I move:—
That the National School Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1948, made by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for Finance, be confirmed.
Teachers' Superannuation Scheme—Motion.
Mr. Hayes
There are six matters dealt with here and these are dealt with in Sections 5 to 10 of the scheme. Senators will remember that, after the setting up of the State, the Christian Brothers' Schools, which had not been under the national school system, came in. From 1925 or 1926, in a progressive movement into the national school system, the Christian Brothers came in and the transfer was regarded as having taken place from 1st January, 1927, and the teachers in these schools were then regarded as national teachers. At that time, there was a contributory pension fund. They were not contributors to that fund and, when in 1934, the national teachers' pension fund was taken over by the State and the fund scheme became a non-contributory scheme, the question arose of what was to be done in respect of a pension provision for those who had been teaching in these schools as monitors, junior assistant mistresses and so on who had not contributed to the pension fund. It was decided when the fund was introduced in 1934 that those who had given service in certain capacities, non-contributory, before that year would be allowed to count two-thirds of their period of service as pensionable service and they then came in under the scheme as if they had been members of the fund before. In the case of the lay teachers who came in under the Christian Brothers' Schools, they were allowed to count their service back to 1st January, 1927.
A number of cases were raised both here and in the Dáil during the discussion on the previous superannuation scheme and it was pointed out that hardship was caused in a small number of cases by reason of the fact that there were men who had given fairly considerable service before 1927 who were receiving no recognition for that service and who, as a result, were retiring on very small pensions indeed. Section 5 of this scheme makes provision that service given before 1st January, 1927, and back to the time the teacher was 18 years of age will now, and retrospectively for a certain number of years, be regarded as pensionable service for the purposes of the scheme.
Section 6 deals with the recognition of the strike period as pensionable service. The teachers were on strike for about six months from 31st October, 1946, and, in order to wipe out any recollection of that event in our educational history, the Government were anxious that there should be no hanging-over feeling that the increment date was postponed year after year as result of absence during that period and because there was a gap from the point of view of pension. It was not necessary to come to the Oireachtas to maintain the normal date for increment and to ignore the absence of six months or so from the incremental point of view. Some time ago, it was settled that the normal incremental date would be retained and this provision will enable us, in fixing pensions, to ignore any absence at that time and to count the whole of the teacher's service for pension purposes.
Section 7 is a tidying-up section. It has been the practice that teachers retire on reaching the age of 65 years, and this provision simply arranges that service after that age will not count towards pension. There are a small number of instances in which, by reason of fortuitous circumstances of one kind or another, a teacher is continued in office.
Section 8 deals with the abatement of pension. It has been the practice that, when a teacher who has retired on pension takes up a position as a teacher, his pension will not operate to secure that he will get more money in his temporary post-pension position than he had in the position from which he was pensioned. This extends it to the taking up of employment otherwise than as a teacher. It only relates to employment where the moneys are provided directly from the Oireachtas or out of the Central Fund. The question has been raised as to whether this would affect a person employed under a vocational committee, by the Electricity Supply Board, a university or some nationalised undertaking. The question might arise according to the terms of the nationalised undertaking, but it would not arise in connection with the Electricity Supply Board, university employment or employment under a vocational committee.
With regard to paragraph 9, new scales of pay came into operation from 31st October, 1946, and when these new scales were introduced, it was realised that teachers who went out on pension immediately after, as their pensions were based upon the average income for three years immediately preceding the date of termination of their office, would suffer rather much by reason of the fact that they were going out on pensions based on the old scales, although they had actually been begun to be paid on the new scales. It was decided that every teacher would be allowed to continue beyond the normal pensionable date for such a period as would enable him to have one year of the new salary scale as a contribution to a larger pension. This paragraph provides that, with retrospective effect to all those who went out since the new scales were introduced, they will receive a pension based on the notional calculation of what their income would have been for three years before the date of retirement, had they been on the new scales for that period, so that all those who retired from 31st October, 1946, will after this clause comes into effect, receive pensions as if the new scales of pay had been in continuous operation for three years before they went out.
Section 10 relates to marriage gratuities. At present, when a lady teacher retires for marriage, she gets a retiring gratuity based upon income for three years before the date of her retirement. If she had an income of £240 for the year immediately before her retirement, or at the time of her retirement, £220 the year before and £200 the year before that, she would retire with a gratuity based on an average income of £220.
Would that be irrespective of years of service?
