Debate contribution: Comptroller and Auditor General: Salary

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 2 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Comptroller and Auditor General: Salary

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5432626

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. As the Committee Chairperson said, there is no underestimating the value of the work carried out by the C&AG and the great responsibility of the postholder. It is therefore important that the salary is fair, appropriately reflects the complexity and responsibilities of the role and is set using an objective evidence-based and transparent process. That is why the Committee recommends further work to establish an appropriate evidence-based mechanism for the longer term, potentially through the completion of a full-job evaluation exercise if that is found to be feasible. I will highlight it briefly that the Committee has reviewed its own role in terms of the appropriateness of making recommendations to the Assembly on the C&AG's salary. While it considered several options that are set out in the report, including transferring the responsibility to the Assembly Commission, it does not recommend any changes to the current arrangements, as it understands that that would require significant legislative change to safeguard the independence of the C&AG. The Committee is aware that, in continuing to make salary recommendations to the Assembly, there is a continued risk of the political context impacting on decisions to review the salary. For that reason, the Committee recommends the introduction of new processes and procedures to help ensure that there is a consistent approach to salary reviews going forward. The role of the Assembly in setting the salary of the C&AG appropriately reflects the independence of the office from government. However, it is fair and appropriate that that is done in a consistent and predictable manner. I also acknowledge that the salary of the office of C&AG is set in public, which is unique to the role of C&AG here. That reflects the existing legislation. However, we must remember that, while the Assembly debates the appropriate salary for the office, an individual is in post, and, therefore, I take the opportunity to thank the incumbent C&AG, Dorinnia Carville, for her unwavering commitment to —

Yes.

I thank the Member for his intervention and agree that the Committee took the role seriously, and politics did not come into it. The review and the processes were followed as set out and to the best ability of the Committee. I thank the incumbent C&AG for her unwavering commitment to ensuring effective public accountability and leadership of the Northern Ireland Audit Office. I will comment on some of the contributions. Daniel McCrossan, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, referenced the importance and exceptional work of the C&AG. As a former Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I concur with him on that. He also mentioned that he previously chaired the Audit Committee, and it was recorded in the plenary debate, as the Chairperson, Mr Chambers, said, that there was a question about whether judicial group 5 was the most appropriate group against which the salary should be benchmarked. The former Audit Committee recommended that this Committee consider reviewing the options in determining the salary in future. I will address Diana Armstrong's point about why we are not recommending that the salary be linked with judicial salary group 5. The Senior Salaries Review Body recommended for 2026 for judicial group 5 a salary level heading towards £190,000.

Historically, C&AG salaries in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have been linked to the salary of a judge in the judicial salary group 5. However, England, Scotland and Wales have been moving away from that approach since the review of the National Audit Office's corporate governance by John Tyner, which was published in January 2008. It recommended that the link with judicial salaries be broken in England. Previous Audit Committees considered the benefits of the historical link, but they also acknowledged the question of its appropriateness.

In the debate on 22 March 2022, the former Chair stated:

"the overall arrangements for determining the C&AG's salary, which would include benchmarking, should be reviewed in order to ensure that they reflect best practice elsewhere." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 March 2022, p37, col 1].

I thank the Member for the intervention. On review of the process, it was clear to us that, had we continued in that way, the legislation in place meant that we could not go back and change it. Therefore, if that were put in place, it would not allow for the full job evaluation to carry forward in its fullest and most complete form. It could potentially predetermine the outcome of that. In the Committee's view, it would not be reasonable or logical to recommend returning to the link to that scale without robust evidence indicating that it was appropriate to do so. On balance, the Committee decided not to recommend to the Assembly the linkage to that at this time. Daniel McCrossan asked why no change was proposed to the arrangement with the Audit Committee.

813 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:57 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification