I
199
salary it was gratefully accepted. The extension of the principle, however, to posts which already carry an adequate salary involving ex hypothesi a decrease in pensionable emolu- ments, presents many difficulties.
3.
In the first place I would observe that
it will involve a greater expense to Revenue. In order that existing salaries may not be reduced (and the working hypothes-
-is is that they are to remain as at present) an actuarial calculation is necessary to determine by what amount the pensionable salary must be reduced in order that the salary plus Duty Pay (the latter not being drawn on leave) may over a series of years be identical with the present emoluments. But though every individual prizes his pension rights, and no doubt
thinks that he will some day enjoy them, there are of course only a very limited number who actually do so and meantime the Government has by the institution of Duty Pay commuted those rights to the extent of the total paid away in Duty Pay annual- -ly. That sum is out of all proportion greater than the
liabilities which would mature in Pensions.
4.
Further objections to the introduction of a graduated Duty Pay assigned universally to every officer in the Civil Service arise from the following considerations:- (a). A period of some 20 to 25 years must elapse before the scheme became universal by the retirement of the holders of all existing appointments who would undoubtedly refuse it unless the Duty Pay were fixed so high as to be much more than equivalent to the deduction from pensionable salary. If this were done it would greatly increase the cost to Government which I referred to in paragraph 3. Consequently a new com- -plication would be added to the existing differences between dollar officers and sterling officers and the various rates of conversion and leave and pension privileges enjoyed by the former. (b). It has already been found very difficult to retain good men in the Public Works Department for local openings are
80