The Motion is that the Dáil approves of the policy of the Minister for Education.
POLICY OF MINISTER FOR EDUCATION (RESUMED DEBATE).
We were dealing last night with the general question of the provision, upkeep and maintenance of schools and in the course of the discussion I referred to the Commission which sat in 1918 and made certain recommendations with regard to the appointment of committees and the setting up of machinery to deal with this particular matter we were discussing. The Minister, at the close of his remarks, made, what I take to be, an extremely serious statement and I would like to know what his position is with regard to it. He said, as far as I understood him, that if the local committees were set up such as are suggested in that unanimous report that they could not impose those committees without interfering with the managerial system of schools at present in practice. That is a system I believe to be the most jealously guarded of any in the present practice with regard to our schools. If that statement were to hold good then I have no doubt that the prospect of getting those local committees set up would be a poor one, but I cannot conceive how the Minister could have made that statement or whether he quite appreciated its importance in view of the fact that on the committee which made that unanimous recommendation there were three or four school managers, representatives of the School Managers' Association, and they attached their names to the report. The present secretary of the Catholic Managers' Association, Dean Macken, Dr. O'Donnell, Dr. Plunket, Bishop of Tuam at that time, now Bishop of Meath. Canon Kennedy, and Canon Gordon Strahan were on the committee. It was definitely accepted at that time that the committees I spoke of should be set up and they say one of the duties and powers of such a committee would be the maintenance, repair, heating and cleaning of national schools unless adequate provision is made otherwise. I want to give the Minister an opportunity of making a considered statement as to the position with regard to that, whether he believes or holds that to set up committees such as are recommended in that report would, in fact, mean a change in the managerial system.
It has been asserted by those entitled to speak that the real point in the managerial system is the right to appoint teachers, and I know many managers who repeatedly pointed out that it was impossible, for them to continue the voluntary system. They were quite prepared, as was indicated in this report, to pass on the duties that are imposed on them now to committees of this kind. The Killanin Report is, as I explained a few days ago, a unanimous report published in 1918 of a committee presided over by Lord Killanin, and consisting of representatives of the then Commissioners of National Education, the school managers, the teachers, and various other people interested in educational affairs.
The facts are exactly as stated by Deputy O'Connell. I admit, to the full, the force of the remarks and of the plea he has made now.
I pass from that point now because I take it that has set the matter right. I refer to the question of amalgamation of schools, and I ask the Minister for his policy on the matter. He took the line in his general reply on Friday evening that he would not tell us his policy in detail and that it would be time enough for that when we went into the particulars on the Estimate. We have not succeeded in getting very much further when we have discussed the details. I do hope that on this question of the amalgamation of schools it will be possible for the Minister to give a very definite reply as to what his policy is, because the first question I shall put to him is: is he prepared to carry out in all cases his own rules, the rules of his own Department in the matter? There have been several cases within the last twelve months in which the rules of the Ministry have been departed from in that respect, and I think some explanation is due to us as to why that should be the case.
On the general question, I ask the Minister to state what exactly is his policy with regard to this question of amalgamation of schools, which has been so often raised and put forward as a policy which would evidently secure, not only economy, but the more important matter, efficiency. In the Saorstát there are 950 separate boys' schools, having only two teachers, and there are 870 girls' schools of the same class—separate girls' schools, with only two teachers. I would say, of that number, at least four or five hundred are boys' and girls' schools side by side, in the same building, or immediately adjoining, and the arguments would go to show that amalgamation of these schools would at least cut the present work almost in half. It would allow for better staffing, and it would be economical and efficient. I think that if economy and efficiency can be secured by such a policy there should be no delay in putting it into operation. I think the Minister should say definitely whether he proposes to do that in the future. Above all, he should say what his reasons are for failing, as it can be shown he has failed, to put the present regulations into operation in particular cases. I think it would be possible to name four or five, or half-a-dozen cases perhaps, where amalgamation could be carried out according to the rules, but where it has not been carried out when the opportunity arose.
