I move:—
That the Secondary Teachers's Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme 1951, made by the Minister for Education, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, be confirmed.
Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1951—Motion.
This scheme is intended to amend the original scheme which came into operation from the 1st
August, 1929, under the Teachers' (Superannuation) Act, 1928. As Senators are aware, it is a contributory scheme. The amendment now before the Seanad is intended to introduce substantial changes in the benefits to be obtained under the scheme, to arrange for additional payments in relation to these benefits and to enable those who are not already members to come into the scheme.
The secondary schools are private institutions that are practically entirely financed by capitation grants based on the number of pupils attending under certain conditions. Salaries are paid to secondary teachers and are composed of a basic salary and an incremental salary. The basic salary is that part of the salary which is paid by the schools to the teacher. The minimum payments are £180 a year in the case of women teachers and £200 a year in the case of men. The incremental salaries are paid by the State. The present range of incremental salaries runs from the first increment of £160 a year to a maximum £470 a year in the case of a married man. In the case of a woman or an unmarried man the incremental salary runs from an initial increment of £100 a year to £320 a year. Included in what is called the "standard salary" is payment in respect of an honours degree and payment in respect of teaching through the medium of Irish.
The payments that are made towards the pensions scheme by the teachers are related to the salaries, that is, the salary as composed of the basic salary and the incremental salary. Under the scheme as it exists at present, and which it is now intended to amend, a certain number of benefits are arranged for. Provision is made under the scheme for the following benefits— a pension, a death gratuity, a short service gratuity and a disability gratuity. I will compare the present benefits with the proposed benefits under the new scheme. The existing scheme provides for a pension which is based on certain service—in some cases pre-1st August, 1929, and in certain cases post-1st August, 1929. Under the present scheme, service after 1st August, 1929, is contributory service. Service before that is non-contributory service. The pension is based on an average of the last three years of salary. That average is taken and, in respect of service pre-1st August, 1929, 1/100th of the average pensionable service is taken for each year of service: for years of service after 1st August, 1929, 1/80th is taken. Therefore, the pension is based on the average of the last three years of salary, reckoning, for pension purposes, service before 1st August, 1929, at 1/100th and after 1st August, 1929, at 1/80th. Under the new scheme, the pension will be based and reckoned in the same way. Under the existing schemes also, there is a death gratuity. The death gratuity consists simply of a refund of the contributions already paid by the teacher, together with compound interest at the rate of 3 per cent. In future the death benefit will be under a lump sum arrangement where there is not less than five year's service— either a year's pensionable salary or a lump sum based upon service, whichever is the greater. If a teacher has more than 30 years' service then he will get a full gratuity that will be larger than the years of pensionable service. Under the existing scheme there is a short service gratuity. That is when a person leaves teaching after a short period of service there is a refund of the contribution paid but without any interest. Under the new scheme there will be the same provision but there will be an increase in the short service gratuity, where a person retires as a result of disablement. Under the present scheme there is a disability pension after ten years, payable on pension basis. The same will obtain under the new scheme so that the present scheme includes benefits over and above what were paid before by the introduction of a lump sum on retirement, death gratuity which, instead of being merely a refund with compound interest of the contributions paid, will be a year's pensionable salary.
Then there is instead a short service gratuity in the case of a teacher with less than ten years, who goes out of the service because of disability. Instead of getting a refund of payments without interest he will get a disability gratuity of one-twelfth for each year of service together with a sum he would have earned in the lump sum. In addition, new benefits include a marriage gratuity which will be payable on marriage to women teachers leaving teaching and which will be paid to all women who have six years' service. One-twelfth of the retiring salary will be paid for each year of service. The minimum being six years and the maximum 12.
In order to make provision for the granting of these benefits it is necessary to increase the contributions. At the present moment the contribution that is made to bring the teacher under the existing scheme consists of a payment made by the school and a payment made by the teacher. I have said that a teacher's salary is made up of basic and incremental salary. The school pays 2½ per cent. On the basic salary up to £100 in the case of women and £200 in the case of men. The teacher pays 4 per cent. of the full basic and incremental salary. In future, from the introduction of the scheme the 4 per cent. paid by the teacher will become 5 per cent. and the increase of 1 per cent. will cover the increased benefits, but it is intended to allow teachers who have not come under the scheme on the one hand to pay back contributions so as to make their past service available for pension purpose and it is intended to enable teachers who want to come in under the full gratuity and lump sum to make payment in respect of back years, to allow them to make the six years eligible when assessing full gratuity or lump sum.
There are five classes of teachers to be considered in this matter: the first set are those under the original scheme introduced from the 1st August, 1929, and the teachers who were teaching at that particular time and who wanted to come in under it. The change with regard to them will be that from the 1st August, 1951, instead of paying 4 per cent. On the basic and incremental salary they will pay 5 per cent., but if they want their present and past services that will bring them in for full pension and gratuity from the 1st August, 1950, taken into account, for gratuity purposes, they will have to pay 1½ per cent. of their 1950-51 salary for every year of their service which they wish to have to regarded for gratuity purposes. Teachers of that class who pay back their gratuity payments back to the 1st August, 1929, with-will be allowed to have for gratuity purposes any year's service that they gave before the 1st August, 1929, with— out paying any contributions therefor.
