Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Nov 1990

Vol. 126 No. 12

Private Business. - Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mrs. Jackman

Going back to the sources of stress I was talking about, the sources are work-related and they have to do with many things — conditions of service, day-to-day problems in teaching, students' behaviour and discipline. Indeed, we could debate the whole area of discipline at any time here because it opens up so much. I am sure the Minister would have plenty of say and we would have plenty to say to her on the whole area of discipline. All of these factors influence the decisions of teachers to seek early retirement and affect the status of the teaching profession generally.

I will very briefly go through the areas where one has specific information from overseas in relation to stress and teaching. For instance, in Sweden — a very liberal country with a good education system which has had an openness for quite some time — 25 per cent of over 4,000 teachers are teaching under psychological strain. That is reported in the Council of Europe report, 1982. An interesting quote from the International Labour Organisation, 1981, concluded that one of the steadily growing problems faced by teachers in their working environment is job-related stress and that many studies in developed countries demostrate that teachers are subject to mental and physical exhaustion caused by the psychological and physical strains of teaching. In a poll by Gorton in the USA in 1982 it was formed that 35 per cent of public school teachers were dissatisfied with their current jobs and 40 per cent said that, with hindsight, they would not have become teachers. These are facts that are reported correctly internationally. I have already referred to the low status of teachers in Britain, where research has shown that the source of stress is institutional in nature. Therefore, there is a need for change, not only by the individual but in the structures of the education system, particularly the structures which govern the conditions of service of teachers. In Northern Ireland, our closest neighbour, current research had led to demands for longer-term studies because, again, stress has been seen as a cumulative process. It has been suggested that it is not just during the school year that levels of stress increased but also during the lifetime of the teacher.

From all of that research it is clear that teaching in the 1980s is a profession under severe pressure and contradictory demands from society. The last quote I will give relates to an International Labour Organisation report of 1990, describing the plight of the modern teacher in the following terms and obviously giving more credence to what I want to say with regard to early retirement and voluntary redundancy. The report states:

Rapid advances in technology and the increasing complexity of working life are creating new and heavy responsibilities for education systems — and for the millions of teachers who work in them.

I was making a point a few moments ago with regard to rapid advances in technology. I could go on and on about the need for training and retraining of teachers but it is not for debate today. When we do get an education debate, it is something about which we will be talking: the need for resources etc. as the advances in technology and the complexities of working life are creating problems for our teachers. When this was debated in the Dáil quite a colourful definition of the teacher was offered by Deputy John Browne. He summed up the needs of today's teachers when he said, in a colourful phrase: "Today's teachers need the bravery of a lion, the skill of a psychiatrist, the stamina of a marathon runner, the appeal of Zig and Zag and the patience of Job."— colourful and very true. That, better than anything else, illustrates the difficulties of teachers today.

Another question I would like the Minister to answer is in regard to job-sharing if we are thinking in terms of increased employment and keeping those young teachers in the educational service. Many teachers are anxious to share their jobs and, of course, it is a very attractive option for those who wish to combine family life and responsibilities with a career in teaching. If teachers were working half time they surely would qualify for half the pension entitlements with their contributions adjusted pro rata. Has the Minister seen that in the amendment to the legislation before us?

An area that will be increasingly important, as demographic trends show a decline in population, concerns extending early retirement to schools with falling numbers that will be closing. Surely there is a golden opportunity for the Minister to extend early retirement to teachers who are in those schools that will close or schools where there are amalgamations. It would be timely for the Minister to offer again voluntary redundancy to those teachers.

I would like to ask the Minister about the transferability of pension entitlements for teachers transferring to other parts of the State sector. That will be of increasing importance. If people do not take voluntary redundancy and if they prefer to move into a job in a less stressful area, what will happen to their pension scheme? Will it be possible for those teachers to move to private companies with pension schemes and to transfer their pension schemes into the private sector? I know it would involve the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners with regard to taxation and so on but I would be anxious to know if the Minister has included these areas in her amendment to this legislation.

The last point I would make is one we raised before with the Minister on an Adjournment motion, where we were trying to get rid of anomalies in retirement age. Under the provision of the present schemes teachers must work for 40 years before they can retire on full pension, which is paid at the rate of half their salary on retirement. They may retire at 60 on a reduced pension. Having regard to the references to stress and accumulated problems, very few actually want to stay to 60, let alone 65. Teachers in national schools may also retire on a reduced pension after 35 years service provided they have reached 55 years of age. This option is not available to other teachers. It was raised before and the Minister said that funding would be necessary. I think in relation to the amendment to this Bill it would be important for the Minister to set out guidelines as to whether she intends introducing the same regulations for post-primary teachers as exist for primary teachers. This would be a start. When I would like to see, and what other teachers would like to see, would be the retirement age for all reduced to 55. This would be for two reasons: (1) to allow teachers with the accumulated stress in their lives to move out; and (2) to enable young teachers with the skills I talked about to enter the ageing force and to revitalise the education system. I would like the Minister to answer these questions in relation to the amendment to the Bill before us.

Mr. Mullooly

I welcome and support this Bill and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward. This is an enabling measure which will simplify the procedure for promulgating superannuation schemes for teachers and will bring it into line with that obtaining for other public servants. The Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1928, is the Principal Act dealing with superannuation schemes for national and secondary teachers, including teachers in community and comprehensive schools. Under the provisions of that Act all superannuation schemes for these categories of teachers were required to be confirmed by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the 1928 Act so that this requirement will no longer be necessary. It will only be necessary in future for such schemes to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. They will then take effect immediately and without the requirement of having to be confirmed by both Houses.