The Deputy will recognise that I distinguished between the general and distinctive educational policy of the Government and administrative details of this kind. I did so in order that the case might be clearly considered, and considered on its merits, by Deputies. I think it is evident that if, on a discussion of general policy, we mixed up administrative details, important as they may be, of this kind, we should have a turgid issue, and not a clear issue. With regard to this particular point, my endeavour has been to secure amalgamation of schools where that amalgamation would lead to superior efficiency, and the only plea which I have admitted as valid against amalgamation—for the other reasons appeared sufficient—was the plea that amalgamation was contrary to the spiritual interests of the children concerned. As Deputies are aware, in the vast majority of cases, in nearly all cases, the managers of schools are those who also have the spiritual guidance of the children and their parents, and whose spiritual direction is admitted by them. I have not that responsibility. I do not enter upon it. I do not try to enter upon it. I do not wish to enter upon it. And that may arise in two ways. It may arise on ethical grounds or it may arise on doctrinal grounds, and when it does arise I feel that I am not entitled to disregard that feeling. In all other respects I have done my best, and my Department has done its best, to secure amalgamation, and is continuing to do its best to secure it. I think every Deputy here will understand that, whether or not they may be in agreement with the line which I feel it my duty to take.
I would like to be clear on this point. When the Minister refers to the spiritual interests of the children does he wish us to believe that he has taken the line that he will not amalgamate a school where the children are of different religious persuasions, that he will not amalgamate Catholic and Protestant schools? If that is his line I would like him and the Dáil to understand that I have not advocated amalgamation of that type. That is not the position that is necessarily advocated, and these are not the kinds of cases that I have in my mind. The present position is that out of five thousand odd schools over three thousand are at present mixed schools— boys and girls—the vast majority of the schools. What would be the position of the Minister supposing somebody suggested that these schools should all be separated into separate boys' and girls' schools, and used the argument which the Minister has used now as a reason for doing so? Would he offer any opposition to that argument, or would he agree to set up these separate schools if the demand were put up to him in the case of these three thousand schools all over the country? If there is no valid or good objection to these three thousand schools I cannot see what valid objection could arise when the case of the amalgamation of adjoining boys' and girls' schools comes up for consideration.
I was not dealing generally with the question of the amalgamation of Catholic and Protestant schools, which the Deputy does not, I note, advocate, although apart from spiritual grounds the same reasons exactly would exist for it as for amalgamation in other cases. Dealing with that aspect of it, it might be the case of Protestant schools of different denominations.
Can the Minister say that any of the schools that have failed to become amalgamated because of spiritual reasons are within that category?
Yes. Deputy O'Connell does not seem to have appreciated the force of my remarks. In the case of the three thousand odd schools which have been amalgamated I think we may take it that the countervailing reason which I mentioned did not exist, or that it did not exist in the minds of those concerned to an extent to make it a dominant reason. "Somebody," was the Deputy's word. It is not the case of somebody; it is the case of a particular person whom the parents and the children accept as their spiritual guide, not somebody, but that particular person. I do not put myself in the position of a judge in matters of that kind. I refuse to put myself in that position.
I am not sure if we are benefiting the progress of the amalgamation of schools by this discussion, but I will give you an illustration which will show the attitude I take up, taken from a different matter. Very shortly after I became Minister for Education I was approached by the representatives of several religious bodies with regard to the matter contained in some of the text books in use, and I said to them: "Your objection to this is to me all-sufficient. I do not place myself in the position of a judge as to whether your objection is well based or not. When it is based on the grounds that you state, I accept it." I do the same in matters of this kind. If those who are responsible for the moral guidance of the community to which the children belong state to me that amalgamation would be morally disadvantageous, and if they state that in a way that carries to my mind a conviction that such is the view taken by them seriously and carefully, and is likely to be the view taken by the parents of the children themselves, then, as I say, I do not make myself a judge in matters of that kind. It is a thing of very great difficulty, and I have approached it from the point of view of administration, from the point of view of educational efficiency, with the object of bringing about amalgamation wherever it can effectively be brought about. That is the way in which it has been approached by my Department, which is honestly endeavouring to bring about amalgamation of schools where it would tend to efficiency. But when this bar arises it will be seen at once that we, as a Department of State, are placed in a rather serious difficulty about it. Deputies may come to a different conclusion, but I think that the majority of Deputies will agree with me that it is not, in all such cases, a matter of using the strong hand of the Government and saying, "It shall be done."
