An bhfuil an tAire chun labhairt?
Private Deputies' Business. - Retired Teachers' Pensions—Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion by Deputies M. O'Sullivan and T. O Murchadha:
Being of opinion that the provisions made for the payment of pensions to retired national school teachers have been totally inadequate, and that in existing circumstances, due to the substantial depreciation in the value of money, their present rate of pension is in most cases obviously insufficient to satisfy their reasonable needs, this House requests the Government to revise the scale of pensions with a view to making proper provision for the retired teachers.
B'fhearr liom fanacht.
B'fhearr linn an tAire do chloisint. Tá a lán ráite cheana.
It would be better to hear the views of the House first.
It is the views of the Minister which count.
The views of the House were very well put by the mover and supporter of the motion and the House is entitled to hear the Minister before carrying on the debate.
Very well. In reply to a Dáil Question some two years ago in which reference was made to the position of teacher pensioners and others, the Minister for Finance stated that he was not hopeful of being able to afford any measure of financial relief to pensioners of the classes referred to in the question. Since then, I have answered a number of similar questions, the latest being one from Deputy Alfred Byrne on the 23rd January, when I said: "As the Deputy will appreciate, the claims of retired national teachers for increased pensions could not be considered alone and apart from similar claims by other classes of superannuated public servants. Any question of improving their position would necessarily depend on the Government deciding to review the question of pensions generally and no such decision has been taken." In proposing the motion, Deputy O'Sullivan said that he had no doubt my reply would be that it would be impossible to deal with the case of teacher pensioners without dealing with other classes of pensioners. He suggested that that was not an answer but there was confirmation of the fact that that is a good answer when we had Deputy Keyes informing us that he felt, that although teacher pensioners were a deserving class, there were other classes who were equally deserving.
"I do not suggest"—he said—"they form the most deserving section but I do say that the retired national school teachers are comparatively the most deserving. I have had occasion to talk on behalf of some other deserving sections of our citizens to whom I cannot refer to-night except in passing—I mean the old age pensioners, the blind and the widows and orphans. If the Government do not see their way to increase the miserable stipend on which these unfortunate people are living, I cannot see very much hope for the teachers."
So Deputy Keyes assures us that he would not be satisfied if by any chance it were possible to do what Deputy O'Sullivan seems to imply, though perhaps he did not state it definitely, that the teacher pensioners could be dealt with separately. Deputy Keyes went on to say that there was a special case for these teacher pensioners, that they were robbed in 1934 when the present arrangements regarding their pensions were made. I pointed out to him that "robbed" was a very strong expression. Apparently, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, it is not regarded as unparliamentary. Perhaps the statement that we put the money into our pockets was more objectionable than the statement that we had robbed the fund.
The position is that the income from the investments which made up the teachers' fund, the total investment income, amounts to about £82,700 per annum, but the additional amount which is required for the superannuation of national teachers has increased steadily, from £243,000 approximately in 1934-35 to £331,666 in 1945-46. That is over and above the income from the investment fund, so that the income represents only a sum of roughly £83,000 as against a State contribution of from £243,000 to the 1945-46 figure of £332,000 approximately. The total cost of pensions, adding together the income from investments and the State's subvention, comes to £414,366 in 1945-46.
As a result of the new scales which have been introduced, or which will be in operation shortly, for national teachers, there will be an extra charge for teachers' pensions over and above the figure of £414,000 to which I referred, which is the figure appearing in the Estimates; and eventually the increased burden cast upon the taxpayer as a result of the new scales will be no less than £180,000 per annum. That will not be for a considerable time, but there will be an immediate increase of £12,000, mounting in three years' time to £31,000. That shows that the superannuation for national teachers is a very considerable sum of money and, in view of all the statements to which I have just been listening, regarding the way in which the £15,000 or £20,000 for a new school in the Institute of Higher Studies could be more usefully spent, I wonder that Deputies who are concerned with the heavy taxation upon the country and the burden that the taxpayer has to bear can reconcile themselves to increasing the superannuation burden, which is already very substantial—in the £400,000 range for national teachers.
