Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Mar 1951

Vol. 124 No. 6

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

I move:—

Go ndaingneofar Scéim Aoisliúntais na Meán-Mhúinteoirí (Leasú), 1951, a rinne an tAire Oideachais le toiliú an Aire Airgeadais.

This amendment Order before the House is rather complicated, but I hope to put the matter rather simply to the House. I would like Deputies to understand that there are about 2,100 teachers who are eligible to come in under the scheme but at the present moment there are only about 500 secondary teachers under the present pensions scheme. For the whole 2,100 I hope that in a very short time it will be possible for the Department to communicate to each one a simple statement not only of the scheme itself but of the way in which each, in his individual circumstances, would be affected financially if he desires to come in. I hope the Department will be able to let every eligible secondary teacher in the country know what it would cost him to come in and gain the advantages of this scheme.

It is necessary to say a word regarding the principle of the scheme, which would be the basis of the amended scheme. The principal scheme was introduced in 1929 and catered for two main bodies of secondary teachers, the first being existing recognised teachers who were in service on the appointed day, the 1st August, 1929, and the second being those called "future teachers", those who entered the service after that date. An existing recognised teacher was then required to apply for membership on or before 30th April, 1930, but in special circumstances that date could have been extended. A "future teacher" had to make application within 15 months of the date from which he desired his contributing service to begin. In respect of service on and after the appointed day, all members were required to make a contribution of 4 per cent. of the standard salary and the schools were required to contribute 2½ per cent. of each member's basic salary.

It is necessary to be clear that the salary of a recognised secondary teacher is made up of a basic portion and an incremental portion. The basic portion is a minimum payment made to the teacher by the schools, of £200 a year minimum in the case of a man and £180 in the case of a woman. The incremental portion consists of the additional annual increments paid by the State by way of increment pure and simple and the payment made to the secondary teacher who has an honours degree or who is doing teaching through the medium of Irish, for which an additional payment is made. Therefore, a standard salary consists of the basic and the incremental, and the incremental consists of pure increment and the amount paid in respect of the honours degree and teaching through Irish.

On the salary, then, the schools paid, in respect of a teacher who joined the scheme, 2½ per cent. on the basic portion of his salary, that is, the £180 for a woman or £200 for a man, and the teacher paid 4 per cent. both on the basic and on the incremental parts. But in respect of service before 1st August, 1929, that service was non-contributing service. In respect of the payments so made, the benefits were as follows, that is, the benefits which exist to-day under the principal scheme and subsequent amendments. First, there was a retirement pension. That was calculated on pensionable salary, at 1/100th for each year of non-contributing service—that is, service before 1st August, 1929—and an additional 1/80th for each year of contributing service, subject to a maximum of 40 years. Secondly, there was a disability pension, which was payable after service of not less than 10 years. It was on the same basis as the retirement pension. In the third place, there was a death gratuity, which consisted merely of a refund of the member's contributions that had been paid up to date, plus compound interest calculated on those payments at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. There was a fourth payment, a short service gratuity, which consisted merely of a refund of contributions made by the member who left the service without qualifying for pension or any other benefit. That refund of pension in respect of short service gratuity was paid without any addition by way of interest. These, therefore, are the benefits which exist at the present moment.

The amendment scheme proposes additional new benefits, which I will enumerate. First, the retiring pension under the new scheme will be on the same basis as the pension hitherto. There is no change there. The second benefit is a lump sum payment on retirement. This is a new benefit. A lump sum will be paid on retirement on pension and will be based on the pensionable salary and calculated at the rate of 1/30th for each year of gratuity service subsequent to the 31st July, 1929. A member who has paid the additional contributions in respect of his service since that date will have his non-contributing service reckoned for gratuity purposes at a rate of 1/60th for each year of it. The third benefit under the amendment scheme is a death gratuity. This, to a certain extent, is a new benefit. I said that the old death gratuity consisted simply of the refund of the contributions paid up, plus 3 per cent. compound interest. The new gratuity is entirely different. If a member dies while in the service, his legal personal representative will be paid one year's pensionable salary, or a sum based upon the gratuity service, whichever is the greater. It will be a year's pensionable salary at least, but if his gratuity service is more than 30 years, the legal personal representative will be entitled to 1/30th of the pensionable service for 34 or 35 years, or for whatever number of years the gratuity service may be.

