asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state whether there is any foundation for the report that it is his intention to seek to include in the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, national teachers in respect of widows' and orphans' contributions; and, if so, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a large section of teachers whose salary scale would come within the scope of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, are compelled on marriage to retire and thus can never benefit in respect of the widows' and orphans' benefits.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Teachers and Social Welfare Act.
As matters stand national teachers already fall fully within the scope of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. It is, however, my intention to make under Section 12 of the Act regulations that will have the effect of confining their insurance to widows' (contributory) pension and orphans' (contributory) allowance. National teachers belong to a general class that includes such groups as established civil servants and pensionable officers of local authorities. I do not see any sound reason for making an exception in the case of national teachers; in fact I think I would be doing them a disservice if I did. There is this great difference between the position under the present law and what it will be after the new scheme comes into operation. Now a woman cannot qualify for a widow's pension on her own insurance; when the new scheme comes into operation she can. And in the future, moreover, a woman who is compelled to retire on marriage will be able to carry on her insurance by becoming a voluntary contributor in her own right.
I wonder has the Minister adverted to the assurance which he gave me on the Committee Stage of the Bill in regard to an amendment which I had tabled? In view of that, will the Minister look into this?
We had a discussion on this particular class on the Report Stage, and while I think I may have misled the Deputy in discussing civil servants and local authority officials, I think I did make it plain that I wanted to cover them where necessary. I did inadvertently say that national teachers were out, but I think that my general proposition should have covered national teachers at the time.
Would the Minister reconsider the position, because undoubtedly the Minister gave an assurance to the House on which I withdrew my amendment? I think in view of that, he should reconsider the whole position. Otherwise it would be a gross breach of faith with the House if the Minister failed to carry out the undertaking he gave.
I think I understood the Minister to say that a single female teacher could, on marriage, continue as a voluntary contributor.
Yes.
I take it that could only be for the purpose of the widows' and orphans' pension?
Yes.
Why should she insure herself for a pension that she already had?
A woman teacher must retire on marriage. If she marries an insured person she is already covered, but if not she could continue the insurance in her own right as a voluntary contributor. If her husband should die, then though he is not insured, she would be entitled to a pension.
For all practical purposes she is already covered by virtue of her husband's contributions.
But where the husband is not insured at all.
Suppose she marries a farmer.
If she marries a farmer and the farmer is not insured, her cover would lapse unless she continued it.
Can a farmer's widow get a pension?
Not a contributory one.
Will the Minister reconsider the position?
Very good. In any case, it will come before the Dáil later on a specific proposition.