Vol. 57 No. 5
I move:
That the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) (No. 2) Scheme, 1963, prepared by the Minister for Education, with the consent of the Minister for Finance under Section 2 of the Teachers' (Superannuation) Act, 1928, and laid before the House on the 9th day of December, 1963, be confirmed.
This is an amendment of the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation Scheme and it is intended to bring the position of married secondary teachers into line with that of married women national teachers. Up to recently married women national teachers had, on marriage, to retire compulsorily and received a gratuity. When the marriage ban was removed, this compulsion to retire and the marriage gratuity were done away with. The amendment provides that in the case of a secondary teacher who enters the service after 1st August, 1963, there will be no marriage gratuity and a married woman secondary teacher can continue in service, or if she breaks her service, can re-enter secondary teaching and, for the purpose of this scheme, get credit for the years she has already served.
In regard to those who entered the service before 1st August, 1963, there was some difference between them and women national teachers in so far as the secondary teacher could on marriage, if she so wished, continue to teach, or if she broke her service, could return to teaching if she had not accepted a marriage gratuity. Under the 1951 scheme, a secondary teacher could receive a marriage gratuity under certain conditions of service, and on condition that she retired on marriage and would not have the right to re-enter the scheme or re-enter the incremental salary scale. For people who had the right to receive a marriage gratuity, and who took it, provision is made because through family circumstances, some found that they regretted excluding themselves from the further right to teach and the incremental scale. It is provided now at conciliation that such people will be permitted to re-enter the service on the incremental salary scale on condition that they repay the marriage gratuity with compound interest of five per cent. That is all that is in the amendment.
Ní féidir liom gan fáiltiú roimh an leasú seo mar is leasú é a thugann feidhm reachtúil don socrú a beartaíodh idir na meánmhúinteoirí agus an Roinn. Mar a mhínigh an tAire leagann sé síos na coinníollacha faoinar féidir le banmhúinteoirí a fuair deontas pósta creidiúint d'fháil ar an seirbhís a thug siad roimh pósadh dóibh. Níl de ghearán agam ina thaobh ach go gcuireann sé leis an sraith fada leasaithe atá déanta cheana féin ar an scéim aoisliúntais do mheán-mhúinteoirí. Tig liom dhá cheann déag ar a laghad a thabhairt chun cuimhne.
San riocht ina bhfuil sé anois ina ribleacha beaga, ní fhéadfadh an gnámhúinteoir bun ná barr a dhéanamh de. Níor mhór dhó dul siar is aniar ón leasú seo go dtí an leasú súd agus siar arís go dtí an bun scéim le brí ar bith a bhaint as.
Ba mhaith liom fiafraí den Aire an bhfuil seans ar bith go ndéanfar an scéim go léir a chódú agus a chomhdhlúthú agus é a chur faoi aon chlúdach amháin. Sin rud atá déanta ag an Aire Dlí agus Cirt i gcuid mhaith dena reachta a bhaineann leis an Roinn sin.
This little piece of legislation which we have before us today looks very simple and innocuous. So far as it goes that is so, but consequent on it and concomitant with it is the natural provision that married women would be readmitted to recognised teaching service. It is on that point that I feel bound to raise an issue.
The Minister has explained lucidly enough the position with regard to women secondary teachers. They are now divided into two categories: those who served before 1st August, 1963, and those who entered service thereafter. Those who entered the service after 1st August, 1963, have now no claim to a marriage gratuity. They either carry on teaching or give it up, and marriage does not affect the issue one way or the other. Those who served before 1st August, 1963, have the option of taking the marriage gratuity, which is a benefit under the superannuation scheme to which they have contributed.
Why it is called a gratuity I do not know. It is not really a gratuity in the sense of being a gratuitous payment, because the scheme is contributory, and consideration has been given for the payment which is made. There is a contract, as it were, between the teacher and the Department, and the teacher, having complied with the conditions attaching to qualifying for the payment, is entitled to benefit. The conditions are set out in paragraph 21 of the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Act, 1951. Side by side with that provision is the decision to admit women teachers who have qualified for a marriage gratuity to recognised teaching service. That is to say, on the one hand a teacher must retire—that is one of the conditions that has to be complied with—and on the other hand she is admissible to recognised teaching service, entitled to an incremental salary, and entitled to become a member of the superannuation scheme. Now, by virtue of the amendment which the Minister has introduced, she is entitled, under certain conditions, to have her pre-marriage service recognised for pension and other superannuation purposes.
It is at this point that the question arises that concerns me. It is at this point I suppose that the Minister, the Department and I part company. I do not think we are agreed as to what we mean by retirement in this case. It must be remembered that the marriage gratuity falls to be paid as soon as the conditions prerequisite to qualifying for it have been fulfilled, that is to. say, on the day after the marriage of a lady teacher. If any interval has elapsed between the date of retirement and the marriage, that gratuity falls to be paid. Cases have arisen in which teachers, having complied with all the formalities, retired in good faith from teaching and having got married—in good faith also, I hope—and having applied in the ordinary way to the Department, have had their marriage gratuity withheld by the Department.
