Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 10

SUPPLEMENTARY AND ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES. - VOTE 43—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise, ná raghaidh thar ocht míle agus seachto punt, chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Meadhon-Oideachais, maraon le Deontas Thuarastal na Múinteoirí, Deontas Ceann-tSraithe agus Méaduithe Tuarastail do Mhúinteoirí Meadhon-Scoileanna.

That a supplementary sum, not exceeding eight thousand and seventy pounds, be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Secondary Education, including the Teachers' Salaries Grant. Capitation Grant and increments of salary to secondary school teachers.

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan)

For some years the salaries of the secondary teachers have been supplemented by annual payments which went by the name of interim grants, and payments of this nature were made in June and July, 1924, in respect of the school year 1923-24. The necessary provision was made in the Estimates for the financial year 1924-25. It was decided to replace these interim grants by a system of increments on salary, and arrangements were actually made to have that system applied to the school year 1924-25. In order to provide the payments in respect of the first two quarters of that year which were payable in the financial year 1924-25, a supplementary estimate of thirty thousand pounds odd was passed in March, 1925. Owing to a variety of circumstances, such as the late time of the year in which the grant was passed, the short time available, the pressure of other work, especially at the end of the financial year, it was found impossible to distribute most of the amount. Very little of that money was distributed during the remainder of the financial year. In fact, of the actual sum voted, only £800 was distributed, plus about £8,000 coming in the way of savings from the previous year. The result is that we have to re-vote the balance for the present year so as to distribute it. This does not represent any additional expenditure; it is essentially in the nature of a re-vote of a non-issued balance of last year's vote. The amount necessary has been reduced by the fact that savings occurred under some of the other sub-heads of the same vote.

Mr. THOMAS O'CONNELL

With regard to this particular Vote, there are a few matters that I would like to mention dealing generally with the position of secondary education. I do so in virtue of a promise that was given earlier in the year, that an opportunity would be afforded, in these Supplementary Estimates, for raising these matters as the opportunity was not availed of during the past year. Now, with regard to this increment, the scheme which has been devised is not working out equitably for all the teachers concerned. One would think, when a scheme of this kind was being set up, consisting of a basic salary with increments payable for services rendered, that it would work automatically as in most other public services. That is not at all the case in the scheme arrived at, so far as secondary teachers are concerned. The scheme is fenced round with so many conditions and technicalities, that there have been many cases of teachers who are not eligible for increment under the conditions, although they have given services. I think that is a matter that the Minister should look into and see whether in conjunction with the representatives of the teachers concerned some better scheme could not be devised whereby the teachers who gave good services would, as a matter of course, get the increments to which their services properly and naturally entitled them, and that payment should not depend upon circumstances over which the teacher has no control, as it depends at the present time.

There was a question answered to-day which shows the kind of thing that takes place. The minimum scale of salaries has been set out. We have, I think, 127 teachers receiving less than the minimum. That is a state of affairs that cannot be regarded as satisfactory, and it certainly is one that should be looked into. Then we had also the case of eleven teachers at least whose salaries were reduced as a result of the setting up of the new scale. The minimum scale paid was reduced in the case of these eleven teachers; at least, so I understand from the answer the Minister gave this morning.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The basic salary was reduced—the salaries paid by the schools. I hope I did not convey that eleven teachers' salaries were reduced below the minimum?

Mr. O'CONNELL

No, I did not say that.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I want to make it clear that in most of those cases, where the schools were paying salaries, the salaries were sometimes over £300 a year and sometimes over £400, and a reduction took place in them; but they were not brought down near the minimum in most of the cases to which I referred.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Would the Minister say was there any actual reduction in the teachers' total income in these cases?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I could not say that off-hand.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That would be the essential matter. However, these are things which, I think, ought to be looked into. Teaching in the secondary schools, if regarded as it ought to be, should be a profession in which there was some sense of security so far as the teacher is concerned. He should know what he has got and what he is entitled to get if he gives good service during the year. As I say, owing to the technicalities surrounding the scheme of increments, which it is unnecessary for me to go into now, that is not the case, and that is a matter that I think should be remedied.

I would like to make some slight references to two matters that have been raised here year after year with regard to secondary teachers. I am anxious to know the Minister's attitude with regard to those matters. The first of them is the insecurity of the position of secondary teachers. A man occupying a public position of this kind ought to be given security of tenure when he is efficient. Complaint has been made year after year—it is a matter of general knowledge—that a lay secondary teacher has no security of tenure. A man cannot settle down and give the best work possible if there is hanging over his head a dread of being without a position at the end of a few months. There are many such cases; as a matter of fact, it represents the position of practically all the lay secondary teachers. They have no security of tenure such as other public servants have got.