The fourth benefit is a disablement gratuity. This is an improved gratuity. Under the scheme as it exists at present, a disablement pension is payable only after ten years' service. The new scheme for disablement pensions will involve a member whose approved teaching service which is reckonable for pension is less than ten years; he may receive for each year of gratuity service a disablement gratuity on retirement equal to 1/12th of his pensionable salary. This is in addition to any lump sum earned.

The fifth benefit is a marriage gratuity for women teachers only, based on the pensionable salary and calculated at the rate of 1/12th for each year of gratuity service subject to a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 years. That means that a woman who has at least six years' service will get a gratuity on marriage of 1/12th for each year of service, the maximum payment which may be made in the case of retirement in such circumstances being one full year's salary.

Next is the short service gratuity which will be the same as it is at the present time. Where a person leaves the service without qualifying for pension or other benefits, that member will have his or her contribution refunded but without any addition by way of interest.

The amendment scheme as outlined involves the recasting of the contributions. It is proposed with regard to contributions that all existing members who wish to benefit under the terms of this amendment scheme will be required to pay as from the 1st August, 1950, a current contribution of 5 per cent. of the standard salary and they may opt to have their service prior to that date reckoned for gratuity purposes and in that case they will be required to pay in respect of each year of contributing service that they desire to have so reckoned, an additional contribution equal to 1½ per cent. of standard salary in the school year 1950-51. Deputies will remember that teachers at the present time pay 4 per cent. on their basic and incremental salary, that is their standard salary. In future, they will pay 5 per cent. If they wish to have their previous service reckoned for gratuity service they will have to pay in respect of whatever number of years they wish to bring into their gratuity services 1½ per cent., the payment being based on the standard salary in the school year 1950-51. That is with regard to existing members. An existing member who did not become a member upon the first date on which he was eligible to do so, may have his service antedated for pension purposes on payment for each year of his antedated service of a contribution equal to 6½ per cent. of his basic salary and 4 per cent. of his incremental salary during each such year with compound interest added at the rate of 1½ per cent. Such antedated service may also be reckoned for gratuity purposes on payment of an additional contribution of 1½ per cent. The scheme of contributions, as I have indicated, is that the teachers pay certain contributions on the whole of their salaries and the school pays 2½ per cent. on their basic salaries. If any of the existing members of the pension scheme wish to bring in more of their service than they have already brought into the pension scheme, they will be required to pay the whole of the back payment that they would normally have paid to keep them in the pension scheme and if they wish additional years like that to be reckoned as years entitling them to gratuities they will have to pay the 1½ per cent. as well.

With regard to teachers who are nonmembers at the present time, all recognised teachers who have not hitherto joined the scheme are now given the opportunity of doing so subject to their paying from the 1st August, 1950, a current contribution of 5 per cent. and paying arrears of contribution on the same basis as those payable for antedated service. They may also qualify for gratuities for pre- 1st of August, 1950, service on payment of 1½ per cent. In addition it is provided that members who retire between the 1st January, 1950, and the 31st July, 1950, will be treated as if they had been in approved teaching service on the 1st August, 1950, and exercised the options necessary to benefit under the scheme. Members who died between the 1st January, 1950, and the 31st July, 1951, unless they have indicated previously that they do not wish to contribute towards the gratuities, will be treated in the same way. They will be given the benefit of the scheme.

A period not exceeding five years from the 31st July, 1951, will be allowed for the payment of arrears and in the event of the death or enforced retirement of a member before he had paid the total amount of his arrears the amount outstanding will be deducted from the gratuity or pension payable.