The second class of teachers who, while they came into the teaching service after August 1st, 1949, under the present pension scheme from the earliest possible date on which they became eligible, their position is that they will be enabled to add whatever back years they wish of service as years accounting for lump sum and death gratuity by paying 1½ per cent. of their 1950-51 salary. They can select as many years out of their service as they wish, to bring them in under the gratuity scheme.
The next class are teachers who entered the service again after 1st August, 1929, who are at present under this scheme but who have not enrolled under the scheme for the full length of their teaching service. They will be enabled to bring their back services into the scheme for pension purposes by paying in respect of the basic salary they received after the relative years 6½ per cent. of basic and 4½ per cent. of their incremental salary after six years.
I have indicated that up to the present the schools paid 2½ per cent. of their basic salary and the teachers 4 per cent. of the basic and incremental salary. Teachers who want to bring back services that they have not covenanted will have to pay arrears of contribution after six years in respect of pension in so far as they wish to bring back years to count for gratuity. They will pay 1½ per cent. of their 1950-51 salary to bring them under the gratuity scheme.
Then there are persons who are already in the service but have not come in under the present scheme. They, in the same way, will have to pay 6½ per cent. of their basic salary and 4 per cent. of the incremental salary, if they mean to go back and come in under the pension services for the full period of their service and for their full period out of the scheme; they will have to pay 6½ per cent. of the basic and 4 per cent. of the incremental salary and for as many years as they wish to bring in under the gratuity scheme will pay 1½ per cent. on the 1950-51 basic and incremental salary.
Teachers cannot covenant for longer service naturally under gratuity service than they covenant for under the pension service.
The other class are those who come into the scheme after the 1st August, 1950, and they come in the same way as the others. From the date they come in they pay 5 per cent. on their basic salaries and 5 per cent. on their incremental salaries.
The scheme provides that teachers who retired between the 1st January, 1950, and 1st August, 1950, will be eligible to come into the scheme.
The scheme also provides that when a woman teacher leaves the service taking a marriage gratuity, she will not be eligible to return as a teacher.
These are the main points indicating the benefits of the new scheme and the contributions that they have to be made under it.
Níl a fhios agam céard éfeidhm an tSeanaid maidir leis an tairiscint atáos ar gcomhair. Níl a fhios agam an ionann an scéim atá os ar gcomhair agus gnáth-Bhille Airgid deimhnithe. Bhfuil cead againn our i gcoinne na tairiscinte? Bhfuil cead againn moladh a dhéanamh in a thaobh? Bhfuil cead againn a iarraidh go gcuirfidh ar ath-ló é?
Ar aon chuma, tábeagán le ráagam ina thaobh agus is é an rud ba mhaith liom a iarraidh ar an Aire, má tá sé in-déanta faoi Rialacha an Oireachtais, go gcuirfí an scéal ar fad ar ath-ló go dtí go mbeidh deis ag an Seanad téarmaí an rúin a bhreithniú níos cúramai.
This scheme is a very important one and it is one that I would have liked a good deal more time to examine. I confess that in the course of the proceedings of the Seanad last week. I read through the scheme and that, I admit, was not the proper way to examine it. It was my intention to look at it later on. When looking through it last week it occurred to me that there were certain points in it that did not seem to be quite fair to the secondary teachers. However, I did not know whether they had agreed to these matters or not and I would have liked a little more time to canvass them and ask them if they were satisfied.
I think we could never do enough for our teachers. More than once I have pointed out that I have considerable experience of the work of the primary teachers and I have time and again complimented them on their work. I am in a position to be able to judge pretty well of the work of secondary teachers as a good many of the pupils of secondary teachers come my way in University College, Galway, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the secondary teaching body for the excellence of the work they are doing.
In introducing the scheme the Minister dealt with quite a number of points. Might I say in passing that many of these points were of a highly technical nature, and might I suggest that when a matter of so technical a nature as this is being introduced in future the Seanad be given some kind of White Paper, some detailed statement regarding the features of the scheme, its implications and its repercussions? Some aspects of the scheme are quite acceptable, but quite a few, it seems to me, require further examination and the scheme itself requires amendment. Because I believe that the scheme is unfair, and very unfair in certain aspects, I would like the House not to pass this motion to-night. I would like if the House, having heard the Minister and perhaps one or two Senators, would agree to postpone the motion to a later date and conclude the discussion then.
Does the Senator mean to pass the motion and discuss another motion later on?
No, but I think that some aspects of the scheme raise issues of so grave a nature that the Seanad should not be asked to dispose of the motion of this evening. Having heard the Minister and some of the objections to the scheme, the Seanad might be given an opportunity of looking into the Minister's remarks, and looking more carefully into the scheme as he has drafted it.
