Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 17 Jul 1942

Vol. 88 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1942—Motion.

Tairgim:—

Go ndaingnítear Scéim Aois-Liúntais na Meán-Mhúinteoirí (Leasú), 1942, do rinne an tAire Oideachais le toiliú an Aire Airgeadais fé Acht Aois-Liúntais na Múinteoirí, 1928 (Uimh. 32 de 1928).

That the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1942, 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.

Is é is príomh-chúis don scéim leasuighthe seo deireadh do chur le leath-trom d'fhéadfaí do dhéanamh ar mhúinteoir ar bith, tré oibriú Mhír 9 den Phríomh-Scéim — leath-trom do thárla cheana féin do dhá mhúinteoir ar a laighead. Faoi théarmaí na míre sin, má chailleann múinteoir a phosta tré ádhbhar ar bith agus, tríd sin, é do stad de bheith ina bhall den Scéim Pinsean, níl sé ion-ghlactha ath-uair sa Scéim, má tá sé ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois agus má tá níos mó ná dhá bhliadhain caithte ó stad sé de bheith ina bhall. Os a chomhair sin, má tá a leithéid de mhúinteoir faoi 50 bliadhain d'aois, d'fhéadfaí a ghlacadh isteach sa Scéim ath-uair, mura mbeadh níos mó ná .10 mbliadhna caithte ó stad sé de bheith ina bhall. Le n-a rádh i bhfocla eile, do ceadóchthaí bearna, nach mbeadh ós cionn deich mbliadhan, do bheith i seirbhís mhúinteoirí faoi 50 bliadhain d'aois, ach ní ceadóchthaí ach dhá bhliadhain de bhearna do bheith i seirbhís mhúinteóir í ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois. Do cuireadh an coingheall seo isteach sa bhun-scéim ionnas nach leigfí isteach ath-uair sa seirbhís múinteoirí meadhon-aosta do bhéadh tamall fada as an seirbhís agus ar dhócha a n-éifeacht do bheith laghaduighthe dá bhárr sin. Do measadh, freisin, go mb'fhéidir posta eile do bheith le fagháil taobh istigh de dhá bhliadhain ag múinteóir ar bith do chaillfeadh an posta do bhí aige.

Acht, le linn oibriú na Scéime, do fuarthas amach go ndéanann an coingheall seo leath-trom ar na sean-mhúinteóirí, óir do thárla nach dtáinig le cuid aca sin postaí nuadha d'fhagháil taobh istigh den spás ama do bhí orduighthe. An leasú atáthar anois ag iarraidh a dhéanamh ar Mhír 9, d'athróchadh sé teóra na bearna seirbhíse ó 2 bhliadhain go dtí 10 mbliadhna, agus dá réir sin, d'fhágfadh sé múinteóirí do bheadh ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois ar aon-téarma leis na múinteóirí is óige. Mar atá baint ag coingheallacha na scéime seo leis na sean-scéimeanna, ní misde míniú gearr do thabhairt ar na míora éagsamhla, ionnas gur fusaide tuigfear a geuspóir. Míora I—IV, níl ionnta ach na gnáth-choingheallacha maidir le teideal na scéime agus leis na mínighthe.

Mír V, ghní sí roinnt leasuighthe ar an mbun-scéim, agus atá siad sin luaidhte sa Sceideal. An ceann is mó tábhacht aca sin, is é an leasú úd atáthar a dhéanamh i Mír IX é, .i. spás deich mbliadhan do bheith dhá chur isteach i n-ionad spás 2 bhliadhan maidir le bearna seirbhíse i gcás múinteóirí ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois. Na leasuighthe eile atá luaidhte sa Sceideal, atáthar ghá ndéanamh ionnas go n-aistreóchthar an Aire Airgeadais go dtí an tAire Oideachais, cúram riaracháin an chiste pinsean agus neithe eile bhaineas le hoibriú na scéime.

Ach maidir leis na neithe is mó tábhacht bhaineas le moladh pinscan, tá an smacht dhá fhágáil ag an Aire Airgid mar do bhí sé.

