SECOND READING. (Hansard, 5 May 1881)

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he could not allow the Bill to go forward without offering one or two observations with regard to it. The Bill set forth that according to a previous Act provision was made for the appointment of an India Office Auditor, and that, although provision was made for the payment of an annual salary, no provision was made for the superannuation of that officer when his period of service had expired. That Bill was discussed in 1858, and in the course of the discussion an hon. Member said he did not know on what ground it was proposed to appoint a separate auditor, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that it would introduce great improvement and a better system of audit than then prevailed, and that it would not be necessary to incur serious expense. The Bill was finally agreed to. Well, how did this appointment result in an improvement of the audit service? There was no improvement of any kind or description; in fact, there was, practically, no reliable audit of the Indian accounts. He hardly liked to detain the House at this hour—1 o'clock a.m.—with lengthy extracts from the Blue Book bearing upon the appointment; but he did think that some of the evidence given before the Select Committee on Finance, in 1872, was so 1922 important that it ought to be laid before the House before it consented to the superannuation of the officer who for so many years had occupied the post of auditor. Mr. Harrison, who was examined before the Select Committee, was asked this question— Then, is there any person in this Department who possesses any power of auditing the expenditure in the sense of being able to object to expenditure as contrary to law or contrary to the rules and orders of the Secretary of State? And the witness's answer was that it was the duty of the Department to check all expenditure which was not warranted by the Government of India. The question was then put— The Department of Audit does not look beyond the fact, so that there is no audit authority in India which is able to exercise an independent check upon the expenditure of money by the Local Government in that country? If the Governor General in Council, therefore, orders any payment that is final as regards the Audit Department?"—A. "I consider that to be so. In reply to a further question, he said— It would be the duty of an officer of his Department to bring to notice any expenditure he had reason to believe not warranted. Mr. Gay was also examined before the same Committee, and he said there was, practically, no audit whatever to be relied upon. What had been the consequence of the want of efficient audit control over the accounts of India? It had been the financial blunder and scandal which attracted so much attention recently. The Committee appointed to inquire into the system of keeping accounts, and into the relations between the military accounts and the Controller General, made a Report, which strongly bore out his contention. It traced the financial dilemma in India to the absence of anything like an official audit, and it was pointed out that the audit of the accounts in India was always lamentably in arrear. The House ought to pause before assenting to the second reading of the Bill, unless the Government could show them some very good reason for enlarging the provisions made in 1858.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
regretted that in consequence of the noise in the House he had been unable to catch the greater part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). He was not aware from what Committee's proceedings the hon. Gentleman was reading; 1923 but if the hon. Gentleman would communicate with him he would carefully examine the evidence, and, if necessary, he might be able to afford him some satisfactory explanation. As far as he was able to gather from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, he complained of the inefficient audit in India. Under the Act of 1858 it was simply an audit of the accounts of the Government of India at home which was appointed. Whether the audit of the accounts in India was sufficient for the purpose was a subject altogether separate from the present Bill. The audit of the Home accounts was a subject which had not been neglected. It came under the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee, and some changes had been made. The last Report of that Committee stated that the auditor of the India Office had been, in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee, altogether relieved of the duties formerly imposed upon him, and was now enabled to carry out an entirely independent audit. He would not say that the subject of the accounts in India was not one worthy of consideration; but he would submit to the House that it was entirely separate from the present Bill, and it would be almost irregular to discuss it now. The object of the Bill was clearly set forth in the Preamble, and the House would see there was no reason why the Bill should not be passed.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, he had given Notice of opposition to the Bill; but he did so when the Bill was not printed. Having seen the Bill, however, he hoped the House would allow it to pass. It did seem unfair that a body of officials should be precluded from any pension on account of what might very properly be called a technicality—on account of there being no mention of their offices in the Act of 1858.

§ MR. DAWSON
had no wish to oppose the Motion for the superannuation of these officials; but he thought the thanks of the House were due to his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) for having called attention to the lamentable want of regularity in the keeping of accounts in India. It was evident the deficiencies which the taxpayers in this country were called upon to supply might have been prevented.

§ MR. BIGGAR
had no wish to delay Business; but it seemed to him the 1924 audit of the Indian accounts was performed in an absurd and inefficient manner. It would be well that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) should have an opportunity of perusing the Reports which criticized unfavourably the conduct of the auditors to whom it was now proposed to make an allowance; and in order that such an opportunity should be afforded the noble Marquess, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. HEALY
seconded the Motion. He desired to point out the inconvenience of bringing on the Bill at this hour of the morning. No one thought it necessary to offer any remarks on the subject; and it appeared to him that if there was any desire on the part of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to save the time of the House, they would not press Bills of this importance at this late hour. If the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) persisted in his Motion he should certainly divide with him.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not press his Motion, for the Bill related to the audit of the Home accounts; and the hon. Member must see that it was impossible that the Indian accounts should be audited by the Auditor General. As matters stood, the auditors had no superannuation, because, although a few of them who had retired had received grants equal to superannuation by virtue of the authority in the Indian Council, they had no legal right to superannuation. It was desirable that superannuation should be established by law.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the very thing he wished to elicit had been shown by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. For instance, there had already been several auditors in the position of the official whose case was being dealt with. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India had found the means of providing for them, and had placed a charge on the Revenue of India which was not just. The noble Marquess had himself admitted the fact. He said the system was not one to be recommended, and 1925 now he wanted the House to pass a Bill providing superannuation of an auditor, while stating that in previous instances such a step had not been considered necessary. It appeared to him that that fact alone was sufficient to show that the audit of Indian accounts in England was in an unsatisfactory condition. The Auditor General had not, he maintained, done what he ought to have done. He ought to be the Financial Adviser of the Secretary of State, to enlighten him upon any shortcomings in the system of audit in this country, or in India. The shortcomings in the system in India had been most flagrant, and had resulted in what was really little short of a public disgrace and a public scandal. The auditor had not done his duty in such a way as to warrant a special Bill being passed in his favour. It was, however, useless to disguise the fact that the sense of the House was in favour of the second reading of the Bill; and he would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he trusted that the noble Marquess would favour the House in a short time with his views as to what steps should be taken for dealing with this subject.

§ MR. BIGGAR
on the appeal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who seemed to be the only Member of the House who understood the question, begged leave to withdraw the Motion.