I have become aware that the secondary teachers as a body are not satisfied with this scheme. From all the discussions and statements in the recent past one would have thought that the teaching profession was in for a paradise on earth. One would have thought that no issue could arise that could not readily be solved merely by approaching the Minister. I do not think that the secondary teachers as a body are unreasonable. Of all sections in the community, considering their work, their responsibilities, the cost of their training, I do not think there is any more reasonable body in the country than the secondary teachers. Realising that, realising the great value of their work, I would be very sorry to see anything happen that would leave even the remotest cause for dissatisfaction among the members of that body.
Exception may be taken to the scheme under three separate heads. If I mention these three heads to the Minister—he will be aware of them from his discussions with the teachers already—and outlined the objections to the features in question I will have done enough on this occasion. In the first place, the teachers are concerned about the retrospective payments for retirement gratuity. They are anxious to have this matter examined and, if at all possible, amended and the retrospective payments deleted altogether. The second grave reason for dissatisfaction has to do with the basis of calculation of retirement gratuity. I will indicate what is considered a reasonable solution of that aspect of the scheme. The third reason for dissatisfaction is to be found in the section dealing with married women teachers and their right to come back into the teaching service.
With regard to the first point, a teacher on the maximum of the scale is, under sub-section (f), required to contribute £235 during the next three years. Provision is made for extending this payment over five years. Teachers on less than the maximum will contribute pro rata. It is clear that, in all the circumstances, asking the teachers to make this contribution is very unfair. It means a very heavy burden on them. Two hundred and thirty-five pounds amounts to roughly £80 a year for three years or £47 a year if divided over five years. The retrospective payment for the retiring gratuity is grossly unfair, in the opinion of the secondary teachers. Primary teachers get their retiring gratuity gratis. It seems that in January, 1950, the Government granted all primary teachers a retiring gratuity and they had not to contribute anything towards it.
The secondary teachers, under the Minister's scheme, are to be penalised in two ways. In the first place they have to contribute for their pensions. They do not object to that, but they believe they will be penalised sufficiently in having to make that contribution. Then they are expected to pay retrospectively for their gratuities. That, it seems to me, is a reason for dissatisfaction and I hope that we will be able to do something to relieve them of that particular aspect of their burden. Again, secondary teachers bear in mind the fact that civil servants and the primary teachers have a non-contributory scheme for both pension and gratuities. I understand they are quite willing to remain contributory, without prejudice, for their pensions and, in the future, for their gratuities; but they believe—and I think they are right—that they should not be asked to make retrospective payments in connection with the retiring gratuity.
They have this further point—and I think it is a reasonable one—that when they made their case for an increase in salary they made a case that was unanswerable, but the effect of the retrospective payment to a teacher on the maximum of the scale of salary will be to undo, to nullify for the next five years, the increase in salary that has been granted. A further point is that a married man who is on his maximum and who became a member of the pension scheme in 1929—which, as the Minister indicated, was the first year of the scheme—would now have 21 years' contributory service. Even granted that he had a present maximum salary of £710 and that the present scheme came into operation in 1929 he would now have contributed only £150 towards his gratuity. The maximum salary then, for purposes of comparison in case anyone is interested, was £410. The amount contributed by a teacher not on the maximum would, of course, be considerably less. All teachers who joined the scheme in 1929 are being asked to pay £235. This is a grave injustice on them.
Maybe it would be better to drop the scheme altogether?
I think it would be as well if the scheme were dropped for maybe six months. That is something the Minister might consider—to drop the scheme for the next six months and go into the whole matter again with the secondary teachers. Or, if I had any influence with the secondary teachers, believing that they have a good case I would suggest that the whole matter go to arbitration. So if Senator Baxter would support me in asking that the scheme be dropped for six months, I would appreciate it.
I thought the Senator was speaking for the teachers, and yet he says now "if I had any influence with them".
A future teacher coming under the pension scheme and serving 40 years will have contributed £238 towards his gratuity. Those with 21 years' service are now being asked to pay £235 plus an additional £120 or thereabouts for 19 years' future service. This gives an advantage to the future teachers of £120 over the existing members of the scheme—which is clearly an injustice to the members of the present scheme. I do not know what the number of people on the present scheme is, whether 700 or 500.
It is 700. I said on another occasion it was 500, but it is 700, out of a total of 2,100.
That is to say that the scheme is open to approximately 2,100, but only 700 have decided to take advantage of it. It seems to me that the amount of money which would be required to give relief to the existing teachers, to abolish this retrospective payment, is so small that the Minister should not object to it. I wonder what the amount would be— certainly less than £3,000, I think. Certainly less than £3,000—between £2,000 and £3,000. I mean the total. Let me explain what I have in mind. So many teachers will be dropping out year by year. However, I would rather leave the question of the possible cost of giving relief to these people to be discussed by the Minister. My own feeling is that it cannot be very great. It would be a small price for the contentment and the goodwill of such an important body as the secondary teachers of the State. I should not, I suppose, have mentioned any figure, but perhaps the Minister would indicate what the cost might be.
