned the amount of the over-issues. These over-issues of pay were the not unnatural result of the rapid demobilisation of over 20,000 officers, and I do not think that they constitute sufficient reason for dispensing with the services of the firm in question. I may mention that since April last all Royal Air Force officers have been given the option of drawing their pay either from an Accountant Officer or from the agents, and a very small number indeed have decided to change from the agents. As regards the second question, the payments made by the agents were subject to audit, as are all payments out of public funds, and disallowances consequently arose, but I am informed that in no case has so long1686W a period as is suggested in the question been allowed to elapse before recovery has been attempted.