The people in these cases had gone to new homes, to new areas of residence and at the time of their marriage had no intention of resuming teaching. I do not know whether their intention not to resume teaching for a few years had any bearing on their claims: I mention this only because they went to new areas of residence, were got at by managers of schools in their new areas because of their experience and were prevailed on to resume teaching. They took up this teaching before the gratuities were paid. When the fact of their having become re-employed came to the notice of the Department, the Department withheld the gratuities on the ground that they had failed to comply with the provisions of the scheme which compelled them to retire on marriage.
Subsequently, representations were made by the Association of Secondary Teachers, and correspondence was entered into between these teachers and the Department. As a result of that correspondence, a new term came to light in which the Department described their retirement as "nominal". The phrase "nominal retirement" does not occur in the pension scheme and I submit that retirement for any period is sufficient qualification under the scheme and that the attempt by the Minister and the Department to introduce the idea of nominal, as opposed to real, retirement is an unwarranted and gratuitous assumption on the part of the Minister of the function of interpreting a statutory instrument to suit his own devices.
The scheme does not say that the period of retirement may not be nominal. It says nothing at all about it. It says one of the prerequisites or conditions governing qualification for a gratuity is that the teacher retires not later than the date of her marriage. The interpretation of it by the Minister and the Department would not be, I submit, upheld by any court of justice. If the gratuity had been paid before the fact of the re-employment of these teachers became known to the Department as it really should have been, I hesitate to think the Department would dare to claim a refund of that gratuity from the teachers, but of course the machinery of the Department is so slow and cumbersome, particularly in the matter of disbursements of any kind, that the fact of the re-employment of these teachers had become known and the Department withheld payment and have persisted in this attitude, despite representations on behalf of these teachers.
There are two cases in question. In one, the teacher resumed teaching on the day the school reopened in September and her appointment dated only from that day. In the second case, the teacher did not resume for a few days, or a week perhaps, after the school had re-opened. In both cases, there was a lapse of at least five weeks in which the teachers were out of benefit as teachers. They were actually in retirement for that period.
I feel very strongly about this matter. I feel the attitude of the Minister is against all principles of equity and is out of step with the customary practice obtaining in ordinary business circles as between employer and employee. It is the negation of democratic practice for a Minister to try to enforce his interpretation of a clause in a statutory instrument in such a way as to create hardship for people who have done all that was asked of them in the matter of qualifying for benefits to which they had subscribed.
Our legal advice on this matter is that the interpretation we have been putting on it, namely, that retirement at any time of the year for any period is sufficient, would be upheld by any court. I dislike the idea of having recourse to such measures in matters of this kind, but I am so convinced of the justice of the claim that I feel I must urge my colleagues in the Association of Secondary Teachers to proceed as far as they can in the matter of securing the benefits they consider are just for those people. Of course, I hope this course will not be necessary, that the Minister will see the reasonableness of the case I have made and will, without further delay, authorise the payment of the outstanding gratuities.
Ba mhaith liomsa cuidiú le gach a bhí le rá ag an Seanadóir Ó Conalláin i dtaobh aoisliúntas na mban-mhuinteóirí seo. Tá sé an-dheacair na píosaí beaga de scéimeanna a thuiscint agus a chur le céile in aon scéim amháin, ach tá sé in am féachaint isteach sa cheist.
I should like to support what Senator Ó Conalláin has said. The place is littered with pieces of legislation dealing with pension schemes for secondary teachers, vocational teachers and national teachers and the time has come when we should consider that situation so that this legislation may be codified and some unity established between the three branches of teaching.
For example, up to 1944, the national teachers had a contributory scheme. The Minister removed the contributory condition and now these teachers enjoy a pension scheme to which they make no contribution. The secondary teachers and vocational teachers must still contribute, for some mysterious reason. There should be one pension scheme applicable to all three branches of the profession. This would ensure mobility within the profession. This is most desirable because, as things are, national teachers are kept within the scope of national teaching. If they move out they lose certain rights which they have built up and also must begin at the bottom of the scale for secondary or vocational teachers.
Similarly, if a Doctor of Science teaching in an eminent college were put teaching sixth class in a national school, he would have to be classified as an unqualified or untrained teacher. It does not make sense. The Department should arrange that there will be one teaching profession with mobility within it, everybody carrying the rights he has built up within his own branch. As teachers, we are working within a department—why all this mystery?——
There would be less mystery if the Senator would confine himself to dealing with married women secondary teachers.
I do not agree with the remarks of the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I pointed out that this is a further piece of legislation which contributes as it were to the mystery which exists of the small pieces of legislation. Senator Ó Conalláin has already made the point very convincingly that codification in these matters is absolutely essential.
Coming to the particular point as advised by the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Ó Conalláin pointed out the injustice that can be done by this piecemeal legislation and we have a particular case which will be of interest to secondary teachers also in the matter of retirement gratuities on marriage. The Minister said it will be necessary if a teacher opts to regain credit for pensionable purposes ultimately to make a refund of the gratuity at the rate of five per cent compound interest. It is a long time since we have heard the term "compound interest". It is a most savage imposition on anybody to have to pay compound interest on a refund at the rate of five per cent. Simple interest at five per cent is a heavy interest but why should the Department dig up this five per cent compound interest which is a complete disincentive to a person endeavouring to reclaim credit for pensionable purposes?