However, a superannuation scheme laid before the Oireachtas in this manner may be annulled by a resolution passed by either Houses within the following 21 sitting days. I know it is unlikely that such a situation will ever arise or that the final provision of the proposed new section 6 will ever have to be invoked. However, it is provided in the proposed new section that if a resolution is passed annulling a scheme then "the scheme shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder".

I know that the Minister may not like dealing with hypothetical situations but when we are discussing a Bill all we can do is speculate on situations which may or may not arise. Let us suppose that at some time in the future a new or revised superannuation scheme is drafted and laid before the Oireachtas, as is required by this proposed legislation, just at the start of the summer recess. Such a scheme could not be annulled for some considerable time because neither House of the Oireachtas would be sitting. In the meantime, all teachers retiring in the months of August or September of that year would have their pension and gratuity entitlements calculated and paid on the basis of the new scheme. I assume that the provision to which I have referred in the new section 6 is intended to cover such a situation where the superannuation scheme might subsequently be annulled. As I said, I know it is most unlikely that such a situation will ever arise; but, if it were to arise, I could see it causing immense problems. It would appear to me that as far as possible any new schemes or revised schemes should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas when the Houses are sitting. This would ensure that the kind of problem to which I have referred could not arise.

I do not know whether it ever arose in the past that a proposed superannuation scheme for teachers, or indeed for any other category of public servants, was rejected or annulled by the Oireachtas. Certainly, since I started teaching many years ago, I cannot recall any superannuation changes which caused major problems. Most changes were introduced as a result of negotiations or came about through conciliation and arbitration. There was some opposition — perhaps it would be more correct to say that there were some reservations — when superannuation contributions were introduced for national teachers about 20 years ago. Prior to that, national teachers did not have to pay superannuation, but a change was recommended by the Ryan Tribunal, which recommended the common basic scale for teachers in the early seventies. Apart from that particular change, all other changes I can remember were generally welcomed by teachers, and some were achieved only after very long campaigns. I recall in particular the very long campaign for the synchronisation of pension increases and salary increases. There was also a very hard fought campaign by a small number of teachers for pensionable credit in respect of periods of teacher unemployment in the thirties and forties. Eventually, certain concessions were granted to those teachers who were affected by unemployment in those years. This is a matter which I feel is going to arise again in the future in respect of more recent teacher unemployment.

I understand that teaching service abroad is not recognised for pension purposes here and, of course, career breaks are not eligible for pensionable credit. These are areas too which should be looked at in view of the way in which a teacher's subsequent teaching can benefit from the experience gained during a period spent teaching abroad or during a career break.

There is another matter to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention and which I would ask her to consider sympathetically. Some years ago in the late seventies a widows' and children's pension scheme was introduced for male teachers and this subsequently became a spouses' and children's pension scheme in 1981 when it was extended to include female teachers. At the time these schemes were introduced, teachers who were already in the service could if they wished, by giving the prescribed notice, opt out. I have no idea of the number of teachers who opted out or what their reasons may have been at the time for doing so, but I do know that in some cases it was a very foolish decision. I also know that there are some teachers still in the service who opted out and who, if they now had an opportunity, would re-enter the scheme. I would ask the Minister to examine the feasibility of allowing such teachers into the scheme by giving them one more opportunity to do so. I am sure it would be a relatively simple matter to work out contribution arrangements which would ensure that there would be no loss to the Exchequer by doing so.

There is one major anomaly in the area of teachers' pensions which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, although probably it is a Department of Social Welfare matter rather than a Department of Education matter. However, it is a matter which creates considerable discrepancies in the relative financial positions of spouses of deceased teachers. Since 1974 all permanent lay teachers are compulsorily insured under the Social Welfare Act. Because this is so, if a male teacher dies his widow and children are entitled in the normal way to a social welfare contributory pension; this is in addition to any teacher superannuation pension scheme for which they may qualify. If the husband of a female teacher dies she and her children are similarly entitled, provided, of course, that the contribution conditions are satisfied in either her late husband's or her own insurance record. However, if a female teacher dies, her children and her husband are not entitled to any social welfare pension and they will receive only whatever pension they may be entitled to under the teachers, spouses' and children's pension scheme. Therefore, the surviving dependants of deceased female teachers are seriously discriminated against financially vis-a-vis their male counterparts.

Perhaps the Minister would bring this matter to the attention of her colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, because to me it would appear to be in breach of European Community Directives on equal treatment for men and women in social security matters, and it can have a considerable impact on the financial situation of the surviving spouses and children of deceased teachers.

I now come to the main point I want to make in this Second Stage debate. I refer to the desirability of an acceptable early retirement scheme for teachers. I have made this case previously to the Minister, Senator Jackman made it today again, and I know the Minister is giving the matter serious consideration. As I said in the past, I believe that the option should be there for that small minority of long serving teachers who are no longer able to cope with the stress and the strain of working day after day in the classroom.

Senator Jackman went into great detail in relation to the whole problem of stress as far as teachers are concerned and I do not intend to cover that ground again, but I do believe that an early retirement scheme would benefit this category of teachers, their pupils, their colleagues and, as Senator Jackman rightly pointed out, it would offer an opportunity of introducing more new blood into the profession. I believe that an acceptable early retirement scheme would greatly benefit the education system.

As I said at the outset, I welcome this Bill. I look forward to the simplified procedures for which it provides being used over the years ahead to bring forward many superannuation improvements for teachers. I have made some suggestions to the Minister in relation to areas which I feel should be looked at with a view to making changes.