It would be related to that pay and to her years of service as well. I am only referring to the financial basis of the gratuity. If she retired on £240 and did not marry for two years, her retiring gratuity would be based on £240.
It would pay her to wait for two years?
She would not know. If, under the present system, the retiring allowance on marriage was not paid until two years after, it would be higher than it would be if paid at the time of retirement. This section provides that the retiring allowance for marriage will be related to the date of retirement for marriage and not to the date of the marriage.
I do not know if I am correct in saying that this is the first occasion on which the Minister has appeared before us as Minister for Education. We knew him before, of course, as a member of the Seanad, but if this is his first appearance as Minister, I would like to bid him welcome. I should like to do that particularly because he has appeared with these proposals which, as he said and as I can confirm, will make for better relations between his Department and the 12,000 or 14,000 people with whom he has to deal.
There are some observations that I should like to make on the proposals in this Order. The first deals with Section 5 (iii) (a) where, as the Minister explained, two-thirds of the service given by certain teachers engaged in Christian Brothers' schools will be allowed for pension purposes. In my opinion there is no real justification for cutting the service by one-third. In this, of course, the Minister is following the precedent set by the previous Government in 1934 when they brought into the pension scheme convent teachers and junior assistant mistresses. That Government, in turn, were following the precedent created in 1920 by the British Government when, for the first time, teachers engaged in convent schools were recognised by the State for the purpose of payment. It was argued very strongly then, by the teachers' representatives, that those women, some of whom had given long service in convent schools as assistant teachers, should have that service recognised for the purpose of placing them on the scale but, after first refusing to recognise any of the service, the Government yielded to pressure and agreed to allow service to the extent of two-thirds. That is just and arbitrary figure. There is no virtue in it any more than there would be in three-fourths, seven-eighths or any other figure. It was just one of these things that the British Government liked to do by way of compromise.
That precedent was followed when convent school teachers and junior assistant mistresses were being put on the pension scheme in 1934. They were allowed only two-thirds of their previous service. The result is that some of these teachers, especially junior assistant mistresses and convent school teachers who had to retire shortly afterwards, retired on extremely low pensions and the problem was created of the miserably low pensions, of which we have heard so much.
The only suggestion I have ever heard in justification—it was mentioned again by the Minister in his statement—was that these people did not contribute to the old pension fund. I do not think there is any substance in that argument. They contributed by their service. They worked for lower salaries than the other teachers had at that time, low and all as they were, and they gave service to the community. There is no good reason that I could ever understand why the whole of their service should not be recognised for pension purposes. I know that in respect of those employed in the National Health Insurance Society, service given in the separate societies before unification, is now recognised in full for pension purposes. There is another reason, and a strong reason, why this should be done, namely, that the teachers have the worst pension terms of any public servants. In practically all other services, the pension is equal to two-thirds of the average salary over a number of years. If it is not two-thirds, it is one-half plus a lump sum. That is the position in the Civil Service and in the local authorities and in most other public services, or semi-public services. In the case of teachers it is half the average salary over three years and no lump sum. In Northern Ireland, the teacher is entitled to a lump sum, and in the Civil Service here and most other services that is the position. That is a further reason why we should get away from the two-thirds in the case of teachers engaged in convent schools, Christian Brothers' schools and junior assistant mistresses.
With regard to paragraph 6, dealing with service during the strike period, it was regrettable that there should have been a strike, and I think nobody regretted it more than those who were compelled to take part in it but, at the time, it seemed to them their only method, after trying every other method, of bringing their position before the public and getting the public to recognise it. I have no hesitation in saying that if the suggestion which was urged on the Minister at that time and which has now been adopted by the present Minister, of setting up a representative committee before which the teachers could argue their case and make their claim, had been adopted, I feel quite certain that there would not have been a strike. However, that is past and gone. It is highly commendable, I think, on the part of the present Minister and the Government to allow this service, especially the incremental service, which is even more important than pension service, for the purpose of creating better relations and wiping out any bitterness or trace of bitterness that might have remained. It is only fair to say that, while the teachers have asked that this should be done, they did not claim it as a matter of right. They had no right to get this service allowed. They went on strike. They knew what they were doing. They knew the sacrifices and they were prepared to make them.
