Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1946

Vol. 32 No. 4

Superannuation Bill, 1946 ( Certified Money Bill )— Second and subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The object of this Bill is to provide permanently certain powers which had been taken under the emergency powers legislation in relation to superannuation. Section 1 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 gave power to the Treasury, which has been adapted to mean the Minister for Finance, to make a warrant regulating the grant of gratuities and annual allowances payable to a person employed in the Civil Service of the State who was injured in the actual discharge of his duty without his own default and by some injury specifically attributable to the nature of his duty. The section prescribed, however, that the maximum gratuity should not exceed one year's salary of the person injured and that the allowance under the section should not, together with any superannuation allowance to which the individual was otherwise entitled, exceed the salary of the person injured or £300 a year, whichever was less. Power was also granted to make an award to the widow, wholly dependent mother and children of a civil servant, who, having been injured in the circumstances I have indicated, died from the injury.

I propose in Section 2 of the present Bill to replace the authority given under Emergency Powers (No. 356) Order, 1945, to modify the provisions of the earlier Act. In the first place, a period is being set in regard to death resulting from the injury. The time limit, as the Bill indicates, is within seven years after the date of the injury and the death must be the direct result of the injury. I propose further to supply a deficiency in the earlier statute and to provide for the case of the wife who is the breadwinner and who is supporting a disabled husband. To meet certain income-tax difficulties in regard to the payment of dependents' allowances I have incorporated a purely verbal amendment under which payment can be made to or in respect of the children. I propose also to remove the upper limit of £300 a year laid down in the earlier Act as that figure is unnecessarily low by reference to modern standards and conditions and I am substituting therefor a proviso that an allowance granted to an injured person shall not, together with any superannuation allowance for which he is otherwise qualified, exceed five-sixths of the actual annual salary and emoluments of the office held by him at the date of injury. In determining this five-sixths figure, the annuity value of the lump sum payable to civil servants to whom the Superannuation Act, 1909, applies will be taken into account.

If the House approves of this amendment and these new provisions are duly enacted, I propose to lay on the Table without delay a new warrant containing the provisions which will hereafter apply.

Section 3 is entirely new and deals with a special case in respect of which it was found necessary to take exceptional measures when the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933, was being enacted. On account of personal undertakings given to the individual concerned shortly after the Saorstát Éireann administration began to function, my predecessor, who promoted the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, felt, after representations made to him from the Opposition Benches, that an exception should be made, and this officer was exempted from the reductions in salary applied to civil servants generally.

In view of the headline set in the 1933 Act, I have felt that this officer should similarly be exempted from the bonus stabilisation provisions imposed on the Civil Service as a whole.

The section empowers the grant to the individual concerned of a superannuation award calculated by reference to the salary, inclusive of bonus, which the officer would have received if the Civil Service (Stabilisation of Bonus) Regulations, 1940, did not apply to him immediately before the date of his retirement.

When the Civil Service (Stabilisation of Bonus) Regulations, 1940, were modified to admit of the payment to civil servants of bonus related to a cost-of-living figure of 210 in lieu of the figure of 185 which had theretofore applied, the Government felt that it would be only equitable that a corresponding benefit should be conferred on pensioners, the determining of whose pensions had been affected by the operation of the Bonus Stabilisation Order. To meet the difficulty, the Government made an Order entitled Emergency Powers (No. 354) Order, 1945, the effect of which was to empower adjustment of superannuation allowances as from the 1st January, 1945, so as to authorise the payment of a pension computed as if the recipient immediately before his retirement drew remuneration equal to the lesser of the following:—(a) The remuneration which he would have been in receipt of immediately before his retirement if the Civil Service (Stabilisation of Bonus) Regulations, 1940, had not been made; (b) remuneration calculated by reference to the index number or numbers which exceeds or exceed by 25 points the index number or numbers by reference to which his remuneration was actually calculated immediately before his retirement.

In simpler language, the effect of (a) and (b) is as follows:—Where a cost-of-living figure of 205 would have been applicable had there been no stabilisation, the award is revised and related to a figure of 205. Where a figure of 210 or higher would, but for stabilisation, have applied, the award is related to a figure of 210, the figure of 210 being the upper limit of revision. The adjustment was, by the Government's decision, confined to annual allowances.

As Senators are, I think, aware, it is not intended that this Order should be continued under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Accordingly it becomes necessary to make legislative provision to ensure that the pensioners concerned will continue to benefit by the increased rates after the expiration of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939. I have, therefore, included Section 4 to ensure the retention of authority for the making of these payments.

The remainder of the Bill consists of the ordinary expenses clause and a citation clause to provide for the inclusion of this particular measure in the superannuation code.

I think that this Bill should have an easy passage. Section 2 arises, I think, out of an unfortunate incident—the death of an inspector of schools. I myself was interested in that case and I recall that the Act of 1887 appeared to the then Minister for Finance to provide completely insufficient compensation for the person concerned. This Bill enables the Minister for Finance, by warrant, which he states he will lay on the Tables of both Houses, to make better provision for the dependents of a person who dies as a result of injuries in the course of his duty, whether accidental or malicious. That is one example of a defect found in existing legislation. It would seem rather absurd at this period that a widow should find herself compensated under the provisions of an Act of 1887, made in entirely different circumstances and from a different point of view. I think that the Bill is a good one.

The trouble I find in dealing with this Bill is that it does not seem to go far enough. So far as I can see, it does not increase the allowance provided for under the Act of 1887. Paragraph (b) of Section 2 states: "Any allowance granted under this section to an injured person shall not, together with any superannuation allowance for which he is otherwise qualified, exceed five-sixths of the annual salary and emoluments of the office held by him at the date of the injury." I draw attention to the words "together with any superannuation allowance". My recollection of the Act of 1887 is that you could give a gratuity or a superannuation allowance but that you could not give both. It did provide for a year's salary up to £300, if it were greater than the other sum. This provision allows only five-sixths of the annual salary. That does not seem to me to go sufficiently far. It does not seem to increase the allowance payable on the death of a civil servant. If a man were only a short time in the employment of the State, his salary would be small and five-sixths of that salary would be a very meagre allowance, having regard to the alternative provided under the Act of 1887.

I think Senator O'Dea has missed the particular point involved. Under the old Act of 1887 the maximum amount which a civil servant's widow could get if he died or was killed was £300 a year, even if his salary was £1,500.

That is so.

I thought it was whichever amount was the greater.

Three hundred pounds was the limit even if his salary were £1,500. If he were a judge, although I do not know that this would cover judicial posts, he might have had a salary of £2,500. The widow of a civil servant, if he were killed, no matter what his salary was, could only get £300. This Bill allows us to go to five-sixths of his actual salary and emoluments at the date on which he received the injury.

I have not read this Bill too closely but I should like to know what type of civil servants will come under this Bill.

I understand the Minister was concluding the Second Reading debate.

The Senator can raise the point in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Committee Stage now.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I wish to repeat my inquiry as to what classes of civil servants come under this Bill. I have in mind the case of a teacher who was killed in an accident, not arising out of his employment, but during the Christmas holidays. His wife and children were thrown entirely on the world. I was wondering whether his case would come under the Bill.

A teacher is not a civil servant.

This applies only to civil servants who are directly employed by the State.

Would a teacher come under that heading?

Teachers are not civil servants.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, and the title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation.
Agreed to take the Fourth Stage now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question—"That the Bill be returned to the Dáil"—put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be returned to the Dáil without recommendation.
Top
Share