Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 7

Public Business. - National School Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (Resumed).

Debate resumed on motion:—

That the National School Teachers' Superannuation Scheme, 1934, made by the Minister for Education, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1928 (No. 32 of 1928). be confirmed.— (Minister for Education).

Mr. Norton

When the debate was adjourned on Friday I was pointing out that this proposed superannuation scheme inflicted a most unfair burden on the teachers. I mentioned then, and I think it is desirable to repeat it briefly now; that in the financial year commencing on 1st April, 1934, it is estimated that the total cost of the superannuation of teachers will amount to £371,000. Out of that sum the teachers will contribute £260,000 under the proposed cut, and the Minister will be able to add to the £260,000 an investment income of £51,000 from the teachers' side of the pension fund, showing that in the financial year commencing on the 1st proximo, teachers will contribute £311,000 out of a total pension liability of £371,000. From that it will be seen that in the coming financial year the teachers, who were formerly liable to pay only 25 per cent. of the cost of their pensions, will be liable next year for approximately 80 per cent. of the pensions under this arrangement proposed by the Minister. It is not my desire to take next year as a freak year or to take this year as indicating something which will not be common to subsequent years. The Minister, in the course of his speech on the last day, intimated that in the year 1939 the cost of the teachers' pensions to the State would amount to £395,000. So that five years hence that liability in respect of the teachers' pensions must be met by the State, and of that sum of £395,000, a sum of £311,000 will be paid by the teachers themselves. If we take ten years hence and we come to the year 1944, the cost of the teachers' pensions will be £430,000 and of that liability the teachers will have themselves to pay £311,000, or approximately 72 per cent. of the cost of the pensions in the future. It will be seen, therefore, that the real purpose of this superannuation scheme is to impose upon the teachers a levy in respect of pensions three times greater than the levy which they have been held to be liable for in the past. This year the teachers pay over 80 per cent. of the cost and ten years hence their share of the cost of the pensions will be as high as approximately 72 per cent. During the next 20 or 30 years their share of the cost will never be less than 60 per cent., though it has always been admitted that the liability of the teachers in respect of superannuation was a liability to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost of the pensions and the State 75 per cent.

One of the statutory rules governing this proposed scheme, the new scale of pensions, is set out and it provides for the payment to teachers on retirement of one-eightieth of the salary and emoluments for each completed year of service. An effort has been made in the Press to suggest that the teachers under this new scheme are to get the civil servants' privileges in the matter of pensions. But anybody who reads this scheme and compares it with the scheme in operation in the Civil Service knows well that this scheme does not give the teacher the privileges that are given in the Civil Service. Under the Superannuation Act, 1919, the civil servant gets one-eightieth of his emoluments for each completed year of service with a maximum of 48 years. Under the new scheme the teachers' pensions will be calculated on the same basis. But whereas the civil servant gets a lump sum calculated on the basis of one-thirtieth of his emoluments for each year of service, the teacher under this scheme will get nothing whatever in that respect. The teacher, therefore, will be treated similar to the civil servant in the matter of the basic pension, but whereas the civil servant with 40 years' service is to get forty-thirtieths of his annual salary as a lump sum, the teacher will not get that under this superannuation scheme. In that respect this scheme is very definitely worse than the scheme of superannuation that is in operation in the Civil Service.

When we look to the operations of the scheme dealing with the marriage gratuity we find that a marriage gratuity is to be paid to female teachers. But in order to qualify for the marriage gratuity it will be necessary for the teacher to have not less than seven years' pensionable service. I cannot understand at all why seven years were selected as a requirement in the matter of service. In the Civil Service the marriage gratuity is payable where the person has six years' service and it is not necessary that the six years be pensionable service. Under the Civil Service superannuation scheme a person may have two years' temporary service and four years' established service.

If a person has six years' service altogether that person is allowed to qualify for the marriage gratuity and the marriage gratuity is calculated on the basis of the pensionable service. But temporary service is regarded as something that should be calculated in determining the qualifying period. In the case of the teacher, it will be calculated on the minimum service of the seven years required, whereas in the case of the civil servant the minimum is six years. I do not know why the Department prescribes seven years or why there is an insistence on pensionable service. It seems to me that that provision may deprive people of marriage gratuities to which they would have been otherwise entitled. If that were not insisted on in the scheme the teacher would be entitled to a gratuity in some cases where she will not get it.

The Minister's speech featured very strongly the provisions in the case of death, that is to say, death benefits in the case of the teachers who die while in the service. It is proposed in the future that that person's next-of-kin should receive the death benefits if the person should happen to die whilst in the service. Under the existing pension scheme the next-of-kin of the teacher in such a position would be entitled to a return of all the premiums with compound interest in the event of death. Under the new scheme death benefit in the form of a gratuity will be paid to the next-of-kin of the teacher. Could any teacher consider this a good scheme from the point of view of the teacher? I wonder did the Minister for Education discuss the scheme with any elderly teacher.

Under the proposed superannuation scheme the teacher with a salary of £300 a year will pay a contribution of £9 per cent. per annum in order that he may be entitled to the doubtful privileges of this pension scheme. A teacher with a salary of £300 a year will make an annual contribution of £27 to the scheme, or towards whatever benefits are provided for under the scheme. If the teacher has served 12 years in the teaching profession at a salary of £300 per annum he will have paid under this scheme a sum of £324, apart from any interest which he would be entitled to calculate on reckoning the real value of the contribution which he makes. But under this scale, if such a teacher dies, his next-of-kin will be paid a gratuity of £300, which will be £24 less than he has paid into the fund; and that is apart altogether from interest. The scheme will take no cognisance of the premiums which he paid before the introduction of the scheme. If the teacher did not die until he had 24 years' service his next-of-kin would be at a loss under this scheme which is now being introduced. Speaking in support of this superannuation scheme on the last day, the Minister said:—

"Taking the new scheme as a whole, I think we can definitely claim that the benefits provided are definitely more advantageous to the teachers than those which they at present enjoy. In addition to that, the House must bear in mind that in future, instead of being dependent for their pensions upon a fund which was insolvent—hopelessly insolvent,"

they would be quite all right under the new scheme. And the Minister further said:—

"We claim, and I think with justification, that we have taken the greatest trouble to give the best terms we could, in all the circumstances, to the teacher."

I will be interested to hear Deputy Cormac Breathnach, speaking as the chairman of the Teachers' Organisation, telling us in what way he can discover that this new scheme as a whole is definitely more advantageous to the teachers than the conditions which they at present enjoy.

The teachers are an intelligent body of citizens, they know what is a good and what is a bad bargain. If this scheme which it is now proposed to introduce is definitely more advantageous to the teachers than the scheme which they at present enjoy, how is it that it is not possible to get the teachers to see that and accept it? If this scheme is more advantageous one would imagine the teachers would be only too glad to accept it; that they would, in fact, be falling over themselves and, instead of resolutions appearing in the papers protesting against the scheme, one would expect to see votes passed to the Minister for Education and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, congratulating them on being the new saviours of the teachers in the matter of superannuation. The very fact that the teachers are protesting is the clearest possible evidence that the teachers are satisfied that this is an extremely bad bargain, that it is imposing a burden on them which is unfair and is asking them to pay in future a contribution in respect of superannuation which they were never held liable for in the past.

That portion of the Minister's speech which sought to tell the teachers that in future they will not have to depend on an insolvent fund but on the security of an annual vote of the Oireachtas for superannuation is hardly a fair method of argument. As I pointed out the last day, there is no insolvency so far as the teachers' side of the pension fund is concerned. The actuarial investigation in 1926 showed the teachers' portion of the fund had a surplus of a quarter of a million. That side of the pension fund was responsible for only 25 per cent. of the pensions and, accepting full liability for 25 per cent., that fund was not merely able to discharge its liability but had a surplus of a quarter of a million on the actuary's calculation. So there is no insolvency so far as the teachers' side is concerned. Any insolvency that has arisen has been caused by the failure of the State to keep its side of the fund in a good financial standing. In 1923 the assets of the teachers' pension fund amounted to £532,000. Those assets had increased to £1,387,000 in 1932. The endowment account, the State side of the pension fund, had decreased by £628,000 during the period when the teachers' side had increased by £855,000. It is not, therefore, a fair method of argument to suggest that because the State side of the fund is insolvent it is desirable for the teachers to rest on some other reed. The obvious responsibility of the State is to make its side right. Instead of that it is proposed to ask the teachers to pay in future 75 per cent. of their pensions instead of the 25 per cent. they paid in the past.

The Minister might have told us whether it is proposed to renew the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act during 1934. Speaking before the Civil Service Compensation Board some time ago. Deputy Geoghegan, who appeared on behalf of the Minister for Finance, indicated that in all probability the Temporary Economies Act would not be prolonged beyond the 31st of this month and he said there was no authority or intention to prolong the Act at the time he spoke. That has an interesting bearing on this whole situation. We might have been told whether it is proposed to continue the Act; whether it is proposed to ask teachers, in addition to the contributions which they are making under this, to contribute also under the Temporary Economies Act if it is prolonged, or whether that Act is going to be dropped generally and continued in this form only in respect of the teachers. It seems to me that it is unfair the teachers should be asked to make this contribution as a special contribution in addition to the contribution which might be expected from them if the Temporary Economies Act is prolonged.

We are told the purpose of this motion is to form a superannuation scheme for national school teachers; but really when one examines the scheme it is hardly a superannuation scheme. This motion hardly describes what it is proposed to do. It could be more correctly described as a motion to make teachers in future pay 75 per cent. of their pensions instead of the 25 per cent. for which they were liable in the past. I think it imposes an undue burden on teachers, an unfair burden in all the circumstances of the case, and in future it is going to exact from teachers a contribution of a month's salary per year towards their pensions. That is a heavy burden, an unprecedented burden and I think the Government have been unnecessarily harsh in imposing a settlement of this kind upon the teachers.

Mr. O'Neill

I must say I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister for Education and a certain amount of admiration for his courage in bringing this Resolution before the Dáil, because he has done his best apparently to meet a very difficult situation. This matter of teachers' pensions is a grievance of very long standing. It is a matter that has been agitating the minds of everybody who has had to do with legislation in this country for some years past. In fact, I would suggest that, on the whole, education has suffered through this great insincerity and this great instability which have been always facing the teachers in regard to their salaries and pensions. If I were politically-minded I would say to some of the teachers—if I might use a vulgarism in this House—"The devil's cure to you," because about 80 per cent. of the teachers have boasted that they were strong adherents of Fianna Fáil at the last general election.

Mr. Lynch

Ceist.

Mr. O'Neill

Sin ceist. In connection with this matter the teachers got a cut last year under the Temporary Economies Act. Now, they are faced with a very serious cut under this plan to arrive at some sort of permanency with regard to their pension claims. As I said, I admire the Minister's pluck in tackling it, but I do not think it is going to come to a satisfactory conclusion. I think if this settlement is going to be forced upon the House and forced upon the teachers, the situation in regard to primary teaching in this country is going to be much more seriously upset than it has been hitherto. In his statement here last Friday the Minister made a very plausible case for the acceptance of the scheme. As Deputy Norton very rightly pointed out—it is a matter which Deputy Norton has emphasised very clearly in all his remarks—the Minister did not stress the point that the whole liability on the teachers with regard to their pensions should not exceed one-fourth of the pensions bill. On the present basis of their contribution—4 per cent.—the annual amount is something like £102,000. On the Minister's own showing, and bearing in mind the fact that the amount of pensions is increasing year by year, it will be more than ten years before the £102,000 payable on the present basis of 4 per cent. will be equivalent to the 25 per cent. which they are bound to pay by agreement. What then is the necessity or what is the reason for asking the teachers to make a further sacrifice of 100 per cent. more than their present contribution?

The Minister is not going to ask them at all, but he is going to impose upon them a settlement. He is going to have an agreement with them—an agreement forced upon them, if such an enforcement could be called an agreement—to bear a cut of 9 per cent. on their salaries. That 9 per cent. cut, I presume, is going to be in addition to the cut that was imposed on them last year. This 9 per cent. cut is going to bring the contribution from the teachers to something like £226,000 or more than 100 per cent. greater than the present contribution. In ten years' time, on the Minister's own showing, the pensions payable are estimated at £430,000 in all. The teachers' contribution to that, if this new 9 per cent. cut is imposed, plus the interest of £55,000 available from the fund, will total £311,000 or 72 per cent. of the total pensions payable in that year. I do not think that is equitable, and I am not at all surprised that the Minister should say in this House that the teachers failed to agree with him on that point. I would be very much surprised if they did otherwise. There has been held out to teachers the plea that this fund is insolvent, and that if their security is to be gained in the future they have to agree to this. I cannot see for a moment why the teachers should agree to it. They do want security, and as far as we can see and examine the figures their security can be guaranteed to them on the present contribution.

The Minister has detailed, in his preliminary statement, certain small concessions with regard to gratuities on retiring earlier than the pensionable age; he has also told us about the privileges that will accrue to junior assistant mistresses and other lay teachers who now come under the pensions scheme for the first time. For these advantages, these teachers have to contribute 6 per cent. They contributed nothing before. Deputy Norton very rightly pointed out here the last day, if I remember correctly, that under the plan in Northern Ireland those classes participated in the pensions scheme without any sacrifice whatever.

Mr. Derrig

On a point of explanation; that is not so. If I had to correct the Deputy on all his misstatements I am afraid there would be constant interruption.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will have his opportunity.

Mr. Norton

I did not make that statement either the last day.

Mr. O'Neill

Here is the Deputy's statement:

"In Northern Ireland this latter class was brought into the scheme many years ago, and pensions were provided for them on a scale as satisfactory, if not more satisfactory, than that provided by the Minister in this scheme. These people, when brought into the scheme in Northern Ireland, were not made liable for the 6 per cent. contribution imposed here."

Mr. Norton

4 per cent. is what they were made liable for. Nobody else had to pay for their being brought in. The ordinary teacher had not to bear a 9 per cent. cut in order that they should get pensions.

Mr. O'Neill

The ordinary teachers are paying what they paid before, and those others are brought in on payment of 4 per cent. I am sure the Minister will pardon me; perhaps I did go a little wrong on that particular point.

Mr. Derrig

You are still wrong.

Mr. O'Neill

Am I still wrong? I want to get it right because it is really an important point. Those people were brought in on the same basis of contribution as the other teachers in Northern Ireland. Is not that right? Here, they are going to pay 6 per cent. The chief point is that the teachers here are to be mulcted to the extent of more than 100 per cent. to get no better terms than they are getting at present. They are going to contribute 100 per cent. more to the pension fund and get no better pensions. The Minister is offering to them, in return for that 100 per cent. increase in contributions, the security of the State, and payment out of the Central Fund. To make them come in he has threatened them with the fact that this fund, which we hear is insolvent, is going to become hopelessly insolvent.

