So far as I understand it, we have got to this stage that the Minister for Finance some two or three years ago stated that it was his view that pensions came as a logical consequence of the incremental salary scheme. We now have the Minister for Education—I think without definitely pledging himself—not requiring to have arguments put forward to him to urge the desirability of a pension scheme. But in one form or another he is anxious to avail himself of the tree of resource which he has already climbed with agility on various occasions. These various claims have to be weighed against one another, and it is very good indeed that we should have the Minister for Finance to weigh those claims. Further, we have got so far as to make the necessary calculations. In order to find out what the cost is to be, some considerable time is going to be, spent. I am not going to argue again on the real need for a pension scheme in order to put the secondary teachers into anything like a proper position. I think it has been argued so often that it would be very difficult to argue on the other side. But I would suggest to the Minister that some action is really urgent and that what we have going on in many schools is the continuance of teachers who have been serving long years and have really got past their work. They are suffering by having to continue to work. They cannot be thrown out, so to speak, on the street without anything to keep them in their old age, but the children are suffering as a consequence of having these teachers teaching when they are really past their work.
I suggest to the Minister seriously to consider what I believe has been put up to him as a partial but very inadequate scheme, to get over this period that will have to intervene before any final solution is arrived at. It is a scheme which on the face of it does not immediately cost anything. It is based on the idea that a teacher who has served his maximum period and who has got really to the stage when he could not do efficient work any longer might have his increment continued to him by the State as a pension and his place filled by a new teacher coming in who would not be entitled to increments. Coming in that way it would, at any rate, be a very gradual accumulating charge. There would be very few teachers who could retire on the pension that would give them, but there would be the most aggravated cases. I think a real good would be gained by even a partial scheme. I do not claim in any way that it is a satisfactory solution, but it is a transitory step that will allow of a better scheme being worked out, and it will tend to alleviate what is really at present an aggravated evil.
Under sub-head A, I want to draw attention to the Minister's figures as to the cost of secondary education, particularly in so far as it arises from the capitation grant. I think it is worth while drawing attention to the fact which was brought out in the Minister's reply to Deputy Alton, that that figure as to the cost of secondary education is very largely misleading, if you take it as a basis of comparison with other countries or with other States. As the Minister pointed out, it was calculated from the total cost of secondary education, taking account of the pupils recognised by him for the purpose of this capitation grant. At present we are in a very disadvantageous position with reference, for example, to the North of Ireland, inasmuch as the State pays no capitation grant for children up to the age of twelve. I think I am right.