A great number of demands have been made upon the Government recently, and whether the scales which we gave the primary and secondary teachers were satisfactory in every respect or not, one thing is certain. As the Taoiseach reminded the House in his speech a short time ago, increases in these large national services run into very, very large—in fact, astronomical —sums of money. The increases in these two particular cases come to about £1,500,000, leaving out the additional increase in superannuation as a result. During the past year, the Government has been dealing with these demands for increased remuneration for teachers, for Gardaí, for the Army and for civil servants. Reference was made this evening to the very large sum of money sought by the National University for capital expenditure, as well as an increase in the annual grants from the Exchequer. These are only some of the demands that are being made on the Government.
We have had resolutions recently, here—motions in Private Members' time—demanding increases in old age pensions and in widows' and orphans' pensions. The Minister for Social Welfare has pointed out that an increase, to be worth while at all, in the case of old age pensioners would cost £1,000,000. I have a great deal of sympathy with the teacher pensioners, and would like to do what I can to alleviate their situation. I know some of them are in distress and are finding it very hard to carry on, but I am also aware that, even if I could persuade the Government and the Minister for Finance to deal specially with the teacher pensioners, that would only be acclaimed by the House as an additional reason, if further reason were needed, for dealing with all the other classes of pensioners. Deputies who are honest with themselves will admit that that is the position, that the moment the Government even suggests it is going to deal with one particular class of pensioner—whether it be those on superannuation as being former public servants or those receiving amounts through social services—it will certainly increase enormously the clamour and demand that the same should be done all along.
We have about 3,000 national teacher pensioners, about 2,000 Civil Service pensioners, about 1,300 Garda Síochána, and some 550 dismissed and resigned Royal Irish Constabulary. The ex-national teachers are only a proportion of those who would call to be dealt with immediately, so far as those who are on the Superannuation Vote for the different Government Departments are concerned.
We also have very large numbers of other pensioners. The old age pensioners and blind pensioners amount to almost 150,000. There are nearly 37,000 widows and orphans and we hear it stated that these two latter classes are by far the worst off and that, if anyone is going to be dealt with in any of these categories, not alone must these two classes, the aged and blind and the widows and orphans, be not neglected but they must be the first to be dealt with.
It is stated that, by reason of the fact that the value of money has changed, the Government is bound to deal with the matter of those in receipt of superannuation from State sources. In the case of those in their direct employment, the State has, perhaps, a particular obligation to see that they do not suffer unnecessarily, in so far as it can be provided against within the resources at its disposal. The Government is bound to try to prevent hardship accruing to those directly in its employment. In the case of some of these like the civil servant, certain classes of the Civil Service, they were able to say that there was a particular agreement, a legal agreement even, applying to their case, and, on the ground of equity, honour and promises made, they were able to make a case which perhaps other classes, even of those receiving superannuation, could not make. I think the Government in its dealing with the Civil Service recognised that and went further, because it felt that they had that particular type of claim, to try to meet their demands than it would have gone in other circumstances.
But with regard to pensioners, whether they be Civil Service, Garda or national teacher pensioners, the position is that they are drawing the pension which accrued to them as a result of the number of years' service they gave. They are getting that pension to which they contributed and to which the State contributed its share. It is now suggested that because of a change in the value of money and of circumstances over which the Government or the State could have no control—circumstances which nobody can control —this contract should go by the board. It seems to me that the legal contract, so far as the Government is concerned, is fulfilled when the pension accruing to the pensioner when he leaves the service is paid to him. That is the legal position.
If we are to have the case made that, in respect of each one of these classes of pensioners, the whole position so far as their pensions are affected by the rising costs and the change in the value of money will have to be reviewed in turn, and, presumably, if the review takes place, with a view to increasing them to something which will compensate them for the increases which have taken place, it means that huge sums of money will have to be found and there is no legal ground put forward—there is not even a very strong case made, because it is not suggested, even by those who are most warmly in favour of the motion, that all these pensioners are in the same class—for doing that. The case being made is that some of them are in distress, but nobody who has spoken on these lines has ventured to say where the line of distress should be drawn.
