B. W. MCVILLT.]

157

I.—6a.

24. And the amount is £31,000? —The amount we would have to deal with is £29,00U per annum after four years, but the aggregation is £116,000. 25. Hon. Mr. Millar.] 1 understand, Mr. McVilly, that what you say is this: that with the present number of men —viz., 550—if this schedule were agreed to, in fifteen years they would have received £1,000,000 more from the Railway Department in salary than under the present conditions?—ln ten years' time we would have paid those men £389,795 more, and in fifteen years £816,425, without allowing for promotions, which would cost £265,680 additional. 20. Mr. O'Loughlen.] You stated that the return put in by the Railway Officers' Institute is misleading?— Yes. 27. Is it misleading in favour of the Railway servants, or misleading in favour of the Department?—l consider it misleading in favour of the officers, because you have shown that your annual cost is a decreasing one, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is an increasing cost. You start at £14,000 and drop down to £2,000. 28. Your estimate is less than ours per annum for the first year? —Yes; but that is not your fault, but it is owing to your not having understood how to work it out. 29. Is it not this xvay : that we have taken the full number in those grades and assumed they would all be put up ?—No, that is not so, because the Department has to put them up. You have assumed they were going to get the maximum all the time, and they would not —some would have to get the minimum. 30. That really means we have overstated instead of understated the position in regard to the cost ?—No, you have not overstated it. 31. We xvent on possibilities and not probabilities ?—But your possibilities are not always the maximum. It is always a good thing to deal with the possibilities in connection xvith the actual facts. You have gone on this up to a certain point, then you carefully forget to deal with the possibilities of the 122 men in class 8; you do not provide for taking them up to class 7 as they would have to go. You have not taken class 7up to class 6. 32. We have taken D.-3 for 1910, and assumed the classification with the Postal scale on that basis. For the first year we have said the cost would be £14,625, and you have said that under the Department's classification it xvould be £11,705, and that shows xve have overestimated rather than underestimated? —No, you have not; you cannot get that on to me. 33. You took one year?—l took year by year and stated what the position was. 1 stated tie-finitely in dealing xvith your statement that the second year should be £20,715, instead of £9,010, and that the third year should be £29,410, instead of £4,555, and that shows clearly that right along the line you have misstated the position. 34. That is the aggregation?—lf you had put £14,625 of your own money into something and another £9,000 the next year, you would say that was £23,000; you would not say it was £9,000. 35. You do not deny that the Railxvay Officers' Institute has overestimated the position?—l say you have not overstated the position. According to you it is going to cost £30,260, and according to the Department it is going to cost £87,135 for four years. 36. The Chairman.] Can you give the Committee a statement of the annual cost according to the Department's estimate, leaving out the aggregate altogether ? —Yes, it is a question of subtraction. The first year is £10,460; second year, £8,675 added on to the first; third year, £8,470 added on to the txvo previous years; fourth year, £2,330 added on to the three previous years; and that brings it out at £29,935 annualy at the end of four years. 37. How do you arrive at the £80,000 —by taking the present salaries paid and adding the increments on to those? —-Year by year. 38. That is the total cost of salaries? —£87,135 is the total extra cost for the four years. 39. What is important to the Committee is xvhat the increase would be?— Well, the increase is going to be £87,135 for four years. 40. That is to say, if the Postal scale xvere conceded to the First Division those amounts you have just quoted would be the annual increase on the present salaries?—No, one year above the other. It xvould be an increase on an increase all the time. 41. You misunderstand my question. What would be the annual increase, taking each year separately, over and abox'e the present? —No, in four years' time '42. lam not talking about four years at all: leave all the other years out. Supposing in the first year they had the Postal scale, xvhat would be the increase? —The first year would be £10,460, and the second year £19,135 —we are taking the position to-day, what it would be two years hence —and three years hence £27,605, and four years £29,935; and your expenditure would then have been £87,135 over and above what it is to-day. 43. I realize that, and we might say in fifty years hence it xvould be so-and-so; but what 1 want to get at is the average increased annual cost to the Department?— Then you have got to fix some time. We are dealing with the cost as at the present day. 44. In regard to promotions, in your figures do you provide for more promotions than what the institute has provided for? —No, I have dealt with the same men and classified them exactly the same as if we were dealing xvith the nexv Act to-morrow. 45. In providing for putting them up have you exceeded the recent percentages?— There are no percentage barriers. 46. Yes, but I am dealing xvith the percentage of officers promoted to the number of officers in the service?—We have not done that. We have simply provided for the men going up in the ordinary course as they xvould do. You have to remember this : that the institute has cut out one class, and you have to put those men up. Those men xvho are in a certain position have been put up. There is no barrier, and you have to assume the men are all efficient. 47. That is so far as that grade is concerned?—So far as those grades are concerned which the Officers' Institute has been dealing with, from 1 to 9.