I think that the contribution of the Minister is very valuable on a very important subject. Obviously there could be no question of compulsory amalgamation under the conditions which the Minister outlines. But in this matter I think that possibly the Government might do what I sometimes feel they have not sufficiently done in other matters, that they might give a lead to public opinion so far as they can. Deputy O'Connell I think very rightly says that there is a great redundancy of schools, leading to comparative inefficiency as compared with larger schools if amalgamation could be managed. I think that that would appeal to everybody and I think it should be emphasised that the cost of education is largely increased by the large number of schools that are scattered all over the country. I think it ought to be put to the people themselves that in this matter of economy and efficiency they have got to think out the problem for themselves and, given the position that better education and more economy of working would be effected, that they ought themselves voluntarily try to get over some of the difficulties that arise through the large number of scattered schools. The decision might be left in the hands of the people. I think that if that were done the people themselves would try to get over some of the difficulties of the problem by coming together and not keeping so much aloof, as different denominations have done in the past. I think that if it were put up to the people as a matter for themselves to settle something might come out of this discussion.
Under subhead D there are two or three points I wish to raise. These are with regard to the superannuation of teachers. I want to ask the Minister, in the first place, if he is yet in a position to say whether two classes of teachers, who are at the present time outside the pension regulations, should be brought in under the pension scheme. The National Teachers Pension Act was passed so long ago as 1879, and a special fund was set up at that time. Owing to the wording of the Act, or some peculiar interpretation of the Act, it has been held that certain classes of teachers who have come into the service since 1879 did not come within the Teachers Pension Act. There are two classes. One of them is a class of teacher engaged in Convent Schools. There are about six or seven hundred, or less, of these in the country. These teachers are in this position: they are engaged as assistants in what are called Convent Schools, schools taught by religious communities mainly. They are paid by the State just the same as the teachers in the ordinary National Schools. Their service is exactly on the same basis. They get their increments on the same conditions, but when they retire at the end of their period of service they are entitled to no pension whatsoever. We are told the reason for that is owing to some peculiar wording or interpretation in the Act which says that a Convent School is not an ordinary National School. That is the only ground that I can find for such differentiation.
One can take the case of two teachers, both fully trained. One enters an ordinary National School, taught by a lay principal. The other enters the school where the principal is a nun. Both give the same class of service, do the same kind of work, and give the same number of years' service to the State. The teacher who is engaged in the Convent School has no right to a pension when she retires after forty years' service. The teacher in the ordinary National School is entitled to a pension. Now, this kind of thing has been going on for a long number of years, and we are still in the position that all we know is that communications are passing between the Minister's Department and the Department of Finance. It is a very grave injustice to have those teachers in this position without any reason whatsoever.
There are other teachers in our schools known as the Junior Assistant Mistresses. The word "Junior" was put in to give the public some kind of an impression that they were not adult, full-time teachers owing to the fact that, at the time they were appointed, they got the munificent salary of £24 a year. The people who did this, the Commissioners of National Education, introduced, twenty years ago, a separate class of teachers, and deliberately called them "Junior Assistant Mistresses," to indicate to the public that they were not, as I say, adult women, although at the same time they made the regulation that all of them should be over eighteen years of age. Many of them in the class that were transferred and called Junior Assistant Mistresses were on the other side of forty. Twenty years have gone by, and they are still called Junior Assistant Mistresses. Some of them have left the service at the age of sixty. Others of them are reaching a ripe age, and they still write themselves down as Junior Assistant Mistresses. Because they are not termed "assistants" they are left outside the pension scheme. When that Act was passed in 1879 there were no Junior Assistant Mistresses. There were principal teachers and assistant teachers, but because they were deemed not to be assistants or principals, but only Junior Assistant Mistresses, they do not come within the scheme. Now, these two classes, on reaching the age of retirement, having given forty years' service to the State, are entitled to no pension or no retiring gratuity whatsoever. That is a condition of affairs that the Minister will, I am sure, say at once is not desirable.