It is said that a certain number are in receipt of small pensions, which is quite true, but is it suggested that a means test should be applied to this small class, that they should be dealt with and that everybody in receipt of a pension over a certain figure, say, £52 per year, should be ignored?
I imagine that since the Deputies who are pressing for concessions of this kind do not always feel the responsibility to the taxpayer which they have tried to make us believe they had during the past few hours when talking on the matter of the institute, they will, with a generous gesture, suggest that all pensioners, even those who are receiving perhaps enough to maintain them in some reasonable condition, should be included—that they could not be excluded and the concession confined to a particular class.
There is the difficulty the Government has in dealing with this matter— the difficulty of dealing with one particular class of pensioner and leaving out the others. If one class is dealt with, all the others will, presumably, have to be dealt with, and one of the first classes which would call for attention would be the old age and blind pensioners, and it would cost, as I have mentioned, at least £1,000,000 to give any reasonable contribution. The second point is that there is no means by which, if you admit the principle that all these persons who are in receipt of the statutory pension to which they were entitled under the law are to have some of their cases reviewed, it would be possible to say to any one section in that class that its case should not also be examined.
Having regard to all the other demands made upon the State, the enormously increased cost of housing and all other constructional work and of schemes for the provision of employment which the Government is anxious to go ahead with—large schemes like the rural electrification scheme, for example—and the enormous increase in the cost of materials, the Minister for Finance, who will already have to bear an addition of some millions of pounds by virtue of the increase given to public servants, will have to examine carefully how far he can go and whether he can enter into this field of the superannuated person at all.
It is assumed in these discussions that these pensioners were treated very badly, that the pay they received over a long period was very bad and that their pensions at present in certain cases are also very poor. Actually, the total number of teacher pensioners who are pensioned on the pre-1920 rate, is only 93. Out of a total number of pensioned teachers of 3,114, only 93, a very small percentage, are pensioned on the pre-1920 rate. The average length of time, I believe, which a pensioner lives in receipt of his pension is about 15 years. It is well known that the expectation of life has increased— any insurance official will tell you that the expectation of life has increased— and that, combined with the increased cost of the individual pension, has merely increased the burden upon the State. It is one of the reasons why the peak of the superannuation for national teachers will rise to £500,000 and above within a period of years.
Persons who entered the public service are paid reasonably well, and, during the period of their employment, they are supposed to receive remuneration that will enable them to bring up their families, look after their household wants and live in reasonable comfort. By the time a person has reached the age of 65, he or she, in all probability, has a good many of his or her responsibilities over. The education of children and the providing of clothing and food has probably been covered by that time. Unless that person got married at a rather advanced age from the marriage point of view, we must assume that, at the age of 65, the liabilities and responsibilities of a person who has brought up a family are not as great as they were in the 40's.
We must also assume that those persons who are paid reasonably good remuneration, who have the advantage of security and, in the eyes of the public, comparatively good positions, are not entirely dependent on the pension they draw at the end of their service. It is no secret that in most of the rural parishes the teacher is looked upon as the best-off civilian and perhaps he may compete even with the clergy in remuneration.
The Minister thinks the clergy are very well remunerated?
I do not say they are. I say it may be said that the teacher is receiving as much remuneration.
Do you think that would be adequate to support a wife and family?
I am referring rather to the social aspect of it, that the teacher is referred to in a good many parishes as the best-off person in the parish. That is frequently stated. If it is not so, then it can be disproved. No doubt there are parishes where it is not the position. I said that teachers who were in constant employment, in pensionable posts, and in receipt of good remuneration during a long period of service are not depending entirely on the pension they draw at the end. If they are reasonably provident, they must be able to put something aside, even allowing for the expenditure of educating children.
What salary had the teachers 30 years ago when rearing the children?
I said that there are very few of these teachers in receipt of pensions at the present time—only about 90. It is wrong to assume from the figures I have given here in reply to questions, stating the number of teachers in receipt of pensions, for example, not exceeding £52 per annum, that all these teachers gave full service. Some of them did not give full service. Some of them may be in receipt of disability pensions. They may not have given anything like the full service, but they are getting whatever was appropriate under the superannuation regulations.