About £50,000.
About £50,000 all told?
For the existing teachers.
It could not apply to any other body.
Why could it not?
I think the Minister has stated that there are only so many in the scheme at the moment and that it is only those who would be involved in retrospective payment.
It is open to everybody to come into the scheme.
The people I would be concerned with are those who are members of the scheme at present and who have been members of the scheme for a considerable time past. People coming in, of course, would be forming a new contract. That, then, as I see it, is the objection to that aspect of the scheme.
I might mention that any payments made by the secondary teachers in this connection would not rank for income-tax relief. That is a further burden that would be imposed on the secondary teachers.
Is it certain that payments towards a pension fund do not give a rebate of income-tax?
I think that these retrospective payments would not rank for relief of income-tax. Again, I cannot be quite sure. I am mentioning these as objections and points for examination. I mention them as matters that we might look into if given the time to do so.
Another aspect is that the secondary teachers, as the law stands, cannot possibly get a full retiring gratuity. We have made regulations in the Department regulating entrance to the scheme as secondary teachers. To the best of my knowledge, a person may not become a secondary teacher until he reaches the age of 21. I know from experience that very few of the great many people graduating through the university and desiring to be secondary teachers manage to get in at 21 years of age. I do not know what the average age might be. It may be somewhere between 26 years and 27 years. Under the regulations, a teacher has to retire at the age of 65. Let us take 65 as the retiring age. A teacher getting in at 21 years of age is left with 44 years to qualify for a gratuity. It is thus clear that a person cannot get the full gratuity.
The teachers themselves, as far as I know, have made a proposal to the Minister that would ease the position for them. Their proposal is a reasonable one, and is that 42/28ths should be the basis of calculation as against the basis provided by the Minister in his scheme. Paragraph 17 (b) of the scheme itself is one that struck me last week as being a strange sub-section. I would like to see that deleted completely. It is as follows:—
"In the case of approved teaching service before the relevant date, each year of contributing service in respect of which he pays the contribution of 1½ per cent. of the standard salary paid or deemed to have been paid to him during the relevant school year."
The third point I mentioned was the position of lady teachers. The position there also calls for revision. I think that the lady teachers are unduly penalised. I would like that whatever representations have been made—I am not familiar with them but I understand that this matter has been under discussion for some time with the Minister—by the secondary teachers should be put before the House. The House should get the opportunity of examining them. It should get an opportunity of examining the points I have mentioned. I appreciate that the Minister will have difficulty with the Minister for Finance. Might I say that in a country where our annual State expenditure is now running well over the £100,000,000 mark and where we are spending if not hundreds of millions but tens of millions on all kinds of schemes——
Good schemes.
I am not going to say whether they are good or bad. I am pointing out that we are spending tens of millions of pounds on all kinds of schemes. The expenditure of a few thousand pounds on the part of the State in the interests of the secondary teachers is something we should not cavil at. For these reasons, I would ask the Minister not to press us for the motion this evening but to give us an opportunity of further examining the scheme. I would also ask that he might take a further opportunity himself of interviewing the secondary teachers.
I should like to support Senator Ó Buachalla's plea to the Minister that we get some more time to discuss this important matter. It came as a great shock to me to learn that out of over 2,000 teachers there are only 700 in the scheme. There must be something wrong with the scheme. There seems to be something wrong with a scheme that only attracts one-third of the total number of secondary teachers into it.
There are a good many celibate secondary teachers.
I suppose there are. Unless you make the scheme attractive, teachers will not take part in it. This retrospective clause which expects teachers to pay back 1½ per cent. of their salary is not going to make the scheme any more attractive than it is. It does not seem to me to be very attractive at the moment, having regard to the fact that only 700 out of 2,000 have accepted the scheme. The salaries on the higher levels may be good in comparison with the salary generally paid, but, even on the higher levels, this retrospective payment is going to be a heavy burden, particularly on married men with families. It is not going to tend towards making the scheme attractive, nor is it going to make of those already in the scheme a contented service.
Listening to the Minister and to Senator Ó Buachalla, I felt it was a pity that something in the nature of an agreed scheme was not brought before the House. A comparatively small number of people are involved and it should not have been impossible for the Minister and the teachers to sit down together and evolve a scheme which possibly would not be ideal but which at least would be acceptable. With a body of people like teachers whether primary, secondary or university, the first thing we must have is a contented frame of mind, because, when that is lacking, it does not make for an efficient secondary school system. I understand that the national teachers get a gratuity without any contribution at all, and, from the information I have, the cost to the State of giving this gratuity to the secondary teachers on the same terms as those on which it is given to the national teachers and, I understand, to the Civil Service, would be a little over £2,000 per annum.
