Deputy O'Sullivan gave notice to-day that he would raise on the adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 11 on the Order Paper.
Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment—Secondary Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.
I do not think the Minister can accuse me of undue precipitancy in this matter. On the 31st October, I put down a question to the Minister to which he will find a reference in Volume 59 of the Official Debates, column 237. The reply I then got—this was about 12 months ago— was:—
"Proposals for the amendment of the secondary teachers' superannuation scheme in relation to the class of teacher referred to by the Deputy are at present under consideration."
On the 10th December — more than a month afterwards — I repeated my question and the Minister repeated his answer. He had nothing to add to what he said in October. Perhaps I was too optimistic in hoping that, owing to the Department's interest in this matter, it would be quickly cleared up. It was quite obvious, however, by that time that no progress had been made. I repeated my question to-day. Not only has no progress been made, but it seems to me that the movement is in a definitely backward direction. There were no hints of insuperable obstacles in the two previous answers which I received. After 12 months' consideration by the Minister's Department and whatever other Department is concerned, we are now told that the Minister is not in a position to say when the proposed amendments will be introduced.
I gathered from the two previous answers that it was admitted that these amendments were desirable. I think that anybody who knows the particulars of the scheme will agree that they are desirable. Apparently, the consideration of these amendments must wait until certain other conditions are fulfilled. The Minister mentioned the completion of an actuarial investigation. He did not know when it would be completed. He could not say when the consideration of it by his Department and, I presume, by the Department of Finance would be over. Anybody who thought that 12 months ago this problem was nearing solution must realise that it is now pushed back considerably by the Minister's answer to-day. It is for that reason I raise the matter on the Adjournment. Not merely has there been no advance on the part of the Government, but there has been evidence of restrogression, and we are not now in as happy a position as we were before. I can understand, to some extent, though I do not condone, a certain amount of interference by another Department anxious to delay anything that might seem to involve State expenditure. On the 10th December, when I repeated my question, I put another question to the Minister. I asked him what were the contributions made heretofore by the State to the Secondary Teachers Pension Fund year by year. There, at least, the Minister's answer was quite definite. For the year ended 31st July, 1930, the State contributions were nil; for the year ended 31st July, 1931, they were nil, and for the years 1932, 1933 and 1934 they were nil. Yet, if the Minister will forgive my saying so, I have a strong suspicion that it is the Minister for Finance—who has been so generous in his contribution to this scheme—who is afraid that if three or four teachers are treated with justice the State finances will be put in jeopardy. That such is the case is almost incredible.
Whatever may be said about our system of education, in matters of principle and in matters of practice, it works remarkably well. We have luckily avoided many of the difficulties and catastrophes—if I may use the word—that other countries have had to face owing to the rival claims of the State and other parties. We have reached a very happy solution by which the interests of the State, the interests of the private individual, the interests of the Church and the interests of the private schools have been reconciled. Anybody who knows the history of education in Europe for the last 100 years will realise how fortunate that is. It is exceedingly important that that machine should work as smoothly as possible. The relevance of these remarks is that the contented working of the scheme on the part of the teachers will depend on the security of pension rights, if not of tenure. The existence of private schools and their rights removes the teacher from the ordinary category of public servants. He may be doing the work which the State requires to be done but he is not, as the Minister knows, an employee of the State. Even during efficiency and good conduct, under the present system he does not enjoy the same security of tenure as the ordinary civil servant.
What I suggest to the Minister is this: There are a few grains of sand, and this is one of them, interfering with the smooth working of that scheme at present, and I ask him not to delay until Tibb's Eve, as he almost suggested to-day, consideration of amendment of these rules so far as a few individual teachers are concerned. I think it is correct to say—it was inevitable that it should be so—that the Minister has already had to amend-the rules in some respects. Anybody will quite understand the exceedingly complicated nature of these particular rules. I was quite well aware of the complication at one time myself, and I have no doubt that the Minister is quite well aware of the complication. At present you have anomalies, and, not merely anomalies, but injustices. You have the extraordinary provision that a teacher, under a certain age, may be absent from the scheme for ten years and return to it, and yet not lose his right to enter into membership of the scheme again, with the right to a particular pension. You have the unfortunate man who has reached, say, the age of 49 years. For two years he has been absent from a school, and because he is then over 50 years he cannot re-enter the scheme although he may have had as long service as anybody else. Simply because he has reached a certain age, and has been a couple of years out of a school, he cannot re-enter the scheme. Now, that hits a special type of teacher remarkably hard, and it is most unfair, as I think the Minister will admit, when we have a pension scheme that that particular class should not be catered for.
