Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1959

Vol. 51 No. 15

Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill, 1959 (Certified Money Bill )— Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General from its present level of £2,400 a year to a figure of £2,850 a year, with effect from 1st January, 1959. As the House will recall the office of Comptroller and Auditor General exists pursuant to the Constitution, article 33.1 of which reads:

There shall be a Comptroller and Auditor General to control on behalf of the State all disbursements and to audit all accounts of moneys administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas.

In common with judges, the Comptroller and Auditor General's salary is determined by statute. His salary has, in the past, been increased on each occasion on which judicial salaries have been increased. It was fixed at its present level by the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1953. When first fixed by statute in 1923, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General was slightly in excess of that paid to the head of a Department of State—to the extent of £37 per annum, in fact. The relationship varied from time to time over the years but, when the salary was re-determined by the Act of 1953, virtual equality was restored.

As a result of the Civil Service pay adjustments which have taken place since 1953, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General is now some £250 a year below that of a head of a Department. A slight differentiation in favour of the Comptroller and Auditor General was regarded as acceptable at the time the post was created. The present salary of a head of a Department is £2,647 a year. Bearing in mind the increased responsibility falling on the Comptroller and Auditor General in connection with commercial audits for State-sponsored bodies, it is considered that a salary of £2,850 a year would now be appropriate. This would represent an increase of 90 per cent. on the salary enjoyed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1939. The comparable percentage increase for the head of a Department is 87 per cent.

It is proposed that the increase should take effect from 1st January, 1959, which is the date from which it has been agreed to increase the salaries of judges. I commend this Bill to the House.

Professor Hayes

The office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as the Minister said, is a constitutional function, and his salary falls to be fixed by statute. It is interesting that when the original salary was fixed for the Comptroller and Auditor General, roughly speaking, there was very little difference between his salary and that of a head of a Department. It was lower than the salary of a Minister but he has now passed out Ministers by about £700. That is the interesting thing about this Bill.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister will introduce a more important Bill in a moment—the Finance Bill. Under Section 10 of that Bill, as I understand it, he will take back a good proportion of this increase in respect of the current year, contrary to income tax practice up to the present. This cannot be construed as a promotion in the ordinary course of events or the ordinary application of an incremental scale. Nor is it overtime paid in the ordinary way. It is an increase of salary which has been put through by statute. According to Section 10 of the Finance Bill which will come before us immediately, the Comptroller and Auditor General will have to pay income tax on it in the current year, contrary to the ordinary course up to the present. I think that is a most reprehensible thing. We can discuss the matter on Section 10 of the Finance Bill, which applies also to the increases which were given recently to the judges.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

One does not like to be invidious in relation to one person but this Bill forces us to consider just one person. I am shocked by the terms of the Bill. We are asked to increase the salary of an official who has £2,400 a year by something very close to 19 per cent. I am surprised that the Minister for Finance did not in some way justify the difference of treatment here while mentioning the parallel he established between this increase and the increase in judicial salaries down to the lowest grade. In relation to these last we were asked to believe by the Government that a ten per cent. increase was all that could possibly be given to compensate for a 15 per cent. increase in the cost of living. The Minister now establishes a parallel with these judicial salaries. Yet he has asked for an increase of 19 per cent. in the case of this particular salary without showing us in what way the circumstances of the Comptroller and Auditor General are different from those of a district justice, or any other judge for that matter.

Senator O'Donovan pointed out that we will be considering another Bill presently asking for a six per cent. increase in the salaries of pensioners who are now getting less than £100 a year. Six per cent. is considered enough for them, but 19 per cent. is to be added to the salary of somebody already getting £2,400 a year, and who is now going to shoot up to £2,850 by the terms of this Bill. It is going to be back-dated also to January 1st. I do not think the Minister has been sufficiently explicit in showing us why, when 10 per cent., six per cent. or four per cent. is considered sufficient in relation to other salaries or pensions—this salary, too, as he mentioned, was adjusted in 1953 as were the salaries of the judiciary— why, I ask, it has become necessary in this particular case to increase it by 19 per cent. in all, instead of the ten per cent. which the Government asks us to believe was a fair, just and an absolutely maximum figure in relation to the salaries with which the Minister has just asked us to compare this?

Mr. Burke

I should like to ask the Minister for Finance why he does not employ commercial auditors to audit the accounts of many of our State sponsored companies. Commercial firms must have invaluable experience to give to State sponsored bodies. I know that the accounts of many of our larger State sponsored companies are audited by the servants in the Comptroller and Auditor General's office.

It is the duty of the Minister to satisfy this and the other House that this is a good system. In public life in our town we have a municipal gas works. We were advised several years ago that instead of being satisfied with the audit given to us by the Department of Local Government it would be far better for us if we used the wide experience in commercial affairs of a first class reputable firm of commercial accountants. We are probably not using the brains of experienced men who are engaged in auditing in highly competitive outside business. Their invaluable experience is not being used. Instead we are using the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I should like if the Minister would tell us why this is so. Perhaps he would look into the matter and see if there is a point in what I am saying? I thought this was a matter that should be brought to the attention of the Minister for Finance.

An Cathaoirleach

A discussion of this nature on this Bill is not strictly in order.

Mr. Burke

I do not want to provoke a discussion on it.

Dr. Ryan

To make a proper comparison in relation to the salaries of judges and so on would take a long time, indeed. Senator Sheehy Skeffington mentioned district justices. I find that since 1939 the salaries of the district justices have been increased by 92.5 per cent. This increase will put the Comptroller and Auditor General up by 19 per cent. Actually, he has not done so well. There have been so many changes, some in favour of the one and some in favour of the other, that when you go back over the whole time, they work out more or less on a par, taking them as whole.

I mentioned that, when the Comptroller and Auditor General was appointed first, it was considered that he should get a little more than the head of a Department but, for some few years past, he has been getting considerably less than the head of a Department. I thought it only fair that we should give him more than the head of a Department to make up for it. We may find that in three or four years' time some adjustment may be necessary either in the case of the head of a Department or the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In regard to Senator O'Donovan's point, I think it would be better to discuss that on the next Stage when it may be possible to enlighten him on the point he made. It is a point which I do not at all agree puts the facts in their true light.

I think it is true to say that the responsibility and the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General have increased very, very much indeed. To some extent it may be due to the fact that he has taken on a large number of businesses outside the civil service for audit purposes. There are various reasons for that. I think it would not be appropriate to go into it at this stage. It would be quite in order to do it when the Appropriation Bill comes before the Seanad because there will be an Estimate there appertaining to the Comptroller and Auditor General. We can discuss it on that occasion.

Mr. Burke

I would not come under the censorship of the Chair.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Arising out of the Minister's reply, when he quotes the percentage for district justices, is he referring to an average figure for all district justices, country district justices or the principal district justices in Dublin?

Dr. Ryan

That is the figure for the big majority. I am not sure of the average but, for the country, it is the figure for the big majority.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

My memory is that the country district justices benefit a bit more than the city ones. In the case of the Comptroller and Auditor General, has there been any radical extension in the nature of his work as there was in the case of district justices under the 1953 Act?

Dr. Ryan

I gave in the Dáil, when we were discussing the last Appropriation Bill, a very long list of bodies whose accounts are now audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is so in the case of a great many of the State bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages now.

Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.