Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Feb 1944

Vol. 92 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Supplementary and Additional Estimates, 1943-44. Vote 16—Superannuation and Retired Allowances.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £30,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1944, chun Pinsean, Aoisliúntais, Cúitimh, agus Liúntaisí agus Aiscí, Breise agus eile, fé Reachtanna iolardha (4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 24; 22 Vict., c. 26; 50 & 51 Vict., c. 67; 55 & 56 Vict., c. 40; 6 Edw. 7, c. 58; 9 Edw. 7, c. 10; 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 86; 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 67 agus c. 68; 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 36; Uimh. 1 de 1922; Uimh. 34 de 1923; Uimh. 7 de 1925; Uimh. 27 de 1926; Uimh. 11 agus Uimh. 36 de 1929; Uimh. 32 de 1933; Uimh. 9 de 1934; Uimh. 39 de 1936; Uimh. 29 de 1938; Uimh. 16 agus Uimh. 21 de 1939; Uimh. 24 de 1942; etc.); Pinsean, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí Eachtar Reachtúla, arna ndeonadh ag an Aire Airgeadais; taillí do Dhochtúirí Réitigh agus corr-thaillí do Dhochtúirí; etc.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £30,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1944, for Pensions, Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional and other Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes (4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 24; 22 Vict., c. 26; 50 & 51 Vict., c. 67; 55 & 56 Vict., c. 40; 6 Edw. 7, c. 58; 9 Edw. 7, c. 10; 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 86; 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 67 and c. 68; 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 36; No. 1 of 1922; No. 34 of 1923; No. 7 of 1925; No. 27 of 1926; No. 11 and No. 36 of 1929; No. 32 of 1933; No. 9 of 1934; No. 39 of 1936; No. 29 of 1938; No. 16 and No. 21 of 1939; No. 24 of 1942; etc.); Extra-statutory Pensions, Allowances, and Gratuities awarded by the Minister for Finance; fees to Medical Referees and occasional fees to Doctors; etc.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Smith)

The amount required under this heading is difficult to estimate, as it is influenced entirely by the number of retirements, and by the number of deaths and marriages. It is also influenced by the grade from which these people leave. The sum mentioned here is necessary in view of the situation that has developed since the Estimate was prepared.

Mr. Norton

I am intrigued by the explanation given on the back of this Estimate. It says:—

Extra provision for additional allowances under the Superannuation Act, 1909, and for gratuities to established female officers on resignation on marriage.

The Superannuation Act of 1909 provides for an annual pension and for a gratuity, the gratuity being calculated in the main on the basis of one-thirtieth of a year's salary for each year of service, subject to an overriding maximum of 45-thirtieths. I cannot understand why it is necessary to make provision for additional allowances under that Act relating to this special allowances scheme and that that provision could not have been foreseen earlier, whereas provision for normal pensions could have been. It gives no provision for additional pensions, but merely makes provision for additional allowances. I would like the Minister to clear up that matter first.

I would also like to know how many additional established female officers retired on marriage since the commencement of the financial year, how many it was anticipated would marry when this Estimate was framed, and how many, in fact, did marry.

Mr. Smith

I am sorry that the only information I have got—and I was pleased to get it—was that there was an increase in the marriage rate in the Civil Service. I was pleased to get that information, but I did not ask for the actual number of people who married. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot supply the Deputy with the information which he seeks. I can get it for him and send it to him at a later stage.

Mr. Norton

I cannot debate it if the Parliamentary Secretary sends it to me after this Estimate is passed.

Mr. Smith

It did not occur to my mind that it should be necessary to debate the fact that a certain number of ladies employed in the Civil Service had decided, in the last 12 months, to get married. I was not looking forward to that being the subject of debate here.

Mr. Norton

The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary come into this House and ask the House to vote a sum of £30,500. It is not £30,000 or £31,000 they arrived at, but a figure of £30,500. Surely, there must be some calculation to show how that sum was arrived at.

Mr. Smith

Last year's Estimate was based on the amount that was required on the average over, say, a number of years, but it could happen that exceptional circumstances would arise as they did arise last year.

