Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Mar 1972

Vol. 72 No. 12

Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1972: Motion.

I move:

That the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme 1972, prepared by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for Finance under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1928, and laid before the House on the 11th February, 1972, be confirmed.

This amendment of the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation Scheme provides for three separate items.

Firstly, it provides that the period of the secondary teachers' strike in February, 1969, may be regarded as pensionable service.

Secondly, as the existing scheme does not provide specifically for allowances other than those paid for instruction given through the medium of Irish and for the honours qualification allowance, it is necessary to amend the scheme to make provision for all pensionable allowances. The other allowances to be covered are: the allowance for teaching in the Gaeltacht, the allowances for pass qualifications, masters and doctors degrees, the special functions allowances, and allowances for posts of responsibility.

Thirdly, the school or basic salary was amended by agreement with all parties concerned from £200 to £400 with effect from 1st July, 1968. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the definition in the scheme from £200 to £400.

Níl aon ceist ann nach mbeidh fáilte ag Seanadóirí roimh an dtairiscint seo.

I propose to be very brief. I agree with what the Minister has said: that this is an enabling instrument which clears up an anomaly in the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.

In welcoming it as far as it goes, I should like to draw the Minister's attention, although I am sure he is already well aware of this, to a number of other anomalies which are particularly relevant here. This instrument provides that the break in teaching service of a very specified time, that relating to a teachers' strike, shall not infringe a secondary teacher's pension right. I should like to ask the Minister if he is aware that, as far as I know, there are other teachers whose secondary teaching service has been broken for other reasons and whose pension position has been impaired thereby, and to ask him if he would consider extending a scheme like this to cover such cases, which he could very easily do.

I do not believe that there are very many people involved. The causes of their break in service are disparate. As far as I know, one person had a break in teaching service caused by the fact that he was interned in 1921. Other persons had breaks in teaching service caused by the fact that they were employed in the teaching profession at a time when peremptory and arbitrary dismissals were very much more common that they are nowadays. It seems to me that there is not a vast amount of money involved here, and the number of people involved is probably very small. I should be glad if the Minister could assure us that he is ad idem on this and that he would view this kind of situation favourably.

The final point I want to make is a plea to the Minister to look favourably into the greatest single anomaly of all in the superannuation amendment scheme, which is the lack of parity for secondary teachers in respect of their pension entitlement. A secondary teacher who left the service before 1968 will be getting between £200 and £300 less than a secondary teacher leaving the service this year.

I am sure the Minister would agree that this is not fair. There are many people who have given a lifetime of service to the teaching profession and who now, at the age of 65 or older, are forced into jobs in their retirement in order to eke out on this meagre pension. I would ask the Minister to look at this very favourably.

We can welcome what is provided here. It is little and late, but it is better late than never. I hope in the future that the superannuation for teaching bodies in general will be moved into much closer relationship to the Civil Service and other Government schemes than it has been and that we will not have this lagging behind.

One thing that worries me a bit is that it says here it is necessary to amend the definition in the scheme from £200 to £400 to take account of the element in the salary, that is the basic salary, paid by the school. Surely the £400 is already three years out of date? Why write an out of date figure into this superannuation? Why not leave the superannuation figure flexible so that it will apply to whatever figure is agreed on for the basic salary? It seems extraordinary that we have this section of public servants, who are doing an excellent job and doing it very devotedly and wholeheartedly, yet we find the basic element of their salary, which was £400 four years ago, is still at £400, whereas the salary of everybody else in the Minister's Department, from the secretary down, has already been increased at least 30 per cent in the intervening period to take account of the very sharp inflation we have had in the past number of years. The schools cannot pay more at present because the capitation grant, from which the schools pay this meagre sum, has not been brought into line.

I cannot understand the lack of social justice that seems to permeate many of our dealings with outside bodies. I should have thought that, where adjustments are made by means of general wage increases and wage rounds to all the various categories of employees, it would not be necessary for me to get up here in Seanad Éireann or anywhere else to urge justice. A sum of £400, which was paid four years ago, is surely not just today. It needs to be increased by at least 30 per cent.

