HOYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURK. 



3.3 



15 Octalifr, 1919.] MESSRS. ALLISON, JNR., McNicoL, STEWART, DAVIDSON, MCLAREN. 



[Continued. 



SIXTEENTH DAY. 

 WEDNKSDAY, OCTOBER IOTH, 191!). 



PRESENT : 

 SIR WILLIAM BARCLAY PEAT (Chairman). 



DB. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B. 

 MR. G. G. REA, C.B.E. 



MR. W. AXKKK SIMMONS, C.H.E. 

 AIR. HK.NKV OVEKMAN. O.H.K. 

 MB. A. \V. ASHBY. 



MR. J. M. HENDERSON. 

 MR. T. HENDERSON. 

 MB. T. PROSSER JONES. 

 MR. R. V. LENNARD. 

 MM. GEORGE JUCHOLLS. 



MR. A. 15AT< HELOR. 

 MR. GKORGK DALLAS. 

 MR. J. F. DUNCAN. 

 .\fu. W. KIAVAKDS. 

 MR. K. E. GREKN 



MR. E. H. PARKER. 

 M. R. R. ROBBINS. 

 MR. W. R. SMITH, M.P. 

 MR. R. B. WALKER. 



.Mr. .1. ALLISON, jnr., chartered accountant, and Mr. W. D. McNicoi., Mr. JOHN STEWART, Mr. GILBERT 

 DAVIDSON anil Mr. D. HcLARKM, on behalf of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, called and examined. 

 Mr. DAVIDSON also gave evidence on the statement of the Teviotdale Farmers' Club. (All statements of evidence-in- 

 chief are printed in Appendix No. I.) 



14,; 340. Chairman: Mr. Allison, you have put in ;i 

 i 1 of your evidence and some relative schedules. 

 Will you allow me to consider them as read and as 

 part of the proceedings!' (Mi. Allison) : Yes. 



14.341. Also the evidence-in-ehief of the gentlemen 

 with you? Yea. 



14.342. Mr. Smith: You state here, Mr Allison, 

 that you have on I it-halt" of the Scottish Farmers' 

 Union been conducting an inquiry into the working 

 of agriculture in Scotland. You .state that you have 

 been working out some methods of costing. Would 

 you agree that in so far as ascertaining the actual 

 results of farming in I.OIK rnc<l costings do not help a 

 groat dal that they aro more or less estimates rather 

 than figures of actual expenditure? (Mr. Mli.-mn: 

 If you are referring to costs as they exist to-day, 

 I agree, but if you are referring to costs of production 

 as they should ho then I do not agree. 



14.343. But at the moment that would be so? It 

 H so at the moment, so far as we can ascertain. 



14.344. That point is rather substantiated in your 

 figures, is it not, where you make the reconciliation. 

 I think you trm it. with the costs of the trading 

 account, whore it shows that the costs in that 

 particular rase have been over-costed by 200? It is 

 the general experience oven in a highly-developed 

 commercial concern that it is impossible to cost to a 

 penny, and a small difference like that would be of 

 no account even in a commercial concern. 



14,34-5. I agree it would l>e common in all indus- 

 tries. My only point is that in taking the items 

 under the bonding of costings it doos not necessarily 

 follow that they give actual results? They might not 

 reconcile to a penny, but they give results which 

 would reconcile so closely that they may bo accoptod 

 as accurate. 



14,346. It would bo possible, would it not, by taking 

 tho figures of cost to get a result which would .show 

 a loss whereas in the actual trading thero might !>> :i 

 profit? Not if the costings are accurate. 



1 I ,'i!7. Surely the costing is only nn estimate of 

 what thw thing is likely to bo. In tho actual working 

 out thero might l>o economic, effected which would 

 prod jre different results? If you are speaking of the 

 estimated costs so far ns tboy exist to-day T am 

 inclined to agree with you. but our ovporionoo, in 



26370 



ascertaining the costs put before you has been such 

 that the financial results have agreed so closely as to 

 enable us to rule out the difference. 



1 4,:{H. I hat would be in a limited number of cases? 

 It is in the only case where we have reconciled the 

 financial results with the estimated costs. 



14,3-1.'. llav you ever heard of cases "where esti- 

 mates of costs have lieon made and tho production 

 sold at cost and yet a profit having been made on 'the 

 business? No, 1 cannot say I have. 



14.350. I have? It might exist, but in that case 

 the estimates were very far out. 



14.351. In the carrying out there were economies 

 effected far beyond the estimate of cost, and, therefore, 

 a profit was made? In that case you are taking 

 a look into the future. We have been endeavouring 

 to ascertain costs of what has happened in the past, 

 and, therefore, the economies were already effected, 

 and should properly have been given credit for in 

 the cost prepared by the farmer. 



14.352. In making an estimate even in regard to 

 the past the estimate is in reference to different 

 crops, is it not? That is so. 



14.353. Does not the work so overlap that it is 

 necessary to make adjustments in order to get the 

 separate figures, and in making those adjustments 

 would there not have to be allowances made and 

 so on? These are really estimates, but they do not 

 affect the financial results because the same estimates 

 are taken or ought to be taken into account in the 

 financial books. 



14,364. WouJd you agree that the only real test as 

 to the actual results in farming would be from a 

 balance sheet? That is the only real proof of the 

 figures. 



14.355. In your enquiries amongst the Scottish 

 farmers have you come across any cases where balance 

 sheets are kept? Yes, we have. 



14.356. Would it be possible for the Commission to 

 have any information in that respect? T might add 

 hero that it was the intention of the Farmers' Union 

 to submit to the Commission information as to the 

 financial results of farming, but that involved a more 

 detailed enquiry than was made in connection with 

 the costs. It would have been necessary before we 



C 