In 1920, when the negotiations took place between the Commissioners of Education, the Treasury and the teachers, and when the new schemes of salaries were introduced, they were framed and accepted on the distinct understanding that these two classes would be brought in under this scheme. If the Minister looks up the records in his office he will find that that is so, and the only thing that prevented them being put on the pension list was the fact that the members of the Civil Service Arbitration Board, who made this settlement, were not empowered to deal with pension matters. The matter was taken up immediately by the Commissioners of National Education. Then the change came, and we are waiting still for something to be done.
I will give the Minister a type of case that is occurring, and occurring rather frequently. The Minister knows that the fully-qualified assistant who is on the pension list in a school in the country must give up her position if the average falls below forty. She is then eligible to be appointed a Junior Assistant Mistress, because these can be appointed on a lower average than in the case of a fully-qualified teacher. There have been cases of women with over twenty years' service who have lost their position as fully qualified assistants, and have become Junior Assistant Mistresses. Really, and as a matter of fact, nothing has happened in the actual schools. To-day she is an assistant teacher and to-morrow, because of the reason I have mentioned, she is a Junior Assistant Mistress. As a result of that she is knocked off the pension list. A case has occurred quite recently which has created a very peculiar hardship. One of these women had twenty years' service. She would thus be entitled to a quarter of her salary after twenty years' service; that is to say, twenty-eightieths of her salary. The average went down and she became a Junior Assistant Mistress. A few months afterwards her health broke down and she had to retire, and was entitled to no pension whatever, just because she was called a "Junior Assistant Mistress."
I am sure that the Minister knows and realises the position. It has been brought to his notice on many occasions. I hope he will be able to say this evening, with some degree of definiteness, what is the position at the moment and what he intends to do with regard to bringing these two classes of teachers within the pension list. It has been done in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ministry have carried out the pledges that were made to the teachers as a whole in 1920, and the Government of Northern Ireland, as soon as they got an opportunity of doing it, made the matter right. These two classes of teachers I speak of now are on the pension list of Northern Ireland. It is a peculiar thing to say here, taking the case of convent teachers, that because a woman teacher in a Convent School rather than in a school under lay teachers, she is thereby debarred from the right of receiving a pension from the Free State, whereas if she crosses the border, if there is a border now——
It is gone.
Withdraw.
When she enters the Convent School in Northern Ireland she becomes entitled to go on the pension list. I think it will require some argument on the part of the Minister to convince us that this state of affairs should continue. In stating the position, the Minister ought to say something more promising than that the matter will be looked into, or that it is engaging attention. We have had numerous replies of that kind, but they do not get us any further. Many of the points raised in the course of this debate were raised last year and the preceding year and we got very much the same type of replies. I am just wondering whether the circulation of last year's debates would not have served the purpose of this discussion which has already lasted over two or three days. I would press the Minister to tell us what the position is with regard to these two classes of people, what his intentions are, and how soon he hopes to be in a position to make the definite announcement that those teachers are brought within the pension list.
Just a few words from a Border-line Deputy who may be addressing the Dáil for the last time.
DEPUTIES
No, no.
The Deputy's swansong.