I support the plea for a postponement of this matter, with a view to seeing if it is not possible to get something in the nature of agreement. That is something which the Minister would like, too. I do not know whether he has tried to get agreement and has found it impossible, but I imagine that the differences between him and the secondary teachers are not insurmountable, and, if he has not got an agreed settlement up to the present, he ought to make another try.
Like other Senators who have spoken, I feel at a certain disadvantage in talking about this scheme and I feel it all the more because I ought to be deeply interested. As one of the members for the universities, a large part of my electorate consists of secondary teachers and I should have liked to have had a proper opportunity of studying the proposals. I read the debate in the Dáil last week and that debate was adjourned until yesterday. I wonder what the Minister's final words about it were. At first sight, many of the features seem very attractive, though it gives one pause to find that so many of the secondary teachers have not chosen to avail themselves of the pension scheme. I hope that the additional benefits which this amended scheme promises will attract more. They certainly look attractive. There is the retiring gratuity or sum on retirement—it is not really a gratuity because they have to pay for it. That is a most useful provision, as are the sum payable after death and the marriage allowances for women.
These are all very commendable features of the scheme, but it is a pity —I am speaking now in general terms —that the Minister and the teachers did not, as Senator Colgan suggested, come to an agreement. We want our body of teachers to be contented, and when we do something for them we want to feel that we have met, so far as our resources permit, their legitimate wants and needs. This retrospective payment about which there was so much discussion in the Dáil and here to-night, certainly, so far as one can judge—as I say, I am at a disadvantage, because I have not had an opportunity of studying the scheme sufficiently—does appear to lay a heavy burden on married men who have reached their maximum and who, in order to get advantage of the full scheme, must undertake very heavy retrospective payments.
Most of the points I intended to make have already been made, but what I want to impress on the Minister is that, when he does a thing, he should do it so well that everybody will be, if not satisfied, at least moderately satisfied. It is regrettable that when the retirement gratuity for primary teachers was fixed it was not extended to all teachers. The Minister knows that during the emergency a great many women were retired compulsorily at 60, before they could possibly have their full pensionable service, and a gratuity for these women at this time would be a godsend, when their small pensions are so devastated—that is the word for it— by the rising cost of living. I wrote to the Minister the other day about one sad case—I do not know whether he got the letter or not—but I should like him to think of these poor women to whom, I feel, the Government I support did a grave injustice when they made them retire at 60 to meet a passing difficulty. They should have got their full pensions and all teachers should get a retiring gratuity.
I should also like to ensure that, when we pass this amended scheme, there will be no bad taste left in anybody's mouth and that we would make teachers contented as far as possible. The Minister has indicated that the teachers themselves are not very pleased with the scheme. I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with them, but it is very important that the Minister and the teachers should agree upon a scheme that will not impose too heavy a burden on the public funds. We are spending money rather recklessly in other directions and we could scarcely spend money on a better object than the provision of retirement pensions for secondary teachers.
Up to the present, it has been entirely a matter of criticism of this scheme and I agree with some of what Senator Ó Buachalla has said. I think we have not had quite enough time to consider this motion, but perhaps we may trust to the Minister's wisdom in the matter. As the governor of a secondary school in Dublin and as one directly interested in education, I should like to say one thing, that is, that, within the past ten years or so, there has been what amounts to a revolution in the status of secondary teachers in this country. I will not say that they are entirely satisfied. It seems to be a grave political blunder for anyone, except a Government spokesman, ever to say that anyone is entirely satisfied, but I will at least say, from my experience as a governor of a school, that there has been a very marked improvement, and it is very greatly to the credit of the present Minister that that improvement has taken place.
Speaking as one who trains honours graduates of the university, I should like to say that what I find now is that I can conscientiously recommend these honours graduates to take up secondary teaching, whereas 12 or 15 years ago I could not do so. Now they are no longer the ill-paid dominies or ill-clad ushers in the school, but members, and able to hold up their heads as members, of a fairly well-paid profession. That is a very important thing in the life of our country. It means a great deal to universities and others. I should like to offer congratulations to the Minister for going so far. We hope he will go a little further but I do not think that we should have nothing but entirely captious criticism this evening.
There is one question which I should like the Minister to answer. I ask it simply for information. What exactly is the honours qualification for the extra increments? If the Minister could let me have that information offhand I should be most greatful.
An honours degree from a university or an Honours Higher Diploma in Education.
Will a third class honours degree count?
I hope not.
I have never heard of it.
The grading in Trinity College is first class, second class and third class honours whereas other universities have been wise enough to have no third class honours. Actually, some of our third class honours men are first rate and are genuinely honours men. I wonder if something could be done for them?
Scrap the class.