A very large class of junior assistant mistresses were not pensionable at all until 1934. These were a class of untrained teachers who were brought in under the old régime to act as assistants in small country schools. It was expected that that arrangement would not continue indefinitely, that at some time they would be replaced by trained teachers or that some other arrangement would be made. These junior assistant mistresses remained on, however. Many of them were married and their families were depending a good deal on their remuneration. They only got two-thirds of their past service in 1934. There was no contract with them. There was no expectation that they would ever be made pensionable and we thought it a fair arrangement in the circumstances, when the State was taking over the whole of the pension liability and was to be responsible for a burden of £500,000, to give them two-thirds of their past service. They are in the class of persons in receipt of small pensions. A very small number, as I have said, were on the pre-1920 rates. You have a fairly large class who were not pensionable at all until 1934 and you have also those who, either through disability or for some other reason, had not the service to give them the full pension.
I desire to support this motion. The Minister has shown that the Government are receding from a problem that is heartrending and is rather big. As the Minister has indicated and Deputy Keyes stated, it is quite true that there are other classes that require some kind of assistance and help as well as the class mentioned in this motion. There are a number of motions on the Order Paper drawing attention to that fact. Motion No. 8, in the names of Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Costello, asks for the establishment of a bonus related to the cost of living in connection with the smaller pensions.
Motion No. 9, in the names of Deputy Costello and Deputy O'Higgins, deals with the question of removing the means test in respect of certain aspects of the income of old age and blind pensioners. Motion No. 12, in the names of Deputy Morrissey, Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Coburn, asks that old age and blind pensions should be raised by 5/- per week. These are only instances of the very poor social circumstances of a very large number of our old people, so large that the Minister is afraid the Government will not be able to deal with them.
The Minister wound up his speech on the new school in the Institute of Advanced Studies by expressing the hope that in the dark days through which Europe is passing we will be found to be the bright light carrying hope, faith and learning through the whole of the stricken world. If we are to be that light, then we must have nothing on our consciences, we must have nothing eating away our morale. We have been told to-day of the tremendous advantage it would be to examine the physical elements of the universe and to utilise the forces in the physical elements of the universe to bring peace and prosperity to our people and strengthen their spiritual life. Is there nothing in our human elements and in our spiritual elements that, if properly looked after, might not be as powerful to bring about decent material conditions here and strengthen the people's spiritual capacity so as to make our country a place worth living in?
The problem that this motion asks the Minister to deal with is one that shows there is something fundamentally rotten which is undermining our national character and institutions. We are dealing with teachers. The Minister has indicated what the teacher means to our country and to the work that must be done in the difficult days in the future for our country. Similar work was done in difficult days in the past. If our future is to depend to a large degree on the work done by teachers, on what did the work of yesterday depend? We are fond of talking of the 1916 Rising. What was that called? A schoolmaster's rising. Is it not a fact that the education, the character and the training that enabled our people to go through difficult days stretching from 1916 to 1922 and 1923 came from our school rooms and from our homes? Did the teacher contribute less to the building up of the strength and character and intelligence of the country at that particular time than the Minister expects that he will do to-morrow?
In column 2648 of the Dáil Debates, 27th April, 1945, I re-quoted from a speech made two years earlier by the Minister at an annual congress of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, in University College, Dublin. I quote from the column.