I cannot understand why our secondary schools should be penalised in this way. We are getting remarkable value from our secondary schools, where the cost per pupil is much less than in any other branch of education. It is at least 40 per cent under the cost per pupil in the vocational education system. I am not saying for one moment that is too high; in fact, it is too low. But this serves to show how inadequate what we are giving is. In our secondary school structure we are simply capitalising on the devoted service by many of the religious who keep the system going by ploughing back their salaries. I do not think that is good enough in the structure of today and I hope that I will not have to get up again in Seanad Éireann after the Budget and make the case that this figure of £400 is four years out of date, that a capitation grant for secondary schools is four years out of date. I call for elementary social justice for all.

Ba mhaith liomsa fáilte a chur roimh an scéim seo. Níl mé chun mórán a rá ach go bhfuil áthas orm go ndéanann sé socrú gur féidir stailc na meánmhúinteoirí i mí Feabhra, 1969, a mheas mar sheirbhís inphinsin. Bhí mé fhéin páirteach sa stailc sin. Ní raibh áthas ar bith ar aon duine bheith ar an stailc sin agus. buíochas le Dia, tá sé sin imithe agus tá tréimhse nua, is dóigh liom, ins na cúrsaí oideachas seo tagtha agus tá a lán den bhuiochas sin ag dul don Aire thar aon duine eile agus dos na heagraíochtaí uilig. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil i bhfad níos mó comhoibriú ar siúl agus i bhfad níos mó dea-mhéine idir na heagraíochtaí uilig atá ag plé leis na cúrsaí múinteoireachta ar fad. An Seanadóir a labhair romham bhí sé ag caint at an mbuntuarastal a bheith ardaithe. Bhí sé ag caint mar gheall ar £400 punt. Nuair a thosaigh mé féin ag múineadh, ní bhfuair mé ach £200 buntuarastal sa chéad bhliain. Caithfidh mé a admháil go bhfuil feabhas an-mhór tagatha ar chúrsaí pá na múinteoirí i gcoitinne. Dar ndóigh, níl ansin ach an méid atá tuillte ag na múinteoirí. Is gairm í an mhúinteoireacht a éilíonn dian obair ó na daoine a cleachtaíonn í agus is maith lion go bhfuil na cúrsaí mar atá. Tá súil agam go leanfar le feabhsú phá na múinteoirí agus má chuirimíd pá na múinteoirí chuid seo den tír seo í gcodarsnacht leis an bpá a gheibheann a gcomhleithidí sa Tuaisceart agus i Sasana feicimíd nach bhfuilimíd chun deiridh. Ach is cúrsaí pinsin is mó atá i gceist anseo agus arís failtím roimh an scéim.

I have very little to say on this. Largely I am speaking to get information. I agree with the three separate items to be provided for by this amendment. I should like for the moment to jump the second item and look at the third. Senator Quinlan anticipated the point I wished to make with regard to this item, that is, that if the figure of £400 establishes the just basic salary in July, 1968, then obviously a simple look at the consumer price index would indicate that now this should be a higher figure, by at least 25 per cent.

Apart from that would it not be possible to devise an amendment to the scheme which would make it unnecessary to come back to the House to make pensional provision in relation to future increases in the basic salary? It is perfectly obvious to anyone who has given any thought to our affairs that basics are going to rise in some fashion, with some degree of control, within the course of the next few years and that this basic salary will again be amended. Would it then be necessary again to do this? Would it not be possible to put in some figure based on some formula which could avoid the necessity to have an authority such as is being asked for in this confirmatory motion?

The third point is to be sure that I understand what is the second item. There is a basic salary and then there are, in addition to the basic salary, the allowances for instruction given through the medium of Irish and for the honours qualification and these two allowances are pensionable. But am I correct in understanding that there are other unspecified allowances—I wonder is the list exhausted—being the allowance for teaching in the Gaeltacht and so on, as the Minister said, which are at the moment there but are not before the passing of this confirmatory motion pensionable? I should prefer to be sure that this is an exhaustive statement of all the allowances and to know if it is intended to make pensionable all those that are not at the moment pensionable.