There are many other suggestions I could make. For instance, a very strong case could be made for paying the surviving spouse of a teacher the full pension to which that teacher was entitled. I have also heard it argued that it should be made possible for a teacher to draw down in advance part of his or her retirement gratuity in order to meet the cost of third level education since teachers' children do not qualify for higher education grants. The covenanting arrangements which can be availed of, and which the present Minister for Education played a major role in putting in place, have been very helpful to teachers. They have certainly eased the situation considerably where there is only one child involved in third level education. However, the burden of having two or possibly three children at third level at the same time creates an impossible situation for many teachers. If some mechanism were available whereby a teacher in those circumstances could draw down part of his or her retirement gratuity, it would certainly be very helpful.

I know that if any Minister can be relied on to give serious consideration to the points I have raised it is the present Minister, who since she assumed that office, has proved herself to be an outstanding reforming Minister for

Education. I know that she will give consideration in due course to the points that I have made.

Mr. Costello

I would at the outset like to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Daly, but in the same voice to deplore the fact that the Minister for Education is not here to hear the contributions on this legislation. It is not often we have legislation on education and I certainly do not remember such an occasion since I became a Senator. Indeed, I am not certain if there was one in the term of the present Minister for Education. When we do have a particular Bill before us, I think it is important that the Minister be here in person to hear the debate and to be able to respond.

Mr. McKenna

On a point of order, I do not think that it is fair for Senator Costello to abuse the Minister for Education. In fact, the Minister for Education, as he well knows, was here and she was called away. That is why she is being replaced by a very able person in Minister Daly. Mention has been made on previous occasions of references to people who are not in the Chamber and we had an example of it earlier today. I do not think it is fair of Senator Costello to carry on in this way.

Mr. Costello

I think it is quite appropriate for me to make a statement in relation to the relevant Minister for Education being here. This is an important matter. We already discussed on the Order of Business the crisis in education and the importance of the issues that need to be dealt with in education at present and one of them is the area of superannuation and retirement. Indeed, some very relevant points have been made by speakers on both sides today. I do not think that my remarks are at all out of line.

The legislation is technical. It is a very short Bill to standardise the area of superannuation both in the Civil Service, which was covered in similar terms in the 1976 legislation, and in the local authority area, which covers the vocational sector in the 1980 legislation. It is allowing for a matter to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas without debate as happened previously. If there is no motion seeking to annul it within 21 days, then it will automatically become law. I am not so sure that there is any great need for it when we consider that it has been ten years since the last piece of legislation in relation to the other sector of the teaching profession and there has been no amending schemes of superannuation since then. The timing of this enabling legislation is not a matter of the greatest priority. However, it is good to see the legislation being standardised that we are all operating, as the teaching profession, at primary level and second level on a common basic scale and that we would seek to have similar types of legislative and statutory provisions for the superannuation scheme as well, at least in terms of its implementation.

I am torn between the two sides of the trade union movement and the statutory powers, the legislative powers, of this House. We have again and again bemoaned the fact that matters are dealt with by ministerial order, that matters are simply laid before the House and the opportunity to debate them has not been available in many cases. That is something that has come up on numerous occasions. In a sense we are limiting the role of the House in that we cannot now have a wide-ranging debate on matters of superannuation in this House; indeed, it is the function of the House to go into the background, the philosophy and the various provisions. On the other hand, schemes of superannuation would be negotiated and probably balloted on in advance so the matter would be thoroughly aired. Therefore there are two sides to the story, but it effectively removes the opportunity for this House to debate and vote on statutory matters that come before it. It still remains a matter of concern. It does facilitate but at the same time it restricts.

I take the point made by Senator Mullooly that there could be a scheme introduced in the middle of August and that the benefits might not become available because the House would not be sitting until October. However, that is a hypothetical possibility rather than something that has occurred. The last scheme was introduced as long ago as 18 years and there is no great likelihood of major changes in the schemes being introduced in the foreseeable future.

I would like to refer too to the fact that the only function the House will have is to annual the scheme; it is not in a position under the present subsection (6) to amend. All it can do is by resolution within 21 days annul a scheme that has passed. That obviously limits the scope for debate or the possibility of the House amending the scheme. In other words, the scheme either comes in toto or it leaves in toto. That is a restriction on our activities.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that the wording in the proposed new section 6, in the third line, may not be appropriate. It reads:

Every superannuation scheme made under the Act (including a subsequent superannuation scheme revoking or amending a previous scheme)...

Surely a subsequent scheme does not revoke a previous scheme; all it can do is replace a scheme. The provision would revoke existing schemes but surely a new scheme cannot revoke an old scheme; it can only replace it. Unless the Minister wants me to introduce a technical amendment, perhaps the Minister would respond to that and see if that is the appropriate wording in the circumstances. My real concern is not with the legislation itself; is with what can be done once this legislation is implemented; what new schemes are likely to be introduced downstream; what are we going to facilitate; what will be the benefits of this amending legislation?

The Minister said:

Work is currently proceeding in my Department on the drafting of the necessary schemes which will have the effect of updating on a statutory basis the superannuation terms of both national and secondary teachers. Six schemes in all are involved covering the superannuation entitlements of teachers themselves, their spouses and children.

I would like the Minister to elucidate then elaborate what is meant by that pregnant word "updating". What type of undating is required? Are we talking about substantial updating? Are we talking about revising not in basic terms but simply in terms of language and of chronology rather than any substantial changes? My concern about the entire scheme is not that it is a bad scheme — we have a good superannuation scheme for post-primary teachers and for primary teachers, there is no question of that — but about the extension of the scheme, to what it applies and the eliminations therein.

There is an anomaly in the scheme whereby at the age of 55 years, primary teachers are entitled to take early retirement, on a reduced pension albeit, whereas in the post-primary sector that is not available until the age of 60. On the one hand, there is one set of teachers who are on a common basic salary scale, on a different retirement scale chronologically. They can retire at the age of 55 and another group cannot retire until they reach the age of 60. That is an anomaly in the scheme.