The Minister said:
"We must equip ourselves to meet post-war trade competition and, at the same time, not only maintain our present standards but raise them progressively in every sphere of national life: education, social service, agriculture, industry and commerce. To accomplish this, we must plan carefully and methodically and, in particular, must train the youth to take their place in the nation's advance. Education and training of over 70 per cent. of those whose work would be carried out on the farms, factories, shops and offices, would in the future be either mainly or entirely in the teachers' hands and the work of all other schools would depend on them, since their task was the basic one, the laying of a solid foundation, without which no specialist super-structure could be built or maintained. It is not too much to say, therefore, that the future development of our country would depend on your leadership —that is the leadership of the national school teachers—more than on that of any other body. What was the essential task of such leadership? The giving to the coming generation of a keen sense of social service, such a feeling for the community, such knowledge of it, such grasp of its continuity, its profound values, its inherited obligations as would enable that generation which now look to the teachers for inspiration to face the tremendous task of shaping the new Ireland. No greater duty has been laid on any body of men and women than the one laid on you—a heavier task than is laid on the shoulders of any other teachers in the world in that, in addition to the great task of education you have been asked to perform, another equally heavy task has been given to you such as no other body of primary teachers has been asked to carry, the rescue of the greatest heritage of our race, our native language. It is a terrific task, a task one might say for supermen, that we have undertaken."
If that description can be given of the teachers to-day, facing to-morrow, could a less exalted description be given of the teachers who taught the generation that, after so many years of struggle, established a State in this country and preserved it during all the vicissitudes, internal and external, that this country has gone through since 1916? The Minister is not going to say that the teachers of pre-1916 did not strengthen and establish the character of our people and that they have not a particular right, if you like, through some of their leaders, to have the Rising called a schoolmasters' Rising.
The mover of the motion has indicated that in the case of 143 of them they get between 20/- and 30/- a week; in the case of 218 they get between 30/- and 40/- a week; in the case of 700 they get between 40/- and 50/- a week. That money has to be divided by three to show what it means to the teachers of 20 years ago in terms of the salaries they were receiving then. We regard ourselves as being a Catholic and a Christian country and, if we did not, we would not dare to hold ourselves up, in difficult days to-day, as a people likely to carry any light or guidance to a stricken world. Can we regard ourselves as a Catholic or Christian community if we feel that our old people to-day, whether they are teachers who have helped to establish and build up the State through their work, or people who have worked in any other walk of life, cannot stay at home with peaceful minds, seeing their life ebbing out but satisfied, through God's grace, with the working of their lives and satisfied that in the community around them and the care the community takes of them that God's Providence is around them, enabling them to end their days with peaceful, tranquil minds, with no loss of dignity in their personal position or surroundings?
The fundamental weakness in this country to-day that is disturbing our consciences and undermining our energies is, that judged by these standards, we are not a Catholic and Christian people although we have had a sovereign State for the last 25 years, with full control of our destiny, and have been able to escape the fearful ravages of war that have fallen on other people. Great Britain has been through a ghastly, costly, and most destructive war. Is there any old person in Great Britain who is in the same position as some of our old teachers are in to-day?
No.
British members of Parliament have been writing to representatives in this country saying that they would increase some of the pensions that they owe to some of our people here if the Irish Government would not step in and reduce the payments that they are making to their own citizens to the extent to which the British Government would be prepared to pay increased pensions. Documentary evidence of that can be given to the Minister and the Government. It is because this motion puts its hand on a shocking weakness that is degrading to us and destroying our energy and courage, and cutting the ground from under our people, who want to stand as some kind of ray of light and hope to the stricken people of the world, that I ask the House to support it.
Many of us have heard from time to time the criticism, if you like, of some of our race that finds itself on the lips of Irish speakers when they say: "Fuilingeochaidh fuil fuil dhá ghortú ach ní fhuilingeochaidh fuil fuil dhá dhortadh"—that is to say, that we are appalled when we see blood spilt before our eyes but we are unmoved while poverty, distress and ignominy destroy both the soul and the body of an individual or class here and there. There is to-day blood being spilt by famine and blood being spilt by distress, misery and humiliation in the case of old people who have done their work for this country and who now find themselves in the position in which their personal dignity is destroyed or their peace of mind is disturbed. They are in want and hunger and they wonder what Christianity or what Catholicity can mean when vigorous people around them, whose national income has been increased between 1938 and 1944 from £154,000,000 to £252,000,000 or more—nearly 70 per cent.—can leave them in that position while we can build up schools of cosmic physics to measure how far it is from here to the stars. Contemplation of cosmic matters has exaggerated the idea of distance in the minds of the Ministers and the Government generally and the members of the Government Party. They are closer to their people than they imagine. They cannot take their consciences or their responsibilities as far away from their people as the stars. Your responsibilities are in front of you and the responsibility of looking after these people is on your heads.