There has been some talk in this House about the very immoral principle enunciated by the Minister in connection with seizing this fund. I do not think the teachers themselves would object to any seizing the Minister would do, nor would anybody else in this House object to any illegality, if I might put it that way, that the Minister might succumb to.

Mr. MacEntee

What reference is the Deputy making? There is no illegality, nor is any illegality contemplated.

Mr. O'Neill

Certain test cases were hinted at here the last day as being necessary to prove whether the Minister, or the Minister for Finance, could seize this fund.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no question of seizing the fund. There is a question of taking responsibility for pensions.

Mr. O'Neill

That is a very nice way of putting it. Piracy has been carried out under very nice names at times. I think that it was suggested in the House that it would be piracy if this fund were diverted to any purpose other than that for which it was originally intended.

Mr. MacEntee

I want to ask the Deputy one question, if he has any right to speak for the teachers. Do the teachers want this fund and the liabilities which attach to it, because they can have it and welcome with the liabilities?

Mr. Lynch

If the Government would make solvent their side of the fund, certainly.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no insolvency on the Government side.

Mr. Lynch

Oh now! That is new, anyhow.

Mr. MacEntee

They can take the fund and pay the pensions.

Mr. Lynch

Would the Minister for Finance ask his own Department if that is their view? It certainly was not their view. Did they not admit, some years ago, that the teachers' case was right, so far as the teachers' pension fund was concerned?

Mr. O'Neill

The Minister for Education, in introducing this to the House, last week, said:—

"In addition to that, the House must bear in mind that, in future, instead of being dependent for their pensions upon a fund which was insolvent—hopelessly insolvent, I think it could be said—and which would come to an end within a very short term of years indeed, the teachers will have the security of the State behind them for their pensions."

I think that is the whole case in a nutshell and all I stand up here to make is the case in equity for the teachers. They are entitled to their pensions.

Mr. Derrig

Did the teachers ask you to make their case?

Mr. Lynch

Whether they did or not, does it arise?

Mr. Derrig

Of course, it does.

Mr. Lynch

Why?

Mr. O'Neill

I will answer that question.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise. Every Deputy is entitled to speak to any motion before the House.

Mr. O'Neill

I am not a special pleader for the teachers. As I said, if I were politically minded, I would say "the devil's cure to them." I stand here as I am interested in primary education, interested in seeing that the teachers get a fair deal, and interested in seeing that a bargain, which has been recognised as a bargain, is carried out, and interested to the extent of seeing that primary education in this country is not going to be jeopardised in the way in which it has been jeopardised for a long time, owing to the insecurity and instability of the teachers with regard to their pensions and payments. That is my plea for my position here, and I think that, as a member of this House, I am entitled to say what I think is right with regard to the administration of any public moneys voted to the Minister in this House. I make this plea and I would suggest, as I am making the plea for security, that the Minister was very ill-advised in bringing this scheme before this House. If he carries it by a majority, as he possibly may, and imposes it on the teachers, the position with regard to education generally is not going to be any better in future. There is bound to be a good deal of agitation; there is bound to be a good deal of insecurity and there is bound to be a big lot of, I would say, actual turmoil in the teachers' ranks, because no body of men is going to face with equanimity a cut of 9 per cent. in their salaries in order to maintain them in the position they are in at present.

If the Minister were offering them any improvement in their pensions, they might agree to it, but I would suggest that the Minister should cut out this idea of pirating the fund and give the teachers the security of a State payment in future and let their contributions not exceed the 4 per cent. they are now paying. From the figures it will be seen that, for at least ten years to come, that 4 per cent. contribution from the teachers' salaries will give, in return, the amount they are equitably bound to give, that is, 25 per cent. on the pensions payable, and not only on the pensions payable to the teachers who have hitherto benefited from the pension fund, but also to the junior assistant mistresses and the other lay teachers whom he proposes to bring into this fund at an expense of 6 per cent. to themselves. I would suggest that this resolution should not be forced on the House, and I do not think that, even at this hour, it would be impossible to get agreement with the teachers. The Minister says that it was impossible, but I do not believe it is, and I believe that if even I, who, the Minister alleges, have no authority to speak for the teachers, or a man like me, approached the teachers I could make them see reason on a matter of this kind. I am only concerned with seeing that this matter is administered in an equitable way.

Again, I would ask the Minister to believe that it is not impossible to agree with the teachers. I do not know whether the teachers have been badly treated or not, but I think that in this matter they are being badly treated. They are to pay more than 100 per cent. for the pensions they are at present getting, while their security is not going to be one whit more than it was. I would suggest again to the Minister that he should let the old contribution stay—wind up the fund, if you like; appropriate it in any way you like and I am sure the Minister for Finance would be glad to get hold of it—and give the teachers State security for the payment of their pensions at the present rate of contribution.

Cormac Breathnach

Once again the teachers are being asked to bow their heads to the axe. It is a thing they are very well used to for the past 12 years. In 1923, the teachers suffered a cut of 10 per cent—in that they had the privilege then of being associated with the old age pensioners. Later on, they were deprived of fees for the teaching of extra subjects. They were deprived of the grant for night schools and the third year's training course which, to teachers, was of immense value, was abolished on the ground of economy. In 1931, they were again threatened with a 10 per cent. cut. However, that was resisted, and we come along to last year's Economy Bill, under which, as I stated here, the teachers were more severely dealt with than any other body of public servants. I tried to prove that to this House and I think I did prove it. In the past 12 years, we have, I think, contributed, through the savings made on our salaries and other emoluments, £3,500,000 to the Exchequer. This motion before the House is, I think, miscalled when it is called a superannuation scheme. So far as the majority of teachers is concerned, it is depriving them of superannuation they are entitled to under the present scheme, because, naturally, their superannuation will be 9 per cent. less than it would be under the present regulations.

This scheme is really a scheme to cut salaries. It imposes a new scale of salaries on the teachers which is 9 per cent. less than the present scheme and, I may say, 19 per cent. less than what they enjoyed in 1923. Just to show how much the teachers have suffered, I will give an example or two. A person who enjoyed, in 1923, say, a salary of £300, had that salary cut that year by 10 per cent., making it £270. That £270 is now further cut by 9 per cent., making it £245, and that means a loss of £55 per annum as compared with the salary enjoyed by that teacher 12 years ago. I cannot see how that can be regarded as advantageous to the teacher.

My own case, a personal case—if I may give it—is that in 1923, I was entitled to a salary of £435. It was cut by 10 per cent., making it £391, and it is now to be further cut by 9 per cent., making it £356. I lose £79 per annum as compared with my 1923 salary and £35 per annum under the new regulations. The Minister, in the other House yesterday, tried to prove that these one-quarter-three-quarter regulations did not exist but I will try to prove that they did exist. In the course of his speech in the Seanad, the Minister quoted an extract from a speech by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, but he did not quote the full reference. Had he done so, he would have seen that, while Sir Michael Hicks-Beach disclaimed any legal liability for keeping three-fourths of the fund solvent, he said that the Government always took that responsibility and he also said, in the same speech, that in all the negotiations leading up to the '79 Pension Act, the one-quarter-three-quarter arrangement was always kept in view, but regardless of what Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said, it is a fact that in making the regulations in 1898, it was clearly laid down that the teachers' contributions would be responsible for one-fourth and the endowment side three-fourths. That contention we have always held and still hold.

With regard to that I shall read the relevant rule, made in the year 1914, bearing on that particular point:—

"Rule 17 (1). The Separate Accounts of the Pension Fund, called the Teachers' Contribution Account and the Endowment Account shall continue to be kept.

(2) All sums paid into the pension fund on account of deductions from teachers' salaries for premiums and the interest thereon shall, together with such other sums as the Treasury may direct, be carried to the Teachers' Contribution Account, and all other sums paid into the pension fund shall be carried to the Endowment Account.

(3) One-quarter of any pension granted under these rules shall be charged to the Teachers' Contribution Account and the remainder of any pension shall be charged to the Endowment Account."

If that is not clear, I do not know what the word "clear" means.

"(4) All sums repaid out of the pension fund on account of the repayment of premiums and of interest thereon shall be charged to the Teachers' Contribution Account."

I think that makes it very clear that the Government is responsible for three-fourths and the teachers are responsible for one-fourth of the Pension Fund. When, formerly, pensions were commuted, they were commuted on this basis—teachers' contribution, plus compound interest, plus three times that from the Endowment Account. Again, in transferring teachers to Northern Ireland, the amount transferred from our Pension Fund was teachers' accumulated contribution multiplied by four. Surely, in view of these historical facts, that figure four was not accidental. All through this business, there is kept before our minds the one-fourth to three-fourth ratio, and I do not see how the Minister can maintain, in view of the rules laid down in black and white, that the Government is not responsible for three-fourths of this Pension Fund. The Minister said something about a half-and-half basis being adopted in 1914, but there is no evidence of that, and, as I said, we have the Statutory Rules in black and white.

The Minister stated in the other House also, and I think he stated it here, that the increase of salaries was responsible for the present state of the Pension Fund. That is not so. Gross neglect on the part of the British Government for a number of years, and on the part of the home Government for the past 12 years, was responsible. That is the whole fact of the matter. I hold that the State is legally and morally bound to keep three-fourths of that fund solvent, and I certainly think that the present cut of 9 per cent. in salaries is indefensible. In 1922 the fund was in a precarious position. Our organisation drafted a very comprehensive memorandum and gave it to the Minister of the day showing that it would require £10,000,000 to make it solvent. The teachers' side of the fund was solvent, and, as I pointed out, was in excess of what was required to keep our funds correct. It was pointed out by the British actuary in 1913 that the fund was in jeopardy, and the British actuary of the day urged the Government to subsidise the fund from the Government sources. The reply of Lloyd George—that cunning little man—was this: He had no further actuarial investigation of the fund, because he knew perfectly well that if any actuarial investigation had been held, say, in 1918, the fund could be shown to be in a very precarious state indeed. He very cunningly dropped further investigation. By our memorandum at that time we certainly did our duty by our own members and by the country. We pointed out that in any financial settlement with England the £10,000,000 should be taken into consideration. We have no evidence that this huge deficit was taken into consideration or that the memorandum was ever made use of. We have no evidence that it was not simply pigeonholed and forgotten.

Deputy Norton has pointed out that we do not enjoy in this new scheme civil service pensions. That is quite so. The civil servant gets a pension of two-thirds of his retiring salary or forty-eightieths plus a bulk sum. The proposed scheme cannot compare with that. Taking again this question of pensions, on a salary of £300, 12 years ago, a teacher would receive as pension £150 on a contribution of 4 per cent. Now, in 1934, with his salary of £300 reduced to £245 the teacher will receive about £122 10s., making a loss of £27 10s. per annum to a pensioner as compared with the pension he would have enjoyed 12 years ago on a salary of £300. I do not contend at all that this scheme has not some merit in it. It has. We welcome the fact that for the first time it puts on the pension list 2,500 teachers. It is only bare justice to those teachers, and it is tardy justice, but it puts them on the pension list at very considerable expense to themselves.

There are other things that I would urge the Minister to take into consideration in drafting his rules finally. For instance, there are a number of lay assistants and junior assistant mistresses who have retired within the last four or five years without pension. I would urge on the Minister that this scheme be made retroactive as far as they are concerned. It would certainly mean a lot to a lay assistant, who only retired within the last few years and is now pensionless, whereas if she had remained on a little longer would have enjoyed some kind of pension. There are also a few teachers in industrial schools or workhouse schools, and I would appeal that the scheme be made operative as far as they are concerned. I think that, in view of the heavy mulct the Minister is placing on the teachers, he should give assistance to these people. There is a body of teachers who, apart from their work as teachers, served the cause of Ireland faithfully, and who suffered as a result of that service. I refer to the body of teachers in Northern Ireland who, in 1922, were appealed to by the Government of the day—the Provisional Government—not to recognise the Northern Parliament.

Mr. Donnelly

Hear, hear.

Cormac Breathnach

Deputy Donnelly says: "Hear, hear." These people, from patriotic motives, complied with that request and were for some time paid by the Free State Government. That payment ceased after a time, and these people were left unprovided for. However, an appeal was made to the Northern Government to take them back into their service. They were reinstated as an act of grace—I am afraid that in the circumstances we must regard it as an act of grace—but the time during which they were paid by the Free State Government is lost to them for pension purposes. In that I consider they have a very serious moral claim against this State. I quite understand that the Minister is in no way responsible for that predicament, but I hold that he has inherited a moral responsibility to make restitution to these teachers who took the patriotic attitude in 1922 of refusing to recognise the partition of Ireland. I appeal, therefore, for sympathetic consideration of their case.

The Minister has frequently stated that the teachers are not prepared to accept this scheme. It is really difficult to see how the Minister can expect people to adopt a scheme by which they will lose very heavily. The teachers have been very severely dealt with in the past 12 years by cuts in their salaries. I agree with Deputy O'Neill that this matter is very seriously interfering with the progress of primary education. The continuance of agitation and rows and resolutions is certainly a hindrance to the progress of national education. I remember well that in 1921, 1922 and 1923, when we were enjoying fairly decent salaries, our Congresses were occupied for the whole time with papers by important public men, University professors and so on, because for these two or three years we had no agitation about pensions or salaries—we were satisfied. Then came the cut of 1923 and the papers at the Congresses ceased and we had resolutions and agitation back again. We will now be in the same position. The teachers will keep agitating on this question of salaries until the position imposed upon them under this scheme is remedied. Teachers are the most important body of public servants, because without primary education you would have no education; you would neither have Church nor State on a secure basis. The schools in that regard are the pillars of civilisation, and those who are keeping up the pillars are being subjected to more abuse and annoyance than any other body of public servants in the country. I am not very familiar with conditions in other countries, but I believe no country has treated its primary teachers in the past 12 years as this country has treated them.

I fear that there is no use making a last-minute appeal to the Minister to drop this scheme as far as the cut is concerned. I believe he could afford to give our present pensions and a much lesser cut than the extra 5 per cent. which he now imposes. I am afraid, as I say, that there is very little use in making an appeal in that direction, because we have been told definitely and distinctly by both Ministers that they stand pat on the question of the 9 per cent. cut. I am sorry for it, because it affects a body to which I have the honour to belong and, worse still, because I think it will seriously affect primary education in this country. This is the real reason why I regret this heavy cut in the teachers' income.

Mr. Keyes

I think it will be very generally conceded that the House is being asked, in this instance, to give its consent and approval to what can only be termed a perfectly inequitable proposition, both from the point of view of common honesty and bare justice. The figures in connection with this imposed settlement were pretty freely discussed on the previous day and any impartial-minded man can only come to the conclusion that the teachers are alleged to be getting a settlement out of which the State is proposing to get a very good annual profit. I suggest that if the determination of this question were left to a free vote of this House the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education would have great difficulty in persuading each other to constitute the minority. I do not think there is any member in the House who would agree that there is anything in the nature of a settlement or of a concession to the teachers. The Government are simply making a good thing out of it.

