Vol. 553 No. 6
49 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to complaints expressed by the INTO that proposals for the introduction of a new standard retirement age of 65 for new entrants to the teaching profession was misguided in view of new figures showing that less than one in five teachers stay until 65; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14740/02]
I am aware that most teachers retire before attaining age 65. The tendency of teachers and other public servants to retire before compulsory retirement age is one of the factors which has contributed to increased expenditure on public service pensions. Another major factor leading to increased expenditure is that average life expectancy is increasing. It was principally because of the rising cost of public service pensions that the Government decided in 1996 to establish a commission to review and report on the existing provisions for public servants. The proposal that a standard retirement age of 65 be introduced for new entrants to the public service, including teachers, is one of the recommendations contained in the commission's final report which was published in January 2001.
The Government has accepted the broad thrust of the package of reforms recommended by the commission and, as provided for in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, has established a working group to advise on the implementation of the commission's recommendations. The working group, which consists of representatives of the public service unions, including the INTO and TUI, and relevant Departments, including the Department of Finance and my Department, has met on a regular basis and it is hoped the group will be in a position to report before the end of the year. The operational details of the implementation of the commission's recommendations will be determined by the Government following receipt of the report of the working group.
The report of the commission records that the three members who were representatives of the public service unions were unable to agree with the recommendation that a standard retirement age of 65 be introduced. They accepted the desirability of increasing the age at which public servants would actually retire, but they felt this should be achieved by providing incentives for staff to stay in employment, for example, by being able to accrue more than 40 years' service for pension purposes. The reservations expressed are being considered by the implementation working group.
Does the Minister agree that it was misguided to have a standard retirement age of 65 given that 80% of primary teachers leave before that age? Why is a standard being introduced which cannot be implemented? Teachers are voting with their feet as there is an exodus from the teaching profession. There is a broader issue to be dealt with in terms of the resources to schools, pupil teacher ratios and pupil behaviour. Why is a standard retirement age being introduced when 80% of teachers are leaving voluntarily, as a result of illness or for family reasons? It is in stark contrast with what happened a generation ago when teachers applied for extensions beyond 65 years of age. There is something seriously wrong with the primary education service.
It is not my place at Question Time to give my views or opinions on anything. I am giving my official position as Minister for Education and Science. I will talk to the Deputy afterwards about it.
I would like to hear the Minister's views.
Is the Minister concerned about the stress felt by teachers in schools? Does he believe that is a factor in the exodus of teachers before the official retirement age?
Stress is a factor. One can see that from the figures for the number of people who leave teaching before the normal retirement age. All the studies would indicate that stress is one of the factors affecting health. Sometimes the ill health is brought on by stress and sometimes it is not related but there is no doubt that it is a factor. Teaching is a very onerous and responsible job and it is not getting any easier. I am certainly interested in trying to advance anything we can do to relieve the stress involved in teaching. Stress is probably as much a result of changes in society as of changes in education.
In view of the already low take-up in terms of teacher training places and the stress involved in the job, to which the Minister has referred, does he agree it would be a detrimental step for the educational system to force teachers to remain until age 65, without their goodwill?
They will still have the option of retiring before age 65. What we are discussing here is really a public service retiring age. If I read the figures before me correctly – and if I am mistaken I will correct them later – it appears that, in 1986, 44% of teachers who retired had reached the compulsory retiring age and that the figure for 2001 was 19%.