The Minister uses as his main argument against this motion the rather despicable argument that if we increase the pensions of teachers mentioned in the motion we must increase the pensions of the aged and the blind, that his colleague says that if we increase the pensions of the aged and the blind we must increase the pensions of the old teachers, and that, therefore, we will do nothing for either one or the other. The Minister was not quite so eloquent or so comfortable in replying to this motion as when he was trying to father the Taoiseach's child half an hour ago. The Minister was so enthusiastic that, whether the new school of cosmic physics was to cost £15,000 or £1,500,000, he was all out for it.
No.
Of course he was.
Nonsense.
It was not a matter of money—the Minister made that clear. If we could not afford a school of cosmic physics, for what did we get our freedom? Why did we not remain where we were? Was not that the Minister's argument? Let me put this to the Minister. If we can afford only destitution and misery for those who have given good service to this State, for what do we want freedom? Not only might the old and the blind ask that question, but the quarter of a million people who had to fly out of the country might also ask what did we want freedom for, or what had it brought to them.
They had not to fly at all.
May I remind the Minister of the fact that a quarter of a million of them did go and, after 15 years of his Government, there are still 70,000 people lining up at the labour exchanges? They could not fly away. We cannot give any consideration to the pensioners, to the old teachers who are living on pensions the purchasing value of which, in respect of a great number of them, is not more than 10/- a week. We cannot find the money necessary to increase by one penny what Lloyd George gave to the blind and the aged in this country. But we can find over £4,500,000 or £10,000,000 for an Army whenever circumstances require it.
Whether they do or not.
We cannot put roofs on the schools, but we can build grand new military barracks by the side of the Curragh near the town of Kildare, and we can make provision for further new barracks in Limerick. We cannot increase the teachers' pensions by one shilling or the pensions of the blind and the aged, but we can increase taxation by £30,000,000 a year.
The Minister talks about this country, its education, its Celtic culture, the necessity of showing to the world our taste in the fine arts, and our pictures and our books. We have a lot of social sores in this country that we ought to be ashamed to let ourselves see, not to mind the rest of the world, and this motion and other motions on the Paper are put down in order to try to heal some of those unsightly sores and to redress some of the grave injustices that exist. Respect for learning, respect for teaching! Those who gave good service, under more difficult conditions than obtain to-day, trying to educate the people, are on such a level of existence that they are little better than mendicants, little better than beggars.
The Minister talks about the teachers and tells us that when they come to the age of 65 years, having reared and educated their children and placed them, not only have they shed their responsibilities, but they have a balance in the bank. The Minister has had some close touch with the teaching profession and his own experience ought to prove to him that many of the teachers, when they reach 65 years, having reared and educated their children, find themselves not with a balance to their credit, but with a pretty heavy load of debt. There are many of them in the hands of moneylenders, and that is well known.
The Minister ought not to get as far away, as he appears to be according to his talk, from the facts of life; he ought not to have such a short memory. He talks glibly about people rearing and educating their families on £200 or £300 a year. He knows that it cannot be done; nobody knows better and, therefore, the Minister is not speaking the full truth when he gives utterance to statements such as he made to-night.
Can this country afford to give a decent livelihood to its citizens, or can it not? If it cannot, is there not something wrong? What about Nero fiddling while Rome burned? We are going to carry the light to the ends of the earth! All we are doing is sending our unfortunate population, a big section of them, to the ends of the earth. That is the light we are carrying, and we are sending them from the two extremes, the uneducated leaving the national schools and the educated leaving the National University. The only difference is this, that a bigger proportion of those who leave the National University have to go out of the country to get a livelihood than of those who leave the national schools. Is that not a plain statement of the position in this country? I challenge the Minister or any member of his Party to deny that. There is an old saying about fools having their eyes on the ends of the earth. Listening to the Taoiseach and to the Minister to-night, one was very forcibly reminded of that.