As has been pointed out, the teachers are a section of the community whose relative importance cannot be overestimated and whose services to the State were very badly recompensed during all the years of an alien Government. In 1921 and 1922 an attempt was made to do them some justice and a settlement was reached which, I suggest, would have been very much better if it were not for the fact that it was supposed to be a fixed settlement and not subject to the fluctuations of the cost-of-living bonus. The teachers accepted it then as a kind of permanent settlement of this vexed question. I am afraid a good many people in the country got jealous of the teacher and his motor car, because we have not been accustomed to see teachers with motor cars. We have been accustomed to seeing our teachers put on the same level as coal-porters. Then, because belated justice was done to them, a good deal of hostility towards them was created by people who ought to have known better.

This question of the teachers' pensions is a long rankling sore. The teachers have attempted from time to time to have it put upon a fixed basis and to have it taken out of the chaotic position in which it was. During all the time the teachers' portion of the contract was faithfully kept. They have paid their 25 per cent. right through the last 50 years. I suggest that it is scarcely fair at this time of day to try and take shelter behind any pretext and, because of the insolvency of the State's side of the fund established in 1879, to try and make the teachers pay more than they would be ordinarily entitled to pay if both sides of the contract had been kept. It is a dangerous precedent at the present time when we have so much talk of no-rate campaigns and things of that kind.

It will be the same as if the tax-gatherer came to the good ratepayer and said: "Because your neighbours have not been paying you will have to pay their share as well." The teachers have paid their portion faithfully. The State has not kept its contract and the State has no right to come along and seek to make up the deficit at the cost of an increased contribution of more than 100 per cent. by the people who kept their contract. The teachers are paying £102,000 per annum and the inclusion of the junior assistant mistresses and convent teachers at 4 per cent. will mean another £15,000 per year, or approximately £117,000 per annum.

I am not prepared to say that there is not something good in the settlement. I think it would be to the advantage of the teachers to have it put on a permanent basis once and for all and have the security of the State behind the teachers' pensions without danger to the stability of the fund. I am not prepared to say that the teachers would not make an advance on the 4 per cent. Northern Ireland did something at 4 per cent. I recognise also that the Minister has to encounter difficulties. I suggest, however, that to ask the teachers to pay 9 per cent. as against 4 per cent. is against all reason, commonsense and fair play. It has frequently been said that the teachers were a difficult body to deal with, that they were not able to have a commonsense agreement reached. It certainly is difficult to ask any body of men who, as Deputy Norton said here on Friday, are supposed to be versed in mathematics, to accept a proposal like this as being a benefit to them.

As Deputy Norton suggested, the teacher who would give his consent or sanction to this proposal would be fitted automatically for dismissal, because of his incompetence and lack of knowledge of mathematics. But I do suggest that if a reasonable proposition were put before the teachers they would be found a reasonable body of intelligent citizens. I suggest to the Minister that this scheme should be withdrawn with a view to seeing whether a common basis of agreement could not be reached, an agreement which would be agreeable to the teachers and to the Ministry, and which would reflect itself for all time in more happy conditions between the teachers and the Department and would result in making the teachers enthusiastic in their work and leaving no rankling sore.

A scheme like this passed by this House is not going to settle this question. The teachers have kept their end up for fifty years or more. Now, with the advent of a native Government, something is proposed to be imposed on them that is calculated to rob them of enthusiasm in their work in the guidance and instruction of our youth. I am not making the suggestion with any authority from the teachers, but I am putting forward the view that if instead of taking 9 per cent. off their salaries they were asked for 6 per cent. they might be agreeable, in view of the fact that there are now pensions to be payable to junior assistant mistresses and convent teachers who had not previously been paid.

I would be inclined to believe that as a reasonable body of men they would be agreeable to a proposition like this. I am putting this forward, as I said, without any authority from the teachers. The teachers are asked to give £260,000 a year. With the new people who will be now drawing pensions the teachers would probably be prepared to contribute £235,000 a year. Surely the difference is not too big or too broad that it cannot be bridged in a reasonable way. I therefore suggest that this scheme be withdrawn so as to have a settlement on an agreed basis that would give a guarantee of relief, fittingly recompense the teachers for their enthusiastic services, and leave no rankling sore in their minds.

Mr. Lynch

I would like to join with Deputy Breathnach in asking the Minister to consider favourably the case of the junior assistant mistresses and the lay assistants in convents and other persons of that kind who have retired in the last four or five years for one reason or another. Perhaps it was through ill-health or one of those other unavoidable reasons that they retired. These people, at all events, have gone out, and they are now excluded from the benefits of the pension scheme which the House is considering. Financially it would mean comparatively little to the State, but to the individuals concerned it means an immense lot. There would not be very many individuals, probably 100 to 150, would be the very most, and perhaps nothing near 100 persons would be involved. It is worth while considering whether this scheme would not be made applicable to persons who left the service in the last four or five years and who were not pensionable. I say that with all seriousness, because it is something that is very well worth the consideration of the Government.

I would like now to deal with the question that was hurled across the House at Deputy O'Neill by both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education who asked whether or not Deputy O'Neill had a brief from the teachers. As an Ceann Comhairle pointed out that is a matter that did not arise. Any Deputy here has a perfect right to speak on any matter that comes before the House whether or not he has any brief from persons particularly concerned. That is so in all cases and especially when there is the question of the expenditure of public money. I might say that I am exactly perhaps in the same position in this matter as Deputy O'Neill. I got this paper issued by the I.N.T.O. and presumably every Deputy in the House got it. It was on the scheme set forth in this paper that Deputy Norton almost entirely based his speech. I presume every Deputy got it, and to that extent every Deputy who got it was briefed and was invited by the national teachers to urge their case in the House. I notice that the Minister for Finance also interrupted Deputy O'Neill by asking him did the teachers want the fund.

Mr. MacEntee

The fund with its liabilities attached?

Mr. Lynch

Very good, the fund with its liabilities attached. Personally I do not know but I should say myself as an old teacher that these funds for pension purposes are inaccurate. They were always a cod and in so far as the scheme goes towards abolishing the pension fund I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. But the funny part of it is that the scheme provides for a fund. The Minister explained on Friday that owing to certain legal reasons and for legal purposes there had to be a fund. I think it is a pity that that is so because this has always been a sort of nebulous fund, mostly a non-existent fund for the payment of services or pensions. For such purposes funds of that kind should be done away with. Presumably the teachers as a sensible body of people would like to see the fund scrapped.

As to the point of the interruption made by the Minister as to the fund and its liabilities there is no good in going on to argue the thing down again in all its history. Surely to goodness the Minister knows very well that on the actual figures and on actuarial investigations the fund shows that the teachers' side was continually increasing while the Government or the endowment side was continually decreasing. I do not want to make any point about that because from the start it was a wrong basis on which to pay pensions to public servants. I entirely agree with the basis of the scheme in so far as it gets away from that and throws the liability on the State for moneys voted annually in the Oireachtas for the payment of these pensions. I say again that in so far as the scheme provides for that I am entirely in support of it. I am not satisfied with what the Minister said. I must say that it was only a hasty glance I was able to give to-day to the speech made by him last Friday and to his explanation as to why they are still retaining the fund. He told us there were legal difficulties about these things and that the fund must remain. I suppose he has consulted persons about that and that he is satisfied that the fund is necessary.

Before I say anything further I would like to say that I deprecate the type of speech that Deputy Norton started off with to-day. Anyway I deprecated his taunting Deputy Breathnach over this scheme. Everybody in this House knows that Deputy Breathnach is in an extremely difficult position when a matter of this kind comes before the House. I think a Deputy like Deputy Norton especially should be able to appreciate that distinction. Deputy Breathnach at the moment is President of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation and is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. As a member of the Fianna Fáil Party he has to cast his vote or refrain from casting his vote.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

What did Deputy Lynch say last night about party politicians?

Mr. Lynch

I will come to that. Deputy Breathnach is in an extremely difficult position. If I were in his position I would have taken a certain stand. He is in a temporary position as President of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation for the year, a very honourable position for any member of the teaching profession to hold. The persons who put him there realised when they did so, that he had certain pledges to a Party, and it is for Deputy Breathnach to decide for himself whether his pledges to his Party should override the position he occupies as President of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. It is the last thing a Labour Deputy should taunt him with. Deputy Breathnach will make up his own mind as to what action he will take. He has spoken against the thing and asked the Minister to withdraw the scheme and reconsider it. A person in the position of Deputy Norton might, at least, keep his mouth shut so far as Deputy Breathnach is concerned. I say that with all deference, because I am sure Deputy Breathnach is quite well able to look after himself.

I am indebted to him for making very clear a thing I had certain doubts about, following the newspaper report of the Minister's speech in the Seanad. The Minister said that he could not find any justification for the suggestion that the State was responsible for three-fourths of the liability for pensions, and the teachers for one-fourth. I began to scratch my head when I read that this morning. I had not the advantage Deputy Breathnach had of having rules at my hand where it was definitely in black and white. I did know, as every man who ever taught in an Irish national school knows, that it was the practice, that the fund was there and that each year the teachers' portion of the fund was debited with one-fourth of the amount involved in pensions and the endowment, the Government portion of the fund, was debited with three-fourths. On that basis I was going to indicate to the Minister that that in itself was at least a justification for saying that the State had a liability for the payment of three-fourths of the pension fund.

I have no brief from the teachers' organisation beyond the document that probably every Deputy has got. I hold no brief from any teachers. As a matter of fact, I have not met any of the teaching profession recently who could possibly by any stretch of my imagination be in a position to invite me to discuss this matter in the House. It is, however, a subject of which I have some personal knowledge, and it is a matter in connection with which I have a considerable amount of personal feeling. Deputy Breathnach recited a great many things that happened to the teachers in the years before the change of Government, before the British handed over, and since the Provisional Government took over. I agree with him. I must say all these things he has recited have happened. It is the unfortunate position of the Irish national teacher that whenever a Government in this country is hard-up the first fellow's pocket they are going to get after is the teacher's. That has been the unfortunate history of the national teacher since he got anything like a decent living wage. While all other servants of the State, other public servants of different categories, from the road cleaner of the local council to the doctor or anybody else, and especially civil servants, got a cost of living bonus during the war, the war was well over before the Irish national teacher got anything like a wage commensurate with the increase in the cost of living. That is a mere matter of history and everybody knows it.

The unfortunate thing about it for the national teacher was that, always hoping as he was during those later years that he would be brought into line with other public servants, some of them had, through the education of their families and otherwise, gambled on the likelihood that their position would naturally improve commensurate with the improvement in the conditions of other public servants and they ran themselves into debt. Then, actually before the agreement of 1920 was implemented, or almost hot-foot on the implementing of the 1920 agreement, there came the 10 per cent. cut. That was in 1923. I am not attempting to blame the present Front Bench for that. I accept my share of the responsibility, but as far as I could in private I opposed it. It was an unfortunate thing for the teacher, before he had any time to recover himself, before he had time to pay back the debts that he had contracted, before he had time to speak, as it were, that his salary was cut. Then there were various other cuts, as Deputy Breathnach pointed out; the special fees for one thing, the night school and other amenities of the teachers' profession were cut down. It is unfortunate that the teachers have been in our time, singled out for all the kicks, and now this particular scheme is, so to speak, hanging another kettle on to their tails. They cannot afford it. The Minister yesterday, speaking in the Seanad, talked about a salary of £460 a year as a maximum.

Mr. Derrig

On a point of order, I did not.

Mr. Lynch

What was the figure?

Mr. Derrig

I gave the maximum of——

Mr. Lynch

£180 to £400.

Mr. Derrig

Take the minimum figures, if you wish.

Mr. Lynch

I am dealing with the maximum figures for the moment. I think the amount was £450 or £460—I am not quite sure what is the maximum on paper. Are there a dozen national teachers in the whole Free State who get that? If there are they are in the big multiple-assistant schools in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, perhaps. I do not believe there is a school sufficiently big outside those places which would have a principal teacher earning that salary. That salary would be attained because of the capitation grant that would accrue owing to the number of pupils attending. If the salaries ordinarily were anything like that, I would have no case against the Minister's proposal. The fact is, of course, that the salary of even a principal teacher does not exceed £350. I believe the average salary of a teacher, exclusive of the junior assistant mistresses and the lower grades of teachers, is about £250. I do not know what an assistant in Dublin would attain. Possibly the Dublin assistants—I do not know whether they get a capitation grant to-day or not; I am not quite conversant with it now, but in the past they used to—would have £250 to £300. I do not know what the average assistant down through the country may do, but, mind you, the national teacher in a Dublin school is included in this. He has to live under the same conditions as, say, a junior civil servant. He has to maintain the same standard in the way of housing and so on, as a civil servant, say, of the rank of junior executive. The assistant in Dublin does not reach a salary of more than £250 or £300. A cut of 9 per cent. on a man like that is a very heavy burden. It is an extra 5 per cent. on the 4 per cent. cut for pension purposes that exists already. I presume—I wonder am I right in presuming; it was not mentioned by the Minister in his speech on Friday, it was not mentioned by Deputy Breathnach, who should be fairly well informed, and it was not mentioned by Deputy Norton, except in a casual way which left me still wondering—that this 9 per cent. includes the economies of last year or can further cuts under the temporary economies that were introduced last year be imposed on the teachers after this 9 per cent. cut is imposed? I am not quite clear as to that. Does the 9 per cent. proposed under these Statutory Rules include the temporary economies that were made last year? If the Minister would not mind, I should like to get an answer to that now.

Mr. Derrig

I think it does not include the temporary economies. It is a matter for the Minister for Finance as to what he is going to do in the future.

Mr. Lynch

That is the point that struck my mind when reading the Minister's speech, and I looked out for that. I wondered if I would hear of something from Deputy Breathnach in connection with that, but I did not hear anything very informative from him on that point. I heard many informative statements from him, but not on that point. If the Temporary Economies Act is to be carried on for the year 1934-35, are the cuts under that going to be imposed in addition to the 9 per cent., because if they are, I think it is a terrible thing, and a scandalous business as far as one section of the community is concerned. They are being singled out in an extraordinary way to bear the depression that exists in the country. They are carrying far more than their share of the depression. I think the Minister for Finance ought to make the matter clear before the debate ends. The Minister may not have been listening, but I should like him to make clear whether, if the Temporary Economies Act happens to be continued during the year 1934-35, the teachers are going to be mulcted for the share they were mulcted last year under the Act, in addition to the 9 per cent., or whether the 9 per cent. is going to be final. If it were going to be an absolutely and entirely final business, and that there were a guarantee from the Government that this was going to be the last cut so far as the teachers were concerned, I would change my attitude and I would support them in this matter. If I could get some guarantee that this were going to be absolutely final as far as the teachers were concerned—as far as the Government can give a guarantee, a Government guarantee is a Government guarantee, and must extend beyond their régime to their successors—and that no further economies were going to be extorted from them, I would say "I will support you, even on the scheme as it stands."