There is only one thing in connection with that strike that I should like, very briefly, to mention. It was the action of the former Minister and Government, after the strike, in rewarding by means of special bonus those members of the teachers' organisation or nonmembers of the organisation who remained on and refused to go on strike. That is something that is unique in disputes of this kind, and I wonder what a trade unionist, say, Senator Seán Campbell or Senator Colgan, would say if, after a strike those who failed to obey the call of their organisation or union were rewarded by the employers with a special bonus. That also is past history but it will be remembered for a long time as the outstanding thing which was very bitterly resented by the teachers.
I congratulate the Minister and thank him also for this other section whereby the older teachers who were just about to go on pension at the time the new scales were introduced will now get in their pension the benefit of the new scales as if they had served for the full three years on the new scales. That is something that the teachers' organisation had always asked for and which, up to this, they did not get. They certainly did not get it under the British when the 1920 scales were introduced and some teachers had to go on pension a month, two months or six months after the new scales were introduced and it brought them no benefit in their pension. The former Minister, after the 1946 scales were introduced, as the present Minister has told us, did allow one year and provided that every teacher, no matter if he were due to go on pension, would be allowed to serve one year on the new scales. That, to some extent, helped towards getting a better pension. Now, the new salary scales will count to the full for pension purposes for those teachers who had to retire shortly after the scales were introduced.
There is only one matter which I regret. Of course, it was not possible, I suppose, to bring it in on this Order. I refer to the case of ex-teacher-pensioners that has been so frequently and so strongly represented to the Government. I can only hope that there will be no further delay in remedying that very deserving case and giving these ex-teachers some help, especially in view of the very poor terms of their pensions.
Again I would like to thank the Minister for bringing in these proposals, especially the provision in regard to the strike period, which, as I say, the teachers could not claim and did not claim as a matter of right.
The motion before the House removes many of the disadvantages under which teachers were labouring for some time. I would like to join with Senator O'Connell in making a plea to the Minister on behalf of two types of teachers, that is, those for whom he now proposes to make a provision of two-thirds of their service and old retired teachers. I regret to find, on an examination of the Estimates for the coming year, that no provision is made there to implement the many promises that were made throughout the election campaigns, first, to increase teachers' salaries and remuneration in general and, secondly, to make provision for those old retired teachers. The teachers have a powerful organisation to plead their case and to fight their battles, but I fear that as far as old retired teachers are concerned their case has been left somewhat in abeyance for some time past and they have felt the strain of the increased cost of living more than any other section.
Senator O'Connell was anxious that we would pass over the history of recent months and I think he set out fairly well to do so himself. In every reference he made to any improvement in the conditions of the teachers in general he started with what the British did in a particular Act and came on to what the previous Government did in their legislation and during their term of office. There was quite a lengthy piece of history between the passing of the British Government and the coming into office of the Fianna Fáil Government and the Senator should have made some reference to the Government that was first in office for what they did on behalf of the teachers. I do not think it was fair to pass from what the British Government did to what the Fianna Fáil Government did or did not do.
Section 6 makes provision for putting the teachers in the position they occupied prior to the strike. It does only what this House and Parliament has already done in the case of Corporation employees and other State servants who went on strike. I do not think that there is very much we can say in regard to this particular motion except that we are glad that a number of disadvantages are removed. We plead again with the Minister on behalf of those old retired teachers.
This amended superannuation scheme is a distinct improvement for a number of classes of teachers. I am inclined to agree with Senator O'Connell and Senator Hawkins that it is a pity that something could not be done for teachers who retired a long time ago on very miserable salaries and who are therefore in a lamentable position as regards pensions, but it might be in order to remind Senator Hawkins that while we all sympathised with these teachers and while the powerful organisation of national teachers was trying to do something for them, Senator Hawkins was a force in another very powerful organisation which for over 16 years failed to improve the lot of these old teachers. However, that is only by the way. The Minister has adopted a newer and more enlightened scheme whereby when people miss an improved scale of salary they are not allowed to miss the improvement in their pension. Everybody will, I think, agree that that is a good scheme.
I should like to say a word regarding lay teachers in primary divisions of Christian Brothers' schools. Speaking with experience as a secondary teacher in Christian Brothers' schools, I can say that they were a very badly paid and hard working body of laymen. I agree with Senator O'Connell and Senator Hawkins that it is desirable to give them what they are getting now and if they could get more it would also be desirable. The problem is not a continuing one. It only applies to people who were employed in the primary divisions of Christian Brothers' schools when they were taken over in 1927. I had something to do with the transfer, which took a number of years. It is a distinct improvement to allow them two-thirds of their service, but seeing that they are a disappearing band of people and that no precedent would be set up, if that could be improved it would be all to the good. They were a very deserving class of people who did good work under difficult conditions of every kind and it would be very good if it could be improved.