The other matter I desire to refer to is one which also has been raised on many occasions here; that is, the question of awarding pensions to secondary teachers. The claim has been made repeatedly and no satisfactory reply has ever been given with regard to it. No satisfactory argument has been advanced as to why these teachers should not be entitled to pensions. I think it is a well defined and now generally accepted policy that a person who is employed in the position of a public servant and paid a public salary ought to have some provision made when he is no longer fit to give that service, and should be entitled to a pension. There is no reason that I can discover why this particular class of teacher, of whom there are not very many, should not be treated in the same way as other public servants. In this case, as in the case of other teachers, it may be taken for granted that the pension scheme would be on a contributory basis, and that the amount of money necessary to inaugurate such a scheme would not be very large, and certainly would not be such as would overstrain the resources of the State. These claims were made in regard to all Ireland before the Saorstát was set up. They have been met in Northern Ireland as soon as the Government of Northern Ireland was set up. There they recognised that these claims were just and fair, and, as I say, in their Education Act they made provision whereby a scheme of pensions was inaugurated for their secondary teachers. I see no reason why a similar scheme could not be inaugurated here. Those are the two outstanding points in connection with this Estimate, dealing with secondary education, which I wish to stress. Both questions have been raised here on many occasions from all quarters of the House, but they are still outstanding and awaiting settlement. I hope the Minister will look into these matters and be in a position to give us a satisfactory statement with regard to them.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I should like to make a claim for secondary teachers in regard to the matter of pensions. I know it is not a very popular thing to suggest any extra expenditure of money at present but, at the same time, these teachers are placed in a very anomalous position. They find their brethren in the North of Ireland with a non-contributory scheme of pensions, they find their brethren on the other side of the Channel with a contributory scheme, and they also find the teachers in the primary schools in this country with a pension scheme, while they themselves are left out in the cold. The one point that appeals to me most in regard to this question is that when a teacher reaches a certain age his Board does not ask him to retire. He ceases to be efficient, and it is very necessary that a teacher should be capable of imparting good teaching. His Board is naturally slow to ask him to retire when he has no means of livelihood provided for him afterwards. I think great stress should be laid on that point when urging the Government to provide a pension scheme for what, after all, is a comparatively small number, as Deputy O'Connell said, and who were left in an anomalous position of finding others in receipt of pensions who are perhaps less entitled to them than they are.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I will take the last, but probably the most important, point first, namely, the question of pensions. It was only last evening that I received a deputation on behalf of secondary teachers in connection with this matter. For obvious reasons, owing to the School Attendance Bill, I could not have given this matter serious attention so far, and I ask the House to bear that in mind. I quite understand the desire of secondary teachers to receive pensions. I can also understand the various reasons put forward here in support of that particular proposal, but nobody, not even Deputy O'Connell, though he suggested that this has been agitated here for a number of years, can say what the amount of such a scheme would be likely to cost the State. The deputation which I received yesterday had no very clear ideas on that particular point. Before I could make any definite promise on that particular subject there are a number of matters to which I would like to give greater attention than I could have given up to the present. The other point is the question of the insecurity of the teachers' position. Deputy O'Connell recognises that that is a matter inherent in the conditions of secondary education in Ireland. It is not a matter which a Minister could settle, even with the best will in the world. He must, I think, recognise that head masters, on the one hand, and secondary teachers on the other hand, the two parties most intimately concerned, expect, and have always expected, the Minister to find a solution, satisfying, on the one hand, the natural and, what might be called, the legitimate aspirations of secondary teachers, and recognising, on the other hand, the fact that a secondary teacher in this country is essentially in the hands of private individuals or private concerns receiving help from the State. That is the difficulty. I realise it.

Nobody will be keener than I to find a solution of that particular difficulty, but I have had no solution up to the present, and I asked various people, both before and since I became Minister, to suggest anything like a reasonable solution which would be just to the legitimate claims and the rights of both parties. As regards another point raised by Deputy O'Connell, he seemed to suggest that it was the result of particular rules and regulations, based on certain steps taken by the Dáil and worked out afterwards by the Department of Education, that there was a reduction in salaries of certain teachers. He knows perfectly well that it does not follow that because something happened after something else had happened, that it resulted because of the other happening. In certain schools in the city and county of Dublin there were certain reductions. In two cases the basic salary was reduced from £400 to £360. In only two cases, as far as I can see, was the basic salary brought under what we call a minimum, a minimum, that is, for certain purposes. The rules, undoubtedly, as they exist, are somewhat complicated, but it is not so easy to draw up simple rules to meet this situation. We try to insist upon the schools fulfilling certain conditions, namely, the employment of certain recognised registered teachers, and, in the case of lay teachers, the payment of a certain minimum salary. If a school does not fulfil these requirements, our procedure is to withdraw the capitation grant. How are we to fit that in with the particular case of hardship to which Deputy O'Connell refers? It may not be easy to keep a hold over the schools and, at the same time, meet Deputy O'Connell's point. I admit that the rules are complicated, and I promise to look into that particular matter with a view to seeing whether anything can be devised to meet the situation more fully.