Mr. Everett

Was that not said on the scheme in 1924?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not sure whether I can give a guarantee in the explicit terms that the Deputy seems to desire, but I can say this: that unless the financial situation becomes very much worse than it is, we do not propose to impose any further reductions on teachers in regard to their salaries.

Mr. Lynch

The Minister will appreciate that that is not quite what I asked.

Mr. MacEntee

That is, no further economies on existing teachers in regard to their salaries unless the position becomes worse.

Mr. Everett

A snag.

Mr. Lynch

I can quite appreciate that at any time any Government coming in may make arrangements for new entrants to the profession. That is the funeral of the persons coming in, whether they will accept the position on the conditions that entrants will have to accept, but the Minister will appreciate that even with that qualification he has not met my point.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I have met the Deputy as far as it is reasonable for any person who has any regard for his word to go.

Mr. Lynch

I know, but there is no finality about it.

Mr. MacEntee

Very definitely within limits there is.

Mr. Lynch

Mind you, I have no brief, as I pointed out at the start, in this matter beyond the statement which I got from the National Teachers' Organisation. I could not accept the Minister's statement as anything like being final as far as the teachers are concerned, although I quite understand that he has gone probably as far as he could. Before I sit down I should like to quote a few small points on the scheme itself which strike me as rather extraordinary. Part II, clause 13, subclause (1) states:—

Where a pension has been granted to a person under the age of 50, such pension shall be reconsidered at such intervals as the Minister for Finance may direct, and that Minister may, if he is satisfied that such teacher is no longer incapable through infirmity of body or mind to discharge the duties of a teacher, suspend for such period as he thinks fit or determine such pension.

What is involved in that—"if he is satisfied that such teacher is no longer incapable through infirmity of body or mind of discharging the duties of teacher"? That brings one back to something like the Army disability pension, where a man has to go before a board, and if the board is satisfied that he is now in good health, the disability pension stops, which is perfectly reasonable and might be perfectly reasonable here, but there is a snag in this. A teacher goes out under a well defined disability acceptable to the Department of Education. Some day or another he is examined and found to be all right. Where is he going to find a job? He is out of a job and has been for some time. What is going to happen if the Minister says that he now ceases to be disabled? It appears to me to create another rather difficult situation for the disabled teacher. Perhaps there is something that the Minister has overlooked. There is one other point that has struck me as rather peculiar. It is the final clause in the Statutory Rules and Orders. It reads:

No pensions, gratuity (other than a short service gratuity) or other sum shall be payable under this Scheme to or in respect of any teacher who has, otherwise than under and in accordance with permission given by the Minister to such teacher, continued to serve as a teacher after such teacher has attained, in the case of a male, the age of 65 or, in the case of a female, the age of 60.

That is a rather difficult clause to understand. I read it three or four times, and it seems to me to mean this, if it means anything, that in the case of a male teacher who has reached the age of sixty-five years, if he continues on teaching for a few months beyond that age at the request say, of his manager, and against the wishes of the Department of Education and then goes out he loses, so far as I can see, his pension rights. That clause may be perfectly clear to the Minister who has been immersed in all this for the past couple of months, but that is how it reads to me. If my reading of it be correct that would be an extraordinarily punitive provision. If it means what I have stated it would surprise me very much. I conclude by reiterating what I set out to say; to endorse Deputy Breathnach's request, to make this retrospective for four or five years at least, in the case of teachers like junior assistant mistresses and others who, during that period, went out for reasons of ill-health and who have no pension rights now and are getting none under this Bill. The scheme should be extended to them. If it is necessary for the Minister to come to the Dáil with a Supplementary Estimate to make that provision I am sure he will get the unanimous support of the House. I imagine that such a provision would not involve more than £1,000 a year at the very outside. There are certain pitiful cases and it would be a matter of great charity to provide for them. I know at least one myself. If the Minister were to act on my suggestion I am certain that the House would unanimously endorse it.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

I am sorry that I cannot share the admiration of Deputy O'Neill for the Minister in bringing forward the proposals that we are discussing. Neither do I think with him that we should approach the consideration of this matter and be at the same time politically minded. I think that on calmer reflection it will be agreed that whatever way the teachers voted, that whatever way they expressed their views on political matters, they are entitled to a fair deal from the Government of this country. I think that in any profession embracing several thousand persons it would be almost a miracle if all of them were of the same political affinities. It would also perhaps be a tragedy.

Speaking to a motion of this kind a Deputy in the position that I am in is rather at a disadvantage coming after speakers like Deputy Breathnach and Deputy Lynch. They made very interesting statements this evening, statements which brought back to my mind the two speeches that I heard from them when the Temporary Economies Bill was going through. They were speeches that I shall remember for a very long time because I think they were two of the best that I ever heard in this House.

With regard to the motion before the House, I propose to look at it as it strikes the ordinary man in the street and will endeavour to mention a few things that were not mentioned by the two Deputies I have referred to, as well as to emphasise some points that they dealt with. I do share the view expressed by Deputy O'Neill that it is most unfortunate from the point of view of education in this country and I think it has a most prejudicial effect on education that the teachers should be continuously in a ferment about their position, their salaries and their staffs. It is a rather and reflection that the comparatively brief period of self-government in this country that we have had has been a sort of economic tragedy for the teachers: that right through the 11 or 12 years that the people of this part of Ireland have had control of their own affairs the teachers, time and again, have been made the victims of what are very much misnamed economies in the country.

This is not a 9 per cent. reduction. It is more. It does not appear to be sufficiently emphasised that as far back as 1923 or 1924 the teachers suffered a 10 per cent. reduction. This is a 15 per cent. reduction plus the contributions that the teachers have already made to their pensions fund. The teachers have contributed in the past 25 per cent. of their pensions, and what is considered a fair and equitable bargain will, in future, represent an imposition on them of 75 per cent. of the cost of their pensions—not exactly of the cost of their pensions but of less pensions than that to which they are entitled at the moment. The present proposals make matters worse than Deputy Professor O'Sullivan during the time that he was Minister for Education intended to make them. At least, he agreed that the salary for pensionable purposes would not be cut. I understand that the effect of the present suggested arrangement would be to cut pensionable salaries and consequently cut the pensions, so that the teachers instead of making a 25 per cent. contribution to their pensions as they did in the past will in future be contributing 75 per cent. of the cost. We are asked to say that that is a fair bargain and the teachers are blamed because of their reluctance to accept it, and they are represented as difficult people.

One is tempted to remind the Minister that in situations that arose for the people of this country in the past a neighbouring country always represented us as a difficult people to deal with: that our leaders were difficult to deal with because they felt that they had a clear and just case and that no attempt was being made to meet them fairly. I think that represents the spirit of the teachers at the moment. I do echo sincerely the belief that has been expressed that, if the teachers are approached on the broad outlines of this scheme and asked what their contributions to it ought to be, the Minister would find that they were not as unrelenting or as unwilling to meet him in this or any other matter as he appears to think at the moment.

This fund is at present hopelessly insolvent. It is insolvent because of events that the teachers had no control over. At least one factor has contributed to its insolvency, and that is that while the teachers have continued to pay their contributions regularly, by reason of the salaries they enjoy, the State has not made the contributions that were necessary to maintain the fund in a solvent condition. The variations that took place in salaries, variations which were long overdue, tended to making the fund insolvent. Now, although the teachers did their part during all this time, they are being asked by the arrangement enshrined in the proposals now before the House to bear a heavy load. Although the statement is rather hackneyed, I repeat that the experience of the teachers in relation to the successive Irish Governments has been most unfortunate. There was a cut of 10 per cent., which was linked up with the cut in the old age pensions, as one of the first acts of a national Government. There were subsequent reductions in privileges and salaries of one kind or another, such as the withdrawal of fees for the teaching of rural science, and the withdrawal of fees for night schools. Other things can be recalled, when going into what has taken place. I tried to get an outline of what took place in the Seanad yesterday, and I learned that in the course of the discussion the Minister made reference to the apportionment of this fund, and quoted a statement made by Sir Michael Hicks in the House of Commons many years ago. The Minister was endeavouring to show that there was nothing definite in the apportionment of the fund, while the teachers allege that one-fourth was to be their contribution, and three-fourths that of the State. Whatever the circumstances were when that statement was made, the fact remains that the position was clearly laid down in it. I have refreshed my memory on the point by seeing a copy of the rules which still exist, but which it is now sought to supersede. The position is clearly laid down so far as one can read anything into the rules referred to.

I hope the Minister will now indicate some change of heart in the matter. I believe the Minister does not really want to pursue this matter to the bitter end, because the end will be bitter. While sympathising, to a certain extent, with the defence made by the Minister, I can see no reason why, even at the eleventh hour, an attempt could not be made to get a better understanding, or a better appreciation of the position, than appears to be there at present. The Minister can have his way. He may get his way for the time being, but the discontent, the deterioration of the whole service, and the extent to which education will suffer, will be a matter that he will have much cause to regret later on. The Minister would be doing a really great national service, and a patriotic duty, if he took his courage in his hands and outlined final proposals and by endeavouring to win for them the consent of the teachers, laying it down definitely, as far as the Government goes, that their worries as regards future inroads into their salaries are ended. It is the insecurity of the whole position that makes this matter so difficult. I urge the Minister to give some indication of what is in his mind before the debate closes, and before he asks the House finally to approve of these rules.

There are features in this scheme that are welcome. They are long overdue. I allude to the inclusion of junior assistant mistresses and convent teachers, a privilege that was conceded in another part of the country some years ago. These proposals represent an attempt to make up for years of neglect, and for the sacrifice, poverty and misery a great many of these people had to endure. I want to support what Deputy Cormac Breathnach and Deputy Lynch said about teachers who left the service in recent years. There is a very strong case there for making this scheme retrospective. Deputy Lynch has intimate knowledge of some of these cases. I have intimate knowledge of other cases. I know a qualified woman teacher who, in the regular school, would have got a pension in the ordinary way, but having been compelled to teach in a convent school until she was 70 years of age, she had then to relinquish the position because it was indicated to her that her services could be no longer retained. The reasons that woman continued teaching all that time are not far to seek. She was the main support of an invalid husband, who had also been a teacher. He was one of those who went out on a pension of about £30 a year. His wife, a truly valiant soul, continued teaching in order to keep the home together, up to a couple of years ago. The inspector then indicated that her services would not be continued any longer and she had to go. At present she is receiving an old age pension of 10/- a week, and is eking out an existence on that. I think that a really tragic case. There must be many similar cases throughout the country. In any final settlement I think the teachers, generally, would be willing to co-operate in order that people of that kind should be included. I urge the Minister to have something done in that respect.

Again, on a question of old pensioned teachers, all of us remember how some of them endeavoured to keep an agitation going for some years. We are reminded, now and again, of men who have given years of service to the State and who retired on the magnificent pensions of £20 a year. It would cost very little to do justice to people of that kind. I suggest that the Minister should consider such cases. There are also the cases of teachers who are debarred from receiving pensions because they taught in industrial schools. I know cases of teachers in convent schools, supernumeraries, who were excluded from any consideration in the way of pensions. These are very hard cases and should be considered, because some of these people were engaged in these places for many years. They tried to keep up a certain standard of living and, having regard to what they were earning, one can appreciate what a struggle they must have had. I am aware of some cases where they took responsibility for the orphans and the dependents of relatives and endeavoured to give them a start in life. They had to do that out of a miserable salary, because there was no other alternative. In the end, because there is no other prospect, they have the comfort of knowing that they will get the old age pension, or, if they cannot continue until they reach the age at which they will be entitled to that pension, probably in the interregnum, they will be compelled to seek assistance from the home assistance officer. That would be a very sad state of affairs, and I think that the Minister would not wish a position of that kind to arise. One cannot help thinking that the teachers are marked out for attack from time to time, because there are a number of people in the country who are always willing to join in a cry at the heel of the teachers, and to join in the clamour that the teachers are extravagantly paid, that they are living on the fat of the land, and that they are always good for another knock. We used to have this type of mentality represented by Deputy Gorey in this House. He voiced what a great many ignorant people in the country thought. I do not think that the Minister or the members of the Executive Council share that view, but they should remember that their actions lend colour and strength to that view. A great many teachers have a pretty hard struggle to live, and are not living a life of superfluous wealth, as certain people would represent. They can make ends meet, but they have not a great deal to spare. I hope that the Minister will indicate, before this debate closes, that he is prepared to withdraw this scheme for the present and seek further conference with accredited representatives of the teachers' organisation with a view to finding agreement on essentials. A good deal of the poison will be taken out of the wound if, on certain points, the teachers and the Minister can find agreement. I urge the House to take that course. In the absence of such an agreement, I think the House should reject the scheme, although it contains certain reforms which are overdue. The impost, however, contained in the scheme is so crushing that, failing the accommodation I have suggested, I think the House should reject the scheme.

Professor Thrift

I do not rise to try to state a case either on behalf of the teachers or on behalf of the Government scheme. I am trying, in my own mind, to weigh up the merits of the case on either side. There are pros and cons which ought to be weighed up carefully. If I try to state what is in my mind, I may get enlightenment on certain points. I confess that I need that enlightenment in order to be able to come to a correct judgment. I approach the scheme in quite a different frame of mind from that which Deputy Lynch did. I positively dislike the disappearance of the pension fund. I think that there are merits in a contributory scheme of a far deeper and more lasting character than there are in this scheme put forward by the Government. If one could get a contributory scheme on a proper basis it would have just those elements of stability which, I agree with various Deputies, are most desirable from the point of view of our primary education. I agree with Deputies whole-heartedly when they say that this constant controversy about salaries and pensions has a most harmful influence on the teachers and the work they are doing amongst the young. But I wish to consider the scheme on its broad, financial aspects before I go into the details. Here again I differ from Deputy Lynch, because I think one's judgment as to the financial soundness of the scheme depends very largely on what it is proposed to do with the £1,500,000 pension fund which, the Minister told us, it is proposed to segregate from pension purposes. I do not think that we ought to be asked to decide about the scheme until we know what is going to happen to that fund. I shall explain my reasons for that more fully.