By reason of the plans to enable not only serving teachers but teachers who are not under the scheme to come in and get benefit for previous service, the scheme seems rather complicated, but I hope that it will be possible in a very short time to inform directly from the Department every teacher eligible to come under the scheme or affected by it of the implications of the scheme and what are the opportunities involved for them individually.

Is é a thuigím anois go mbeidh cúig bliana ag na daoine a mbeidh riaráistí le n-íoc acu. Thuig mé gur trí bliana an t-achar agus go bhféadfaí e a leathnú go cúig bliana. Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach, má tá an tAire sásta an t-eolas a thabhairt dom, cé mhéid airgid a bheadh i gceist dá n-íocadh ciste an Stáit an rud sin gan íocaíocht a chur ar na múinteoirí de bharr na riaráistí.

Ní fhéadfainn é.

Níl fhios agat?

Níl fhios agam cé mhéid daoine a thiocfaidh isteach. B'fhéidir go dtiocfadh siad go léir isteach dá n-íoctaí an méid sin airgid go léir.

The first point I should like to mention concerns the marriage bonus for women teachers. One of the conditions governing the granting of this marriage bonus or gratuity is that the teacher will subsequently be ineligible to enter approved teaching service unless she becomes a widow in which case her service prior to her marriage will reckon for pension purposes only if she repays to the pension fund her marriage gratuity plus the compound interest thereon at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. Widows are being excluded. Suppose, then, that a woman teacher has paid, over a certain number of years' service, towards her marriage gratuity. She gets married and leaves the service. If she is not a widow she will not be allowed back unless she is a person who had not already been in this scheme. If the woman teacher had not already been in this scheme, although she might have been teaching for years, I understand she can go back into it. But those who have been in the scheme and who have been paid this marriage gratuity, no matter what their circumstances may become afterwards, are ineligible to become members of this scheme again unless they are widows. Widows are very valuable in this country. I have heard a discussion as to whether a widow between a certain date under a certain measure is not going to be more valuable than a widow after a particular date. But is it not possible for the case to arise that a teacher may be placed in circumstances that her husband may not be able to contribute to her support? For example, he may be delicate or he may even have taken his leave of her altogether. I understand that unless the teacher is a widow, no matter what the circumstances are, she is not allowed into this scheme. If the reason for that is that she has already got her gratuity, I think the point is of some substance that she would have been teaching for a period of years before she could have got her gratuity. With the number of social welfare and social insurance schemes—if it is a financial question that is at issue here—and considering that the number is not very great, the Minister should explain to us why he feels it is necessary to insist on this. If you are placing a certain disability on a certain class of teacher in regard to employment, on a certain type of citizen, and as the State has no control over these schools, it might be argued that you are interfering to some extent with the discretion of the managers who are willing to appoint such teachers.

The second point which affects a larger number of teachers is the question of retrospective payment. Over a certain period since 1929 teachers are expected to pay an additional contribution towards the gratuity which this scheme will confer upon its members. The Minister tells me that he is unable to state what it would cost the State if they relieved the teachers completely from this retrospective payment. The secondary teachers feel that it places them in rather an unfavourable position in comparison with other bodies of public servants. For example, I think a gratuity is payable to employees of Córas lompair Éireann and I do not think that, under other schemes which we shall hear a lot about in the near future, there was any question of retrospective payment for retiring. Whatever stage you have reached in the service, you pay the appropriate contribution from that period on. You may not even do that. You might get off lighter because you have a shorter time to go than the new entrant into the service. There is generally a flat rate and all have to pay the same in order to get a particular benefit. In this case the teachers who are in the service over a long period are being asked to pay this 1½ per cent. per annum. Their salaries are now, perhaps, not ungenerous—I will not say that they are too generous—but this would impose a heavy burden on a teacher who would have to pay since 1929. It is calculated that they would have to pay, if it were a five-year period, up to about £45 a year on a five-year basis. If they have to pay any less, it would be much greater. The teachers have been granted increases and in a favourable case the increase might amount to £50 or £55. Take, for example, a man who had a long period in the service. If, during the next five years, over the five-year period, he had to pay at the rate of £45 a year for this retrospective payment he would be paying nearly £240 altogether and the equivalent of his increase would practically be wiped out. I take it that the five-year period will apply—or will it be extended on application? If it is only a three-year period, of course, the burden would be much greater. Did I understand the Minister to say that it would be for five years or for three years?