Take the case of a person who would opt as a national teacher to repay the gratuity at compound interest but who for domestic reasons had to leave with her family to go to Canada after making a considerable contribution on the basis of five per cent compound interest. When she pointed out this matter to the Department and said: "I cannot now enjoy the credit I have been seeking to recover on the basis of five per cent compound interest because I shall be living in Canada from now on and I should like an opportunity of getting back the money I have refunded", the answer was "no". Senator Ó Conalláin may be interested in that.
This case, I think, could not stand up in law. The Department say this money is not recoverable. I should like to alert Senator Ó Conalláin in that regard and point out the type of injustice which can ensue from this kind of piecemeal legislation and drawing up of plans.
Sé an chéad rud is ceart dom a rá ná go bhfuilim toilteanach scrúdú agus iniúchadh a dhéanamh féachaint an féidir na piosaí agus na scéimeanna seo a chur fé chlúdach amháin. Ach ní dóigh liom gur féidir liom ghéilleadh don dara moladh. Rud contabharthach go leor atá ann agus b'fhéidir go dtuigfí níos fearr é dá gcuirfinn san teanga eile é.
I accept that it might be desirable to put the various pieces of legislation under one cover. It would take much time and work but I shall have that examined. I do not think I can accept the second suggestion. We now have an agreed arrangement at conciliation which gives women teachers the right, if they were in the service before the 1st of August, to retire and get a marriage gratuity. Having done that, they have a new right of being allowed to return to the service by repaying the gratuity. If this scheme is to be worked in a way which would meet the cases it was intended to meet, that is the type of person who had genuinely retired and found through incapacity for work of her husband that she had to return to teaching again, we should give the chance of being able to repay the gratuity as is done in this agreement.
The amount of time over which you will allow this to be done is to be determined by the Minister. If the Minister says you must pay it back before you start teaching or in a short time, this could cause considerable hardship in the cases it was intended to meet. On the other hand, if you give a long period for repayment the person could retire for two days and get a loan at a certain rate, which would not be available through the bank, to be repaid over several years. It would be a device whereby a person could retire, get a gratuity and get back into service and have a loan to be paid back over as many years as the Minister would determine. But that determination would be for all teachers.
In actual fact, the teachers who were mentioned by Senator Ó Conalláin as having returned were in active service again when the question of refunding the gratuity came up. It was quite obvious they had returned to the service and must, therefore, repay the gratuity. Why give it to them if you are going to make them repay it unless you are giving it as a loan? It was a new conception of a marriage gratuity. I do not agree in that interpretation of what was agreed to at conciliation. If you have one interpretation and I have another, you are entitled to ask somebody else to decide between us but my intention is that secondary teachers in this matter should be brought into line with national teachers. That is my interpretation of the matter. The actual amount of interest is laid down in many schemes and was agreed to at conciliation.
On the question of the legislation being piecemeal, the very nature of legislation makes it so because this is a new thing that has been done and if we had one general legislation and no room for small pieces to come, we could not have these improvements. So we will have to have amendments to schemes from time to time.
The Minister implied that repayment of the marriage gratuity would be a preliminary to recognition of return to service. I do not think that is contemplated anywhere in the scheme. Surely a teacher could retire, get the marriage gratuity and remain out for a year or more, come back to teaching, start again at the point on the incremental scale at which she left off and not pay back the gratuity unless she wanted her pre-marriage service to be recognised for superannuation purposes? That is the only point in repaying the gratuity and it has no reference to recognition of service. So that the point the Minister has made—what is the use in paying them the gratuity if they will have to return it immediately?—has no relevance at all, I suggest. The whole thing is a question of did they retire or did they not and that is a matter of fact and the submission I make in the case is that the teachers did retire and there are documents in the Department to that effect that they did retire; they were not teaching for a certain period; their appointments to new posts and in new schools, mind, was after a lapse of several weeks. Therefore, I think the Minister's reply to this is not relevant at all to the issue.
The Senator is taking advantage of the time of the year.
I should just like to explain that if what the Senator says is true, that they do not want credit, there is no problem between us at all. It is when they want the credit for the years' service already given that a teacher is asked to pay back. If what the Senator says is true, that they do not want that, there is no problem because they cannot get increments for that.
Senator Brosnahan rose.
The Senator now may ask a question.
Yes.
A simple question, not a compound one.
I will make it as simple as possible. Does the Minister realise that the case he is making is that the credit is for pensionable purposes? He left out these words when speaking and Senator Ó Conalláin picked him up. Does the Minister realise that the credit is for pensionable purposes?
The other goes hand in hand with it, only that the pension needs legislation; the other—incremental salary—is done by the rules of the Department of Education.
Would the Minister investigate this question of the five per cent compound interest which is anachronistic at the present time? Nobody gets a loan at five per cent compound interest at the present time.
They do not seem to want it.