The Minister scoffed at the educational capacity of some of those who dared to criticise him. I am rather proud of the fact that I am one of those who, after his day's work in the national school, voluntarily and without fee or reward, taught himself and a number of others like him in a night school. I think people who do that are entitled at least to a living in their own State. There is more cant and humbug and hypocrisy in this country than there is probably in any other country on the face of God's earth. There is more pretence about our Christianity, about our desire for the welfare of our people, and our aping to be as good as the best in the world.
The Taoiseach told us what he would like to do for the teachers and for national education. We know quite well what has been done. Those are the people with whom we are dealing to-night, the people who gave 80 per cent. of the school-going population whatever little education they got. They did good work.
Sometimes, for various reasons, many people seek to claim credit for establishing the first native Government here. I think if that claim can be granted to any section of our people it can be granted to the teachers, many of whom are covered by the motion now before the House.
We have heard everything that could possibly be said on both sides of this question, from the point of view of the national teachers who have been pensioned for years and from the point of view of the Government, whose responsibility it is to provide for people who are so unfortunately circumstanced as not to be able to make ends meet. One remark made by the Minister makes me feel that he is open to move to some little degree to meet the demands put forward in this motion. I refer to his query as to where the line of distress should be drawn. I remember in 1945, when speaking on the Education Estimates, I pointed out the position of these old national teachers, the men and women who taught Deputies of this House most of what they ever learned at school. I pointed out that some of them at that time were in receipt of a pension or income of less than £100 a year and I suggested to the Minister that those people whose pensions were less than £100 a year should have the pension raised at least to that figure. I do not for a moment suggest that an ex-teacher enjoying a pension of over £100 a year is living in opulence but, having thrown out that suggestion almost two years ago, I repeat it now. I should like to remind the Minister that when speaking in this House in the debate on the motion in connection with the teachers' strike, he said that if the strike were called off at that time it would not be his fault if the best relations did not exist between the Government, himself as the Minister responsible for education, on the one side and the teachers on the other. Replying to a question since in this House the Minister informed us that something like £170,000 or £180,000 was saved to the Exchequer as a result of the teachers' strike. As one whose teachers are still alive, thank God, and who shall always have the fondest memories of the days he spent with those teachers, as one who knows the privations suffered by pensioned teachers who have less than £100 a year, I would seriously suggest to the Minister, now that he is given the opportunity, that he should implement his suggestion of last October by devoting the money which was saved to the Exchequer by the strike towards increasing the pensions of those men and women who have less than £100 a year.
I wish to support this motion for two reasons. The first reason is that the number of pensioned teachers is so small, and they are such a small section of the community, that they are nobody's children. That fact, in itself, prompts me to support their case. The pensions on which they are endeavouring to eke out the remaining years of their lives are absolutely miserable. There is also the fact that because of their social standing in various localities they are compelled to hide their poverty. That, in itself, makes this demand all the more urgent. I want to assure the Minister that when former pupils of these pensioned teachers who have gone to take up residence in other countries, read in American and English papers of the glorious country that Ireland is and when later they visit this country and discover their old teachers, for whom they have the greatest respect, in the dire poverty which some of them are undergoing, these former pupils will think very differently of the freedom we are enjoying here. They certainly will not have the same view as the Minister, that these ex-teachers are living in the lap of luxury. While it is true that in recent years the salaries of teachers have been brought up to a fairly reasonable level, in former years when these old pensioned teachers entered the service, the salaries were very small and, as Deputy Morrissey has pointed out, teachers in those days could not save anything from their salaries. I know the national teacher in my own locality in his efforts to make ends meet on a very small salary had to turn out after a hard day's work in the schools, to labour on a little bit of land or in the bog. He has gone to his reward, but if he were alive to-day, trying to exist on the pension which he would get, I am afraid he would have a very miserable existence in the closing years of his life.