Five years. It is worked generally on a five-year basis. There may be cases in which the five years will not be available but that would be in respect of people who are close to the time of getting their gratuity. Any amount overdue could be deducted from the gratuity.

The basis of estimate is the salary as paid in the present year. If the present scheme of salaries had been in operation since 1929 the teacher would have got the benefit which the scheme will now give him at a much lower figure, and future teachers——

The Deputy ought not to confuse the pension payment with the gratuity payment. Where there are arrears in respect of the pension payment they will be paid on the basis of the salary actually paid at the time. The only thing charged on the basis of the 1950-51 year is the 1½ per cent. in respect of the gratuity. That is worked out on an actuarial approach to the question.

Except that the teachers will say that the teacher who is now young in the service and who has 40 years before him on the higher salary will have to pay substantially less than they would have had to pay if this scheme were in operation since 1929. They claim that the future teacher would pay really £120 less and that, in fact, men on the maximum, if the present scheme had come into operation in 1929 would have contributed only £150 in 21 years, whereas it might now go up to about £235, plus £225 for the 19 years that are to go. These are the figures with which I have been supplied, anyway. A £150 contribution would have given a man on the maximum the entitlement to this retirement gratuity if the scheme had been in operation in 1929. That is what he would have paid over the 21 years. The man who comes into this category of retrospective payment will have to pay roughly £235, if we take him as being at the maximum in 1929 and he will have to pay £225 for the 19 years he has to serve — that is £460 altogether, while the teacher who would now be going into the service and who would serve for 40 years would not have to pay, even if he were a married man, more than £238.

The general claim is that the amount of the retrospective payment cannot be so substantial from the State point of view that to wipe it out altogether would involve any problem for the Minister for Finance, whereas if those teachers who were teaching before 1929 have to pay at the rate of £40 or £50 a year, it will be a serious burden upon them.

The third point is with regard to the basis of calculation. The Minister in the course of his statement referred to a teacher drawing his retirement gratuity at the end of 35 years' service. I presume that the basis of this scheme is that those who become members will be entitled to get full benefit at the end of the period of contribution. Apparently, a secondary teacher could not get the full benefit because it is almost impossible for him to have the full period of service. He cannot start teaching, under the rules, before 21. He has to retire at 65, but in actual fact, I understand that 25 would be the average age for a teacher entering the service, and some do not enter until they are 30, so that to get the full benefit of the Minister's scheme he would have to have 45 years' service, and that would be quite impossible. The teachers' suggestion is—I understand from the Minister that apparently he does not agree with them— that in view of the fact that they do not start teaching until they are at least 23 or possibly 25, that 42 years' service would be the maximum, and that on that basis 1/28th instead of 1/30th should be the amount they would be asked for. If the fact is that this is based on a theory of 45 years' service, and if a teacher cannot give 45 years' service, then there seems to be a strong case for altering the basis from 30 to another figure, and taking whatever maximum period of service a teacher can give after he has gone through his university course.