Let me say that I am not raising my first point as a legal point at all. I am not competent to express an opinion from that point of view but I do feel that, in equity, the sums which were contributed by the teachers had a certain trust attached to them by reason of that contribution, and I think that that trust ought to be continued. I do not see at present why it should not be continued and why the Government do not simply propose to attach the interest on those securities as a first charge against pension costs in the future. I cannot see that it would do them the slightest harm. I think that the fund would be put to the purpose for which it was intended, and if the money is not going to be used in that way—diminishing pension costs in the future—it can only mean that we are putting on future years a burden of taxation which ought to be borne at present. By that I mean that if this fund, the proceeds of which ought to lighten the burden of taxation in future years, be used up in another way, in those future years the full burden of the cost of pensions will remain upon the State unlightened by the contribution which would arise from the fund which exists at present. I do not think that that is sound finance. Therefore I should find myself, on that general ground alone, quite unable to vote for this scheme unless that point were cleared up to my satisfaction. That is what I mean by saying that, until we know what is going to happen to that fund, we ought not to be called upon to vote for or against this scheme.

Furthermore, a contributory scheme —I may be quite wrong in this— appeals to me much more than a scheme such as the present one. When the teacher feels that he is making contribution to his own pension, and when the State feels that the pension it is giving is being partly paid by deduction from the teacher's salary, the whole question of pensions gets on to a safer and more stable foundation than the basis of any scheme such as that put forward by the Government. A cut on salary is now proposed; the salary takes a new position as a salary in the scale of salaries. After a certain time, that gets, more or less, stereotyped, and, if pensions costs were found to be too great in the future, it would naturally occur to those concerned that they had here something upon which a charge ought to be put in order to meet the cost. Therefore, the question would naturally arise again: "Why not make a further attack on the salaries of the teachers?" Everything in that way tends to produce instability throughout the years and not stability, so that I would personally far rather see a scheme put forward, which, in the first place, would secure for the future anything arising at present in the way of income from the pensions fund, and make that a first charge in order to meet the cost of pensions. Secondly, I would far rather change the scale of contributions than abolish the contributory aspect to meet the cost of pensions.

Now I come to the consideration of details. And here I suppose that while what I have said, heretofore, has been pleasing to the teachers and displeasing to the Government, so I am afraid what I have to say now will be somewhat pleasing to the Government and displeasing to the teachers. I think if we size up the position properly we shall see that the present state of finances, so far as the future is concerned, is leading us to an impasse which neither the Government nor the teachers can be pleased with or can face with equanimity. I ask the Minister to correct me if I state wrongly what would appear to be the position next year and in future years if we make any change. As I see it, if we make no change we should have about £50,000 interest on the pension fund and about £110,000 approximately from the teachers. The State would have to make up the difference between the deficit of that £160,000 and £370,000, that is to say, the State contribution next year would be something like £210,000. Ultimately, taking the figures that the Minister supplied when he made his opening statement, these figures would change in this way. We should have still the £50,000 from the pension fund and £110,000 from the teachers, but we should have to produce £460,000 from taxation in order to meet the £620,000 that would be required to meet teachers' pensions. I would like the Minister to correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that the figures are correct, and that we must look forward, if we make any change, to the State contribution to those pensions rising from something over £200,000 to something over £450,000 a year. And I say the cost to the State is one which I do not think either the Government or the teachers can face with equanimity.

Mr. MacEntee

Did I understand the Deputy to say if we make no change, that if the present position, and the existing order—not the order before the House—were to continue the position that the Deputy indicated would be reached eventually? I think the Deputy is leaving one point out of consideration and that is that the fund would not be maintained over that period; in fact, securities are being realised from year to year, and it is being dissipated, so that at the end of a period of 12 years from now we can envisage its absolute disappearance.

Professor Thrift

Yes, because the State in the past has not made up the deficit. If we were to make up the deficit year by year what I said would continue permanently, but the annual contribution from the State would be increased to £210,000 instead of what it was last year, £80,000. I am not assuming in this argument that the State pays out each year whatever is required to meet the cost of pensions supplementary to its receipts from the pensions fund. The State has not been doing that and I think the State is not doing its duty with regard to the fund.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a matter which is very much in dispute.

Professor Thrift

This is a matter, as I said, that the Government will not like to hear, but it is important that we should state the position. The Government has assumed responsibility for these pensions.

Mr. MacEntee

Only on the basis of the existing rules. It has accepted responsibility for a certain portion of the pensions, not in the ratio of three to one, but in the proportion set out in the existing rules.

Professor Thrift

I was not going into the question of proportion. I was saying, however, that the teachers are entitled to certain pensions and it is the State's duty to see that these pensions are provided; but it is not a vital point to my argument. The argument I was putting was this, that the State, year by year, did not use capital but from its revenues of one kind or another made pensions charges upon it, that instead of something like £80,000 which was the cost to the State last year the State would next year pay something over £200,000 and, ultimately, something over £450,000. Where does the Minister challenge my figures there?

Mr. MacEntee

The fallacy there is the assumption that the State was always to contribute in the ratio of three to one.

Professor Thrift

No, I was not talking of ratio at all. I am saying that certain costs are paid out of revenue, not capital. That is the only premise I made. They had been paid out of capital by wasting away this pension fund.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is assuming that it is the duty of the State to make good the deficiency?

Professor Thrift

I did not say it was their duty.

Mr. MacEntee

That is how it appeared to me.

Professor Thrift

I did not attach responsibility, but I said if such a position were taken up, that out of revenue and not on the sacrifice of capital, certain expenditure were met, that would entail a charge upon the State next year of over £200,000 and ultimately of over £450,000 for the purpose. I do not think that that could be repudiated, and I do not think the Minister would repudiate it. It is a statement of fact, and the question of who is responsible is quite a different one. And here now I come to look more for the Minister's support. Before I pass on, however, I want to say one thing. I think the proposition that they put forward that an immediate 9 per cent. cut on teachers' salaries should be made, which would lead to their having a charge against the State revenue of between £20,000 and £30,000 less this year than last year, should not be done. The Ministry are not entitled, even for one year, to seek to diminish the cost of taxation for this particular purpose. Neither are the teachers entitled on the other side to expect that the State can take on a responsibility which will ultimately land them in an expenditure of £250,000 a year for this purpose. Even if a scheme like this is to be adopted, I want to make this suggestion to the Minister for his most careful consideration: that instead of either taking over cuts in salaries or an immediate alteration in the contribution which might be necessary as a contribution, what is called for is a sliding scale of contribution, and that no attempt should be made even for a year to diminish the cost.

The State should realise at once that something more is demanded from it immediately for this pension fund, and the teachers should recognise immediately that something more is required from them, because we cannot face this additional cost to the State ultimately of £250,000 a year for this purpose. I suggest to the Minister that in this there are the requisite elements of compromise. If the contributions from the teachers were of a sliding character, so that, as the cost to the State increased, their contribution might increase proportionately, what is required could be attained. It would mean that the scheme would not help State funds this year—which I emphatically say we ought not to do—but it would not irrevocably pledge future taxation, to the extent which I believe I have proved to be necessary. I cannot believe that the teachers wish or would desire to press matters to that extent. I think they must and do realise the position. I am not going into the merits of the question of whether the State is liable to three parts of the total liability or not, about which I candidly say I am not in a position to judge. I have not the facts before me; I do not know whether there was anything in the nature of a bargain in it or not. I do not think there was, and I find myself unable to accept Deputy Breathnach's statement that this position has not arisen because of the very reasonable and just increase that was made in the teachers' salaries before the change in the political situation. A change of that kind had been urgently demanded for a long time, but it came at a particularly crucial period. I for one am positively convinced that if that change had been postponed for two or three years the new salaries would not have been given on the scale which was adopted at the time the arrangement was made. It seems to be unarguable that the present position of the pensions fund has, to a large extent, arisen from the scale of salaries which was then fixed. Therefore, I think it is up to the teachers to be reasonable in this matter, and to see that some sacrifice in the way which will press least on them—I think that that is by way of sliding scale contributions—is required. I think the State must realise that, inasmuch as it has sanctioned that scale, further calls from it are necessary, and that it should at once set about some way of meeting those calls out of revenue. The method of dealing with this question in the past has been financially unsound.

The conclusion of my remarks is, I think, an obvious one. So far as I can see it this proposed scheme contains certain bad elements. Unless I am satisfied about them I, for one, cannot vote for it. I take it the teachers will have to realise that there are points in the principles of this scheme—not in the method, with which I quarrel particularly—which will require a compromise on their part. I largely accept Deputy Norton's figures in this connection, that the Government's proposition proposes to put too great a proportion of this charge on the teachers instead of on the State. Again I disagree with the method suggested, because it visualises the disappearance of a contribution on the part of the teacher towards his own pension. That may be merely a personal view, but I think there is some sense at the bottom of it.

Mr. Corish

Like my colleagues, I want to protest against the methods adopted by the Minister in connection with the matter of the teachers' pensions. The contribution demanded by him is out of all reason. It is equivalent to a month's salary, and any reasonable person will have to admit that it is most unjust. The teachers up till now have kept their side of the bargain, as far as one can hear. The Government now, having neglected to maintain solvency on their side, call upon the teachers to make up the deficiency. When the pension rules were altered on previous occasions the existing teachers were always given the option of accepting the new rules or remaining under the old ones. On this occasion no such option is given. There may be a reason for that, because it will be readily understood that none of the teachers would agree to come in under the new rule. The teachers seem to be fair game for every Government in this country. Both this Government and the last Government have taken the opportunity, under the guise of economy, to attack the teachers' salaries. During last year the teachers bore the brunt of the economies practised by the Government. In answer to a question of mine which I asked the Minister for Finance last week I was told that for the nine months ending in December last the teachers' contribution to the economy campaign of the Government was in the vicinity of £157,000, and by the end of the year their contribution will be something like £220,000. On top of that the teachers are now asked to contribute 9 per cent. of their salaries. One wonders when, as far as the teachers are concerned, this is going to end.

The actions of this and other Governments have led to strained relations between the teachers and the Government. I think the Minister and every reasonable-minded person will have to admit that that is not a very happy state of affairs. One cannot expect to get the best that there is in a teacher when there are such relations prevailing between the Government and the teaching profession. The teachers have certainly borne their share of the economies that have been called for from time to time. On previous occasions, when new schemes were introduced, old pensioned teachers were always considered. I do not see any indication now that the Government proposes to do anything for those people. There are only a few of those at the moment. Some of them have pensions as low as £20. The teachers are, I understand, very anxious that those people should get some consideration. After all, if the teachers are to make the contribution asked for under this Bill, that claim which they make should receive the consideration of the Minister. I would be glad to hear from the Minister, when he is replying, if he is prepared to adjust these regulations in such a manner as to permit the old pensioners, who are at the moment in receipt of, I think, £20, being given consideration. Deputy Norton has quoted some figures in connection with this scheme, and we are all anxiously awaiting the answer to them by the Minister. I have already pointed out that the teachers are very dissatisfied with the rules that have been put forward here by the Minister in respect of pensions for the future, and I should like to ask the Minister certain questions, and I hope that he will give an answer to them. They have already been asked by some of the other speakers. I should like to know what was the actual amount of the income to the fund for 1933, under the heading of interest and investments, and how much of this amount was on account of investments credited to the teachers' contribution account. The teachers do not agree with the estimate put forward by the Minister. The Minister has been rather conservative in that figure and his answer is anxiously awaited.

Under these rules, for the first time, the matter of gratuities to lady teachers on the occasion of their marriage was brought into operation and one would like to know why no gratuity is paid unless seven years have been served. What will probably happen is that, instead of getting married, the teacher will hang on until seven years have elapsed. Surely, some gratuity should be payable before the end of that seven year period? I believe that the Minister should do something in that connection. I think all the other points have been covered by the various speakers but I would suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw his proposal and have another conference with those who are accredited to speak on behalf of the teachers, with a view to finding accommodation which will be acceptable to both parties. Strained relations, as I say, have been existing between the teachers and the Government for some time, and one wonders if these relations are going to be in perpetuity, because every Government, for a considerable time past, has looked on the teachers as fair game when it wanted to carry out any economy in the State. I submit that the teachers have borne more than their share in salary cuts, and things of that kind, and I would suggest to the Minister that, as this contribution which he is asking the teachers to make to this pension fund is far and away too great, he should withdraw this proposal and have another conference with the teachers with a view to having better proposals laid before the House.

Mr. Cleary

I have very little to say on this matter. I realise that the Minister and the Department concerned are taking a great responsibility in attempting to have this question of the teachers' pension fund finally settled. It is a grave responsibility and it will probably lean heavily on the people of the State as a whole, to have this matter finally disposed of, but I cannot understand at all why, as Deputy Corish more or less suggested, certain agreements could not be come to on this question between the Department and the teachers' organisation. I have met members of that profession, from time to time, and I do feel that, speaking for the teachers, the organisation has taken all along a very reasonable point of view on this question and it surprises me very much to see that no final agreement could be come to. I admit that both parties may, on certain points, be taking an unreasonable view, but both parties seem to realise their responsibilities in this matter and I cannot at all understand, as they realise the question that is to be settled and that they are both, as it were, up against it in this matter, why no common ground could be found on which to base agreement or to come to closer grips with the situation. It is unfair, I think, to say that the teachers' organisation, although I am not at one with them in many points, have taken an unreasonable view.

It must be admitted that all previous agreements, and previous supposed agreements and arrangements, with that body have, with this proposal, come to an end, and that the Department proposes to start off from scratch, as it were, with a completely new agreement and that all supposed rights of teachers to pensions, because of certain payments going on over a number of years, are all wiped off the slate and an entirely new arrangement come to. The Department cannot very well lay the blame at the door of the teachers' organisation. To some extent, anyhow, this agreement wipes the slate clean in respect of most of those instances where certain rights have grown up, even by virtue of time, and it is surely unfair to wipe all those out and start off with a clean slate, and with entirely new proposals without giving more consideration to the suggestions put up by the teachers' organisation. There should be, I suggest, a good deal more of give and take as between the Department and the organisation on this question. So far as the people of the State are concerned, they are very interested in this matter, too, because taxation, to a certain extent, will be affected by this proposal, and, while I would not like to suggest, as Deputy Corish has suggested, that this question should be postponed, it does puzzle me that no common ground could be found as between the organisation and the Department in their approach to this question.

I cannot say that I am altogether in favour of the Minister's proposals, but, seeing that the teachers' organisation have made no clear cut suggestion to the Department, the only thing left for us is to accept the Minister's proposals, as the only thing in the way of a clear cut suggestion upon which to work. It is disappointing that no clear cut suggestion has been made by the teachers' organisation which the Minister could accept as final. I understand that, under the present arrangement, there is no guarantee whatever that a Minister for Finance of this or any other Government is not free at any time to come along and impose further reductions in teachers' salaries, if economies are necessary. I think it is a pity, now that a final arrangement is being come to with regard to the pensions of teachers, that a final arrangement could not be come to on the question of salaries, and that in this agreement on pensions, there might not be included also an agreement that no other calls would be made on the salaries of teachers, and basing those salaries on a certain figure, no matter what it is. The greatest difficulty of many teachers whom I know with this and previous Governments is that they do not know where they stand. There is nothing accepted or agreed upon as the final salary allowances which will not be interfered with by any Minister for Finance in the cause of economy in future, and I do think it a pity, now that this arrangement is being made, that nothing definite could be determined with regard to teachers in time to come. If that question could be dealt with in connection with this pension arrangement, it would be much more satisfactory. I know teachers who would not be so much put out by the amount of contribution which they have to give towards the pension fund, if they felt that the question of their salaries was also finally settled.

