Latest news with #publicexpenditure
Irish Times
7 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Civil Service and ministerial pensions error was known about since 2017
Officials first became aware of an error which could lead to Ministers and civil servants owing thousands of euro to the State in 2017, eight years before it became public. The 'serious and systemic' issues at the National Shared Services Office (NSSO) may also lead to some Ministers being owed thousands of euro. Sums that will need to be recouped by the State range from hundreds of euro to just over €30,000. They were first disclosed to the public by Minister for Public Expenditure and Public Service Reform Jack Chambers earlier this month. Aside from the implications for ministerial pensions, a pool of up to 13,000 civil servants may be affected by the matter and are having their pension deductions checked. However, Mr Chambers told the Oireachtas finance committee on Wednesday that the issue stemmed from a pension appeal decision that was issued in 2017 when an individual questioned their own pension entitlement. READ MORE There is also an issue in relation to the pensions of 30 retired senior civil servants and one of them could owe as much as €280,000 But it was years before the shared payroll office explored the wider implications of the decision, Mr Chambers told Labour Party finance spokesman Ged Nash. 'It took the NSSO until July of 2024 to query if the approach following the appeal in 2017 should apply to a broader group,' Mr Chambers told the committee. Following that, there was interaction between the NSSO and the Department of Public Expenditure last year on the application of the allowances, he said. That concluded earlier this year. 'Indeed, the gap between that period is of concern,' he said. 'That's why we need an external audit.' There is also an issue in relation to the pensions of 30 retired senior civil servants and one of them could owe as much as €280,000 as a result of the NSSO errors. Mr Chambers said he became aware of the issue at the end of April, and it was further scoped in his department in May. He said draft terms of reference for an external audit of the issue were received this week and an appointment of an external auditor would follow in the coming weeks. The Minister said that the expectation of the pool of 13,000 potentially-affected civil servants, who were on work-share arrangements, is expected to be smaller once the audit is completed. Mr Chambers said it was important that there be accountability around the issues which have come to light. He told the committee the audit would take a number of months. 'It is important as part of the broader accountability oversight but also transparency around what other issues could be identified,' he said. 'It's really important for that to happen quickly, and that will be the breadth of the terms of reference which we will establish.' Mr Nash told The Irish Times it was important the NSSO and those involved in the review be given space to properly identify the extent of the issue. 'However, it does need to be done as expeditiously as possible and we need to understand how and why this issue had become a wider, more systemic problem for the system, and to apply the lessons from this experience,' the Louth TD said. 'It is also important that retired civil and public servants who may be caught up in this, through no fault of their own, are informed as soon as possible about the situation that applies to them, and that ways are identified for these matters to be put to bed in a way that is reasonable and fair to everyone.' It is believed most current Government Ministers and Ministers of State will owe money to the State due to errors in their pension deductions. Some may be due some money back.
Irish Times
10-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Pensions of 13,000 ex-civil servants being checked for errors, with one potentially owing €280,000
A pool of 13,000 retired civil servants, as well as current and former Government ministers, are to have their pension deductions checked after 'serious and systemic operational issues' were identified at the State office that handles pension payments. Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers revealed errors at the National Shared Services Office (NSSO) on Tuesday, insisting the State will recoup any money owed. One former senior civil servant could owe as much as €280,000 as a result of the errors. The cohort of 13,000 former civil servants were all in work-share arrangements. Not all are necessarily affected. READ MORE It is believed most current Government ministers will owe money to the State due to errors in their pension deductions, although some may be due some money back. Others are unaffected. Expected sums owed by current ministers range from hundreds of euro to just above €30,000. Other ministers may be owed hundreds or up to about €20,000. The issue also affects pension deductions for ministers in previous Governments. There is a third group of 30 former senior civil servants who are affected and, while some will owe as little as a few hundred euro, one individual is believed to owe €280,000 as a result of the NSSO error. Mr Chambers said the NSSO has not yet been able to establish the full scale of the issues or the number of people affected. His department is in 'ongoing engagement' with the office that provides payroll and pensions services to public bodies and Government departments. Mr Chambers, who updated the Cabinet on the situation on Tuesday, said the errors 'span different time periods and have been detected in different ways'. They have arisen from 'administrative errors' in the NSSO and were 'not the fault of any of the individuals impacted', he said. One issue, going back 20 years, relates to the 'miscalculation and underpayment' of pensions for some work-sharing civil service retirees who were in receipt of allowances. The NSSO is seeking to establish the scale of the problem. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr Chambers could not offer an estimate for how much the State owes or is due. An external audit will focus on validating all aspects of the issues identified and to identify any further issues, he said. Mr Chambers said a pool of 13,000 retired civil servants will have their pensions checked, 'although the number affected is likely to be smaller than this' as not all will have anomalies. He said anyone with queries about work-sharing pensions can contact the NSSO's customer contact centre. Mr Chambers said the issue affecting current and former ministers relates to 'superannuation deductions and additional superannuation contributions with respect to salaries, allowances or gifted income'. It is understood part of the issue arises from the treatment of part of ministers' income returned to the state in recent years and how their pension deductions were calculated as a result. Mr Chambers said the NSSO is contacting affected people and will 'outline the issue as it relates to them and make arrangements for the recoupment of any monies owed or to issue refunds as appropriate'. 'As these are personal matters relating to individuals' pay, I'm not in a position to disclose the individual amounts,' he said. Mr Chambers said the third issue, affecting 30 identified cases, concerns the administration of chargeable excess tax and withholding tax for senior grade civil service pensions. Mr Chambers said the issues at the NSSO are 'completely unacceptable' and must be corrected 'as a matter of urgency'. The Minister has appointed Derek Moran, former Department of Finance secretary general, as the new chair of the NSSO's advisory board. He has asked Mr Moran to 'immediately' commission an external forensic audit of the NSSO systems and processes. Mr Chambers has separately requested 'a broad external review of the NSSO's capacity and structures' to ensure it is equipped to fulfil its responsibilities for the future. Mr Chambers said the legislation underpinning the NSSO and its governance will need to be amended to ensure greater accountability and legislation is 'being drafted'. He said the NSSO has advised him it is not aware of any further issues at this time.
