Sub-head G provides for the sum of £100, being the balance of a payment which is due, according to the actuary who carried out the investigation, to the National Teachers' Pension Fund. In connection with the investigation of the present position of the fund, and the actuary's report and the action of the Minister for Finance in connection with the report, I have put down my amendment. It will be necessary, as this is a rather involved and technical question, to explain briefly to the members of the Dáil how the position has arisen. The Teachers' Pension Fund, which was established some 50 years ago, is made up of direct contributions deducted from the teachers' salaries every quarter, and of endowments which were given at the time the fund was originally set up, and which were Irish money, known as the Church Surplus, and made up also from certain grants-in-aid which later came to be made. While the pensions of the national teachers are paid out of this special fund, the pensions of ordinary State servants are paid each year directly out of moneys provided by Parliament. In their case there is no special fund. A Vote comes up each year, and it is out of that Vote these pensions are paid. National teachers are not civil servants, but, except in one particular, they might be regarded as State servants. They are paid directly by the State out of money voted here each year. They are working under conditions laid down by the State; they are carrying out a programme of work laid down by a Ministry which is responsible to this House. Entrance to the profession of teaching is controlled by the State. The teachers are trained by the State, and they may be removed from the profession by the State. The only difference between their position and that of civil servants is in the matter of their appointment. For historical and other reasons, a system has grown up by which the teacher is actually selected for a school by the local manager, who is usually a clergyman. The teacher may be appointed by the clergyman only with the sanction of the State. I think it is necessary to say that at this stage.
It is about a hundred years ago since payment of teachers by the State was recognised. It is about fifty years since the necessity for a pensions fund established by the State was recognised. I think it is advisable that I should mention that too, especially when it is remembered that it is only a few years ago that another class of teacher, known as secondary teachers, got any kind of State payment and it is only a week or two ago that a pension fund was set up for them. When the National Teachers' Pension Fund was set up, it was understood that it would be actuarially examined every five years, to see whether or not it was in a position to pay the pensions which it was contracted it should pay. That actuarial investigation took place regularly every five years. There might have been a year or two, one way or other, until 1911, 1912 and 1913. During those years there was an investigation and that was the last time an investigation of the fund was made until 1926. When the two Parliaments were set up here, in 1922, the fund as it then existed, was divided in the proportions mentioned by the Minister the other day. I forget the exact figures, but it was the usual figure that was used in dividing any funds that were held at that time as between the Northern Parliament and the Free State. When the actuarial investigation was finished in the year 1929, it was found that there was a considerable deficiency in the fund. In other words, while at that moment its income was sufficient to meet the payments on it, it was found that that position could not continue very long and that the expenditure from the fund would very soon be greater than the annual income. Then the position would arise that the capital of the fund would have to be encroached upon in order to continue to pay the pensions which had been contracted to be paid.
I should say that the fund shortly after it was set up was divided into two parts. This is important, in view of what is taking place. There was to be one section of it known as the Teachers' Contribution Account. There was another section of the fund which was to be called the Endowment Account. The teachers' contribution side of the account was made up of deductions from the teachers' salaries. In the endowment side of the account were to be those moneys that might be granted from the Government, in one form or another, as well as the original endowment fund from the Church Surplus. That was the position for 35 years. The fund, however, in 1926, was valued as a whole, not in two separate compartments. It does not require any technical knowledge to pick out from the balance sheet the items of the valuation which refer to each separate account.
The valuation disclosed that the portion of the fund known as the teachers' contributions or what is popularly called the teachers' side of the fund, was solvent. Not only was there no deficiency on that particular side of the fund but there was an actual surplus, while the deficiency on the whole fund was shown to exist in the endowment side of the fund or what is called the Government side of it, the side for which the Government were responsible. In the terms of reference to the actuary he was asked two questions. He was asked to state if a deficiency were found and if the State were to make good the deficiency, what would be the sum required for a limited period of years. He was also asked, in case of a deficiency, what would be the extra sum which would be required from the teachers to make good the deficiency. The teachers were already paying into the fund 4 per cent. of their salaries. Four per cent. is deducted from their salaries regularly. The actuary answered the question. He mentioned a sum which it would be necessary for the State to pay over a period of 50 years in order to make good the Pensions Fund, and put it in a solvent position. He also stated that it would require an additional 8½ per cent. contribution from the teachers, that is 12½ per cent. in all, in order to make good the deficiency in the fund and to enable the fund to continue to pay pensions. The report was issued, and at this stage a rather remarkable thing happened. The report was published on the 1st January, and on the 7th January a letter was issued from the Department of Finance to the National Teachers' Organisation to the effect that the Government would do nothing more than they are doing already in the way of grants-in-aid to the fund and, in effect, that the teachers would be called upon to bear the whole burden to make good the deficiency which arises, not on the teachers' side of the fund, but on the Government side of the fund. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the Minister, when he gave authority for the issue of that letter, had not examined as he should have examined, the whole position. He just saw the actuary's report and without going into the history of the fund, or in any way into the circumstances, that letter was issued. I feel certain that if he had made a full examination of the case he would not have issued the letter.