I do not know whether anybody in the House has spent as long teaching in a secondary school as I have. I can remember when secondary teachers were the cinderellas of the teaching profession. Indeed, you could almost say that secondary teachers were the cinderellas of all workers in the country. They were the worst paid, the worst treated, and they had insecurity of tenure lower than any other form of casual labour. That position has been very materially altered. I was Minister for Education for a short time. One of my ambitions was to introduce a scale of increments for secondary teachers. At that time it was thought to be a matter of very great import. I did not do it because I was not left there long enough. It should be remembered that the note struck by Senator Professor Stanford is, after all, a note that should be struck. There are natural complaints that always arise when people are given something and find that it is not enough. Senator Liam Ó Buachalla supported a Government for 16 years and surely he is not in earnest when he says that a document signed by the Minister for Education and also by the Minister for Finance must not leave the remotest cause for dissatisfaction. Surely that is an idealistic and idyllic suggestion. Surely it is hoping for too much to suggest that when the Minister for Finance signs his name to a document—whatever his name may be —the people who will benefit as a result of the signature of that document will be in the position of not having the remotest cause for dissatisfaction. That is a Utopian notion which we cannot expect to realise. Even the farmers are not satisfied—not to mention the teachers.
Nor the university professors.
They are very near it—and they are not as vocal as the other members of the community. They are nice quiet retiring people. At any rate, an incremental scheme was introduced for teachers in 1924 and a pensions scheme in 1929. The position of secondary teachers is not as simple as the position of primary teachers, as Senator Liam Ó Buachalla and Senator Mrs. Concannon know. They are in the very peculiar position of being the employees of privately-controlled schools. They are paid, as regards their increments and pensions, by the State, but, as regards their basic salary, by the school. This is very complicated and it is not easy to make a pensions scheme easy to read and to grasp at a glance. Since the present Minister came into office three new things mentioned in this particular scheme have been introduced, namely, death benefits, marriage gratuities and retiring allowances. There are many improvements in the position of secondary teachers which this particular Minister and this Government have to their credit— death benefit and marriage gratuity. There is also the matter of retiring allowance to their credit. As well as that, married men, who had an initial increment of £80, have had that increment doubled to £160. Instead of going from £80 to £410, their increments now start at £160 and go up to £470. That is a substantial improvement on what was there before.
I suggest that Senator Liam Ó Buachalla can hardly hope to press his point that the scheme should be dropped for six months. If his suggestion were put into effect, certain people going on pension would surely lose, unless the scheme, when adopted, were made retrospective. I have had some experience of the Department of Education. It spends a great deal of money and it is constantly dealing with the Minister for Finance. No Minister for Education in any Government, no matter who he may be, can hope always to get for the teachers the things he wants for them. Every possible scheme about teachers is a compromise between the Department of Education and the Department of Finance, or between the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance.
You cannot educate the Minister for Finance.
He is not too stupid.
The present Minister for Finance is a pretty well-educated citizen—but not to the point when he would give out the people's money without any consideration.
What about spending some of the money you get under Marshall Aid?
Therefore, I do not know that six months' negotiation would help us. Senator Liam Ó Buachalla asked what power had we with regard to this scheme. As far as I know, we have power only to reject it. We have no power to alter it. Presumably, the only alteration anybody wants to make is one which would involve an increased charge on public funds. We have no power, nor have the members of the Dáil any power to do that. The scheme is a very substantial improvement and it should be adopted.
I come now to the question of retrospective payments. It is easy for me— it is not quite as easy for me as it is for Senator Liam Ó Buachalla, in our present positions—or for any of us who are not Ministers to say that we think certain payments should be made. Retrospective payments are for retrospective benefits. Nobody is compelled to take them. A teacher going out on the 31st July this year would pay in, by way of arrears, something over £210. He would receive a lump sum of £660— a sum which he would not have been eligible for at all before this Minister came to improve the conditions of secondary teachers. Therefore, the retrospective payments are for retrospective benefits. If they could be given without payment, so much the better.
Nobody has more sympathy for the secondary teachers than I have. I understand their position and the very important work which they do. No scheme can be perfect. This scheme is not perfect, but it can be claimed for it that it is a very important improvement on the situation as it existed before. Unfortunately, the secondary teachers have a history and, as often occurs, out of the history arise certain difficulties. Nevertheless, I think we should be glad that their position has been improved, even though it has not been made perfect.
There is no use in delaying the putting of this good scheme into operation, in the hope that it will become better merely by talking to somebody. I feel that the resourcefulness of the Minister himself in argument and in contention with the Department of Finance has got all that can possibly be got in the matter. We are not all able to do exactly everything we like to do. Therefore, I think that this particular scheme should be put into operation and should not be delayed. Senators, having had the scheme for a week, could have studied it. I do not know what benefit would accure to us by postponing it further. We cannot amend it in the sense in which we should like to amend it. Therefore, I think we ought to let it go and to let the teachers get the benefits under it.