Mr. O'MARA

The £260,000 which we are asked to increase by £8,000, in addition to the sums spent on primary education, is an enormous amount for this country to bear. I am sorry all the speeches have been made with the object of forcing the Minister to spend still more on secondary teachers. I would like to see their position stabilised and their salaries increased, but the fact the Minister has to consider is whether the country can afford to go on paying these enormous sums for primary and secondary education. I hope he will give that matter, and the position of the general taxpayer, a good deal of consideration before any more supplementary estimates are introduced. I am glad that the Minister has not surrendered to the demand to increase expenditure.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I think we can congratulate ourselves that we have heard Deputy O'Mara, even making such a statement as that to which we have listened. We do not hear or see him very often. Perhaps he is beginning to think that the result of the recent election in his neighbourhood may be such as to give him an incentive to take a greater interest in his constituency, and the interests of his constituents, and that he might consider it worth his while to appear in this House now and again, even to make such statements as he has made. I would advise Deputy O'Mara that before venturing on such statements he should make sure of his facts, and take the opportunity of finding out what is the real position with regard to the amount of money spent in this country on education. I can promise him if he takes the trouble to do so, he will find that the amount per head spent in this country is less than in any country I know.

Mr. O'MARA

Does Deputy O'Connell deny that £3,400,000 is spent on primary education?

Mr. O'CONNELL

He does not.

Mr. O'MARA

The sums spent on primary and secondary education are very big.

Mr. O'CONNELL

They are, I agree, but they are not comparatively big.

Mr. O'MARA

The country cannot afford it.

Mr. O'CONNELL

If there were more spent on education in the past the complaint that Deputy O'Mara now makes need not be made. It has been always the case that it is the poor country should spend most on education, and if the Deputy makes investigation along the line I have suggested, he will find that one of the things which brings a country from a state of poverty to a state of comparative prosperity is by spending, and spending generously, on its education.

Mr. GOOD

It appears that the expenditure, as explained by the Minister, might have been anticipated when the estimate was prepared. I want to be quite fair to the Minister, for as we know, he has not been for very long responsible for matters in connection with his particular department. I would like to stress this point, because we have had occasion to draw attention to it before. We would like that estimates put before this House should be first carefully considered. I am afraid that a number of the estimates we are called upon to consider in the early part, or at the beginning of the financial year, are only looked upon by some of the Departments as approximate estimates, with the result that we have a very large number of supplementary estimates taking up the time of the House, and dealing with matters that should have been anticipated and dealt with before the estimates were submitted. That is a point we have stressed before. What do we find in connection with the particular estimate before us?

The original estimate of £92,500 has been increased to £121,000, and we are now called upon to approve of an additional sum of £28,500. There is no use in referring to the Appropriation Fund, or saying that savings have been effected in other estimates. The estimates have not been subjected to that care we would like to see given to them. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to how it arises that 25 per cent. additional is necessary to carry out the work included in this particular estimate, and how that could not have been foreseen when the original estimate was in course of preparation.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Was Deputy Good present when I made my opening statement?

Mr. GOOD

I was.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The estimates were prepared in December, 1925. I pointed out, I think, that this particular estimate was not spent in the financial year. That is the explanation. We cannot know until the end of the financial year whether it would be spent or not.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Is not this in effect a re-vote?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, I explained that.

Mr. GOOD

That ought to have been pointed out when the estimate was put forward originally. The estimate was £92,000, and there ought to have been a foot-note attached to that stating that in addition to that £28,500 which was unexpended in the previous year should be added.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

If that were done it would be quite excellent, and it could be done if the Deputies would now withdraw the desire for having the estimates in their hands before the end of the financial year. You cannot have it both ways. These estimates are printed long before the end of the financial year, and what has been suggested could not be done. You must wait until the end of the financial year until it is found whether the amount of the estimate was spent in that financial year. The actual estimates, as I have explained, are drawn up about December or January. For instance, they are in course of printing at present, and it will be impossible to find out until the end of the financial year whether the amount of a particular estimate has been spent or not. We are now re-voting a particular portion that was not spent in the last quarter of the financial year.

Mr. GOOD

But what was the difficulty about attaching a foot-note to the estimate stating that a sum of £28,500 which was unexpended in the year under consideration would be necessary in addition to the £92,000?

Mr. BLYTHE

The estimate was printed.

Mr. GOOD

Yes, but the estimate was wrong. Everything in connection with this debate shows clearly that the attention that should be given to the estimates is not given to them, and that the information which should be given is not forthcoming.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Deputy, I think, does not appreciate the practical difficulties in the way of putting at the foot of an estimate which is printed in March a sum which cannot be foreseen until the end of the financial year. But I go this far with Deputy Good, that when the Secondary Education Vote was being discussed on June 12th, the fact that by the 31st March a sum had not been expended which had been voted would have been known to the financial authorities, and in the course of the discussion we should have been informed that there would be an additional sum required in the way of a re-vote. That, I think, is practicable, and I hope it will be taken note of that as soon as possible after the estimates have been printed, wherever there has been a shortage in payments which must inevitably be made up, the fact will be indicated to the Dáil, if possible, at the time of the discussion of the estimates.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think there was no discussion of this particular estimate last year.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is quite true there was no discussion, but the Vote was passed, and to that extent the Dáil was misled. That is all the more reason why the Dáil should have been informed at an early stage that there was an additional sum, besides the £92,000, to the amount now required as a re-vote. That should have been stated to the Dáil at the earliest possible date.

Question put and agreed to.