I desire to draw the attention of the Minister to the case of some highly respectable old men and women, ex-teachers, who came into the service prior to 1879. I understand that was the year the National Teachers' Pension Act was passed. These respectable old people are at the present time existing on disgracefully inadequate pensions. In my own locality there is an old man who gave good and faithful service to the State and whose pupils are leaders of the professions in various parts of the country. That old man is existing on the disgraceful pension of £70 a year, a sum hardly sufficient to provide food for him, not to speak of clothes and boots. I maintain it is a disgraceful thing for the Department of Education to have these respectable old people living on pensions so miserable and inadequate. I have not the slightest hesitation in describing that condition of things as disgraceful.
I would also direct attention to the necessity for the provision of meals for school children in the congested areas. I have certain schools in mind in my own part of the country, and I believe that there food is more necessary than education. I do not think that any Deputy, or any substantial man in the country, would object to paying a small contribution for the provision of substantial meals for children in congested areas. The time is getting very short and I do not wish to elaborate my argument. I would, however, strongly recommend the Minister to look into those matters I have touched upon. If he can do anything for the respectable old people I have referred to, who are living on disgraceful and inadequate pensions, he would be merely doing justice. Their cases should be inquired into, with a view to increasing their pensions and giving them at least £2 a week. No man or woman can keep up a respectable appearance and live on anything less than £2 a week. In some instances persons have not even £1 a week.
There are 629 persons with less than £1 a week.
As long as you have that number treated in that way as regards their pension rights, there is sure to be discontent. I want to emphasise the necessity for providing meals for children in the poorer areas, not alone in Donegal but in other counties where congestion and poverty exist.
What I was going to say has been anticipated by Deputy White. Year after year, as has been stated in the course of this debate, these matters of pensions have been touched upon. Such matters, and particularly the position of junior assistant mistresses, with their peculiar history, are a blot upon the decency of education. I am sure the Minister, with his broadmindedness, will probably have seen already that that is the state of affairs. It is the fact that in these small things, which would mean an infinitesimal amount of expense to the Minister for Finance, very grave injustice and deep grievance are felt. Deputy O'Connell has forcibly pressed those matters on the Minister's attention. My purpose in rising is to appeal to the Minister, in whom I have every confidence, to remedy those matters. They are very small in the aggregate, and I hope that he will endeavour to have them composed and that he will remove the existing grievances.
Deputies have been pressing in the Dáil for consideration of the whole question of pensions to teachers engaged in certain educational work. It is not right that any one section should have preferential treatment. I want fair treatment with regard to pensions for all sections engaged in teaching. Deputy O'Connell has rightly drawn attention to some exceptions. I would like to point out that there is a large number of teachers in connection with technical education for whom there is no pension scheme at all. They are under the administration of the Minister's Department; they are engaged through the local authorities. Before the Minister replies, I would suggest that this whole question of pensions wants careful consideration, and it should be put on a fair basis. I think it should embrace all engaged in the teaching profession. We have had considerable differences with regard to school pensions. I am a member of a local authority that was called upon to pay a considerable sum per annum by way of pensions to certain teachers. That local authority did not pay one-third of the salary of those teachers, but it is called upon to pay the entire pensions. That is common to all local authorities.
So I say this whole question of pensions requires careful consideration, and ought to be put on a fair and businesslike basis. I hope it is from that point of view that the Minister will consider it rather than from the point of view of remedying one or two individual cases.
I rise only to seek a little information. I have often said what I could in favour of old pensioned teachers whose pensions are miserably small. I would again support those who put forward their claims, and ask the Minister's careful attention to their really sad case. The information I want to get is as to the position of the National Teachers' Pension Fund. I have been told that in 1917 the fund was over 2¾ millions, and that in 1921 it increased to 3¼ millions, but I have not been able to get any figures indicating the magnitude of the fund at present. If the Minister could supply them, I would be glad. The fund probably has increased considerably since.