I think the Minister is to be congratulated on this amending scheme.
I would like to ask the Minister for some information about the position of women teachers. I hope that Section 7 can be interpreted as applying to women teachers as well as to men teachers. By a very unfortunate interpretation of previous Acts, a good many women were compelled to retire at 60 years of age even before they had served a sufficient number of years to qualify for full pension, and I think there should be some amendment in that respect. If Section 7 means anything it means that a teacher remains in active service until the age of 65 and that pensionable service counts until the age of 65 and not after. I would be very glad if that applied to women as well as to men. There is no reason in the world why women should retire at 60 and not at 65 and it would be most unjust if they had to. Women teachers have many disadvantages and I have voiced their grievances on more than one occasion without getting any further. If we have an assurance that the term "teacher" applies to women teachers as well as to men teachers, it will be very good news for a lot of people.
I join with those who have asked the Minister to consider—I am sure he has considered it—and bring all the pressure he can to bear on the Minister for Finance to do something for the old pensioned teachers. It is a crime and a disgrace that these people should have utterly inadequate pensions. Their salaries were utterly inadequate and their pensions are based on them. They have done magnificent work and I do not know how they exist or keep going at all on pensions based on those salaries. No matter where the money comes from, the nation would be very pleased, although we are not very fond of Supplementary Estimates, if the Minister for Finance could bring in a Supplementary Estimate for that. It would be very welcome to most people concerned with this vital aspect of our education.
The answer can be given positively to Senator Mrs. Concannon that Section 7 applies to women as well as to men, that is, as regards such benefits as are in it, but I do not want her to misunderstand the situation. That does not, however, remove the provision from the superannuation scheme of 1934 which in Section 31 says:—
"No pension, gratuity (other than a short service gratuity) or other sum shall be payable under this scheme to or in respect of any teacher who has, otherwise than under and in accordance with permission given by the Minister to such teacher, continued to serve as a teacher after such teacher has attained, in the case of a male, the age of 65 or, in the case of a female, the age of 60."
The provision remains that female teachers can be pensioned and retired when they reach the age of 60, but that is not actually operated at the present time. They are not retired at 60, but the power to do so and pension them at 60 remains while there is no such power in respect of male teachers up to the age of 65.
That is very unconstitutional.
At any rate as far as I am dealing with this matter, under Section 7 the ladies get all the benefits the men are getting.
The question raised by Senator Hawkins of the salaries of national teachers is being dealt with by a committee specially set up for that purpose under one of our Circuit Court judges and it is being fully examined. The Government is committed to improving the pensions of the older teachers who do not come under this Bill. The Estimates were published, showing the amount of money that is going to be spent on services and the Budget will show you the Government's general approach to any additional matter with which it proposes to deal during the coming year. Any additions to our plans and the hope we have for the future will depend upon the state of the Exchequer as it is shown to-morrow or the day after. We must size up the realities of the matters that really require to be dealt with, and Senators, I think, can confidently expect that while direct machinery has been set up to examine the situation regarding salaries, the pension situation will be dealt with adequately and effectively as soon as we possibly can.
The only other question is why noncontributory teachers up to 1934 can count only two-thirds of their services for pension purposes. Teachers who were brought in under the 1934 pension scheme and who had not been in pensionable positions before and who had not any hope or understanding that they were in pensionable positions were given a concession in respect of their past services. They were allowed under the 1934 scheme to count two-thirds of their previous service for pension purposes and that is a very considerable concession to people who expected nothing.
They not only expected it, but asked.
They may have expected something when the noncontributory scheme came in——
And for 30 years before that.
——but I do not think that Senator O'Connell or Senator Hayes really think that at this hour of the day we can go back to a situation which was established, and established with what many would regard as considerable concessions and which was accepted very gratefully by many, 15 years ago. Senators understand that while this is an opportunity for expressing their thoughts and their rather tenuous wishes on this matter, there is nothing we can do while dealing with this particular Order. There are so many things which have to be dealt with in a realistic spirit. I am asked to turn my attention to real problems of the day and I cannot go back to a thing which undoubtedly was a problem at that time, or tangle up our minds with the pros and cons of things which were argued very definitely and had to be left as they were.
Motion agreed to.