We as negotiators in the trade union movement are prevented from seeking to eliminate that anomaly or indeed, to improve on the scheme in any fashion because the only extent to which we can go on negotiation is to the Department of Education. We can go only to the teachers' conciliation council. When we have presented our case at the teachers' conciliation council the answer has been the same: no, we cannot meet any claims you make on grounds of cost — or some other grounds — and there is no independent tribunal to which we can appeal.

The normal procedure in negotiating conditions of work and pay is an automatic process from conciliation council to an arbitrator. On this issue, we are stopped short at the Teachers' Conciliation Council, so that the Department of Education will not deal with us adequately and consequently we do not have the independent forum to which to present our case. That has been the area where we have fallen down again and again in seeking to improve changes in the superannuation scheme. There has been no substantial change since 1972. Eighteen years have gone by without the possibility of negotiating any improvements in our scheme of superannuation as teachers.

Could I ask the Minister if what she has said in relation to an updating of the statutory provisions includes a substantial improvement or substantial change in the scheme and will allow us that necessary right to arbitration?

In terms of other sectors, of course, we are discriminated against. We get only 50 per cent of our earnings at a particular time, when we get a full pension. Members of the Army, for example, can get a pension at the age of 40 and Garda can get a pension at the age of 50. There are areas in the public service where, we would argue, there is tremendous room for improvement in terms of negotiation if the appropriate channel were available.

As has been mentioned by Senators Jackman and Mullooly, the question of early retirement is a very moot issue in the teaching profession. In 1987, when the now Commissioner, Ray MacSharry introduced his scheme for voluntary redundancy, the expectations at the time were that this would be widely available within the teaching profession but we found it was available to a tiny degree. Roughly 10 per cent of the teachers who applied were given the benefits of the scheme. That was a sore disappointment to many teachers. There were many teachers who would have availed of the scheme because of pressure, stress and burn out factors that were well documented in other countries, and in various private schemes that are in operation. I would like to see something introduced along those lines where somebody who is under extreme stress, who simply cannot cope within the school system, would have the facility of leaving the system. This would be advantageous to the teacher and it would be advantageous to the pupil.

I would like to see an element of early retirement introduced in the case of school closures and amalgamations. There is in operation in every sector of education a system of redeployment. If school numbers drop in one area the teachers are redeployed to schools where there is a shortage of teachers or where pupil numbers are growing. Every year a number of schools are closed and teachers, young and old, willy nilly, are moved from a school in which they have been teaching for perhaps 20 or 30 years to a totally different environment. A scheme should be available on a limited basis for older teachers of say, 50, 55, 60, 63 or 64 years of age so that they would not have to go into traumatic circumstances to which they would find it difficult to adjust. The Minister should regard that as a matter for consideration in any new scheme.

In the three teacher unions we operate a permanent health insurance scheme because of the very high stress levels in the teaching profession. Because roughly 50 per cent of teachers who retire on permanent disability do so because of burn-out, anxiety, depression, trauma and stress factors as distinct from those who retire because of heart trouble, accidents or whatever, the teaching profession are compelled to provide a service that we pay for on a private basis. We, as teachers, are providing the service and the pensions for them. That is something the Department of Education should address. I do not think it is proper that the responsibility should be left entirely on the profession to provide a permanent health insurance scheme for their members who become disabled through their work as teachers.

Senator Mullooly and Senator Jackman referred to demographic trends. That is a very serious development in the primary sector. Pupil numbers in the post primary sector are still on the increase but will shortly decrease. The general projection is that demographic trends will decline rapidly in the late 1990s to the extent that there will be at least 100,000 fewer pupils in the system than there are at present. Consequently there will be an ageing teacher profile and fewer members coming into the profession.

The situation is dire at the present time. Last year in the secondary sector fewer than 10 per cent of our members who qualified for the Higher Diploma in Education got permanent jobs; 90 per cent did not. About 50 per cent got part-time work in the profession. Another 20 per cent had to emigrate, largely to London, where there is a surplus of jobs and a shortage of teachers for different reasons. Some 20 per cent had to emigrate to other countries and a further 20 per cent simply moved into other areas of occupation. The situation is dramatically changed from what existed ten year ago when every teacher who qualified was given permanent employment almost immediately. Because of the present situation — a whole generation of young teachers are not reaching the schools. It means that teaching is moving fast to being a middle aged profession that still has to deal with pupil numbers which remain the same and consist of young adolescents from the age of 12 to 17 or 18 years.

The teaching profession is getting older all the time — the late thirties, forties or fifties. That requires that the Department of Education in educational as well as humane terms, would put in place a scheme for early retirement. Certainly, the response from the Minister to date is not sufficient, namely, that she would be prepared to consider a system based on actuarial reckonability whereby the amount that had been put into the scheme by teachers would be granted back on early retirement. Any scheme must be, as a minimum on a pro rata basis. We would like the Minister seriously to consider early retirement, at least at the age of 50; that a scheme be introduced whereby teachers could leave the profession on reduced pension at the age of 50 but that it would be on the basis of gratuity and a pro rata pension. That should be a priority so as to provide a certain degree of mobility and in particular to enable teachers to leave when pressures begin to increase. That would allow young teachers to be recruited to the service.

All this question of renegotiating a scheme for early retirement and improved superannuation comes back to inadequate provision for schools. We have experienced almost a decade of cutbacks by successive Governments, where classes have got larger. We have the largest classes of any country in the EC. Pupils are in classrooms that were designed at an earlier date, before free education was introduced, for much smaller classes when there was a much smaller pupil-teacher ratio. Classes have got huge with consequent problems of discipline and stress on the teacher while trying to maintain a modicum of proper behaviour. This pressure is the result of cutbacks.