Ní bheidh le rá agamsa ach cúpla focal. Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba cheart go mbeadh gach éinne buíoch don Aire agus don Roinn Oideachais as ucht an scéim Aoisliúntas seo Na Meánmhúinteoirí (Leasú) a chur ós ár gcomhair agus sílim go mbeidh gach éinne sa Teach seo ar aon fhocal mar gheall air. Cuireann sé ard-áthas ormsa, mar bhun-mhúinteoir, go bhfuil sé i gceist tréimhse stailc na mean-mhúinteoirí 1969 a mheas mar sheirbhís in-phinsin. Is mór an trua é go mbíonn stailceanna ann ach dar ndóigh is dócha go mbeidh stailceanna ann arís. Nuair a dhéantar an réiteach ba ceart pé mí-ádh a thárla de thoradh na stailce a réiteach chomh fada agus is féidir. Sa chás seo, is mór an ní é go bhfuiltear chun an tréimhse stailce sin d'áireamh mar sheirbhís in-phinsin.

Léigh mé an tríú alt go cúramach ach ní fheadar ar thuig gach éinne é. Deireann sé gur méadaíodh an buntuarastal ó £200 go £400 ón chéad lá d'Iúil, 1968, beagnach cheithre bhliain ó shin. Nuair a chuirfear an leasú i bhfeidhm, beidh cúl-airgead nó riaráistí cheithre mbliain le teacht. Ina theannta san, deireann an ráiteas "le h-aontú na ndreamanna ar bhain an cheist leo." Dá bhrí sin, tá sé riachtanach an sainmhíniú sa scéim a leasú ó £200 go £400." Déanfar é sin le h-aontú na ndaoine a bhaineann an cheist leo. Le cúnamh Dé, san am atá le teacht, beidh éileamh ag teacht arís agus, gan dabht, déanfar socrú cuí sásúil arís le h-aontú na ndreamanna a bhaineann an cheist leo. Fáiltím roimh an scéim seo agus molaim an tAire agus an Roinn dá bharr.

I welcome this amendment with other Senators and I hope that, as they have requested the Minister, it will be possible to treat teachers of all rank—not secondary teachers, but all ranks—fairly so far as pensions are concerned and that the scale can be worked out which reflects the teachers' important position in society. They are doing something absolutely vital and they ought to be paid a fair salary for what they are doing.

I wish to raise one further point with the Minister on the payment of teachers' superannuation and that is in connection with service abroad, which is being encouraged by his Department, in particular service abroad which is recognised for incremental purposes. I should like to ask him if it is recognised as far as superannuation is concerned. If it is not recognised for the purposes of superannuation could the Department not work out an agreement with the countries in which the service is being given so that when people go abroad to widen their knowledge and to improve their own qualities as teachers this service be recognised for the purposes of superannuation?

I wish to express on behalf of this party our agreement with the other speakers in welcoming this amendment scheme. It is, as other speakers have said, long overdue. It is vital that in our treatment of teachers at all levels—primary, secondary and vocational—we at least ensure that this profession will be able to compete on favourable terms with the other professions and that those people who are qualified to enter the teaching professain may be encouraged to do so. It is vital that we get the best people possible into teaching and involved in the training of future generations. Anything we can do to improve their conditions will, I know, get a wholehearted welcome from all sides of this House. It is vital, of course, that any additional allowances be reckonable for superannuation purposes. Otherwise these allowances would not have the beneficial effect that they should have.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Quinlan on the last paragraph. It seems strange that almost four years after somebody came up with the sum of £400 we should find reference to it in this amendment. We will all be anxious to hear the Minister say that an amendment can be accepted with a more fluid figure to avoid further amendments, such as we have here today.

There is just one aspect of teaching to which I should like to refer. In the very near future elocution and drama teachers will be eligible under this scheme. I think they are not given full recognition as teachers in our teaching service. I sincerely hope that very soon they will be recognised for all purposes.

There is very little else to be said. We all agree wholeheartedly with this amendment and our only criticism is that it should have been introduced a long time ago.