My main object in bringing the matter before the Dáil to-day is to call attention to the action of the Minister in issuing that letter without looking into the history of the fund or examining, as I think it would be necessary to examine, the circumstances under which the deficiency arose. I think that to ask the teachers in this instance to make good the entire deficiency by a contribution of about 12½ per cent. from their salaries, or an additional 8½ per cent. to the 4 per cent. they are paying already, especially as the whole deficiency arose through the Government's own action, or rather inaction in regard to the fund, is a position that could not very well be defended.
It might be well to examine briefly how the position in regard to the fund has arisen. The pensions paid to teachers are not at all as good as the pensions paid to ordinary civil servants or the officers of local authorities. After forty years' service a teacher is entitled to the full pension of one-half his salary. Deputies know that civil servants are entitled after forty years' service to two-thirds of their salary, or the equivalent. Sometimes it is given as a pension. Under the new regulation, the common form of pension is half the salary plus a lump sum at the time of retirement, which may go to a maximum of one-and-a-half year's salary. The teachers get no lump sum—they just get half of their salary after forty years' service and, in addition, they have to contribute all through the period of their service to the fund by deductions made quarterly from their salaries. As Deputies know the pensions of officers of local authorities, after a much shorter period of service than forty years, on an average are two-thirds of their retiring salary. I also wish to draw attention to the fact that, with the exception, I think, of the Gárda Síochána, who contribute something like two and a half per cent. of their salaries, and now the secondary teachers under the new scheme adopted last week, national teachers are the only body paid from State funds who are asked to contribute to their pensions fund by deductions from their salaries.
The regulations under which the present pensions are paid were introduced in 1914 after a long and bitter period of agitation for better pensions on the part of the national teachers. Some of the older Deputies will remember that thirty years ago the pensions and salaries payable to national teachers were really a bye-word and a disgrace. Agitations had been going on, supported by public opinion of all shades all over Ireland, for a great many years and, after the war period, during the years of which no adequate increases were made in the salaries of teachers comparable to the increases given to other bodies, it was found necessary, in the interests of the country as a whole, to increase the salaries of national teachers. A Commission had been set up in 1918, representative of various bodies of public opinion in Ireland, and they issued a report to the effect that salaries and pensions would have to be increased along the lines of similar increases which had at that time been given in England and Scotland. An Education Bill was introduced in 1919 which contained provisions for a scheme of pensions on a non-contributory basis—a scheme of what we call civil service pensions, which made provision for the lump sum. For various reasons, which I need not go into, that Bill never got a Second Reading in the British House of Commons, and it was found shortly afterwards that if the scheme for the improvement of the position of national teachers were to go through it would have to go through in two stages—one a salary and the second a pension scheme. The salary scheme was fixed by arrangement with the British Treasury and the National Board of Education at the time in conference, and was finally decided in November, 1920. I think.
Before I come to the next step. I should say that during all the negotiations which took place in regard to fixing the salary scale it was in the minds of everybody—the teachers, the National Board, and the British Treasury alike—that immediately the salaries were fixed a new and improved pension scheme would be introduced for the teachers, and the salary figures were fixed in relation to that. Immediately after the salaries were fixed, a conference was held between the national teachers and the National Board, and certain lines were agreed upon for an improved pensions scheme.
I think, perhaps, I could not better describe what happened afterwards than by reading a brief extract from a Report written in 1922 describing what took place in 1921. This is the extract:—
"Following the conference which the Executive had with the Commissioners on the Pension Question in the spring of last year, it was decided to press on the Government that the scheme agreed to by this conference should be put into operation. A statement was prepared, and Messrs. Harbison, Mansfield and Maher proceeded to London. They discussed the position with the representative of the Treasury, and afterwards had a brief but exceedingly unsatisfactory interview with the Chief Secretary, who point-blank refused to carry out the pledges which had been given previously in this connection on behalf of the Government, holding that as education was one of the services which had been transferred to the Irish Parliaments under the Act of 1920, the settlement of the Pension Question was no longer a matter of concern for the Imperial Parliament."
This took place in 1921, at a time when the Government of Ireland Act had been put upon the Statute Book but had not yet come into operation, and Deputies will remember easily the conditions that prevailed in Ireland at the time.
It was pointed out that up to that date these services were still under the British Government and that the actual transfer had not taken place, and was not likely to take place for some considerable time and that it was only reasonable to expect that the Imperial Government would redeem its pledges and discharge its liabilities up to the date of the actual transfer. All these arguments were lost on Sir Hamar Greenwood, and subsequent attempts made through the medium of members of Parliament failed to effect any change in the attitude of the Government as represented by the Chief Secretary. The developments which took place in the political situation, the state of suspense brought about by the protracted negotiations following the Truce and the necessarily tedious and complicated task involved in the transfer of the Government Departments from British to Irish authority prevented any effective steps being taken towards securing the enactment of a satisfactory pension scheme. We can only hope that one of the first acts of those now charged with educational legislation and administration will be the introduction of such a scheme as a natural and fitting corollary of the salary settlements. At the time of writing the Executive have asked the Ministers for Finance and Education for an interview in order to impress upon them the necessity for immediate pension reform.