The failure to address the whole area of discipline is another major problem. Corporal punishment has been abolished for a long time and has never been replaced by a code of discipline and certainly our schools require a code of discipline. It is unacceptable that teachers are expected to operate in schools without knowing where they stand legally or procedurally in relation to disciplining pupils. There is a degree of confusion and teachers find themselves under pressure, not knowing what to do in certain circumstances, not knowing where to turn and not having any code or any reference point.

Curricular developmnents that have taken place in recent years have likewise put enormous pressures on teachers and they have been introduced without the necessary back-up or in-service training, so that teachers now are teaching new subjects, technology, computers, new languages, without either the back-up or the in-service training to enable them to address the subjects properly. This has placed enormous burdens on the teaching profession.

While the legislation facilitates the introduction of new superannuation schemes and improvements in the schemes, the history so far is that it would not seem that we need such an enabling measure because so little has been done to improve the existing scheme and the mechanism is not in place to allow us to negotiate an improved scheme. I would welcome this measure if it is the intention of the Minister that it is to be a facilitating measure, a proper enabling measure to allow substantial improvements in our superannuation scheme and to allow the extension of the scheme to areas that we are not allowed to negotiate at the present time. That is the crux of the problem.

A statutory mechanism is fine but unless the substantial improvements required are permitted, we are literally going nowhere. I say to the Minister that, in the context of updating the schemes she should indicate her willingness to negotiate an extension of the superannuation scheme. First, the question of age and secondly specific areas where there is need for early retirement, are two areas open for negotiation. Further, would she be prepared to accept an amendment of the conciliation and arbitration scheme so that if an impasse is reached in the conciliation council the negotiations could go that one step further to an independent arbitrator whose findings would be binding? In that context we would be talking about real progress in the area of teacher superannuation.

Mr. McKenna

First, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Fahey, to the Chamber. I am rather bemused by Senator Costello's remarks in relation to my point of order when he was berating the Minister for Education for not being present in the Chamber. He stated that it was an extremely important piece of legislation and it was extremely important that the Minister should be present for it. Then in his contribution he said he did not think there was any need for the legislation because it was not of great significance. I am bemused by his reply.

Mr. Costello

I said it was the only legislation——

An Leas-Cathaoirleach

Senator McKenna, without interruption.

Mr. McKenna

I welcome this Bill. It simplifies the process of superannuation schemes for teachers. It amends the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1928, under which all superannuation schemes for national and secondary teachers must be confirmed by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Bill gives us an opportunity to pay a special tribute to all the teaching professions, and to include the vocational sector which is not included in these schemes, because they have a special scheme under local government which is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. The Bill provides that schemes will now be laid before each House and have immediate statutory effect. I take this opportunity to congratulate and compliment the Minister for being the first Minister in over 60 years to bring forward such legislation. It is evidence of the ability, commitment and the outstanding achievements of this Minister. She has proved to be an excellent Minister for Education. It is only right, when we get the opportunity, to pay tribute to the work she is doing. She has an extremely difficult portfolio. A number of Senators have referred to the difficulties that are evident in education. I do not know if there is anybody who appreciates those difficulties more than the present Minister for Education. She was a former teacher and has hands-on knowledge of the whole area of education.

The legislation being proposed today is very technical because of the multiplicity of amendments that have been made over the years which, again, were referred to by a number of Senators.

Mention was made of the early retirement scheme for teachers and the number of teachers who applied for early retirement at that time. Again, one must give credit to the Minister for taking that on board. I readily appreciate the fact that there were a number of teachers who, if given the opportunity, would have opted out at that time, but we must cut our cloth according to our measure. There has to be some limit to the schemes that are provided.

I want to join with Senator Mullooly in his comments on an existing anomaly in relation to pension schemes. As the Senator said, that is a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare. The provisions applicable where a male teacher dies are not available on the death of a female teacher. I ask the Minister to take that matter on board.

Senator Mullooly referred to the covenant and its importance in relation to third level education. I would like to include with that type of financial assistance in relation to higher education and third level grants, the qualification particularly in relation to the PAYE taxpayer. I have made the suggestion to the Minister over a number of years and I know she has looked on it very favourably I can appreciate the difficulties that exist and I know she is very anxious to do something about it. My suggestion is that net income should be taken on board in qualifying people for third level education grants. As Senator Mullooly said, the covenant is fine where there is one student from a family in third level education but where there are two or three third level students in a family the burden on a PAYE taxpayer, a salaried person, is enormous, particularly when the students are living away from home and they have to pay board and lodgings and fees. I would ask the Minister to consider if there is some relief that could be given to people who find themselves in that position.

The Minister is aware that the mental strain on teachers is substantial. Society has changed completely. There is a totally different attitude to teaching. The involvement of parents in education has created a different viewpoint and a different attitude to the management of education at local level. There are questions of rationalisation, amalgamation and so on and all this brings pressure on teachers in primary, post-primary and third level.

The teaching profession is a difficult one and nobody recognises that more than the Minister. She is making every effort to increase the facilities and improve the lot of the teaching professions and she is viewing very favourably the proposals in relation to early retirement. That creates its own difficulties which must be recognised. The Minister, at all times, has the interests of teachers and pupils at heart.

I want to welcome this legislation, to compliment the Minister on bringing it forward and to say that we know the Department of Education is in good hands at the moment.

