Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I am fairly relaxed about amendment 57. The CAG publishes details already of all his expenses and allowances. The commission had a discussion about the pay. It is true that traditionally the CAG has received the same salary as a High Court judge. We did not think that that was appropriate any more, because that is fixed and, in order to get a very high-calibre candidate, it might be necessary to pay more than that. When we put in the advertisement, we said that the package would be broadly in the permanent secretary range. That is an attractive salary, and it is useful to do it that way, because permanent secretaries are paid between £140,000 and £230,000 a year. There was some discussion about whether we should link the pay to that of the Lord Chief Justice. Personally, I liked that idea, because I am convinced—having done my job for eight years—of the very great importance of the CAG. It would have sent a message if we had made that link, but I suspect that the Treasury was not entirely happy with that. So we reached a compromise. It is not necessary for me to say in Committee what the CAG actually earns—it is published, it is a good salary and we got a high-calibre candidate. Finally, it is important that the CAG, like permanent secretaries, should not be subject to appraisal by anybody and he should not receive any bonuses. The best approach is the one that we have taken—with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee working with the Prime Minister to set a good salary at the level of a permanent secretary. Let us stick to that. It can go up every year by inflation, but no bonuses should be paid and no appraisal made. That is part of the CAG's independence.