Mr. F. Lynch

If the Deputy would excuse me for one moment, I should like to say a few words. I do not know whether he is finished or not. That is, I think, the proposition I put up to the Minister for Finance—if there were finality in the proposition. Now, the Deputy queries how much finality there can be about any Minister's promise. Surely there must be absolute finality, because every Government coming in, in ordinary decency, must carry out the promises of the Government existing, or else you will have no sense of stability in the country at all. I do not wish to make a speech, I merely want to make that point. The Deputy raised the question of the finality of this matter. I asked the question and could get no answer to satisfy me.

Mr. Derrig

You got your answer.

Mr. Lynch

If the Deputy were here, that is another matter. He knows exactly how my proposition was treated. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Moore

I should like to refer to some points in Deputy Thrift's speech which seem to me worthy of some examination. The Deputy criticised the scheme on the ground that he favoured a contributory scheme, and he suggested that the existing fund should be maintained as a security, not merely a financial security, but a moral security —a moral security in the sense that, so long as it remained and the teacher was contributing to his pension, there was no fear of a Government making further inroads on salaries on the plea that the salary contained pension rights. Deputy Thrift did not advert to the fact that the adoption of his proposals would create two different systems for what you might call two different classes of civil servants, and that if his proposal be right for teachers, it is only reasonable that it should be applied, also, to the ordinary civil servant. He pleaded further when he asked that the existing fund be maintained as the basis of the pension scheme that it would give the teacher a greater sense of security. I suggest that, on the contrary, these special funds can never be regarded as secure. Nobody knows what the future of capital investment is likely to be in any country. Nobody knows what the rate of interest will be even three or four years hence. We know that it has been declining very much, even in the past two or three years, and I could not imagine teachers feeling a greater sense of security simply because they had investments there to rely upon as the basis for their pensions rather than that the budgetary position of the country was satisfactory.

It seems to me that, even if adopted, the Deputy's scheme would work out very much the same as the Minister's proposal. I do not suppose that any Government is likely to favour the investment of such funds in foreign securities, in the immediate future, at all events. If they are invested in native securities, it is obvious that the safeguard is still, practically speaking, in Government hands, since practically all the trustee investments of this country are either Government or semi-Government investments. Even the railways might be called a semi-Government security at the present time. I think that there is that big weakness in Deputy Thrift's argument. I am sure that, all things considered, the teachers would feel a great deal more satisfied if their pensions were based on the general revenue of the country. At all events, I think it is desirable, and strongly desirable, that there should be uniformity in such matters and that the State should not have the burden, in view of the other very big burdens it has to bear under modern conditions, of managing a fund of that kind, and should not have to bear the expenditure that would be involved by acceptance of that responsibility. At all events, they should not have that burden imposed upon them simply in order to satisfy a principle that has something to commend it, perhaps, but that is not, in itself, altogether one to be worshipped.

The history of these funds earmarked for particular purposes has not been a very happy one, so far as my recollection goes, and I have always been of the opinion, so far as they exist at present, where you have certain State revenues earmarked for particular purposes, that the Minister for Finance should liquidate these funds and, if the service that is getting the advantage of them is a service worthy of State support, that it should depend for its security and for its continuance on the ordinary revenue of the country. I submit it is a childish system to have licence duties, for instance, earmarked for one particular service. I cannot see any advantage in it. On the contrary, I can see very great disadvantages in it, inasmuch as if the service is not adequately served by such revenues it means either that the service has to suffer or the State has to make up the deficiency from some other sources.

I entirely disagree with Deputy Thrift's argument on that score in regard to that part of his contribution. So far as I have heard the debate, I think that the Minister's proposals are the best that have been suggested to the House and that they should receive support.

Mr. Lynch

There has been no other.

Mr. Dillon

Before the Minister concludes there are one or two aspects of this scheme that do not seem to me to have been touched upon. I listened with great respect to Deputy Thrift, to Deputy Cleary and to Deputy Moore. Deputy Thrift had a good deal to say that was relevant. Deputy Cleary had a good deal to say, and at the conclusion of what he said I could not make out whether he was against the scheme or for the scheme. It seemed to me that you just paid your money and took your choice. In the committee room of Fianna Fáil he was in favour of it; in North Mayo, in the vicinity of a teacher's house, he was in favour of it, and in the vicinity of a farmer's house he was against it. Deputy Moore did not seem to me to contribute much to clarify the problem before us.

Mr. Moore

I did not attempt to do so. I simply rose to deal with one suggestion of Deputy Thrift.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Moore's contributions are usually so voluble that I was, perhaps, a little dismayed at the paucity of his contribution on this occasion. Personally, I do feel that it is a mistake to impose a settlement of this kind on the national teachers against their will. I think that a radical alteration in the existing pension system without the consent of the teachers is a mistake, because you are taking on considerable liabilities and pleasing nobody. I think it would be very much better for the Minister to follow more on the lines I recommended to him in other matters long ago, and that was to take counsel amongst the persons whose interests are being affected. I think that when I was discussing education, generally, with him, I recommended to him to go and get the teachers who were teaching the children, and ask them what they thought of his proposals. He said that the suggestion was absurd and not worthy of consideration. Nevertheless, I make bold to say to him that if he has not managed to arrive at any arrangement with the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, Deputy Breathnach and Deputy Rice, and some other members of his own Party, ought to be able to offer some useful and practical advice as to what kind of amendment might be made in this scheme to meet the reasonable objections of the national teachers. It is very often the case, where you have a Minister of State dealing with an organisation, that the organisation speaks a little stiffer than it really means to be. It does not mean to give away something lest an advantage might be taken of it on the other side. There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter, and if the Minister would take counsel with a few representative teachers, in their representative character, it would be a source of amazement to me if a bridge could not be found to cover the gap between the two parties in this instance, and if an arrangement could not be arrived at that would do equity all round and, above all, be accepted by the teachers with good will. I think the Minister ought to consider that, if his scheme is not accepted with good will by the teachers, the greater part of the object he proposes to serve by this is not being served.

I heard, I think, Deputy Cleary, and I think Deputy Moore also, speak of the security of the teachers in their present rates of pay. They said they thought that more material contribution towards a composition of the existing differences could be made by ensuring stability in wages for the future. That is a very pious hope, but I would ask the Deputies to remember that when a man is working for a salary, the permanency of his salary depends on the capacity of the man, for whom he is working, to pay.

The national teachers of this country are in the service of the people of the country and I think Deputies Breathnach and Rice would agree with me that so long as there was prosperity amongst the people of the country there was never any talk of cutting the teachers' salaries. If prosperity continued amongst the people of the country there never would be any talk of cutting the teachers' salaries. But there is no use talking of stability in the Minister's salary, in the teachers' salaries, in the Civic Guards' salaries and in the civil servants' salaries, if at the same time Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party are going to support the Ministry in carrying on a policy in this country which is going to beggar everybody in the State, because neither I nor any other farmer in the country——

Mr. Derrig

When did you become a farmer?

Mr. Dillon

A long time before the Minister became a Minister of the State, and if I am not a better farmer than the Minister is a Minister I am quite prepared to quit my job. Before the Minister's disorderly interruption I was saying that if I and the other farmers in this country are reduced to destitution——(Interruptions.) Now the Minister sees the bad example he set to those behind him. The Minister is a Minister for Education charged with the instruction of youth both by precept and example and he ought to remember that those behind him are very susceptible to bad example. As I was observing before these disorderly interruptions from the Fianna Fáil Benches, if the Fianna Fáil Party reduces every farmer in this country to a state of destitution, there is no use for the teacher, the Civic Guard, the civil servant or anybody else whose salary is a charge upon the public purse expecting that there will be stability in their rate of remuneration because there will not. We have this year to meet a bill of £39,000,000. Even Deputy Breathnach does not know where to get that money. I do not believe that the Minister for Finance knows where he is to get it. But there is no use asking for stability in the salaries of public servants in this country unless and until the people's capacity to pay taxation is brought into some relation with the demands which the Minister for Finance makes upon them. What Deputies have got to remember when they deplore the demands made upon the teaching profession is that these demands would not be countenanced in the country for one moment if the people themselves were not driven down into destitution by the policy which the Deputies are supporting. It is as well for Deputy Cleary, Deputy Breathnach, Deputy Rice and everyone else here who profess admiration and sympathy for the teachers to keep in mind that if the people are prosperous they will not covet the teachers' salaries or any other salaries paid for any fair purpose. But if the people are destitute they cannot find the money to pay what they otherwise would be willing to pay.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy promised to make a contribution to the solution of this problem.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister's bad example is still demoralising his supporters. He would want to get up and admonish them. I want to ask the Minister a very important question. We have been discussing at length what effect this scheme will have on the teachers. A good many who have spoken have lost sight of the question: what effect it is going to have on the Exchequer. The Minister, speaking here on the 9th March, as reported in Volume 51, column 509, said:

"I mentioned that the total value of the Government's securities in the fund amounted to about £1,500,000. I am advised that the market value of the securities held at present amounts to about £1,476,000, with an interest-bearing value of £51,148. There is also the interest from the Church Temporalities Fund amounting to £26,598, making a total of £77,746."

Now, if we capitalise the value to the State of the Church Temporalities Fund we have a figure of about £700,000, and if we add that to the £1,500,000 which is in the fund in Government securities we have a total sum of £2,250,000, which represents the capital value of the existing fund. Would these figures be correct?

Mr. Derrig

I regret to say that I cannot give the Deputy any information as to its actuarial accuracy.

Mr. Dillon

Well, this is a very important aspect of the situation, because you have got the sum of £2,250,000 which is going to be appropriated by the State. What is to become of the £2,250,000? Are we going to hear another Budget speech from the Minister for Finance that he is going to bring this £2,250,000 into this year's finances in order to be able to balance his Budget?

Mr. Derrig

No.

Mr. Dillon

Now, the Minister was not so definite before.

Mr. Derrig

I am not definite about the figures, not quite as definite as the Deputy. I cannot say offhand.

Mr. Dillon

But the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking that these moneys will not be brought into revenue?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

That is clear, that they will be put in some fund and kept there.

Mr. Derrig

The intention is not to dissipate the assets of the fund.

Mr. Dillon

But they are not going to be brought into revenue?

Mr. Derrig

No.

Mr. Dillon

That is a very important discovery to make and it is one Deputies should make a very careful note of. This is an occasion upon which the House should fix a careful eye on those funds and watch their eventual disposition. The House must remember that in removing this £2,250,000 from the pension fund they are creating a permanent liability on the State and, in referring to that liability, the Minister has deducted the interest which these securities would produce in order to arrive at the net figure of the State's annual liability. If the Minister brings these moneys into revenue in one year or in instalments he is simply borrowing to meet the ordinary Budget requirements for which he ought to impose taxation. Now we have a very expressed undertaking from the Minister for Education that the Minister for Finance has no intention of bringing this fund into revenue. That undertaking is, of course, sufficient and we must only assume that the Minister is going to put the money in some kind of fund and to use the proceeds of that fund in order to mitigate the annual burden of these pensions on the Exchequer.

It does seem odd that while the Minister is quite clear that the funds are not going to be brought into revenue, he is not quite clear as to what is going to be done with them. Is there any precedent for adopting a scheme or for passing a resolution of this House authorising the Minister to appropriate £2,250,000 of public money without having any information as to how the Minister for Finance proposes to dispose of the money or use it? It is as if the Minister came in here and asked us to pass an estimate of £2,250,000 for pious purposes and if we asked him what it was for he would say: "Pious purposes, and I cannot go further than that." I do not think it is competent or proper for the House to pass an estimate of £2,250,000 for a pious purpose, particularly when we have a Budget which will range between £35,000,000 and £39,000,000 about to come before us.

The Minister ought to inform the House, before a division is taken, how he proposes to dispose of the moneys which he will take over from the pensions fund. Deputies, particularly Deputies Rice and Breathnach, ought to bear in mind, when they make their praiseworthy plea for stability in teachers' salaries, that the ultimate test as to whether a teacher can expect stability in his salary or not is the capacity of the people to pay and that the age-old experience of every public servant in this country has been this, that when the people were prosperous there was never any inclination on their part to effect economies at the expense of public servants' salaries and it is only when the people are being brought to destitution that public servants have to complain that they are called upon to make contributions to the public purse from the salaries they have been in the habit of enjoying.

Mr. E. Rice

I do not want to follow Deputy Dillon in the tirade he has presented to us or in the lecture he has given the teachers as to what their expectations should be, having regard to the condition of the country and so forth. I remember when the country was very prosperous in 1914 and on to 1920, and I know the teachers were never worse paid than they were in those days. At that time the teachers' salaries were only 30/- a week. That does not tally with Deputy Dillon's idea of the rate of wages the teacher should be paid when times are prosperous. I, with Deputy Cleary, regret that an amicable arrangement has not been come to between the teachers and the Government. It is very regrettable that some arrangement has not been arrived at in that way. I do not know what the reasons were, whether blame is to be attached to the Government for being unreasonable or whether the teachers are to be blamed for being unreasonable. In any case, an amicable arrangement has not been arrived at and in the circumstances the Government have thought fit to propose this settlement. I join with Deputy Norton and Deputy Breathnach in saying that it is a bad settlement, an unsatisfactory settlement, from the teachers' point of view. The worst flaw in this arrangement is that the pensionable income is fixed after the deductions have been made. If the pensionable income had been allowed to remain the same and the contributions taken off, I believe an arrangement of that kind, coupled with all the other advantages in the regulations, would have satisfied the majority of the teachers. It is a pity that negotiations did not reach a more satisfactory conclusion, something in the nature of a settlement on such a basis as I suggest. I need not cover the ground already covered by Deputies who have pointed out the disadvantages the teachers will experience under this arrangement. Those Deputies have discussed the matter from the teachers' point of view and I agree with practically everything that has been said in that connection.

Having said so much, I must say that the teachers themselves are not altogether free from blame in this matter. What I mean is this, that I think the way they handled the case, to say the least of it, was not very diplomatic. I think the first mistake they made, the first and fatal mistake, was when they agreed to any reduction of their salary at all, when they agreed to the arrangement with the Minister for Finance in the late Government. When they agreed to accept a reduction of six per cent. in their salaries along with the four per cent. contribution to the pension fund—making a total of ten per cent.—they made the first and fatal mistake. I believe they then started on the slippery slope, because ever afterwards they were tied by that arrangement. I remember at the branch meeting of which I was a member that arrangement came to be voted upon. It was passed by a vote of 25 to one, and I was that minority of one.