Mr. B. Ryan

I do not think anybody in his sane senses would object to this legislation but it does raise questions about this House and the extraordinary priorities of what activites need the positive approval of the House and what are subject to the condition of negative approval, i.e. that it becomes law unless we object. I would like at some stage to have some explanation as to what it is, why it is and where it is that the priorities are determined about which areas of subsidiary legislation, statutory instruments, ministerial orders or whatever they are called, and how it is adjudicated on because in this case we obviously have a situation where something just flips from being one to being another, from a position where up to now it needed the positive approval of the Houses to the situation where the procedure of the superannuation schemes can be amended unless the Houses object. I have no objections. It is important and correct that it should be so. But, it is fascinating and deserves to be teased out further because, if you pick up the Order Paper of either House after, say, the summer break and look at the long list of statutory instruments there, virtually none of which is ever debated in either House which amounts in many areas to legislation by Ministerial fiat. Most of it is necessary, most of it is correct and most of it is worthwhile but it a long way from the concept of parliamentary democracy that is supposed to exist in practice when the ordinary lives of ordinary people can be transformed in relation to the health services, social welfare and so on. It is not so common in education because, given that there is no such thing as an education Act in this country, you cannot have subsidiary legislation. It is only in specific financial provisions like this that there is actually a need for any sort of legislative or quasi-legislative response. It is as good a commentary on the lack of public policy in Irish education that we do not actually have any legislation or quasi-legislation to deal with education per se. We have the Vocational Education Act and other matters but we do not really have an education Act. I know the Minister has on a few occasions indicated she wants to introduce such an Act; I hope she does and I wish her luck. I look forward to seeing it although I am sure her idea of what should be an education Act and mine would differ on many things.

I do not want to necessarily belabour or go over the points that have been raised by other Members but this is an appropriate occasion to raise the whole concept and question of teaching, the reward for teaching and, indeed, the situations under which people should be allowed to retire from teaching. I am always intrigued by the number of people, overwhelmingly male, who do not teach, who think teaching is perhaps the easiest job on God's earth. The reason I say they are overwhelmingly male is because most of them I have heard are the sort of people, in Senator O'Toole's words some years ago, who, while they think keeping some 40 six or seven year olds entertained, amused, educated, stimulated, is easy would drop dead perhaps at the prospect of having to look after their own three or four children of six, seven or eight years on their own without the assistance of their wives for more than two hours at a time. However, they are still convinced that people who look after 40 children have an easy life.

Teaching is an extremely difficult and demanding job. It puts enormous pressures on people. I only know the level of teaching I am involved in which, in terms of the need to preserve discipline, is perhaps the easiest. Because of the age of our students and the motivation they all have, it is relatively effortless in terms of discipline, but the sheer fact of having to stand in front of a group of other people for, in my own case, 16 hours a week and in the case of other teachers for 23 or 24 hours a week, is in itself physically demanding. It is often people who would drop dead at the prospect of having to talk even to a group of ten people who assume it is effortless for somebody to stand in front of 20, 30, 40 or more and pronounce on some subject. I would not say and I do not subscribe to the view that our young people are in any way lawless — in fact, quite the opposite — but where concepts of discipline on what is needed, on what is a disciplined approach and what is a proper standard of behaviour have changed quite dramatically and where discipline and respect have to be earned and cannot be imposed by some sort of rigid system, that puts enormous demands on teaching and on teachers.

It is a fact now that most young people believe they have a right to have their respect earned. They believe they have a right to be treated with a considerable degree of seriousness by those who claim to teach them. They believe they have a right to ask questions about topics and they do not, any more in many cases, accept that they simply sit and accept what is handed down to them on a whole range of subjects. Neither would most teachers be happy with that concept of education at second level or, indeed, even at primary school level.

There is an increasing sense of education as a dialogue and a partnership between teachers and those they teach. That, of course, is also demanding, stressful and wearisome and that very stress raises questions. It obviously raises questions about the age at which people should be entitled to retire on an adequate pension and it is a fairly valid point to raise at this stage whether 50 per cent of salary is any longer an acceptable level of pension. Increasingly, in the private sector, pensions pitched at that level would be regarded as being on the lower part of the spectrum of acceptability. I am well aware of private sector pensions that are well below that, but in terms of professional pension funds in general a pension which is pitched at 50 per cent of previous earnings is not regarded as particularly generous and would be on the lower end of what would be regarded as acceptable. Apart from that and apart from the level of payment, the question of the age has been well and truly discussed and pursued. The simple answer is that it would be lovely to do it but the funds are not available. That is a matter that deserves a lot more time than we have here today.

I simply believe that education is one of these areas of human endeavour and of public provision that is hopelessly and unbelievably underfunded. One of the areas of underfunding is related to the number of years of service that people must have before they are entitled to full pension provision. If we are to have the sort of vitality that our schools need and if, at the same time, we are to ensure that those who find the extraordinary stressful burden of dealing with large classes of young people under conditions of perhaps considerable pressure, too much to take, they should be allowed to retire, first for their their own sake, but also to ensure that there is a continuous flow into that profession of young people and that we do not have a gradually ageing body of teachers, with the best will in the world losing the initial enthusiasm that comes with the beginnings of any area of professional activity, perhaps even in politics. The early years are the years of the greatest enthusiasm.

In a profession as demanding as teaching, there is a particular need to ensure that there is a continuous flow of young people into that profession with young ideas and with the most recent and best quality training available to them, with the vitality, the imagination and the willingness to challenge established ways of doing things that goes with being young. You cannot guarantee that inflow if you rigidly fix the number of teachers at the present level and do not allow early retirement for those who wish to retire. You can do it, of course, if the Minister is allowed to introduce the sort of pupil-teacher ratios that we probably need in this country. As part of a package to ensure that there is a continuous stimulation of the profession by the introduction of young people, early retirement on adequate pensions is obviously a necessary part of it.

