Vol. 34 No. 18
On behalf of Senator Quirke I move:—
That the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (A m e n d m e n t) Scheme, 1947, 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 leasaithe seo ná deireadh do chur leis an leatrom a deineadh ar mhúinteoirí áirithe in áireamh a bpinsean toisc na teorann a cuireadh le híoc Bónais Eigeandála. Ón lú Eanáir, 1943, ní raibh an bónas seo iníoctha le duine go raibh thar £398 17s. 0d. sa bhliain aige agus ón lú Eanáir, 1944, ní raibh sé iníoctha le duine go raibh thar £500 sa bhliain aige.
Fén leasú atá beartaithe anois, do réir mar atá leagtha amach in Alt 5 den scéim leasaithe seo, múinteoirí nach bhfuair, i ngeall ar an teora a cuireadh le híoc Bónais Eigeandála fé mar atá luaite cheana, an Bónas in iomlán nó aon chuid de i rith na tréimhse sna trí blianta roimh éirí as gairm dóibh ina raibh an Bónas iníoctha, áireofar pinsin na múinteoirí sin amhail is dá mbeadh an bónas in iomlán á íoc leo i rith na tréimhse sin. Beidh sé sin ag braith, ámh, ar iad síntiús d'íoc is ionann agus 4 per cent. den tsuim bhreise i leith Bhónais Eigeandála atá á cur san áireamh anois chun críche pinsin.
Fón dara leasú (Alt 6) bunófar tuarastal inphinsin múinteora ar an meán-tuarastal caighdeánach a bhí aige sna trí bliana suas go dtí dáta a éirí as gairm nó suas go dtí an lá deiridh den ráithe roimhe sin do réir mar éiríonn sé as gairm ar an lá deiridh de ráithe nó lá éigin eile. Go dtí seo, bunaíodh tuarastal inphinsin múinteora ar an méan-tuarastal caigheánach a bhí aige sna trí scoil-bhlianta, is é sin, suas go dtí an 31ú Iúil roimh éirí as gairm dó.
Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon phointe tábhachtach i gceist fé na hailt eile.
The Minister says that the purpose of this scheme is to remove the anomaly which exists in respect of the emergency conditions that were operated by the Government. I think I am correct in saying that so far as any secondary teacher who retired since 1st August, 1943, is concerned, the scheme of the Minister meets the difficulties and does away with the injustices that undoubtedly existed before the amending scheme was introduced. I find it difficult, however, to understand from the Minister's speech why he has selected the 1st August, 1943. I do not see for example, what case there is for making a difference between 1st August, 1943, and, say, 1st August, 1942. The emergency, as we all know, started prior to that period and I do not quite understand why the particular date has been chosen or why, say, 31st July, 1943, is not the operative date.
While the Minister dealt with certain aspects of the scheme, he did not deal in any way with the reasons which operated in selecting that particular date as the date following which these adjustments will be brought into effect. It cannot be too often stressed, in my view, that so far as anything connected with the teaching of our young people is concerned it is esential to have a proper spirit of harmony and of satisfaction among those who are teaching so that there will be no danger of their inculcating in our young people a spirit of dissatisfaction with our country, with our Government, no matter what Party may form the Administration of the time.
There is one aspect of the scheme which I find it difficult to understand. Generally speaking, I think we are all in agreement with the proposal in the scheme and none of us desires to hinder its adoption or approval by the House. But, I am wondering whether the Minister has some inhibition against the teachers who resigned or ceased to be in the service of the State prior to the 1st August 1943. I cannot understand how that date was arrived at.
It is explained in the first paragraph of the memorandum. Perhaps I had better read it, with your permission, Sir:—
"The payment of this Bonus was subject to a ‘ceiling' figure of £398 17s. 0d. as from the 1st January, 1943 and a ‘ceiling' figure of £500 as from the 1st January, 1944. On account of these limitations a small number of teachers who were in receipt of a school salary in excess of the basic minimum—£200 per annum in the case of a man and £180 per annum in the case of a woman—were debarred in whole or part from receiving emergency bonus."
These people will be treated now as if they had been in receipt of the full emergency bonus during that period, and it will count for pension provided they pay the usual 4 per cent. of the increase which is in fact being given to them, notionally, perhaps. It will count in respect of their pensions. Therefore, these people will not suffer any disadvantage. They will gain as a result of that. It is simply to straighten out the position in regard to this small number of teachers.
Would there not be the same disability in respect of teachers who retired between the 1st January, 1943 and the 1st August, 1943, so far as I read these figures?
I think I understand what the Minister is at. I think he has taken the 1st August as an average between the two periods. He refers to two rates of bonus as from the 1st January, 1943, and as from 1st January, 1944. So, I take it this figure, the 1st August, was taken for the purpose of averaging the rates between these two dates. That part is clear enough to me.
The question that really concerned me, at the outset, was this contribution of 4 per cent. I am wondering whether the teachers concerned are now in the enjoyment of their pensions, and in retirement, and, if so, how it is proposed to collect from them this contribution of 4 per cent? It is understandable, of course. that when a person is in employment the employer can deduct from current payments any sum due by way of contribution, whether it is National Health Insurance contribution or contribution to a superannuation scheme or any other form of contribution. It is not so easy to understand how that can be done without great hardship where the person has ceased to be employed and has retired probably on an income substantially lower than the income he received before his retirement. It seems to me that the Minister ought not to have inserted this provision requiring people, who are out of the service, who are living on reduced incomes derived from their pensions, to make this contribution of 4 per cent.
I think the Senator must understand that, however the mechanism will work for collecting the 4 per cent. over this additional period, it will have to be collected. It is quite a usual thing in connection with these pension schemes that additional concessions may be granted under certain amendments and, as part of the agreement for the improvement in the pension, the teachers on their part may agree to pay an additional contribution towards the pension.
I must say that I am not familiar with what happens. It is probably true that we cannot reduce a teacher's pension, I take it, unless by agreement with the teacher, but I dare say that if a teacher wishes to make an arrangement by which portion of his pension would go back to pay for this increased contribution, that could be arranged. In any case, the additional contribution must be paid, as the scheme must be kept actuarially sound. The secondary teacher's superannuation has not anything to spare in that way. For anything additional we are giving in the way of benefit, we must get in the contribution either from the teachers or from the State. I think the agreement is that the State pays roughly the same amount as the teacher and manager combined.
I will look into the point and see if there is any case of difficulty. I have not heard of any case. I feel quite sure that it could be arranged if there were a case of that kind, because, obviously, since the additional contribution will only be payable for a short period—from 1st January, 1943, to the 1st January, 1944—there cannot be very much in question from the teachers' point of view.
I am much obliged, Sir. I assume that there is not a lot involved but we are dealing with people who have retired and whose income is, therefore, substantially reduced. Restitution is being made to them for a particular reduction which the Government desires to restore. I am wondering whether the amount involved is going to affect the superannuation fund materially. If it is not, then it seems to me that the Department of Finance was simply putting a quick one across the Department of Education. I would urge the Minister strongly to have the matter re-examined to see how far this affects an individual teacher. If the Minister considers that there is a hardship involved, I would urge strongly that he would tell the Department of Finance that they must forego this 4 per cent.
