[BILL 79.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 20 April 1866)

§ MR. CRAUFURD
called attention to that provision in the Bill which would prevent the members of the Audit Board sitting in that House. Those gentlemen were the Officers of the House of Commons, as against the Government of the day, and it would be most useful to have them in the House, in order to assist the House in exercising the necessary control over the Executive.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that the Members of the Audit Board should have seats in the House of Commons. It would be an innovation on our present law, and not useful one. He was always under the impression that it was through an oversight that the Controller of the Exchequer was not excluded from the House of Lords. The sitting of those gentlemen in the Mouse would be only attended with confusion. It would be much the same in principle as if the permanent Under Secretary to the Treasury were admitted to a seat in the House; but the proposal of his hon. Friend was still more objectionable, because the members of the Audit Board had to proceed with judicial impartiality and entire independence, and nothing could be more detrimental to that character than to place those gentlemen in a position where a conscientious expression of their views might bring them into collision with the Government of the day or with partizans or opponents on either side.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, that irrespective of the question whether the members of the Board ought to be admitted 1863 to that House or not, at all events, the Audit Department ought to be considered not as a subordinate, but as a superior branch of administration; and until it was so considered it would never be effectual for the purpose for which it was intended. It appeared by the investigation before the Public Monies Committee that the Audit Board was always considered subordinate, and the present Bill, though it made some improvement in the status of the Board, did not go far enough. The jealousy of the Treasury was still seen in this Bill—it was the most powerful, jealous, and encroaching of all the Departments, and therefore it ought to be the most vigilantly watched by the House. The evening was so far advanced that he should not think of occupying the time of the House by moving an Amendment upon the Bill; but he could not allow it to pass without entering his protest against its principle, which in his opinion was contrary to the true principle of audit.

§ MR. AYRTON
hoped that the Government would not sanction the admission of the Officer belonging to this Department into the House.

MR. HENLEY
believed that the result of the Controller having a seat in the House would be an injury to the public business. The only way to render that Officer perfectly useless would be to give him a seat.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that the power of the Audit Office had greatly increased of late years. He quite concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire that the object for which the Controller was appointed would be entirely frustrated by his having a seat in Parliament. He therefore proposed the insertion of words which would provide against such a contingency.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
, as a Member of the Committee, had no objection to the insertion of the words proposed, although the question was not specifically brought under the notice of the Committee.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
urged that pensions should be payable after shorter periods of service.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was impracticable to make arrangements for paying pensions on retirement after five years' or one year's service; that if the pensions were in proportion to short periods of service they would be ridiculously small, and that there might be circumstances under which such pensions would offer a dangerous inducement to persons to pass through the office merely for the sake of the pensions.

§ MR. THOMSON HANKEY
said, that as all the clerks were to be paid by that House, it was desirable that some Member of the Government who had a seat in the House should be made responsible for the appointment.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, that if his Amendment were agreed to the Treasury would still have the power of settling the number and salaries of the personnel, while the Head of the Department would, only have the selection of the most fitting persons.

§ MR. CHILDERS
concurred with the hon. Member for Peterborough that some Minister ought to be responsible for the appointments made.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
did not see why the Audit Board should not have the initiative in the appointments, even if such appointments were to be subject to the approval of the Treasury.