When we are talking about this question of superannuation for teachers — it is not just true for teachers, it is true for a large part of public service pension schemes — the question of the pension provision for the dependants needs to be addressed with perhaps a greater degree of sharp-sightedness than is currently the case. I do not have to tell the Minister that most women — 70 per cent of them as I recall — are predecessed by their husbands. The pension provision for dependent spouses under the superannuation schemes is, to say the least, limited — a quarter of the salary of the earner together with whatever would be there regarding dependent children. That is not a particularly generous provision and it is one that bears most heavily on women. It is the one that bears particularly heavily on those women enshrined in our Constitution, the women who stay at home to look after the upbringing of children. They are the people who suffer the consequence of the inadequate provision for what used to be called widows and orphans. They are widows and orphans but the language sounds somewhat anomalous. It is wrong when the man dies that his widow should be suddenly presumed to be able to live on half that salary whereas to my recollection, if the woman dies the husband does not suffer the halving of his pension. That seems to me to be a classic case of convenient discrimination based on the certain knowledge that most men will die before their wives but which effectively penalises those women who choose to stay at home and look after their children and quite contradictory to the letter of the Constitution, the spirit of the Constitution and to much of the talk about equality that we have confronted.

I have to say that this Minister has shown a willingness to address issues. I particularly welcome what I think is her commitment to introduce an Education Bill which, when we have had our say and hopefully persuaded her to change it in our direction, will become an Education Act. It would be a great memory of her period as Minister for Education to finally have legislation which attempted to define what we were doing in education, what the State's role was in the education, what the role of the voluntary sector was in education, what the role of parents was in education, and what the role of various other agencies was in education. I want to give the Minister whatever encouragement I can to stay at it and to produce what is most needed in order to put education on a proper legislative footing, which it has needed for the last 70 years.

Mr. O'Toole

I intend proposing an additional number of sections and a Schedule. I have taken the time, not just this week or not just today but regularly over the last number of years, to study the legislation which describes and regulates the pensions available to teachers working for the State. The legislation governing the superannuation of teachers is the 1879 Superannuation Act — an Act for improving the position of the teachers of national schools in Ireland. The legislation referred to by the Minister in the final paragraph of her speech is the 1928 Act which says in section 3:

Where a superannuation scheme is expressed to apply to any class of teachers to whom the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, applies, such scheme may be in addition to or in substitution for the provisions of the said Act as amended by the Pension (Increase) Act, 1920 relates to such class of teachers and may revoke or amend such provisions accordingly.

I intend taking the opportunity to put some proposals to the Minister. In doing that, I have the Minister somewhat at a disadvantage because I will be proposing things which I know in her heart of hearts she agrees with, and I hope she will be able to concede, express an opinion on and lead the way towards enhancing the position of the superannuation scheme for teachers.

It is an extraordinary fact that when the teachers' pension scheme was first introduced in 1879 — it is in the Schedule — women teachers were entitled to retire voluntarily at 50 years of age. The Minister has expressed views on that on a number of occasions and I know she has quite freely offered those views, but more than a century later, despite unpredented levels of stress and pressure in education, the voluntary retirement age for those women has risen. They are five years worse off than they were more than 100 years ago. That is extraordinary in terms of social legislation, progress in legisaltion, etc. I call on the Minister to introduce regulations which will reduce the voluntary retirement age for teachers to 50 years of age immediately. Many of our teachers, who have given 30 or 35 of the best years of their lives in classrooms, are tired, worn out and burnt out. The Minister knows it, and I know it. We meet them regularly. Some of these teachers feel they can no longer contribute as effectively as they wish or as they could when they were younger. We should give them the option to exit from the profession with dignity and with financial security. Let us have a comprehensive range of options to allow for voluntary early retirement for teachers. It is different to other occupations. The Minister is a teacher and is aware of this. She knows that 40 healthy, mischievous four year olds or whatever age they are, demand 100 per cent of the teacher's energy and skill 100 per cent of the time.

While the community would look askance at the idea of a 50 year old couple deciding to take onto themselves the responsibility of rearing a young family we take it for granted that every day of the week teachers in their mid to late fifties take on and face a daunting and exhausting task of controlling, teaching and disciplining the largest classes in Europe. It is time that we responded to this. Teachers are an energetic, enthusiastic, innovative group of professionals and they give all they have to what is, in effect, an under-resourced, under-financed and under-funded education system. The system is successful, but at the cost of teachers' health and welfare. We have seen it time and time again. The Minister knows it and I know it. Is there a difficulty?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is a division in the other House.

Minister for Education (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I am not paired.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I was under the clear impression that there was a pairing arrangement.

Mr. O'Toole

My understanding was that the Government Whip arranged there would be a pairing for Ministers who are on duty in this House.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Somebody better find out.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is being checked out. I ask the Senator to continue.

Mr. O'Toole

It is unfair on the Minister that she should be called away at this point. It is also unfair and demeaning to the House that this should happen. I am not blaming the Minister but there is supposed to be an agreement between the whips that in situations like this the Minister would be automatically paired. I certainly understand the Minister's concern and the matter will be checked out.

I was making the point that the system is successful only at the cost of teachers' health and welfare and that price is too high at the end of the day. I meet experienced teachers all the time who ask me the same question they ask the Minister when will the voluntary retirement age be reduced? An early retirement scheme would carry with it many benefits for the education service and those benefits would create employment for our young unemployed teachers, it would allow the introduction of new blood to the teaching service and such developments would be in everybody's interest and to the great benefit of our pupils.

