Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 10 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 15

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 24—Ordnance Survey.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £29,643 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Suirbhéireachta Ordonáis agus na Mion-tSeirbhísí ar a n-áirítear Macsamhla de Láimhscríbhinní Seanda do dhóanamh.

That a sum not exceeding £29,643 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ordnance Survey and of Minor Services, including the Facsimile Reproduction of Ancient Manuscripts.

Mr. MacEntee

I have not very much to say on this Vote. I wish to draw attention to the fact that recently considerable difficulty was experienced in securing from the Department through its recognised agents in the city certain copies of Ordnance sheets. When inquiries were made it was found that this was due to the fact that the van which the Department employs for delivering maps to its agents for distribution had broken down and remained out of repair for four or five days. Some of the Ordnance sheets were urgently required. I mention the matter in the hope that should a similar breakdown occur in the future the Department will take steps to meet the convenience of the public and have orders of this sort delivered by hand. They should not be allowed to remain over for three or four days as they were on this occasion.

Mr. G. Boland

I would like to bring to the Minister's notice a matter that I raised in the House before, concerning some officials of this Department— temporary surveyors—who are on loan to the Land Commission. These people were dismissed in 1916 for refusing to join the British Army, and after a lot of agitation they were reinstated in 1924. I understand that most of them have been put on the pension list since. There are about six who have not been put on the pension list, the reason being that they have attained the age of 50 or 51. But for what happened in 1916 one of these men would automatically have gone on the pension list in 1918. I do not think the Minister should stand strictly to the rule about not putting people on the pension list simply because they have attained the age of 50 years, particularly when it is remembered that they had about 30 years' service.

It is really a small matter for the Department, but a serious one for the people involved. I understand they are efficient men. They are working alongside people in the Land Commission who have much bigger salries. I see no reason why, simply because they have attained the age of 50 years, they should not be put on the pension list. I ask the Minister to reconsider their cases. I understand that there are other people over 50 years of age who have been established. There is a clear case, I think, for treating these men in the way that others have been treated. All the others who were dismissed at the time and who were not 50 years of age were put on the pension list. I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to the cases of these men.

Mr. Blythe

I did not hear about the mishap to the van to which Deputy MacEntee referred, so that I do not know anything about the circumstances of the case. With regard to Deputy Boland's question, I am personally not aware of what happened in these cases, but I will make inquiries. I do know that the men who were dismissed in 1916 were given a gratuity for the period in respect of any rights to pensionable positions that they might have then acquired. When they were taken on afterwards they could not be given credit for former service, because that would have meant, from the point of view of pension, that they would be getting credit for it twice. I think that at most there were eight or nine. I think about nine were put on the pension list, and that there are four or five cases actually under consideration at the present time. Whether these four or five include the cases that the Deputy has mentioned I do not know.

It is very unusual to give establishment to men who are over 50, and for this reason: that the normal retiring age is 60. If a person is not established until he is over 50 it means that, although he has been established, he cannot have the service to entitle him to a pension. On the other hand, there may be positions in which there would be no difficulty in allowing an officer to continue to serve up to 65. In such a case you might be able to give the period of service that would entitle him to pension. While it is almost the universal rule not to give establishment to persons over 50, I am aware of one or two cases in which there has been some relaxation of that rule. I will look into these cases because I do not know personally about them.

Mr. Boland

I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that some of these men would have gone automatically on the pension list in 1918.

Mr. Blythe

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.