Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 1964

Vol. 211 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill, 1964: Committee and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

In view of what the Minister has just said, there seems to be a very strong case that the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be aligned to the salaries of the Secretaries of the three Departments he mentioned. I always understood that the scales of pay for all Departments were exactly the same but that the Secretary of the Department of Finance was paid something in addition, because he is also the head of the Civil Service. It does seem to me that the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is going to be the officer of this House dealing not merely with the various Votes under the Department of Finance but also the Votes under Agriculture and Industry and Commerce, should not be in an inferior position to those Secretaries.

It is, of course, accepted that the badge of equality is remuneration. Outside the Civil Service, there might be certain other matters to be brought into account, but as far as the Civil Service is concerned, the badge of equality is equal remuneration. There is an overwhelming case that the officer of this House should never be in an inferior position to the accounting officer in any Department over whom he has to exercise supervision.

Dr. Ryan

As I said, I think the salary we are fixing is reasonable. From the commencement of the State, he was paid in or about the same amount as the Secretary of a Department. During all that time, the Secretary of the Department of Finance was paid more. Some years ago—25 years ago maybe—the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce was brought up to the level of the Secretary of the Department of Finance. Since I became Minister for Finance, the case was made to me that the Department of Agriculture was as onerous and as important a Department as any of the others and that, therefore, the Secretary should be brought up to that level. I agreed with that. At the same time, I think it is not altogether a good thing that there should be differences. Some Departments may be lighter than others, but we cannot try to regulate the amount that should be paid to each Secretary according to the amount of work he has to do. However, it is there now, and these three are paid more. The Comptroller and Auditor General was always paid less than the Secretary of the Department of Finance. I would, therefore, ask the Dáil to leave things as they are for the moment.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the Minister is slightly inaccurate in his recollection. The Secretary of the Department of Finance was always paid more than the Secretaries of the other Departments because, as I said, he was head of the Civil Service, in addition to being Secretary of the Department. The Secretaryship of the Department of Industry and Commerce never carried with it, per se, any additional salary. It carried the same remuneration as other Departments. One particular Secretary, who had acted at one time both as Secretary of Industry and Commerce and of Supplies, when the two Departments were subsequently amalgamated after the war, was given a personal salary because of the amalgamation, but the salary attaching to the post was always the same as that for other Departments.

I think there is a good case for the Secretaries of Departments which carry the heaviest weight being paid more. Once that case has been made—and accepted by the Minister when he brought Agriculture up to the same level as Finance and Industry and Commerce—there is an overwhelming case for the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is not in any way an answer to say that the Comptroller and Auditor General has always been on one fixed figure, because the circumstances are entirely changed now with the standard rate for Industry and Commerce and Agriculture set out on a different basis. I am not talking of personal salaries of individuals, but the standard rate for Industry and Commerce and Agriculture are at a different level.

I could not help overhearing the Minister asking was it personal. I do not think it is so set out in the Volume of Estimates, but I may be wrong. However, I am very glad to hear that one thing has not happened—that, while the Minister for Finance has elevated the salary of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, he has had sufficient sense not to elevate the salary of the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

My recollection is that the salary of the Secretary of Industry and Commerce was raised before the war and it was personal. I do not know whether it is still marked personal or not. I know that when the Secretary who replaced him came along, there was a question of what he should get. Therefore, it must be personal. The same applies to Agriculture.

Mr. Sweetman

There is usually a note at the bottom of the page. On page 175 there is no such note, and neither is there a note on page 207.

Dr. Ryan

It is on page 217 at the bottom of the page.

Mr. Sweetman

I see it there. I was looking at the original subhead.

Dr. Ryan

It is an academic matter now, anyway.

Mr. Sweetman

I still think the Minister should change it.

Dr. Ryan

I must say the arguments used by the Deputy did not occur to me. We can have a look at it again.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

May I say that the equivalent of page 217 is page 203, and there is no personal note on page 203?

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.