I will be looking at another part of the 1879 legislation which says:

If the Commissioners of Education certify to the Lord Lieutenant that they are satisfied that a male teacher under the age of fifty-five or a female teacher under the age of fifty, who, in case he or she continued in the service until the age of compulsory retirment would be entitled to a retiring allowance under this Act—

In other words, a person who is entitled to a pension

— that person has become incapable from permanent infirmity of mind or body to discharge the duties of his or her situation, the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, may grant to such teacher a gratuity, or, if the teacher prefers it, a pension. .

The Minister and I know that is the basis of a lot of difficulties and that is reflected in the teachers scheme of 1934 set up arising from the 1929 legislation. Section 12 of the 1938 scheme states:

The Minister and Minister for Finance are satisfied that such teacher has, while in the service, become incapable, from infirmity of mind or body, to discharge the duties of a teacher efficiently and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent.

This is a major opportunity. I will make a number of proposals here. Some of them are major proposals and I know they would create a difficulty for the Minister in the sense that they would need substantial Government approval of funds. I freely admit that but there are other issues which come to the Minister's clinics, which come to my desk, which come to all of us who deal with teachers.

The majority of Senators present in the Chamber at the moment are teachers and we know about this. I can give the Minister examples. I will not play on emotions at the moment, but if we take the disease of ME — we know that it is a real disease — it creates all sorts of difficulties and we know it is not permanent. No self-respecting doctor could sign the form which the Department are required to send out on foot of this legislation which requires that the infirmity is likely to be permanent. It is unlikely that the condition of ME will be permanent. It could last for ten years, 15 years or more but it is not permanent. With modern science and technology advancing at such a rate, one never knows what permanent means.

In the past year I came across cases where that form had been signed. I know of three cases where teachers who were in receipt of the Department of Education pension were told by the Department they were no longer entitled to it. Let me say the Department are right on occasion and I will give the reasons. One of them was a person who had no mobility whatsoever and could not move except with the greatest of difficulty. In the meantime that person has had two highly successful hip replacement operations, is now mobile and well capable of going back to the classroom. The person's infirmity, which was likely to be permanent at the time the doctor attended him, has gone. I point that out because there are occasions when the Department say: "Yes, we gave you a disability pension but now you are no longer entitled to it". Under the schemes the Department are entitled to ask on an annual basis for the medical evidence if the person is still not able to carry out the job of teaching.

One of the other cases I came across was of a teacher who received disability pension on the basis of terminal cancer. It was a very sad situation of a young woman who was facing death. Colleagues, friends, family in a small rural community were depressed. Now the person has made a full recovery and all we can say is buíochas le Dia. The Department have now said: "This person is now fully recovered when all the medical evidence a short time ago was that she would now be dead". That is a great story to relate. I am just pointing out to the Minister that it is a situation where the Department have had to take back the pension. If that can be done with hindsight surely the Minister would also take my case that there are some diseases, for instance, ME, and there are some conditions like alcoholism from which people can recover and after a number of years can go back to teaching. The situation at the moment is that for somebody with ME it is not possible for that person to get a disability pension, even though the Minister, the doctors and I know that this person is totally disabled. Because of the 1928 legislation and the 1979 legislation which requires that the infirmity is likely to be permanent the doctor cannot sign the form. Therefore, the Minister cannot give the pension. All that is needed is a minor amendment to the legislation and it still leaves total discretion with the Minister and her Department. It is not a question of opening floodgates; it is a change in the regulations and is no more than that. That is one of the changes I will be putting before the Minister and I appeal to her to help to get that change in the superannuation. It would change human problems of people, which the Minister and I know about.

I am also concerned with aspects of the Bill before us. I have always taken the view that changes in legislation, changes in schedules of legislation and changes in schemes arising from legislation should be done by an affirmative process of a proposal put to the Houses, affirmed and agreed by the Houses. I see very good reasons for changing that. This is a good example of where it would be useful to have a quicker way of dealing with it. As one who deals with teachers all the time and who in another capacity represent teachers all the time, because I have no fears that the teachers' superannuation could never be worsened as it would mean a worsening of the conditions of service, I have no worries on that score. A concern that might apply about other legislation where we would be worried that something might worsen a situation does not apply here because the legal and constitutional rights would not allow the Minister to worsen the conditions of service.

There is one very curious line in the Minister's speech where she says that the superannuation benefits for teachers have been improved in line with improvements which have taken place in the public service generally. That has happened and there have been statutory instruments to reflect that change. The Minister stated: "These have been implemented by my Department on an administrative basis in advance of making the necessary statutory schemes." I hope the Minister will tell me precisely what that means. It means to me that the Department of Education have been acting ultra vires the legislation and the schemes in as much as all those changes should be registered somewhere and they are not registered anywhere. The legislation governing teachers' pensions requires many changes in the regulations or in the scheme be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas through the presentation of a statutory order or instrument by the Minister.

In 1988 the Minister introduced a system of redundancy, including added years for primary and post-primary teachers. I can find no evidence of a statutory instrument being presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas at that time. All the indications are that the introduction of that redundancy scheme, to which I objected vociferously at the time, may well have been ultra vires regulations and legislation of the State. Today we are tidying up retrospectively because things should have been done which have not been done. We are now looking at an extraordinary situation where major changes have taken place. A full scheme totally different to anything outlined in the legislation was introduced by the Minister's Department in 1988 — I hesitate to say illegally because I am not sure that would be the correct word but which was certainly ultra vires legislation, certainly without a statutory instrument, without the approval of the House and against the spirit, directions and requirements of the legislation. It reflected the panic of the time. I will certainly be interested to hear the Minister's views as to how that operation might have been challenged at that time. I am not saying that in a petty way. I am raising that from the point of view of the value of legislation and the need to respond to legislation.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.