Mír VI, is é is cuspoir di deireadh do chur le hádhbhar beag gearáin do thárla ann i gcás beagáin múinteóirí. B'fhéidir nár mhisde dhom a mhíniú nach éigeantach do mhúinteóirí bheith ina mball de'n Scéim, gur tré n-a n-iarratas féin leigtear isteach iad, agus go gcaithtear fiadhnaise áirithe fé n-a sláinte, etc., d'fhagháil uatha sul a leigtear isteach iad. I gcás gnáth-mhúinteóirí Meadhon-Scol a leigtear isteach, do socruigheadh go bhféadfaí a seirbhís in-phinseanta d'áireamh ó dháta nach mbéadh os cionn 15 míosa roimh dháta a n-iarratais chun ballraíochta—ar choingheall gur híocadh a síntiús do'n Chisde Pinsean le haghaidh na tréimhse sin. I mbliadhain a 1935 do rinneadh Scéim Leasuighthe do bhain le cás Mhúinteóirí Meadhon-Scol a raibh seirbhís in-phinseanta déanta aca roimh ré mar Mhúinteóirí Náisiúnta. Ba riachtanach do na múinteóirí seo a ughdarú, taobh istigh de dhá mhí dhéag ó na-a leigint isteach sa Scéim, go n-aistreóchthaí a síntiús pinsin go dtí Cisde Pinsean Mhúinteóirí na Meadhon-Scol. Do thárla dá bhárr sin, gidh nár chuspóir é, nár bh'fhéidir níos mó ná 12 mhí de spás ama do bheith idir dáta a leigint isteach sa Scéim agus dáta a n-iarratais chun a leigint isteach. Mar sin de, do bhí sé de leath-trom ortha sin nach raibh ach 12 mhí de spás aca-san, gidh go raibh 15 míosa ag múinteóirí eile. Táthar ag iarraidh deireadh do chur leis an éagcothromacht sin agus na múinteóirí go leir do chur ar aon-dul sa scéal—rud a dhéanfadh an leasú atáthar a dhéanamh ar Mhír 5 de Scéim 1935.

Mír VII, is é cuspóir di ughdarás d'fhagháil maidir le húsáid na síntiús do'n Chisde Pinsean do bhí íoctha ag Múinteóirí Meadhon-Scol do ceapadh ina gcigirí agus ar ceaduigheadh dóibh a seirbhís mhúinteóireachta d'áireamh mar stát-sheirbhís bhunuighthe le haghaidh pinsean. I mbliadhain a 1929, nuair do rinneadh Scéim Pinsean na Múinteóirí Meadhon-Scol, ní raibh ughdarás dleaghthach ar bith ann le seirbhís mhúinteóireachta d'áireamh le n-a aghaidh seo mar stát-sheirbhís, agus do rinneadh riaghail do chuirfeadh i gcumas cigirí mar iad siúd a mballríocht sa Scéim do choinneáil, ionnas go bhféadfaidís pinsean moillighthe do tharraingt tar éis a n-éirghe as an stát-sheirbhís. Ina dhiaidh sin do socruigheadh, i n-Alt 21 de Scéim Pinsean 1936, go bhféadfaí—faoi choingheallacha áirithe—seirbhís mhúinteóireachta d'áireamh mar stát-sheirbhís, agus atá úsáid dhá dhéanamh de'n tsocrú sin ag cigirí áirithe do bhíodh ina múinteóirí. Do réir na gcoingheall faoi n-ar ceaduigheadh sin dóibh, do chaithfidís na síntiúis do bhí íoctha aca le Cisde Pinsean na Meadhon-Mhúinteóirí d'aistriú chuig an Aire Airgeadais, agus is é is cuspóir do'n mhír seo an t-aistriú sin do dhéanamh dleaghthach.

Mír VIII, is é is cuspóir dí gan an tréimhse chéadna ama do leigint dá háireamh le haghaidh pinsin mhúinteóireachta agus pinsin mhíleadhta, agus, freisin, chun socrú do dhéanamh le haghaidh cáis ar bith ina mbéadh in dá chineál sin pinsean saothruighthe ag múinteóir.

Is dóigh liom go mínigheann an ráiteas seo agam gach nidh dá bhfuil sa scéim leasuighthe, agus táim ag súil go nglacfar léi go lán-toilteannach.

There is one portion of this new arrangement to which I must enter an objection. In Section 8, sub-section (3) it is proposed that a person who is entitled to a military service pension shall have to decide whether or not he will accept that military service pension for the period in question or agree to this new arrangement. I want to enter an objection in respect of the period of service given in Easter Week. Under the original Act of 1924, if a person were on active service during the whole of that week it was allowed to count as a period of five years. During that week no teacher rendered any service in the teaching profession so that this military service period was a period over and above the period during which he would qualify for pension in the ordinary course as a teacher. I am putting it that it was a period of exceptional stress. On quite a number of men with whom I was personally acquainted it laid a lasting impression, restricting their subsequent healthy activity. To that extent it appears to me that it would be both fair and equitable not to regard that period as one which would be interrupted by reason of any other superannuation arrangement that might be come to. It was not a case in which, in the normal course, it would be possible for a person to be regarded as having had, in any way, an interruption in his service as a teacher.