I would like to say that I agree with everything Senator Hayes has said and before the Seanad considers the suggestion of Senator Ó Buachalla to put the matter back for six months we should have some estimate of the opinion of secondary teachers who will benefit by this Bill. In the absence of a direction from the majority of these people I would be slow to follow the suggestion of Senator Ó Buachalla. I think the majority of secondary teachers would be very disappointed if it was decided to shelve this scheme for another six months.
I would like to get from the Minister the exact amount which it would cost the State, if it bore the retrospective payments which would have to be made in the case of those people who would opt into the scheme. The Minister has stated that there are 2,100 secondary teachers in the country and that only 700 of them are in the pension scheme. As Senator Colgan has pointed out there must be something very wrong with the scheme when only 700 out of 2,100 have taken advantage of it. I am convinced that the total cost to the State of bearing these retrospective contributions would be rather low but they are rather heavy on the teachers themselves. As Senator Ó Buachalla has pointed out the making of these retrospective contributions would cancel out the increases that the teachers got over a period of five years.
I would like the Minister also to give consideration to the case of women teachers who have got married and because of situations arising in the normal course over which they have no control, find themselves in a worse position than that of an ex-teacher who has been widowed. While a widow is entitled to go back to her position in such cases the other woman is not entitled to go back.
If there are 2,300 teachers, how is it that so few of them are not in the pension scheme?
More than half of them are religious.
They like it too.
They have the option of going into it.
Before the Minister concludes——
The Senator cannot make a second speech but he may ask questions.
I just want to ask the Minister a few questions. I quite appreciate the improvement that has taken place in the case of the secondary teachers but my duty is to point out the difficulties of the scheme. The Minister stated that it would take £50,000 to liquidate certain responsibilities. Does that cover all the applicants?
No, it only covers those in the scheme. In reply to Senator Hawkins it would take £195,000 to cover the back service for all those coming into the scheme, i.e., the 2,100. It would take that amount to cover their back service before August, 1950, for retirement and gratuity.
I appreciate very much the remarks of Senator Stanford and might I say that I quite appreciate the encouraging criticism from Senators Ó Buachalla, Mrs. Concannon and others who have spoken on behalf of the secondary teachers?
I do think that teachers generally in the country are more understood and that throughout the country their work whether primary, secondary or vocational is fully appreciated. I think that is more and more so in recent years, because the importance of education is being appreciated and the importance of the teacher and the type of service he or she is rendering is appreciated too.
The details of this scheme have been criticised, but let me stand back a little. The Teachers' Superannuation Act of 1928 made provision for the making of a scheme of superannuation for teachers generally. There was a certain type of compulsory scheme for national teachers paid by themselves. There was no scheme for secondary teachers. The primary teachers had a contributory scheme. After the secondary teachers had their scheme made, apart altogether from the fact that the primary teacher had a contributory scheme, the circumstances in which the secondary teachers were, deterred them from a scheme which would be contributory when set up. Their scheme was set up in 1929 and subsequently in 1934, I think it was, modified arrangements were made in regard to primary teachers, which took certain powers in the 1928 Act, giving a scheme for primary teachers' interests. It was non-contributory as far as administration and machinery went but, in fact, there was a reduction in the salaries of national teachers at that time to meet that scheme. Vocational teachers under the Act of 1948 were brought compulsorily into the superannuation scheme and they, by statute, had to pay 5 per cent. of their salaries towards that scheme, so that the contributory scheme for secondary teachers has to be seen in that light.
This scheme for superannuation has already been delayed for a considerable time. I appreciate the difficulties of Senators and Deputies in taking the present scheme, reading it and understanding it. Part of the delay in bringing the Bill before both Houses of the Oireachtas was the difficulties experienced in drafting the scheme which really arose out of contemporaneous discussions with representatives of the secondary teachers on the question of salaries also. After dealing with the salaries questions and superannuation scheme for the primary teachers I turned to dealing with secondary teachers' positions and the question of new scales and the improvements of the superannuation scheme were discussed. The new scales of salaries came into operation from 1st January, 1950, and you will see the benefit of this scheme came into operation on 1st August, 1950, but provision is made so that teachers who retire on or subsequent to the 1st January, 1950, will come under the scheme.
On the question of delaying the matter further, having dealt with the primary teachers and their scales of superannuation and having dealt with the scales of secondary teachers and hoping to stabilise at any rate at this point and in relation to the present scales the superannuation scheme, provision has been made for setting up conciliation and arbitration machinery to deal with primary teachers and with the affairs of secondary teachers too. A scheme of conciliation and arbitration has actually been agreed in relation to primary teachers and I am in the final stages of discussions with representatives of the various secondary teachers' organisations to settle their scheme of conciliation and arbitration. The matters that would be referable to the conciliation are scales, emoluments and the principles regarding superannuation. The matters referable to arbitration following on successful conciliation would be scales of salaries and emoluments. There are statutory and constitutional reasons why matters dealing with the direct scheme of superannuation could not be referred to arbitration, but the principles governing superannuation and retirement allowances can be discussed under the new scheme at conciliation level. To delay the passage of this scheme therefore would serve no useful purpose at all. It would create a situation in which teachers who retired during the year 1950 and who would be entitled to benefits under this scheme would possibly be deprived of these benefits and would have to wait, not until the new scheme had been set up, but until the case had been taken before conciliation machinery.
