§ 33. Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies with respect to the revision of salaries in the Seychelles in 1382 1954, how many officers were converted to a salary higher than the correct one; and in how many cases retrospective approval was given for these officers to remain on that salary.
§ Mr. HareOnly two cases of conversion to a salary higher than the correct one are known to have occurred, although nine other cases are under investigation. In one case the officer concerned has reverted to the proper salary, and in the other the conversion made, whilst strictly incorrect, was considered equitable and it was, with my right hon. Frend's prior approval, confirmed.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs it then the case that the Minister of State is disputing the word of the principal auditor who audited the accounts of the departments in the Seychelles, which were presented to his office in January of this year, when he said:
Following the revision of salaries in 1954, many queries were issued regarding the wrong conversion of certain officers. In every single case where an officer was erroneously converted to a salary higher than the correct one, retrospective approval was given for these officers to remain on that salary.Is the right hon. Gentleman disputing that statement of the principal auditor, and, if so, what action is he taking to examine it and what reply does the auditor make?
§ Mr. HareI have in front of me the actual quotation which the hon. Gentleman has given. I can tell him that what happened was that the principal auditor had seven such cases in mind. On examination, five of these cases were found to be in order. It is the other two to which I have referred; one of those was confirmed and one officer reverted to his previous salary.
§ Mr. J. JohnsonWhat is the matter with the auditing of this Colony? It is not only last year, for, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are scores of items going back to 1951 which the auditor has found impossible to check, and he cannot even get evidence with which to check them.
§ Mr. HareThat was not the Question I was asked. I tried to answer the hon. Gentleman on the specific point that he raised. I think these are probably all matters which should be raised in the debate.
Mr. BovanIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this auditor's report is one of the most extraordinary documents that hon. Members can possibly have ever read? There is hardly a paragraph in the report which does not condemn the Administration. As we are going to discuss this matter very shortly, and as the present Governor was appointed only in 1953, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has armed himself with information about what steps have been taken to remedy the situation since?
§ Mr. HareThe right hon. Gentleman is already trying to start the debate. There is nothing about the auditor in the Question.