The Government contribution in connection with this pension scheme is limited to a proportion of the amount in question. If that is not so the Minister can correct me. I take it the teacher himself contributes in a partial way towards his superannuation. The State is liable in respect of the other period that I have mentioned: that is for the man's service during that period, and it is only in respect of it that I am making a claim. I am putting forward a case for the subtraction of that portion of the pension which would be attributable to his Easter Week service. I think it is a fair recommendation to have it excluded. I do so on two grounds: (1) that the Government make only a partial contribution towards this superannuation scheme; (2) that it was a period in respect of which there was no interruption of service as a teacher.

The schools were closed.

The schools were closed during that period and he could not have given it. So far as rendering service during that particular period is concerned, the person concerned would have had to devote a considerable proportion of his spare time to training and other things of that sort, and the best part of two and a half years was so occupied prior to this event. All these services were rendered during two years and three months prior to the period I mention. He did that in addition to his work as a teacher. It may be urged that that particular exception has not been made in other superannuation cases; that is quite true. We grew wiser as we grow older in regard to a number of cases perhaps, but not all. I base this on the ground that only a portion of the superannuation is paid by the State, the other portion being contributed by the individual.

On the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave I should like to ask what the section referred to really means. Section (4) (b) states:—

"If such person elects to retain such military pension or if he fails or refuses to make any election, no period of time which was reckoned as a service period or part of a service period for the purpose of such military pension shall, on the assessment of such teacher's pension, be reckoned as pensionable service for the purpose of such teacher's pension."

There was a period of about a fortnight around Easter, 1916, that for military service pension purposes was reckoned, I think, as a period of five years. In the case of a teacher who elects to hold his military service pension for that period, will five years, or whatever the period is, be taken off his teacher's pension, or will the fortnight only be taken off? The House would like to know that. Generally speaking, this is another example of the way in which the Government neglect to do their business in a reasonable and ordinary manner in so many different ways at present. A secondary teachers' superannuation amendment scheme has been brought forward and there has been no consultation, good, bad or indifferent, between the Department and the teachers affected.

Time after time we have stressed how important, in present conditions, the whole of our educational system is to our economic future. Here you have an important body suffering under grave disabilities. Between 1939 and 1941 the cost-of-living index figure for all items rose by 33 per cent. If you compare the cost of living in February, 1939, with the cost of living in February, 1942, you will find it rose 37.5 per cent. That means that the somewhat inadequate salaries paid to secondary teachers are worth considerably less to them now than they were a couple of years ago. Nevertheless, out of their substantially reduced salaries, so far as value is concerned, the teachers are prepared to pay a small additional contribution in order to secure that their pension scheme will embody provisions such as those for civil servants, so that when they go out on pension they will get a lump sum by way of gratuity as well as a pension.

I should like to ask the Minister why there was no consultation in regard to this matter with the teachers, and why, as he was reviewing this position generally, he did not review it with the view of seeing whether provision could not be made for a gratuity at the end of the term of service. We complain that there are many things that we are not able to do to strengthen and secure our national existence and our national economy in present circumstances. But, in one of the main lines of endeavour from the point of view of the future, we have free scope, and that is to tone up and strengthen and make vigorous and effective our whole educational machinery. The secondary teachers are an important part of that machinery. There are many things that they would like to have discussed and settled. When there is an amending superannuation scheme, I submit that there ought to be consultation with them in order to frame a satisfactory scheme so that men and women secondary teachers will be encouraged to remain on as teachers and will know that their future, at any rate, is to some extent secured.

This is an amending scheme which only attempts to deal with a small number of hard cases of teachers over 50 years of age who would be excluded from the benefits of the scheme if they did not succeed in finding re-employment within a period of two years; whereas if they were under 50 years of age, they would have a period of ten years within which to find re-employment. There were some other amendments, but they are not of great importance, and I think it will be recognised by the House that it is not a suitable time to seek amendments of superannuation schemes giving increased benefits to members.

Because the Minister for Finance has very serious calls upon him at the present time.

We are given to understand that the country is so overflowing with money, we do not know what to do with it.