As a Member of Seanad Éireann and as an official of another teachers' organisation, I should like to say that I most heartily welcome these improvements on behalf of our colleagues in the secondary sector. I admire very much the helpful contribution made by Senator McElgunn, who is a secondary teacher. His remarks have been most helpful and will enable the creation of greater teacher solidarity. Harmony among the various groups of teachers would contribute considerably towards the progress of education.

The teacher is a key figure in the whole educational process. When teachers are at loggerheads between themselves and those in control of education great damage is done. It is most disedifying for pupils to see teachers engaged in internal conflict among themselves and also with those who employ them. There is every indication that this teacher solidarity is progressing and at the moment all three teacher organisations are engaged in discussing a common salary claim before the Conciliation Council. This will do a lot of good.

We welcome the proposals in the Bill. Section 1 restores the pensionable entitlement to those secondary teachers involved in their strike. Also, allowances which in the past were not taken into account in the calculation of pension and gratuity, will, henceforth, be taken into account. If they are to be taken into account in the same way as they are in the primary sector, there is a lacuna or a gap here, because over the last year, when one retires on reaching the statutory age or on disability, salary only is taken into account in the calculation of pension and gratuity. Allowances are only taken into account in the calculation of pension and gratuity on the average of the last three years. The Minister would help teachers very much if he would elaborate on this point and give some indication that allowances will not henceforth be taken into account on the basis of the average of three years but on their level in the final year of teaching prior to retirement.

I should also like to endorse what Senator Horgan has stated in the matter of parity of pensions, not alone for teachers but for public servants in general. If it is logical to increase salaries because of the depreciation in the value of money and the rising cost of living, it is equally logical to suggest that pensions should be similarly increased. Pensions are falling behind all the time, as salaries are being increased. Until such time as there will be parity of pensions a great injustice will continue to be done to those who have given sterling service to the community and the country.

I should like to thank the House for the manner in which they have accepted and debated this amendment.

In reply to Senators Horgan and Brosnahan I should like to say that the raising of pensions awarded in, say, 1960 to the present level would be a matter related to pension increases generally and not to any one particular scheme. Pension schemes are of general application and there could be no question of reckoning breaks in service in relation to one scheme in circumstances which would not apply generally to pension schemes. It is traditional in my Department to recognise strike periods for pension purposes.

The House may have been led along the wrong track by Senator Quinlan. He obviously does not understand the situation relating to secondary teachers' salaries. The State bears all the salary over and above the £400 and the percentage increases which have been given refer to the total salary including the £400. The schools received an increase in capitation to cover the differences between the £200 and the £400.

Senator FitzGerald mentioned the question of making the extra allowances pensionable. This arises from the Ryan Tribunal findings. Senator Brosnahan also referred to this matter. I should like to remind the House that these allowances did not exist prior to the Ryan Tribunal findings and this is the reason we are including them here. The manner in which the allowances are made pensionable would be a matter for conciliation.

The Minister mentioned that the capitation grant was increased from £200 to £400. Could he tell us the amount of increase which was granted?

A sum of £5 per pupil.

Would the Minister tell me whether service abroad which is recognised for incremental purposes is also recognised for superannuation purposes?

Arising out of the Minister's reply——

Is this a question or a comment?

It arises out of the Minister's reply.

Matters do not arise out of a reply. The debate is ended. I will allow the Senator to ask a very short question.

The Minister stated that the capitation grant was increased to take account of the increase from £200 to £400. The number of pupils——

That is not a question. I am putting the question. I will allow Senator Alexis FitzGerald to ask a brief question. Senator Quinlan knows he is not entitled to make a speech at this stage.

It arose out of the Minister's reply.

No speeches arise out of the Minister's reply. When the Minister replies, the debate is ended.

I made a point during the debate which the Minister has not dealt with. Would it be possible to devise any formula which would make it unnecessary to come back to substitute a new figure for the figure £400? Would it be possible to add "or such other figure as may be from time to time determined as the basic salary"?

I do not think that would be necessary as we do not visualise making further changes.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share