If it had been possible to put in amendments to the scheme to try and improve matters under these three headings I would have done so. I should like to know from the Minister whether the burden that would have been put on the State, if the teachers' wishes in this matter had been entirely conceded, would have been so great that it would have been impossible to give way to them. I should also like to ask him whether the marriage gratuity given to teachers will be less favourable than that of civil servants. All these benefits, of course, are given to civil servants and as regards the retiring gratuity, I think that primary teachers got that since the beginning of the present year without any retrospective payment of any kind. The vocational teachers, I think the secondary teachers can claim, are doing better than they are. There is no body of public servants doing more splendid work for the country than the secondary teachers. The basis of our cultural and intellectual life and of our higher education rests upon their work. I would ask the Minister to consider sympathetically, before the scheme goes through the Oireachtas, whether he could not endeavour to meet them on the points I have made.

What strikes me in connection with this scheme is the lack of uniformity which is suggested in the different branches of education on the matter of superannuation. I am sure the members of the House will be surprised to learn for the first time that the secondary teachers are called upon not alone to pay a contribution in the matter of superannuation, but a very heavy contribution indeed. At this stage I should like to ask was this particular scheme negotiated with the organisation which represents secondary teachers? I think it would interest members of the House if we had some statement of that kind because there are certain features in the scheme which suggest hardship. Would the Minister say if the organisation concerned did, in fact, have an opportunity of considering the matter with the Minister?

Oh, several.

Would it be correct to say that they have approved of the scheme?

I do not think it would. It would not be fair to say that this scheme is accepted by the representatives of the secondary teachers, but it is a fact that there are certain things in this scheme which they did not approve of but wanted to have otherwise.

I appreciate the Minister's explanation. Again I say that the hardship that suggests itself to me is this question of retrospective payment in connection with the gratuity. There are other branches of the teaching profession who are not called upon to make any direct contribution towards their pensions. In the case of the secondary teachers as I have indicated, they are called upon to pay a heavy contribution and they are apparently prepared to do so. In addition, they are prepared to pay for the new benefit which is incorporated in the scheme—that is the question of the gratuity which is to be payable to secondary teachers as in the case of primary teachers in future. The secondary teachers, I understand, are prepared to make their contributions towards their pensions and a substantial contribution towards their gratuities in future. I understand that they strenuously object to be called upon to make payments retrospectively in respect of the gratuity. As was pointed out by Deputy Derrig, if a man on the top of his scale wants to make his contribution over the next three years in respect of the gratuity which is in arrears he will have to contribute something like £235. I understand that what that will mean, in fact, is that the increase which was recently granted to a secondary teacher will have been not only nullified but will leave the teacher in a worse position, over the three years, than he had been in prior to getting that increase. If it is spread over a period of five years then I understand it will mean that over that period a teacher who is at his maximum will have virtually no increase in his salary because of the payments he will have to make.

The House would be interested to know from the Minister what is the amount involved in the retrospective payments in connection with this scheme. Will the Minister say if it is serious? If it is not, I suggest to the Minister that the House would like him to consider the removal of this question of retrospective payment. Undoubtedly, it will be a hardship, so far as these men are concerned, over the next three, four, or five years. That is one point in this scheme which certainly makes no appeal to me. I understand it is the cause of dissatisfaction so far as the teachers themselves are concerned.

There is the added fact, I understand, that the scheme was introduced actuarially. If I understood the Minister aright, the basis of computation in respect of this retrospective gratuity is the salary payable in 1950 and 1951. Therefore, teachers can be called upon to pay the arrears on a salary which, in fact, they had not received at all. That surely seems to be a hardship, but that is the case which has been put to me and to other members of the House. If the Minister could give us information as to the amount involved, we ourselves could form an idea as to whether it would be possible to remove the retrospective payment. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position under that heading.

I was hoping that this matter would not be completed this evening. This scheme, which is rather involved, has been sent to every member of the House. To me, at least, it appears to be involved, and at the moment I am actually taking certain opinions and advice in regard to it. Rather than waste a quarter of an hour in keeping the debate going, I suggest to the Minister that he should agree to adjourn this matter to another day. I certainly would like to make a reasoned contribution on the scheme. I have not had an opportunity of examining it in all its implications. I feel that before agreeing to it the points of view that should be expressed on behalf of the secondary teachers should be expressed and placed on record. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to permit this debate to be adjourned. He will understand that Deputies have only had this complicated scheme in their hands for a few days. I would ask the Minister if he would be agreeable to that.