Irish Times
05-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Department objected to Government's ‘housing tsar' amid concerns over pay and recruitment
The Department of Public Expenditure sought to block the approval by Cabinet of the so-called ' housing tsar ' in April, new internal records show. The Government department responsible for State spending cited concerns about the lack of a business case for the role, the implications for wider public pay policy and concerns about the process for the selection of the preferred candidate, Brendan McDonagh , the chief executive of Nama. Mr McDonagh withdrew from consideration for the role after political concerns were raised about the possibility that he might retain his €430,000 salary at Nama in the new job, and public disagreements between Coalition partners Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael over the issue. The Government intends to proceed with establishing the role to head a new 'Housing Activation Office', which is being created in a bid to speed up the building of homes to ease the housing crisis. READ MORE But it is understood objections from the Department of Public Expenditure over the role have not yet been addressed. [ Nama's Brendan McDonagh says he could have added 'value' to new housing delivery agency Opens in new window ] The proposal is not yet ready to be signed off at a meeting of the Cabinet housing committee scheduled for today, though senior sources expect that possible names for the post will be discussed by the leaders of the Government parties soon, possibly next week. Newly released emails between senior officials in the Department of Public Expenditure ('DPer') and the Department of Housing – issued under the Freedom of Information Act – reveals concerns about the role. DPer officials told their counterparts in housing on Friday, April 25th that the memo relating to the role was 'not in position to go to Government' the following week. 'We have only got sight of the draft today and we need time to properly consider a number of elements, particularly around the organisation structure,' the spending department told them. DPer complained that its pay policy division had not received a request to sanction the post describe this as 'the usual process'. 'There seems to have been no engagement with them on this and the wider pay policy implications,' the officials said. There was, the department said, no business case made; the pay rate was not disclosed; there were 'unclear' references to 'contracted expertise' for staff; and no background material was supplied on the recruitment process 'that appears to have been undertaken for the selection of the appointee'. Earlier, Eoin Dorgan, an assistant secretary at the Department of Public Expenditure, had written to the Department of Housing warning that several issues would have to be considered before the memo could go to Government. They included the functions and objectives of the HAO, its Exchequer implications, pay and conditions for the chief executive and wider staff and the precedents established by them and how the new office would interact with 'wider infrastructure projects and the National Development Plan'. Sources with knowledge of the issues raised said DPer's objections have not fully been addressed yet, though it is expected that the office, with a new chief executive, will be established in the coming weeks. In response to questions, the Department of Public Expenditure said it was continuing to engage with the Department of Housing 'to finalise the establishment of the new office and its operations and also in relation to the arrangements for the CEO of the HAO as appropriate'. Last week, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Housing Graham Doyle told a property conference he did not think a 'housing tsar' was necessary. The department later said in a statement that his remarks reflected his opposition to the term 'tsar' rather than the role.
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Josh Harris makes case for D.C. stadium deal
The Commanders and D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser have a stadium deal. That's not the end of the matter but the beginning. Next, D.C. Council must approach the arrangement and the significant public expenditure that comes with it. That makes it a distinctly political issue. Winning at the ballot box is one thing (such votes routinely fail). Here, the Commanders, the NFL, and Bowser still need to get enough members of the D.C. Council behind the project. Appearing recently on The Deal with Alex Rodriguez and Jason Kelly, owner Josh Harris rattled off some of the pro-stadium talking points. Harris said, via Sports Business Journal, that the stadium deal will "be highly beneficial" for the District, citing the $2.7 billion payment the team will be making as the biggest private investment in D.C. history. 'The project has incredible [return on investment] for D.C., literally billions of tax revenues, thousands of homes and thousands of jobs," Harris said. "And of that, 30 percent are, by agreement, going to be affordable homes. And so it's going to raise the standard. And then you get an amazing entertainment district.' Harris added that the redevelopment is "going to change D.C.," while acknowledging the basic reality that it all comes down to whether they can persuade the politicians to support the project. 'The next step for us is to obviously get the council's vote," Harris said. "You've got to tell the citizens and the politicians . . . why this is good for the city, why they should invest their money in this.' The basic argument is that D.C. will make back its $500 million and then some in tax revenue. Council's response easily could go like this: "The District will make that money anyway, even without kicking in a half billion dollars." It's a common argument for companies seeking some sort of public subsidy. You'll get more back than you put in. But if the stadium is going to be built in D.C. even without kicking in $500 million, they'll get it all. The Commanders, the league, and Bowser have touted the stadium deal as basically a done deal. If D.C. Council declines to pay for any of the venue, will the Commanders proceed with a privately-financed project? Will they pick a site in Maryland or Virginia? That's the fundamental question for the D.C. Council. Are we willing to risk not having the stadium at all, if we refuse to pay for it? And are the Commanders willing to build a new stadium not in D.C. if the final verdict is, "Pay for it yourself."