People have expressed wonder at why only 700 out of 2,100 teachers were under the previous scheme, but when you consider how little was to be got out of the previous scheme and the number of secondary teachers who are members of religious orders you will have a certain explanation of that. There was nothing to be got under the previous scheme except the pension. In respect of death, disability after less than ten years and in respect of short service you got nothing but your refund, and in the case of disability your refund with compound interest as well, so there is an excuse there. The general type of benefit to be got under the new proposals would, I should say, attract a much greater number of people.
The principal objection is that what are called retrospective payments are being asked for in respect of death and lump sum gratuities. There is no compulsion on teachers to take advantage of that, but if they do want in respect of a lump sum or death gratuity to claim in respect of services in the past, then all that is being asked of them is that they make a covenant payment in respect of these years of service. They will receive in actual payment some time something like three times the amount of money they will pay in.
Members of the old scheme are being penalised to the extent of £120.
No, members of the old scheme are exactly the same as new members. They are asked: "How many years of your past service do you want to include for a lump sum gratuity either by way of death or retirement allowances?" The very same question is being put to the members of the present scheme as to the members who are given an opportunity of coming in. There is no difference at all in that. In respect of the year before 1st August, 1950, nobody will have credit for a year of service with regard to retirement or death allowances except they make the payment of 1½ per cent. in respect of that year. The same applies to the people who are coming in as to the people who are already in. In so far as the word "retrospection" is used, if you want to get credit for a year's service in the past you are asked to pay for it, and you are not asked to pay if you do not.
There is no compulsion to make use of your past service for your lump sum, but there is very considerable advantage in doing so, because, in respect of any year of service that is counted, you will receive when you come to retire or on death 1/30th of your pensionable year's service. That is about 3½ per cent. You are only asked to pay 1½ per cent. to convenant for that, so that—very many cases could be cited of what the result would be—briefly the result would be that you get £3 10s. 0d. for every £1 10s. 0d. that you have paid. I do admit that there is a certain difficulty for certain people in making up that amount inside five years, but it is a contributory scheme. The fund, I suppose, could be said to be burst to the extent that within the last ten years the State has had to pay £33,000 to keep up the payments. During the calendar year 1950, £13,600 will come to be paid in respect of retirements alone. In making these payments about one-third will be deducted for the purpose of covenanting for that, but the rest of it will be the net sum payable to people who retire. Any delay will prejudice that and I do not think it would bring a satisfactory result for anyone.
Two other points have been made. The first is the case of a woman who accepts a marriage gratuity not being allowed back as long as her husband is alive. Secondary teachers, however, are not compelled to retire on marriage. In the case of civil servants, primary teachers and vocational teachers, when they accept a marriage gratuity they go and there is an inevitable equation of all these things that some people might like to avoid. Nevertheless, the situation is there with regard to primary teachers, vocational teachers and civil servants. There is being retained in this scheme for women teachers the right to remain on teaching although married and not accept a marriage gratuity. To that extent, that concession is being retained to women secondary teachers.
On the point that secondary teachers cannot get in on full recognised teaching staff until they may be 22, 23 or 24, there is no injustice in that. If, in the Civil Service or any other walk of life, by serving for 45 years you are able to get 45/30ths of your retiring salary as a gratuity, you get that in respect of service rendered. The secondary teacher on retiring will get the 40, 41 or 42/30ths, as the case may be, of his retiring salary, as a retiring grant on going out. That is, they get what they have covenanted for in respect of service given. In that way they are no different from professional employees who enter the Civil Service—maybe an engineer or an architect of 28 or 30 years of age—as, when they come to retiring age, they can get only a retiring allowance based on the number of years' service. From the point of view of the Department of Finance, there is that analogy. We are not able to get rid of that here. The principle that is common to all these schemes is there, that you get 1/30th of your pensionable salary for every year that you have served, on retiring.
I would like to assure the Seanad that all these matters have been most carefully gone over, even to a much greater extent of time than I would like to have seen given to them. I would like to have seen this scheme before the Seanad and Dáil long ago. When you consider the principles on which it is put together and the advance that it makes in the facilities that it offers, and that it is being done in relation to a revision of salaries that took place last year and that came into operation from the 1st January, 1950, and that this is a cleaning up of things as far as I can clear them up on the eve of the introduction of a policy where the whole of these things go to conciliation and arbitration machinery, perhaps the Seanad will agree with me that the best thing is to let this Order pass, to leave these principles of benefit as they are being established and to leave the question of modifications to arise through the form of machinery which I hope will be set up as an agreed scheme of conciliation and arbitration within, say, the next fortnight or so.
Question agreed to.