Of course we know now what one of the first acts of the Government was in regard to national teachers. Instead of introducing a scheme of pension reform the first act practically of the Government in regard to national teachers was to cut their salaries by 10 per cent., that was in 1923. The teachers began to pay, and continued to pay 4 per cent. on their new and increased salaries. But not only did the Government not introduce a new scheme of pension, as they were bound to do as successors to the Government they replaced, but, as I say, in addition to reducing salaries of the teachers by 10 per cent. they have refused, or neglected, I do not care which way you put it, to pay their appropriate share consequent on the newly increased salaries, into the National Teachers' Pension Fund, and it is because of that refusal, or neglect, that the present position has arisen and that the Fund to-day is in an insolvent condition. To turn round then, as the Minister for Finance did, on the 7th January last, and say to the teacher: "We have cut your salaries by 10 per cent., we have not carried out the pledges made by our predecessors to increase your pension fund, we have neglected to put into the pension fund the appropriate moneys that should be paid into it since 1923, and as a result of all that the pensions fund will no longer be able to continue to pay you even the pensions always paid, and you yourself are now asked to contribute an additional 8½ per cent., or one-eighth of your salary to this fund if you expect the present pensions to be continued." I would not like to describe action of that kind as it might be described, but it is action which, to my mind, the Minister will find it extremely difficult to defend.
It is sometimes said that teachers are well paid. That used to be a belief commonly held a few years ago, but I think people are beginning to realise now that the national teacher, who has in his hands the moulding of between 85 and 90 per cent. of the population of the country, is a person who ought to be in a position where financial difficulties should not be constantly worrying him. Commencing salaries of £153 for men and £110 for women are not at all extravagant salaries, and cannot be regarded as such for people who have to spend four or five years in a secondary school, two years in a training college, and four or five years as probationers at the initial salary before they can get into their incremental scale, and who have to serve 40 years before they can claim a pension.
If we look at the pension bill which we are asked to vote in the present Estimates it will be found that out of the total amount of £2,350,000 the proportion which we are asked to give to the Teachers' Pension Fund as a grant-in-aid is very small compared with that in any other cases. £66,000 is the amount this year voted to the Teachers' Pension Fund. Out of this Estimate the sum of £1,170,000 is voted for pensions for ex-R.I.C. men, and I think there is no doubt that the services of the national teachers, to the country, are at least as valuable as those given by the police, and that the claim of the teachers on the taxpayer in this country is quite as good as that of the ex-R.I.C. men.
Last week we established here a pensions fund for secondary teachers and in view of the action of the Minister for Finance in that case I cannot understand his proposal as contained in his letter of 7th January so far as the national teachers are concerned. Last week he proposed and the House agreed and indeed were of opinion that on the whole the scheme for secondary teachers was rather niggardly and we would have been glad to do better— that the secondary teachers should pay 4 per cent. the same as the national teachers pay by way of contribution for pensions, that they would get pensions after 40 years of half salaries the same as the national teachers are getting. There was no proposal there that they should pay an additional 8½ per cent. as in the case of national teachers, and provision was made, and rightly made, to pay pensions to men who had not contributed to the fund at all. That was a necessary and just proposal, but in view of the action of the Minister in that connection I fail to understand his action in regard to the national teachers.
I should remind the House now that there are two classes of national teachers who get no pensions of any kind although since 1922 the very same class of teachers in Northern Ireland have been granted pensions. I refer to the class of teachers known as lay assistants in convents and monastery schools and the class of teachers in rural areas known as junior assistant mistresses. I always laugh when I think of that word "junior," some of these teachers having reached 50 or 60 years of age. These two classes get no pensions of any kind. Because of pressure put on the Minister to have pensions granted to those people he eventually agreed to hold a long overdue investigation into the position of the National Teachers' Pension Fund. In Northern Ireland they have been giving pensions since 1922 to these two classes of teachers and the Government there by special Act have made themselves responsible for any deficiency that may arise year by year in the Teachers' Pension Fund.
To make this sum solvent the actuary stated that it would be necessary to find a sum up to £160,000 annually for a period of 50 years. Actuaries always report on the very safe side. What concerns the teachers is that they should continue to get their pensions. They claim, and very strongly claim, an improved pensions scheme. What they do demand is that they should continue to have their pensions paid. It is a matter for the Minister for Finance how that is to be done, whether he is to continue the fund or to meet the pension bill for the national teachers each year as it arises, as in the case of other State servants. That is a case entirely for the Minister himself. I do hope that he will be in a position to say that his letter of the 7th January last, to which I have referred, was issued without consideration of the history of the whole position, and without due investigation into all the facts. I think that it will be admitted by everybody who makes an impartial investigation of the question that it is quite unfair that the national teachers should be asked to pay anything more than they are at present paying, namely, 4 per cent., for the rather meagre amount they are getting in the way of pensions, and I hope the Minister, before this debate closes, will be in a position to say that he has changed his mind in regard to the attitude he adumbrated in his memo. of the 7th January last.