This is a scheme which has been the subject of deep consultation between the A.S.T.I. and myself on the one hand and between the Department of Finance and myself on the other. The various points suggested here by Deputy Derrig have been very fully considered. I have looked at the various things that could be said on both sides and, after a full and thorough discussion with the Minister for Finance in reference to the financial and other implications that are involved, I have not been able to get a scheme better than this put together. I think it is very important for secondary teachers, at any rate for those who have retired since the 1st January, 1950, and those who will retire in the immediate future, that they would have an opportunity of getting some kind of a retiring gratuity when they go out. I think that to hold up the present scheme for the purpose of having it re-examined to get such advice as we might be offered in Parliament would only involve delay. After the discussions and consideration which I have given the matter myself, I could not advise the House that, to do that, would bring us any nearer to a solution of some of the questions which have been raised here.

I would ask Deputies to allow this scheme to go through. It will help to remedy and to effect some things that have an immediate importance for a large number of teachers. If the House wants to face up to the question of providing secondary teachers with a non-contributory scheme, then that will have to be approached in a very different way. When the national teachers' pension fund was done away with and they were given their non-contributory pensions, that had certain reactions and on the salaries fixed for them at that particular time. I think Deputy O'Sullivan knows that vocational teachers make a contribution of 5 per cent. from their salaries in respect of pension gratuity, and that they get no credit for any time in the past during which they had been employed temporarily or, at any rate, in a non-recognisable pensionable way. So that there are incongruities, if you like, here and there. As I have said, the vocational teachers do make a contribution. The secondary teachers have a scheme traditionally based on particular lines. This scheme introduces a considerable amount of improvement and there is no back payment that does not give a fairly substantial resulting benefit to anybody who comes under the scheme. I realise that I am just answering a question which the Deputy put to me as to whether we could drop this thing.

I did not put it in that way. What I asked the Minister was this. The position of Deputies is that they either approve of or reject the scheme; we have no power of amendment. But the matter is rather involved, and, in view of the fact that Deputies have not had sufficient opportunity to examine the scheme and make, what one should make in a case of this kind, a reasoned and constructive case in regard to it, I was asking the Minister before I spoke at all in the matter to agree to adjourn the debate at this stage. It will not take very long, I am sure, on a future occasion, but I certainly should like an opportunity of making a reasoned and constructive statement in regard to the scheme, and I cannot do that now. I understand the position is that the House resumes the debate on the Vote on Account at 8 o'clock. Naturally, I am so keen on putting forward the suggestions that I know will be made to me that I could talk until 8 o'clock.

I appreciate that and I am so anxious to show what a nice agreeable person I am that I should like to come to an agreement with the Deputy and the House before 8 o'clock. Therefore I am willing to accommodate them in the discussion of the matter.

I think the Minister ought to agree.

There is only one reason for urgency in the matter, and that is that a very complicated amount of detail has to be gone through which will give an opportunity to the people who are concerned in the scheme or who want to be concerned in it before 31st July to investigate fully everything that affects them in the scheme and of expressing their desire to come in under the scheme or not to come in. If we could arrange to have time, say, on Tuesday, if we are meeting on Tuesday next, or Wednesday, if we are meeting on Wednesday next, to conclude this matter, I certainly would be very glad that all the members of the House who want to speak on this subject should have an opportunity of doing so.

I can guarantee that my contribution will be absolutely tabloid and condensed.

If it suits the convenience of the House, the Deputy could move the adjournment of the debate. Would Deputy Derrig be agreeable to time being arranged on Tuesday or Wednesday next to conclude this?

Yes, quite agreeable.

I move the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday.

Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 6th March.
Top
Share