Strange to say, in the next year a complete change had taken place in the policy of the teachers' organisation. Similar resolutions were sent to the branches to be voted on and on account of the change that took place that vote was reversed—25 to one the other way about. I must say that the teachers were not consistent or that they were not diplomatic in the negotiations which took place on this question. I do not like to criticise them but I must say what I feel about it. Of course, a complete change took place in the policy of the teachers. Before passing from that, I want to remind the House that the teachers had a special Congress to approve of and ratify the arrangement accepting the 6 per cent. deduction. Then a new policy was suddenly adopted by the teachers' organisation. They resolved to try to retrieve their position and decided that they would have no cut at all. That was before the Fianna Fáil Government came into power, before the general election. In July, 1932, they made another mistake. Whether it was a mistake or not perhaps I should not say, but in any case they refused to accept an offer of five per cent. reduction, the pensionable income to remain the same. Whether they were wise in that it is for themselves to say. I remember that one deputation of the three teacher-Deputies in our Party were asked by the teachers to call on the President and the first thing the Minister for Finance threw down at us was this agreement with Mr. Blythe. At that time we succeeded in getting them to offer the teachers terms of a five per cent. cut, the Government taking full charge of the pensions fund, and also giving pensions to lay assistants and junior assistant mistresses just as under the present proposals.

I think the worst mistake of all was when they refused to send a delegation from the Galway conference on the invitation of the President for the purpose of negotiating and adjusting the pension question. I believe if they had sent a delegation at that time an arrangement would have been made that would have satisfied 95 per cent. of the teachers. However, I must say, notwithstanding all the mistakes that have been made, I am still firmly of the opinion that the arrangements now proposed are very bad for the teachers. I would appeal to the Minister to try to do his best to improve them and at least to include the old pensioners. Some of the old pensioners are now eking out a miserable existence on 10/- or 15/- a week. I would also appeal to him to include junior assistant mistresses and lay teachers in convents, who have resigned recently, one of whom was instanced by Deputy Murphy as living on an old-age pension of 10/- a week.

Deputy Breathnach also made an appeal to the Minister to do something for the Northern teachers who were victimised during the year 1922. I have much pleasure in supporting his appeal in that respect. Perhaps members of this House do not know much about the circumstances of that case. I am sorry Deputy Lynch is not present on the Front Bench opposite at this moment because he knows a good deal about this matter. There was an appeal made by the Provisional Government of the day to the teachers of the Six Counties to repudiate the Northern Government and to throw in their lot with the Free State. The Provisional Government of the day sent a representative down to the Six Counties to canvass the teachers and to invite them to come under the Government here. When that representative of the Provisional Government came down to the Six Counties I happened to be working there. We put certain questions to him and we asked him for certain guarantees in case we got into difficulties, after we accepted the invitation to join the Free State service. We got those guarantees. Not only that but we sent a deputation to the Provisional Government and the Minister for Education of that Government, Deputy Fionan Lynch. We got all the guarantees we needed. We got guarantees that we would be paid our salaries and that in case we got into trouble our dependents would be seen to.

I remember attending a meeting when the deputation came back and one man had the temerity to ask the delegates had they not written guarantees. I remember another man speaking with indignation and asserting that the word of Michael Collins was good enough for him. Well, that was the feeling of the meeting. Two hundred teachers fell in with the invitation of the Provisional Government. They repudiated the Northern inspectors and we refused to allow them to inspect our schools. They were paid from Dublin, not from the official headquarters but from a place in Mount Street—I forget the number—with cheques signed by a man named O'Daly. We were to be paid as long as we continued to throw in our lot with that Government. They paid us for six months. At the end of the six months they repudiated us and these 200 teachers had to make the best terms they could and to submit to very humiliating conditions to get back. Not only had they to submit to very humiliating conditions, but they were deprived of the pension rights at that time, of their increments and of their salaries for the interval from the time they were paid from Dublin to the time they were reinstated.

I think it will be admitted that these 200 teachers were badly victimised. I think the people responsible for that should have seen to it that they would have to be recouped for their loss. Deputy Breathnach said that this Government had nothing to do with it but they inherited the mess. When the mess was not cleared up before they came in it is their duty, even at this late hour, to clean up the mess. These 200 teachers were victimised and were at a great loss. There were a few others who at the beginning of the movement were imprisoned. About 13 or 14 were imprisoned and kept in for a period of 2½ years. They got neither pay nor anything else during that time. Not only that, but when they were released some of them were deported. They had to go about their business and find some other occupation or some other situation. Those who were deported got no salary at all for 2½ years. The action they took was at the request of the Government of this country in order to help the cause and, as they thought, to break down the barrier of partition. Those teachers who were sent about their business and deported suffered not only the loss of their liberty—they did not give much for that—but also the loss of their salaries. They had nothing to help their dependents. Deputies can imagine the state that these dependents were in, the worry they suffered and the fact that they were left without means for the support of their families. I want to emphasise the appeal that has been made in this connection by Deputy Breathnach. The Minister is not acquainted with all these details. If he wants any further information on the matter I venture to say he will be able to get it in his own Department. I appeal to the Minister not only on behalf of lately pensioned teachers, junior assistant mistresses and lay teachers, but also on behalf of the victimised Northern teachers.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

Deputy Rice and Deputy Breathnach, amongst other speakers, while expressing disapproval of the scheme have asked that we should consider the question of further concessions. Now it seems to me that, while we have never taken up the attitude with regard to amendments which did not involve substantial financial considerations that we were not prepared to consider them, we are entitled, when representatives of the teachers' organisations ask us for further concessions— particularly of the type Deputy Rice spoke of, which are really altogether outside the scope of the present scheme —to inquire whether it is fair or just that these demands should be made when we have not got agreement on the essential principles that we have laid down in this scheme. We asked the teachers to accept as a basis the 9 per cent. cut, and tried to effect a solution with them of all the matters outstanding financially. We were willing at any rate to consider these matters. With regard to the particular point that Deputy Rice has raised, there is a difficulty there inasmuch as the teachers involved are outside the jurisdiction of this State.

Mr. Rice

Not all.

Mr. Derrig

And although there is a special claim in these cases, we have to recognise that we have not been able, although we have considered it from time to time, to reward all those who suffered at that time nor have we even been able to give them compensation for what they lost for the simple reason that the burden would be too great. To attempt to go into all the claims at this stage would be almost impossible. I think the Deputy himself will recognise, with regard to that particular problem, that it really does not come in under the scheme that we are now discussing.

Deputy Breathnach raised the question of industrial schools. So far as I know this question was not raised before in connection with this settlement of the National Teachers' Pension Fund. Industrial school teachers are private employees. They are employed by the managers of the different industrial schools. We have asked the managers to consider the question of introducing some kind of a scheme—it might be defective but at any rate it would be a beginning—for these teachers. However, we expect that the whole question of industrial schools, their finances, administration and the conditions of the teachers in them, will be inquired into.

Then there is the question of people who have left the service. Under the Teachers' Pensions Act of 1928 we can only grant pensions to people who are in the service at present. We would have to amend that Act if we proposed to give pensions to people who have left the service. I quite admit that there will be cases of hardship which will not be covered by the existing scheme if it be passed. Deputies will remember that in the case of the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation Scheme, although the number of teachers involved was very much smaller than the number in question here, it was found that there were cases that were outside the scope of the scheme, and the scheme had to be amended to cover less than a handful of teachers. Even when the scheme had been amended there were still one or two hard and exceptional cases outstanding. We can examine into these particular questions where the number of teachers involved is small and where the financial considerations do not rule out the settlement of their claims, but if we are going to amend the law the question will naturally be asked: where are we going to stop? This is one of the matters that was discussed between the teachers and ourselves. We do not think that we would be justified, for the sake of a small number of cases, in amending the law specially to cover them. However, I think I can say that we shall inquire again into the matter, and if either these cases or other cases are found to be cases of genuine hardship and cases that should, in compassion, be covered we may be able to do something about them.

It is not my place to suggest it to the House, but I think every Deputy present knows—particularly those who have been loudest in claiming that this is a very unjust settlement imposed very wrongfully by a hard-hearted and cruel Government on the teachers—that there are very important financial considerations involved. Deputy Thrift in his interesting speech referred to some of these considerations. He pointed to the fact that an extremely large liability is being placed on the State, and as the Deputy has a certain interest in conservative finance, he is naturally anxious that we should have security in this matter without at the same time imposing too heavy a burden on the State. He recognises, as we all recognise, that the State has a duty in this matter as well as the teachers, but he wonders whether, in view of the attitude that has been taken up in this House to-night, an unjust attitude, an unfair attitude, the teachers appreciate the position fully. The attitude that has been taken up by most speakers is unfair and unjust and seems to me to have in view the fact that the vast body of the teachers will not have an opportunity of considering this matter in its details. A certain case will be presented to them by the newspapers. For example, they will read what Deputies in the Labour Party say, and they will believe it. I wish I could hope that they would not. I think they will believe the case put up here. A very strong case indeed could be put up on the other side to show that the whole of this nine per cent. cut is in fact actuarially necessary to make the fund solvent. We have heard the point put up, and I agree with it, that a sound financial principle could be quoted to show that this fund should be kept solvent and that the State should take over this liability. How is it going to be kept solvent? Where is there liability on the State? There is no liability. It can be said, if you like, that there is a moral liability; that we are in fact bound to do something; that we cannot allow the present condition of affairs to continue. We heard Deputies on the opposite benches say that the position is becoming worse and worse. Do they suggest that the Government, knowing the position, should allow it to drift further, until the assets of the fund are completely dissipated? Does the Labour Party suggest that it would be a better bargain for the teachers that we should hand over the fund to them, saying: "There is your fund. Do what you wish. We are not going to give any further support beyond what we are giving"? Supposing we took that attitude, and that the teachers said: "We are a strong political body, and we refuse to come to terms. We refused to come to terms with the last Government, and we do not see why we should come to terms with this Government, which is supported by the Labour Party." What I say is that the teachers were very unwise in their attitude and that they failed to realise that they might be called on to face something else. I do not think those representing the State would have taken the attitude that, for the sake of a minor financial consideration, they were going to throw the whole thing into the melting pot again. The Minister for Finance when dealing with the matter had the same end in view as I have—to try to effect a solution.

Surely we have as much interest as anyone else in seeing that the teachers are contented and satisfied, that this recurring trouble with them regarding salaries and pensions should, if possible, be got out of the way once and for all. Everybody who has any sense of responsibility has that point of view. Personally I never said anything in this House or outside it with regard to the efforts made by the last Government to settle this question. I knew that there were two sides to it. At the time I knew it was very easy to take the short-sighted view, and to say that men in the teachers' organisation or outside it who said: "Here is an opportunity to settle the question," were traitors to their organisation and all that. That might be all right for the time being, for the internal politics of the organisation, or for the politics of the country generally for that matter, but I doubt if it was wise.

Mr. Norton

Read the speech of Deputy Lemass at Cahir.

Mr. Derrig

I said there was a liability on the teachers, if they were not satisfied with the proposals put up from time to time based on a 9 per cent. cut or a 10 per cent. cut, to put up their proposals. What proposals have they put up? As Deputy Rice pointed out, a great deal of blame, I am sorry to say, must rest on the shoulders of the teachers. Their representatives, having in view a settlement of this question, approached the then Minister for Finance in 1931, intimating that they would accept a cut of 5 per cent. in pensionable salaries. He wrote them a letter, the contents of which, I think were, that he wanted a cut of 10 per cent. all round, of which 4 per cent. was to be a pensions contribution, and that on that basis his Government was prepared to take over responsibility for teachers' pensions, and possibly to bring in under the scheme junior assistant mistresses and lay assistant teachers. The Special Congress at the time actually accepted these proposals, believing, I have no doubt, that there was to be general "axing," a general campaign of economy. They felt if they did not accept that worse things might follow. I say it is a compliment to the present Government that they have changed that attitude—it is a compliment to the present Government that hours have been wasted here listening to Deputies who stood for a 10 per cent. cut in teachers' pensionable salaries in 1931, they now tell us that a 9 per cent. cut with a number of benefits thrown in is very much worse. One would want a good sense of humour in Irish politics to realise the humour of the situation, having regard to the fact that they approached the last Government, offered to take a 5 per cent. cut and later were agreeable to accept a 10 per cent. cut in settlement of the question. Is it now suggested that the teachers are so lacking in intelligence and in common sense that they do not realise that this settlement, imposed or otherwise, is at any rate a handsome advance on what they were offered before? I think a great body of the teachers realise this and will not be deceived by the speeches made here this evening. One type of speech suggested: "Oh! there is no responsibility on anyone. Stick it out until all the assets of the fund have disappeared." What will be the position then? With regard to the pension fund, even if we were to use up the assets for the particular purpose of paying pensions it will not last very long. Let us assume that we will have to make a larger contribution, and that we could make an arrangement by which, instead of dissipating the assets of the fund in ten years, which would be the case if we continue as at present, that they shall be dissipated in, say, 40 years, having, at the same time, an increased contribution from State finances. There is a good deal to be said from the financial point of view in favour of showing the taxpayer now what he will be faced with in connection with this matter. That particular aspect of the matter has not been sufficiently emphasised in this House. The exceedingly heavy liability upon the State, and from which it will not be able to escape in future if this scheme goes through, has not been brought home sufficiently to the country. All interested in the position from that point of view have got to realise what that liability is now. Whether we do this or whether we take over the whole weight of the responsibility as soon as possible will make no great difference in the long run.

Deputy Thrift suggested one way in which we might be able to solve the problem—by maintaining the fund and gradually increasing the contributions. In other words, taking the same steps that were taken in former times, when the fund was insolvent, in order to bring about solvency. I dislike going back, but the speeches of Deputy Norton and his colleagues compel me to do so. The British Government, while it made a special grant in 1895 to bring about the solvency of the fund, also increased the teachers' contributions and reduced the benefits at that time. The trouble about the suggestion that Deputy Thrift has in mind is that the teachers have not come forward with any alternative proposal by which the fund could be made to remain solvent. They have not suggested that their benefits or pensions should be reduced, nor, so far as I know, have they suggested that their contributions should be increased. There is a difficulty which Deputy Thrift may not appreciate in that proposal—to leave the fund as it is and increase the contributions. The younger teachers who are now entering the service state with justification that they can enter an insurance or superannuation contributory scheme on better terms than 9 per cent., that they would get their pensions in due course on a 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. basis. The whole trouble about this situation, and the whole cause of the deficiency arises, as I pointed out in my opening statement, from the increased salaries which were fixed in 1920. I think Deputy Lynch suggested that the figures I gave showing the maxima were unfair, and I will now quote the minimum figures. The minimum figures pre-war were £63 for men, which was raised to £170 minimum, and £51 for women, raised to £155. There was also an increase in the number of teachers and, as I pointed out, there was a greatly increased burden on the fund. What was the position of teachers who came into the service about 1894, and who are going out on pension at present? They were paying the usual contribution up to 1920. From 1920 on they have been paying only the same percentage contribution, although it is quite clear that an increased contribution should have been payable, not alone from 1920, but also in respect of service before 1920. We should have had an increased contribution in respect of the increased pensions that were being paid and we should have had some provision made for back service. Those teachers are going out now, and the position, from the actuarial point of view, is that they have not made adequate contributions, whereas, in the case of new entrants to the profession, 5 per cent. or 5½ per cent., according to the actuary, would be sufficient to maintain solvency in their case. The point omitted entirely by speakers is that we have this deficiency of over £4,210,000, which was discovered in 1928. It is now over £5,000,000, and that deficiency has to be attributed to the teachers who are at present in the service.

