§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider setting up machinery to avoid the possibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General having to act in matters for which he bears responsibility as accounting officer of a Department.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, the Comptroller and Auditor General is an independent statutory officer, appointed by the Crown and answerable only to Parliament. As such, he naturally bears no responsibility as the accounting officer of a Department other than in connection with the Exchequer and Audit Department.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer, which did not really cover my Question. Is it not important that steps should be taken to ensure that the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be not merely there (I have no doubt it is there) but also seen to be there? If that officer has been in the service of Her Majesty, would it not be better not to appoint him, or to appoint someone else, on questions in which he bore responsibility as the accounting officer in years past?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, the noble Lord's Question is referring to the present time; his supplementary question, as I understand it, is referring to the past time. All I would say imme 986 diately in reply is that I know of no case in which the independent judgment of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been impugned or has in any way been seen to be impugned. If there is a particular problem which the noble Lord has in mind, and he would like to write to me about it or discuss it with me, I should be very glad to entertain his representations.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would agree with my view that the Question could be interpreted as referring to "former accounting officer". Is the noble Earl aware that my noble friend was in no way impugning the position or the integrity of any occupant now or in the past? Does he also note that in fact there is a possibility of less generous-minded people attributing a bias when a matter comes before the Auditor General in regard to a Department in which he was formerly the accounting officer?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I recognise that there could be a problem here, but I think we should be very careful about getting ourselves into a position in which it was thought wrong ever to appoint to this very important post someone who had been a Permanent Secretary in a Department. This would be excluding us from the possibility of appointing people with the sort of experience which I should have thought is required in this particular job.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I should not take my noble friend's Question off him, and I apologise to him; but is the noble Earl aware that my noble friend is not suggesting that ex-Permanent Secretaries should not be appointed, but merely that they should not act in those matters that relate to a Department in which they were formerly the accounting officer, and that someone else should carry the responsibility?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is necessarily the correct interpreter for his noble friend; he may be. But it seems to me that he is taking the Question rather off his noble friend.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, would the noble Earl care to read my Question?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, does not answer my noble friend. He may realise why others have to join in in his support.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, noble Lords opposite say, "Hear, hear!", but I thought that they might do me the justice of acknowledging that, naturally, I read the noble Lord's Question before answering it.
§ LORD BALOGHMay I read the Question to the noble Earl?
§ LORD BALOGHIt does not matter what you say—"To ask—"
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am not intervening to answer the noble Lord's supplementary question, which I shall be very glad to do. I am intervening, as the Leader of your Lordships' House, to say that the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, I think goes a little wide, when he says, "It does not matter what you say." That is not the normal way in which we address noble Lords anywhere in your Lordships' House. I would say that to the noble Lord or to any noble Lord opposite, as I would say it to any noble Lord sitting behind me.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, would the noble Earl—
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am sorry, but I still have to answer a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Balogh.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, I merely wish to say that I did not impugn anybody. I wanted to ask the noble Earl what sort of machinery should be devised in order to avoid possible impugnment in future, and this I think the noble Earl has not answered.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I should be very glad to look into this position. I really do not feel that, in practice, there is the problem which I think is worrying the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. But I should be very glad to look into the position and, if need be, to discuss it with 988 him and, indeed, with any other noble Lord who is interested in the matter. I fully recognise that it does touch on an important point. I would say, most emphatically, that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is barking up the wrong tree if he is in any way impugning the independence of any particular person.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, if I may come back to the noble Earl, may I ask him to withdraw the statement that my noble friend is impugning anyone? He was at great pains not to do so and, in the general interest of good relations, perhaps the noble Earl would accept—for all of us heard this—that there was no suggestion of impugning an individual. My noble friend stressed the matter as one of appearance. We all accept that there is no criticism of any individual.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I should be very glad to withdraw that suggestion if in fact I had made it, but it is not within my recollection that I did.