I have no objection to this scheme, but I wish to remind the Minister that there is a small number of teachers, some of them with over 40 years service to the community, who did not get pensions under the original scheme of 1934. When that scheme was being discussed with the Minister by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation I was one of those who took part in the discussion, and at that time I reminded the Minister and the Departmental officials that these teachers did not come under the scheme then being introduced, by reason of the fact that they had retired from the service some time previously. It may be said that these teachers had hardly not any claim, but a similar scheme to bring junior assistant mistresses and convent teachers, to which I am referring, was introduced in the Northern Parliament. A similar scheme was to be introduced in this part of Ireland, but unfortunately delays occurred and some of the teachers to whom the scheme would apply if they were in the service were then ruled out.
At the conference I reminded the Minister and the officials that these teachers were still unprovided for. There is no doubt that many of them, especially the convent teachers, were debarred from pension rights by a penal clause that the British Government, which was the educational authority at the time, had, because they taught in convent schools. These teachers did the same work as teachers in ordinary day schools, and many of them were very highly qualified. When introducing the scheme on October 16, the Minister said:—
"The cases of the small number of teachers to whom this amending scheme will apply are deserving of special consideration in view of the essentially national character of their work in fostering the Irish language and culture under difficult circumstances and at considerable personal financial loss.
I am sure the Minister will agree when I say that the very same case could be made for those convent teachers and junior assistant mistresses who were debarred from the provisions of the 1934 scheme, by reason of the fact that they had retired from the service. Now I want to emphasize one point: if the scheme in which it was intended to bring these teachers under pension rights had not been held up and delayed, they would have that right. They had the years of service, but unfortunately through this delay they were debarred. When this was pointed out to the Minister and his Department officials at the conference, we were promised tacitly that they would be considered if the number was not too great. I was not in a position at the time, neither was the I.N.T.O., to say exactly what the number was, but we knew that it could not be very large. The convent teachers who were concerned were confined principally to the cities and that would not mean very many, and we were told that if the number was not large there was a possibility that they would be brought in.
The scheme was introduced and passed and they were not brought in, and some time afterwards, when I met the Minister on a deputation, I inquired as to the fate of those teachers and he said that the number was so small that it was not worth bothering about it. But now it is worth bothering about three. As I said at the outset, I have no objection to that, but I would like that the Minister would consider even now the claims of this very small number of very deserving teachers who have given very long and faithful service to the community. I have said that the reason they had not pension rights was that there was a certain penal enactment against them, that because they were in convent schools which were run by religious orders they were thereby debarred from having pension rights.
I tried to amend this scheme in some way, to bring these in, but unfortunately the Rules of the House did not allow me to mention the particular case in the scheme. I would appeal to the Minister very strongly to recognise that their cases are equally deserving of consideration as the cases that are under consideration at the moment. I would appeal to him to make provision for them—and that can be done easily and quickly—whereby these teachers will have pension rights for the few remaining years of their lives. Another argument that can be put forward is that when these teachers gave their services they received very small salaries and were not able to make any provi&ion for old age, on account of the meagre salaries they received from the then Government, and in that way I am afraid that many of them are in destitute circumstances. They have a case equally as strong as that of the three who are being considered under this scheme. They have given service to the nation; they had to exist on small salaries; many of them are now in destitute circumstances, and they were hopeful, when this amended scheme was announced in the Press, that their cases would be considered and provision made for them. I do not think it is too late to appeal to the Minister to take their cases into consideration. Of course, in 1934 and 1935 the number was between 50 and 60, but death has taken away many of them, and the number is now very small, and the cost would not be great. In any case, the justice of the matter should outweigh the consideration of the cost, and I would appeal to the Minister to take them into consideration and see if he could not, either under this scheme or under some other scheme, bring them in and give them the pension rights that they would have now but for the delay in the original scheme in 1934.