It is all very well to say that the Government is responsible for the neglect. I quoted yesterday a statement made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1898 to show that while it can be argued that, from the bookkeeping point of view, there were two separate accounts in the fund—the Teachers' Contribution Account and the Endowment Account—and while it can be argued that the Teachers' Contribution Account was maintained in a fairly solvent condition and the other account was not, there is nothing whatever to show that that division of accounts signified anything, or that the British Treasury, at that time, accepted any appropriate responsibility in connection with the matter. They may have accepted a moral responsibility. They may have, from time to time, made contributions, but there was, in fact, no legal liability. When we are told that we cannot escape from this notion of equity and this moral claim upon us to do our share, I should like to point out that there is, at least, equal responsibility upon the teachers to make practical suggestions and to put up practical propositions. Whatever may have been the position in 1897 or 1898—and let us admit, for the moment, that in 1914 these two accounts were kept, and were on the basis of three to one—what was the basis then laid down by the British Treasury? We have had a mass of figures as regards the cost of superannuation benefits, and I shall be glad if somebody will show me that I am wrong when I say that the 1914 scheme would have maintained the solvency of the fund ever afterwards were it not that new conditions arose in 1920, when the greatly increased scale of salaries was brought in, and further that the 1914 scheme was on the basis of a contribution of half from the State and half from the teachers. When I am told that there is this liability or obligation on the State, I can quote not alone what Sir Michael Hicks Beach said, but what the British Treasury did in 1914. From 1914 to 1920, that position continued.

What were the teachers paying under the 1914 scheme? Their contribution was from 3½ to 5 per cent. of salary. That was later stabilised at a flat rate of 4 per cent. What was the value of the pension benefits? According to the actuary, the value of the pension benefits was at that time 7½ per cent. The teachers were paying 4 per cent. out of 7½ per cent., so that they were paying something like half. Still it is argued that the British Treasury or British statesmen, in some way or other, admitted this liability in the proportion of three to one. Although I admit that on one occasion, in 1920, in a moment of aberration, the British Treasury acted the part of the fairy godmother towards the much neglected service of Irish education, I think that the course of events in Great Britain and Northern Ireland since has shown clearly that they would not have continued to act the part of the fairy godmother.

Deputy Thrift has reminded the teachers, with reason, that if the 1920 scales had been postponed for a few years, not alone would the scales have been greatly reduced but the teachers might never have got anything like them. The situation is completely altered. In Great Britain, when this new scale of salaries was brought in, I am sure strong financial arguments were made against what the Government were doing. If I were in Opposition and attacking this excellent settlement which we are giving the teachers, I should make the fullest possible use of them. The British Government introduced the principle of non-contributory schemes and they had to go back to the contributory basis—this fairy godmother which the teachers bewail. The pension scheme in England was on a non-contributory basis from 1918 to 1925. In the latter year a 5 per cent. contribution was imposed on the teachers and a 5 per cent. contribution on the local education authorities. Deputies have to bear in mind that, in Great Britain, the lion's share of the expenditure on education is borne by the local authorities. In this country all the cost appertaining to education—and indeed I might say in respect of social services—is being carried by the State. When Deputies suggest that this scheme is in some way an attack on education, I tell them that I could produce schemes to-morrow for millions of pounds for the improvement of education, but I realise that there are more pressing social works just now. We have the problem of the school-leaving age and the problem of technical education. Secondary education is increasing. University education could do with a great deal of endowment. We have the problem of the higher primary school. The reorganisation of primary education is a problem we have not touched at all. We have the problem of free school books. Can we face all these problems on the 1920 basis, even though it is less by 19 per cent. under the present scheme?

Deputy O'Sullivan raised a point which has been echoed by some of his colleagues, particularly Deputy O'Neill. It was suggested that we were guilty of "appropriating"—according to Deputy Dillon—something that does not belong to us. This fund has always been under the control of the Treasury—under the control of the State. The State has had full power, at all times, to make regulations concerning it and to reduce or increase contributions or benefit in any way it wished. It has always done so. Legally the position is that under Section 10 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, which was specially passed to cover these questions of statutory funds, we have full authority to make provision to wind up this fund. It will be suggested that we are doing something wrong and unfair to the teachers. In the first place, we are giving them the security of the State, instead of insecurity, for their pensions. That is a thing that cannot be measured in £ s. d. It is a perpetual liability upon the State, of which the State cannot rid itself. I take it that the representatives of the teachers' organisation, who are interested in getting a settlement upon this question, do not lose sight of that very important benefit which they are offered. Given the choice between an insolvent fund that will disappear in a few years and the full backing of the State behind it as security for your pension, I wonder what teacher with a sense of responsibility, speaking for his fellows, would turn down such a proposal as a basis for agreement.

It is suggested, light-heartedly, by the Labour Party that we have been lacking in our approach to the teachers upon this matter. I need not outline the facts mentioned by Deputy Rice. This proposal is much better than the original proposal. When the original proposal was turned down by the Teachers' Congress, after a special Congress had already agreed to it, it became apparent that it would be difficult to find people in the teachers' organisation who would take responsibility for accepting any settlement, no matter how good, and I am afraid that is the position of the teachers' organisation. Now if there were a secret ballot upon this question of the teachers' pension scheme, I think the result would be very interesting indeed. Deputy Fionan Lynch made a speech in this debate. It must be remembered that Deputy Lynch holds a very important place in the history of education in this country. We see the present Minister for Education being abused by the teachers in connection with the policy of Irish in the schools. In fact, it is suggested by teachers who claim to be reasonable men, that I have actually taken advantage of the position in regard to Irish to force through this "tyrannical" settlement. The alternative, as was pointed out by the Minister for Finance, is that teachers should take over the fund with its liabilities. Let us be perfectly free, as we are entitled to be, to discuss teachers' salaries, to discuss the whole question of economy, the whole question of the rates of pay to future entrants to the service, having regard to all our other commitments and the necessity for increasing educational facilities in every direction. If that alternative were put up I could understand attacks upon the scheme, but people who are most violent in their attacks upon the scheme are very careful not to point to any alternative. Like Deputy Keyes, they simply tell us that we should take responsibility for all the liabilities and relieve the teachers of all theirs. Why should we do that when it was shown, in 1928, that in addition to their contribution of 4 per cent., 8½ per cent. further would be necessary to make the fund solvent then? It was pointed out actuarially that the additional advantage in respect to pensions conferred upon the teachers and might be described as an unearned increment amounting to £350 on the average in regard to each individual teacher. Having regard to that, and that no effort was made to meet the situation that arose, is it now suggested that this settlement is not fair? Even the late Minister for Education suggested that 4 per cent. with an added 5 per cent. still leaves 5 per cent. as the approximate percentage necessary to bring about solvency at the present time.

We cannot look at this question from the point of view of the liability of next year or the year after. We have to view it in regard to the eventual liability and in regard to all the circumstances of the times. Again, if you consider the circumstances in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, how can you say this scheme is unjust? In Northern Ireland the lower paid body of teachers were brought in under the scheme some years ago. They got two-thirds of their back service if they paid 5 per cent. We go as far as 6 per cent., but we give two-thirds of the back service, and I think that compares very favourably indeed with what was done, not to-day or yesterday, but many years ago, in Northern Ireland.

I would emphasise that the British Government in 1925 went back to the contribution basis of 5 per cent. by teachers and 5 per cent. by the local authority. In addition to that there were two cuts of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. later on. In Northern Ireland the cuts were 7½ per cent. and 7 per cent. If you make up these figures I think you will find, that having regard to our circumstances, we compare very favourably with the conditions in other countries. Having regard to the whole history of the matter—the serious deficiency in the fund, having regard to the offer made by the late Government, which was accepted by the Special Congress, to the fact that three years have elapsed since that time, to the other conditions that have got very much worse, above all, to our general circumstances in this country—that we cannot hope to attain the same position in regard to the finances of education as obtains in other countries —having regard to all these circumstances, which people are apt very often to forget, I ask should not the teachers realise all these considerations. They know, in all the circumstances, that this is a very fair and reasonable settlement. Deputy Lynch, while he disagrees, says that the fund should be abolished. He admits, also, that we have gone as far as we can. In other words, the position is this—while his Government made offers to the teachers which they did not accept, he now comes along, three years afterwards, and says: "This is not a good settlement you are offering. The teachers are being wrongly treated." How can people who were responsible for an offer of a cut of 10 per cent., three years ago, suggest that a 9 per cent. cut at present for the benefits of the pension settlement is unfair? If there are any doubts or qualms I think they would be such as were stated by Deputy Thrift, who tried to examine this question from a strictly financial point of view, from the point of view of the liability that it imposes on the State—a permanent liability—and from the fact that we have a great many other commitments on hands.

However, no alternative proposal has been put up. We have met the teachers from time to time, but I regret to say that it seemed to be clear that it would be impossible to get the teachers' executive to take responsibility for any settlement. No proposals were put up. I do not blame them for that. The teachers were all along in this frame of mind—the British Government would have followed up the 1920 scales of pay with a pension settlement on similar lines. It never seems to have struck them that the British Government might not have done any such thing. It never seems to have struck them that the conditions which obtained at a particular moment in 1920 have not continued. They have not continued in respect of any service. Take this question of the maintenance of the fund. As Deputy Moore pointed out, you had a conversion loan reducing the rate of interest very largely, and you have had to sell out your securities. People do not realise that all those things have had to be considered, and that is a point that I should like Deputy Thrift to bear in mind also. I do not know whether he was here when Deputy Moore was referring to it.

I do not think I need go into the other points. I have explained our attitude with regard to amendments in general. We have been asked with regard to the marriage gratuity, for example, for which it is necessary to have seven years' service instead of six years in the Civil Service. The civil servant has trained herself and has educated herself, while the teacher has been educated at the expense of the State. That is a consideration. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance will be prepared now—perhaps he will be in the future— to put teachers on exactly the same basis as civil servants. If teachers are put on exactly the same basis as civil servants they must have the same disabilities as civil servants.

Mr. Norton

That is a useful admission.

Mr. Derrig

I should like to assure Deputy Thrift, and those who have shown a serious interest in this matter and have inquired whether any alternative way of solving the problem can really be found, that our position is that while we are seeking sanction to take over the fund we do not intend, as I explained a few moments ago, to interfere with the assets of the fund. It is not the intention to dissipate the assets of the fund. As regards the purposes to which those assets will ultimately be put, I have no doubt that if they are not applied to strictly educational purposes they will be applied to allied purposes, or some definitely social purposes. With regard to Deputy Lynch's point that we have not given a definite undertaking, we told the teachers that if they were prepared to accept this settlement we were prepared to say definitely that they would be left out of the Temporary Economies Bill, if it were to be continued. The Minister for Finance has assured the House here this evening, and I think that should be sufficient, that it is not the intention to impose economies on teachers other than the 9 per cent. cut that we are now imposing, and settling the pensions question at the same time. It is not intended to impose further economy cuts unless the position is substantially altered for the worse.

I think Deputy Lynch, although he said that the Minister's assurance was not definite and not sufficiently final, must realise that there is a point beyond which Ministers cannot go in giving assurances of that kind. So far as we have been able to give assurances to the teachers we gave those assurances. Unfortunately, the trouble is that to our assurances and general proposals we have not got the response which we would have got from the teachers if they really understood the position and really appreciated the importance of bringing about a settlement in order—although it may not be a perfect settlement—to get security for themselves, and bring about satisfactory conditions in primary education. We did not get that response. The only alternative has been to come to the House with this scheme. If we could accept the principle of the 9 per cent. cut; if we were all agreed that the 9 per cent. cut is necessary, I think everybody would agree that otherwise the scheme is fairly satisfactory. If it is found in particular cases not to be satisfactory, and it is found that particular classes or individual cases of teachers have been omitted, they can be dealt with later on. Although speeches have been made against the scheme; although attempts have been made to show that it is wrong and that we are attempting to pirate the money of the teachers and steal their funds, I do think the House has had sufficient understanding for many years past of the way in which salaries and pensions are bound up, and of the question of what contribution it is fair to ask the teachers to make in all the circumstances to realise the position. If Deputies consider the security that is given to the teachers under this scheme they will have no hesitation whatever in giving a unanimous vote for its implementation.

Professor Thrift

Might I ask the Minister a question? Can the Minister point to any advantage which he hopes to gain by not taking the simple course of setting the interest on this fund against the pension costs? It is very satisfactory to hear that it is not proposed to dissipate the fund. It will, therefore, continue to produce interest. Why not take the obviously simple course of putting it as a set-off against the pension costs and using it for that purpose only?

Mr. MacEntee

I can assure Deputy Thrift that that is the intention in regard to the interest accruing on the securities at present in the fund. Of the bookkeeping figure of £2,300,000 assets, £800,000 is purely notional, and is a disappearing asset. It is not the intention to dissipate the negotiable securities which are in the fund at the present moment. It may be necessary, as we had to do in connection with the recent conversion of 5 per cent. war loan, to realise them and invest them in some other security. The income derived from investments will be brought into the Central Fund and set off against pension costs.

Professor Thrift

If that were in the scheme there could not be any temptation for any Government, present or future, to dissipate that fund. We only have the Minister's statement.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think it is necessary to embody that in the scheme. It follows that as long as the assets are there the interest will be used for the purposes of the fund.

General Mulcahy

Surely the Minister for Finance will tell us, in view of the very strong protestations that were made in the matter, that the mind of the Minister for Education was wandering when he suggested at the tail-end of his remarks that there was any possibility of the continuance of the Temporary Economies Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

That has nothing to do with the case. It will arise for separate consideration. I think, some time in May.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 42.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Corish, Richard.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Nally, Martin.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and T raynor; Níl: Deputies O'Donovan and O'Leary.

Question declared carried.