Mr. Norton

So that Cupid must have fired more darts last year than in any previous year. Are we to take it that it was that that was responsible for putting the Minister for Finance so far wrong in framing the Estimate? I think that when the original figure was being calculated there must have been some evidence available towards the end of the financial year as to the extent that the Department were under-estimating the number of darts that Cupid was likely to fire. That is point No. 1 which has not been answered. My second point is this. What is the meaning of the extra provision for additional allowances under the Superannuation Act of 1909? I think I know the provisions of that Act reasonably well. The sum asked for here is in respect of lump sum gratuities which are payable under the Act. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how it is that provision has to be made for additional lump sums while no provision is being made for additional pensions? Under the 1909 Act there is a pension payable and there is a lump sum payable. The Department has discovered that it has under-estimated the amount of additional allowances or, to use a colloquial term, lump sum payments, but it does not appear to have under-estimated the sum for annual pensions. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain to me why the Department, when producing this Estimate based on certain calculations, should have discovered that it was wrong in regard to the amount of lump sums payable while it was perfectly correct as regards the amount required for annual pensions? I think these are points that require explanation.

Mr. Hughes

I do not think that the Department can be complimented on its power of estimation. We have here this sum of £30,000 in relation to an Estimate of £500,000. Actually, it is in relation to an original Estimate of £72,000. I think that requires explanation. I think, no matter what the number of marriages was that took place among officers of the Department during the last year, it could not account for an almost 50 per cent. increase on the original Estimate. Obviously, the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary could not justify an error of practically 50 per cent.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Is this Supplementary Estimate a customary thing, or is it one that is to make provision to meet an exceptional case? I would like to emphasise the point that has been made by Deputy Hughes and that is that, having regard to the figures put forward—the figure of £30,000—it must be taken that the factors which operated this year must be closely related to the factors that operated in previous years. That would seem to indicate that the Estimates were not as carefully prepared as they might have been.

Mr. Smith

The term "Additional Allowances," to which Deputy Norton has referred, is merely a definition.

Mr. Norton

Of what?

Mr. Smith

Of pensions. I have already given the reasons for the increase in the Supplementary Estimate. The first is that a larger number of people who were in the service died; the second is that a greater number of people who were in the service retired; the third reason is that a greater number of females, to whom gratuities are payable, got married. I have given these reasons to the House and they are the only ones available. Deputy O'Sullivan seems to think that there is something mysterious about those who are responsible for the preparation of the Estimates because they are not able to forecast the number of people who are likely to die or to retire. They might be able to make a reasonable shot at the number of retirements that will take place, but, as regards deaths and marriages, those responsible for the preparation of the Estimates could hardly be expected to give a forecast under either head. The explanation that I have given to the House is the only one available.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I should like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that I did not say there was anything mysterious about the Estimate. I was speaking from my experience as member of at least one important local body, and in regard to it calculations in respect of an Estimate would not be as far out as they appear to be in this case. I simply asked if it was customary under this head to have a Supplementary Estimate on this basis.

Mr. Smith

It has often happened before but not recently.

Dr. O'Higgins

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, an error of 100 per cent. in the case of grants, and of approximately 50 per cent. in the case of allowances, indicates too large a margin of error, and further that either the original Estimate was got out without due consideration or, alternatively, that due consideration is not given to the preparation of a Supplementary Estimate. I do not think that the point raised by Deputy Norton has been cleared up. If no provision has been made for extra pensions, then I think there is something wrong. Am I to take it that the term "allowances" includes pensions?