Unless the matter is really unavoidable, or of the greatest urgency, the Minister can very well argue that it can wait over at least until after the emergency period. The teachers have been in correspondence with the office and, although there was no formal consultation, they have had opportunities and have been able to put up the points in which they were interested. This is not in the nature of a general amending scheme. If any further argument is necessary beyond the one we have—emergency conditions making it unsuitable to introduce such measures at the moment—there is also the fact that the State is contributing a fairly large amount, about £4,000 per year, to the secondary teachers' pension fund and, by the time the maximum liability is being placed on the fund, the State will have to contribute, it is estimated, a sum of £10,000.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the point that, if it is at all possible, the dependents of secondary teachers who die in the service should be able to get a gratuity somewhat on the lines of what the national teachers get at present; but the matter is not one for me, and I fear that, even with the best will in the world on the part of the Department of Education, it may be difficult to get a further amendment of this scheme. I have promised to look into the matter and I shall certainly see if anything can be done. In any case, even if we have to wait until the emergency is over to bring about a further amendment, there is no reason why the matter could not be carefully examined. The whole difficulty is that, if you are going to give additional benefits, you must provide additional contributions, and, of course, it will be suggested that the State should bear an additional contribution if further benefits are to be granted. I do not know whether the teachers are prepared to pay for the additional benefit, or if they are particularly interested in this matter of the gratuity payable on death in the service.

My experience is sufficient to indicate to me that there will be a demand that the Minister for Finance should bear his share of the burden. Of course, we can point out that his share is already rather substantial, even though both the schools and the teachers are contributing already. However, the matter will be inquired into and, if it is possible, I hope that the secondary teachers' position will be improved.

I do not think it will be possible to make the exception that Deputy Cosgrave would wish. If we make an exception in one particular scheme, we shall have to make it in all pension arrangements. I understand that this is a general policy affecting all pension arrangements, that allowance is being made for military service pensions in all these cases. I shall look into the matter, but I am almost certain the same policy is being followed with regard to all these superannuation schemes.

The Minister will appreciate that they had it up to the time this amending Order was brought in, and that he is taking it away. That is the difference. In the other cases, you got full notice, but this is an innovation. I am asking for a modification of the proposal.

Except perhaps that these people had not their military service pensions—I do not know whether they had. Probably some of them had them from the beginning.

If they had, it is a still greater hardship.

If they had, it is a greater hardship, I admit, but I understand this is a general policy which is being carried out and I do not see any hope of making an exception in a particular case. I will look into the point that Deputy Mulcahy mentioned. I am not in a position to say now whether the service period means the actual period of service, as, for example, in Easter Week or the five years, but I will communicate with him in connection with this matter.

Is the Minister not able to give that information now?

I am sorry I cannot.

There is continuous service from 1st April, 1916, to the 31st March, 1917, provided such service included active service in the week commencing 23rd April, 1916. You will find cases where there was a period worked of over a fortnight, or somewhat less than a fortnight. For the whole period from 1st April, 1916, to 31st March, 1917, there is a period of five years allowed in the schedule, but the greater part of that five years is concentrated as the equivalent of a fortnight around Easter. It requires some explanation, if a man gets the equivalent of four years for pension purposes for that fortnight, whether the deduction to be made under Section 4 (b) is going to be four years— which would be absurd—or a fortnight.

I should like to consult the legal people about this matter, but if the position is that non-Easter Week pensioners will have the full period taken from their service, there would seem to be a case for taking four years from the Easter Week people also. Will you not be discriminating between the Easter Week people and others who may have given perhaps greater national service in a very particular way?

People go out in the Rising of Easter Week, in a fortnight in which the schools were not open, and the Oireachtas passes a Pensions Act and they value services for particular purposes so much that they telescope a certain number of years into a small period, and now, because you are granted a military service pension for that small period, they must cut four or five years from your period of official life as a teacher.

Will the Minister remember, firstly, that this is an innovation and, secondly, that he ought to look into the cases of those at present drawing any of these military service pensions? If a man were in receipt of one of those pensions, in addition to his remuneration as a secondary teacher and it stops on the date when he gets superannuated, obviously there is a greater hardship there.

I shall look into that point, but again I want to emphasise that Deputy Cosgrave will realise the difficulty of making a distinction in one particular scheme.

But we are starting here.

We are starting in all the superannuation schemes.

Not all, there is one where there is no such discrimination.

The finance authorities must not be aware of it.

I think they are.

I should also ask the Minister to consider whether any of the other schemes that are being operated are being operated on a contributory basis.

It is contributory of course. All schemes are contributory in one way or another, I suppose.

No, not all. If you remember, an official of a local authority who gives 15 years service is normally supposed to have been contributing but he gets nothing if he resigns—no lump sum or anything of that sort.

Resigns after 15 years?

Yes, or 20. If he does not qualify for a pension, he gets nothing. However, I think the Minister will do something about the points I am putting to him.

If I can, I will.

Do not enter into conflict with the Minister for Finance in that frame of mind.

Motion put and agreed to.
Top
Share