I take this opportunity of saying a word in favour of the claims of the lay teachers in convent schools for inclusion in the pension scheme of national teachers. We all know the valuable work that is done by these lay teachers, but very few members of the House know their difficulties and how they are separated from other teachers in the way of treatment. This matter affects a number of teachers who have spent between thirty and forty years in the service of the convent schools. It may be asked why the case of these teachers was not raised before and in another Parliament. For many years these teachers and those who were supporting them did not fight their claims with the necessary vim, because in doing so in a foreign Parliament they would have to raise a question of religion. I was associated in the past with a party which was asked not to raise those points in a way that might bring any discredit on the convent schools. We could not see our way to do so, and we were always told that very shortly we would have a Parliament of our own, and that these convent school teachers would get consideration from a home Government which a foreign Government would not give them. Just before the Treaty was signed these teachers received recognition from the British Government, and they were placed in a little better position than previously, but they were told that, having got recognition, they would get consideration after one year, and their claims for pensions would be considered. In the meantime the Treaty was signed, but the trouble started in Ireland, and the convent teachers, not anxious to embarrass the Government, did not press their claims. I am aware that there is one teacher, at least, who has given her lifetime, practically forty years, to the service of the convent schools, As the law stands, teachers in convent schools similarly placed to that woman are not eligible for pensions. I think that the time has arrived when no member in any quarter of the House need be afraid of drawing attention to the condition of such teachers. We are not going to be accused of raising an attack on the managers of the schools when we ask that a friendly Government should consider the claims of the Convent School teachers, and that such teachers be placed on a level with all others entitled to a pension. There is no doubt that the Convent School teachers were under-paid for many years. They have now their own Government and they hope that the injustices of the past will be remedied. I join with other members in making a special appeal to the Government, especially to the Minister for Education, to see that these women, many of whom are almost ready to retire, will get fair consideration and that after their long service in educating the children of the State they will not be allowed to retire penniless. I trust that the Minister will see that they will be provided with reasonable pensions in their old age.
In reply to Deputy White, I should make it clear that I have no special authority over existing pensions. There are cases of very much greater hardship than the particular instance which he has quoted. Deputy O'Connell has almost indicated the reply which he would like to get. I presume it is not an opinion that he wants. I would be told at the next opportunity that I contented myself with an expression of opinion, but then the Deputy himself has stated that he is aware that my Department is in communication with the Department of Finance with regard to pensions for those two classes of teachers whose cases he has brought forward. I wonder what he expects me to say under the circumstances.
I expect the Minister to say how long these communications are in progress, what stage they are in at present, and how soon he thinks they will be concluded.
After all, the only thing material in the matter is the result, and we have not yet reached a result. I think the state of the matter is that the Deputy considers it his duty to bring forward these cases before the Minister and the Dáil, and in that way to use the utmost pressure upon those who have charge of the public purse.
Would the Minister state definitely whether these two classes of teachers are, or are not, to be included in the pension scheme? We want a definite answer. Some of them are very anxious about this matter, as they have been put off for years and years.
I would like to have the power of making that statement, but Deputies know that I have not such power.
Make a recommendation.
I think you can take that for granted.
I hope that the Minister, when making representations about the teachers referred to by Deputies Mrs. Collins O'Driscoll and O'Connell, will take into consideration the people to whom I referred—old people living on disgraceful pensions and without sufficient money to feed and clothe themselves.
I suppose I would make a little capital for myself if I were to say what I am prepared to do in this matter. Deputies know what the responsibilities of a Minister, and of Ministries jointly, are, and I do not go beyond that. As regards the pensions fund, it is entirely under the Department of Finance and I have not at my hand at the moment the figures as to how the fund stands. I think a statement of it is issued from time to time and I will endeavour to have the most recent copy of that statement supplied to Deputy Thrift. I can only say, in conclusion, that I recognise the purpose of Deputies in drawing public attention to these matters of teachers' pensions.
When is it proposed to resume the debate?
The earliest date next week.
I am taking it that the debate is adjourned until Tuesday next. If the Dáil does not meet on Tuesday it will appear on the Order Paper on whatever day the Dáil meets.
Will it be the first business on whatever day it is taken?
I have not the regulation of the agenda.