Mr. Norton

The term "additional allowances" has a technical meaning in the Superannuation Act and does not include pensions. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has come to the House with a very incomplete brief on this Estimate. I can understand the Parliamentary Secretary taking a chance, but after all he is a politician and a very cute and astute one at that. But he has got to recognise that he may be caught out now and again and, obviously, he has been caught out this evening. Everybody knows that the term "additional allowances" under the 1909 Act means a lump sum. What I am wondering at is, why the Department wants to pay additional allowances if it has not to pay any additional pensions, because the one goes hand in hand with the other. The scheme of the 1909 Act provides for the payment of pensions and lump sums. Under the 1859 Act there is no lump sum, but purely pensions.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take back the Supplementary Estimate until he has better information to give to the House about it. Quite obviously he cannot tell the House anything about it this evening. When the original Estimate was framed, I take it that provision was made for the possible marriage of a certain number of officers. I do not know how many the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind. He comes along now and he wants £30,500. The House is not quarrelling about the amount, and no Deputy is suggesting that there should be any abrogation of the contracts entered into with those officers. Can he tell us the number of marriages it was expected would take place when the original Estimate was framed, and how many officers in fact got married in the meantime? So far this information has not been available to the House. I want to know again, does additional allowances cover pensions and lump sums because "additional allowances" has a definite connotation in the 1909 Act?

Mr. Smith

"Additional allowances" means lump sums.

Mr. Norton

I want to know again from the Parliamentary Secretary how he can ask the House to vote a sum to pay additional lump sums in a year when he has not to pay additional pensions?

Mr. Smith

The explanation is that there was enough money in the fund to meet the pensions that we had to pay, but not enough to meet the lump sums that fell due for payment.

Mr. Norton

Is the position this: that you under-estimated in respect of pensions and under-estimated in respect of lump sums?

Mr. Smith

That is right. I think we are not so bad now.

Mr. Norton

I think I can say that I have given the Parliamentary Secretary a lot of information that he ought to have given to the House.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Might I ask if there is any actuarial system in operation under which estimates relating to deaths and marriages likely to take place could not be more accurately forecast? I think that any insurance office would be able to give a fairly exact figure of the number of people who get married or die or suffer from some ailment in the course of a year. I think the large margin of error that we have here between the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate shows a certain amount of looseness or carelessness, or it may, perhaps, be that the Parliamentary Secretary has not put the case as clearly as he had intended.

Mr. Smith

I do not know that you can get any better guide than by going back over a period of three or four years and finding out the sum required on previous occasions, the number of people who retired from the service, the number who died and the number that got married. It does not follow, because a certain number retired or died or got married over a period of three or four years, that you would not have thrown in an exceptional year in which the numbers under these heads would be much larger. Apparently that is what happened on this occasion, and I think the House has been provided with all the information and explanations that they could reasonably expect in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Norton

How much of this money is required for gratuities for female officers and how much is given by way of additional allowances—what is the proportion?

Mr. Smith

I cannot give the Deputy those figures.

Mr. Norton

Your brief is very badly prepared—that is evident.

Mr. Corry

Apparently what some Deputies require is that the Parliamentary Secretary should, every three months or so, enter a Department and ask how many of the staff intend to be married in the succeeding three months and how many have any notion of dying. Then he might be in a position to give a return which would please everybody.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Corry is very facetious about this matter, but I think the House is entitled to a more satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary says he has gone back over a period of three or four years. Surely the Civil Service has been established for a much longer period than that and, for actuarial purposes, they must have a much greater experience. It is quite obvious to everyone that there are mortality tables. There is a very large number of civil servants to be dealt with. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that there was an increase in the number of marriages in the Service. That is information with which every Deputy will be pleased. But he did not indicate the increase over the normal rate. There was obviously an increase, but we have had no indication of the additional number of female civil servants, for instance, taken on. The Minister for Local Government indicated that there was an increase in the marriage rate and surely some steps should have been taken to make adequate provision for these marriage gratuities in the Civil Service. I do not think the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary is very satisfactory. Perhaps it might have been that those engaged in making up the Estimate were themselves affected by Cupid's bows and their figures went slightly astray.

Mr. Norton

The position is that we cannot get any information. We do not know how much is given by way of marriage, and how much by way of additional allowances.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy intend to hold up the Estimate?

Mr. Norton

Let it go—that will suit us.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy is in a bad humour to-day. What is the matter?

Mr. Norton

We are in very good humour; we merely want some figures and other information.

Vote put and agreed to.