HC Deb 25 June 1897 vol 50 cc560-1
MR. MACNEILL

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Professors of the College of Science in Dublin on entering their offices received a fixed salary, which it was understood would be stationary, the agreement went being that a certain number of years should be added to the actual term of years in computing the retiring pension, so that a Professor who had served 25 years without any increase of salary would receive a pension equivalent to 35–60ths of his full pay, and whether it was likewise arranged that the pension be calculated on the sum total, salary and fees combined, of the Professor's emoluments; (2) whether by a recent regulation the Treasury has made a rule, which is retrospective, by which all allowances for good service will be struck out, and the pension calculated on the here income irrespective of fees; and (3) whether, having regard to the fact that this rule has been made in direct contravention of the agreement under which the present Professors entered their offices, steps will be taken to protect vested interests, and to prevent this rule from being retrospective in its operation?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,) Preston

Only four of the eight Professorships are pensionable. Those of the Professors appointed before 30th November 1888 are allowed to add seven years, not ten, to their service for calculating their pension. Those appointed since that date enter under a distinct understanding that this special addition would not be granted. This was done to carry cut a recommendation of the Ridley Commission. It is contrary to Section 17 of the Superannuation Act of 1859 to reckon fees in calculating the amount of a pension, as only moneys provided out of the Consolidated Fund or the Votes can be reckoned for that purpose. I find, hew-ever, that in 1883, by an oversight, one of the Professors was allowed to reckon his fees towards pension, but it cannot be seriously argued that this gives the other Professors a claim to similar treatment. The answer to the two last paragraphs are therefore in the negative.

MR. MACNEILL

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these gentlemen entered upon the distinct understanding that their fees were to be reckoned in the commutation of their pension?

MR. HANBURY

No; on the contrary, they entered upon the distinctly opposite understanding.