I am not conversant with the actual figures. I do not know exactly what it would cost, not the State but the scheme, but surely the Department of Finance could be got to withdraw its opposition to this slight amendment of the scheme if this is their only objection. It involves very little. It certainly does not involve a sum that could be expected to bring about the bankruptcy of the scheme. You have the extraordinary position that whereas a man who is over 50 may be retired by the Department, or may not get his incremental reports and practically be dismissed as inefficient, he can get a pension, but a man who is in the unfortunate position of the person I have indicated, will not be eligible for a pension, no matter how efficient he is. He may have lost his position through no fault of his own. It may be due to a reorganisation of the staff of the school in which he was engaged. I ask the House to remember that a man at that particular age may find it extremely difficult to get a position again. He may find himself at the age of 52 or 54—and there are cases of the kind—in which he has neither a job nor a pension, and under the present rules he cannot get a pension.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Minister himself is quite unresponsive to the claims of a case like that, and I am sorry that he finds it necessary, or, perhaps I should say that the Department of Finance has found it necessary, to put almost a veto on this particular matter. I cannot believe that the Minister himself has put a veto on it, but does he think it is necessary to wait until this actuarial report is at hand? I am quite convinced that so far as this is concerned, it will not affect the finances of the scheme to any appreciable extent. So far as the particular amendments that I have in view go, the actuarial report cannot affect the matter one way or another. It was not the excuse that was put up—at least the Minister did not put up any such excuse—12 months ago. He put it up to-day. I suggest to him that it was an excuse, an excuse for the fact that we are to-day no further advanced than we were 12 months ago. Twelve months ago I asked him when he expected to get the actuarial report and was told it was in hands, but the Minister could not tell me when it would be ready. To-day I am told it is in hands but the Minister does not know when it will be ready. I put it to him that that is not a fair way to deal with the particular cases that call for amendment so far as these rules are concerned.
I regret the delay that has arisen in coming to a final decision on this matter. I do not think, however, that the Department of Education is entirely to blame. The circumstances have not, I think, been adequately set out by Deputy O'Sullivan. Perhaps he feels that having divested himself of the responsibility of representing the Department of Education in the Dáil——
Other people divested me of that responsibility.
—— he finds it convenient to forget that Ministers in charge of Departments, even of the Department of Education, experience difficulty in moving in certain directions.
That is what I said.
There was no one better suited to justify that point of view to the Dáil when he held office than Deputy O'Sullivan. He was quite an adept at explaining to the House the difficulties which arose in connection with matters relating to educational administration in which financial issues were involved. Undoubtedly, there has been a long delay in this matter, and I can only say again that the Department of Education is not entirely to blame. The position is that when the scheme was brought in it was understood to be, as all such schemes are understood to be, of an experimental character. It was decided in fact, with regard to the State's contribution that that matter should be left over until after the first quinquennial valuation and the actuarial report thereon had been received. Now the position is that the report has not yet been received. The matter has been in the hands of the actuary for some time. He has been looking for further information, and his final report is not yet available.
It may be argued that since the amendment which it is sought to make involves only a small number of persons, so far as we know, and a comparatively small expenditure, why should we not go ahead and not wait for this actuarial report? The Deputy has referred to the fact that we have already amended the scheme. We have amended the scheme in bringing in a class of teachers—preparatory college teachers—who, obviously, should have been included in it. They have come in as teachers paying their contributions, but there has been no departure in that matter from the principles of the scheme. If, however, we are going to make an amendment with regard to teachers who are disemployed, by way of making extra provision for them, it can be claimed, I think, that we are interfering with the actuarial basis of the scheme. Even though the amount involved may be small, nevertheless, the financial basis of the scheme would be interfered with in a certain way. It would be interfered with in this way, that we will not know until we receive the actuarial report whether or not the funds of the scheme are actuarially sound at the present time. If it were found that the scheme was not actuarially sound and we had amended it before receiving the report to give a concession to a certain class of teachers, two questions would arise. The first question would be whether we might not as well have given the concession in a number of other directions; why should we confine the concession to the particular class to which the Deputy refers? The second point that would arise is why should we make a concession now when it is possible—I have no means of knowing whether it is probable or not —that a State contribution more than was anticipated may have to be made in order to make the original scheme actuarially sound.
We have no means of knowing whether the fund is actuarially sound or not and I am not in a position to make any amendment of consequence until that report is received. I could make an amendment which would not worsen the position of these teachers, which would make it clear that they would still be entitled to come into the scheme if they found employment and which would lengthen the period, but I do not consider that concession to be of much importance. I shall try to get a decision on the matter as soon as possible, but I fear it will be quite impossible to make an amendment which will be satisfactory to the class the Deputy has in mind until we have received the actuarial report. I do not think there is any other point.
The Minister's principal objection, it seems to me, is that the nice, scientific accuracy of the actuarial report would be upset if he made this amendment.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 26th November.