Vol. 191 No. 9
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £29,810 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (No. 1 of 1923).
There is a very big percentage increase in this Vote. Could the Minister please tell us why?
There is. There is a fairly substantial increase in staff — a senior auditor, three auditors and three assistant auditors.
Why?
The work is increasing, of course, in the various Departments, as the Deputy is aware, and there were about three or four bodies added on — An Bord Gráin, An Forus Talúntais, the Agricultural Institute, Bord Gaeltarra Éireann, Shannon Development Company and the Broadcasting Authority. These have all been added on in the last year.
In respect of all these statutory Boards, the Board concerned charges in its accounts and pays a fee to the Comptroller and Auditor General for so acting and, in fact, that is how the appropriations in Subhead C. arise on the Vote. With the possible exception of the Agricultural Institute—I am not sure about that — but certainly in respect of Bord Gaeltarra Éireann and the other State companies, the Boards pay the Comptroller and Auditor General in exactly the same way as they would pay an outside auditor and the amount of such payment comes in as an appropriation under Subhead C. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the Minister's suggestion that that is the sole cause of the increase.
Two of these are free. There is no charge in respect of An Bord Gráin and An Foras Talúntais.
I thought the Agricultural Institute might not be charged. For the amount of work that is involved in those two the additional staff would not be necessary. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann showed a figure of £17,000 as audited and the Directors' Report, which auditors always verify also, showed a figure of only £14,000. The Minister for the Gaeltacht had to admit that there was something wrong and that he would have to take it back and look for an explanation. It is rather ironic on the following day, to look for more money on the Vote for the Comptroller and Auditor General. There must be some other explanation than that given by the Minister.
The work would increase in the first year but the fees might not come in in the first year.
If there is a time lag in payment, I will accept that explanation but I want to put this again and again and I will keep on putting it every year from this side of the House and, when I get across to the other side of the House, we will see what other arrangements we can make. The functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the expenditure of public moneys are to verify expenditure and ensure that that expenditure is verified to be within the scope of the various Votes. It is a purely administrative check of that sort, and a very proper and necessary one. The auditor of a public company, however, is supposed to do very much more than that. He is supposed to carry out the audit for the purpose of verification of accounts, admittedly on slightly different principles but in the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor General does in relation to public expenditure, but he has, in addition, the duty of seeing how administrative improvements can be made and he can point to the commercial experience of other similar concerns with which he is connected. There is advisory service given by an auditor who is accustomed to auditing other commercial concerns. Every time we put a State trading company into the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor General we get an accurate — I am not suggesting otherwise — an honest — I am not suggesting otherwise — and as helpful as possible audit but we do not get the broad leaven of commercial experience. The companies concerned should not be deprived of that broad leaven of commercial experience merely for the purpose of, perhaps, being able to get the audit carried through slightly more cheaply by availing of the services contained in Vote No. 5. It may be slightly cheaper but to deprive those companies of the commercial experience that would otherwise be available to them through their audit is penny wise and pound foolish.
I should like to support the case which has just been made by Deputy Sweetman and point out that there is a further aspect of this matter, namely, that many of the bigger industries in this country are in fact State-sponsored bodies. If the practising chartered accountants are to be deprived of this work, which is their proper field, an injustice will be done to the accountancy profession. I would ask the Minister if any review of this matter has been made in his Department during the year, if any representations have been received from any of the professional bodies concerned, and if so, to what effect.
It appears to me that the Auditor General must have experienced auditors on his staff who are capable of giving very good advice, even to commercial companies. There are a number of commercial companies indeed being audited by his office now and if he has certain auditors on that work, they have great experience, as much experience as any auditor in the city.
How many are qualified?
I am sure they are all right as far as that goes. I cannot say for certain, but I am quite sure I would have heard a complaint, if it were not true. I am quite certain that he has a number of qualified auditors, at least to the same extent as outside firms.