The second reason I wish to support this motion arises from the rather nasty attitude the Minister has revealed in his refusal to meet this demand. That is to say, he is playing off one class against another. I am referring now particularly to the case of the old age pensioners and widows and orphans. Just as the Minister for Finance used that argument in the case of the old age pensioners, the Minister now uses the argument that if one class were given increased pensions, there would be a clamour, to use the Minister's words, among other classes. Let us suppose there is a clamour. As has been pointed out by some previous speaker, if our freedom is worth a pin, and if there are classes in the community who are to be condemned to finish up their days in poverty and penury, there must be something radically wrong with our internal system. The very young and the very old should be the first care of any decent-minded man in this Assembly. We have a huge bill for taxation each year. This is a comparatively wealthy country beyond any shadow of doubt and yet we have many classes who are faced with the prospect of finishing up their days in poverty. That should not be the case. It reminds me of the treatment meted out by an English farmer to a labourer from my part of the country who had served this farmer for the best part of his life. When that poor labourer reached 60 or 65 years of age the farmer said to him: "You can go now, you have gone beyond your best and you can finish up your days where you like." That is exactly the way that the Government is treating the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and the pensioned teachers.
The number of pensioned teachers is small and that is all the more reason why their case should be raised in the Dáil. There is the habit of by-passing minorities, and as this class is a very small minority that is all the more reason for bringing their grievances before the Dáil. We were asked to-day to vote a sum of money for the School of Advanced Studies. I am not opposed to advanced studies or to a higher or better system of education, but I am opposed to the members of the Government deliberately closing their eyes to more urgent problems that should be receiving their attention. They should come down out of the clouds. With regard to some of those more urgent problems, may I refer to one, though perhaps in doing so I may not be quite in order. I wish that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance would put half as much energy into the important question of drainage as they have put into this question of higher studies, because drainage is one of those problems that vitally affect the lives of thousands and thousands of our people. When, however, it comes to doing serious business, that does not seem to count at all. Let us have a School of Advanced Studies and, by the way, let me say that there is employed in that school a man who tells us that the whole human race is descended from apes.
On a point of order, I think the Deputy should withdraw that statement.
If the Minister can show me that it is not true that the statement was made, I will do so.
I think the Deputy should be made prove the statement or withdraw it. I do not believe the statement is true. When he alleges that a certain statement was made by a scholar then, at least, he ought to quote the exact statement.
If the Minister says it is not true that the statement was made then I will withdraw it.
The Deputy has made the statement accusing a person of saying that the human race is descended from apes. I do not think he should make that accusation.
I have asked the Minister a question. If he says it is not true I will accept that. I will then withdraw it and apologise to the person in question.
The Deputy has said that a certain professor, not named, had made a certain statement.
When the person has not been named, how can the statement be said to fit that person?
He can be easily identified and I think the Deputy had better withdraw it. I want the Deputy to withdraw the statement.
Why?
In deference to the Chair, I withdraw it, but I want to ask the Minister is it not a fact that a professor in the School of Advanced Studies has written a booklet to the effect that such is the case? I will apologise to the Minister and to the whole School of Advanced Studies if the Minister assures me that that is not so.
The Deputy must withdraw it unconditionally.
I withdraw it. In regard to this particular matter the Minister has taken up a despicable attitude. He says that, if the pensioned teachers get an increase, you will have other classes of the community, such as the old age pensioners, clamouring for increases. Are we to be told that because one class will not starve and go to the grave that that is a reason for fearing that we would have other classes clamouring for increases? We are spending large sums at the present time which the average man and woman down the country cannot understand, and for which there has been no explanation from the Government Bench. We are to spend £4,500,000 on the Army during the coming year. The people did not object to big expenditure on the Army during the emergency. Before I came into the Dáil the Minister for Defence asked for £11,000,000 to spend on the Defence Forces. If he had asked for £22,000,000 to spend on the Army during the emergency he would have got it cheerfully, but now that peace has been restored, and since we have no aggressor nation troubling us, why should there be this huge expenditure on an Army here? Out of the huge annual expenditure of £52,000,000 a year, the pensioned teachers, the old age pensioners and the widows and orphans are surely deserving of something.
In my opinion, there is something radically wrong with Government policy. Major problems are being let go by the board, while the Government is devoting all its attention to things that are not so important. That is scandalous and is deserving of the severest condemnation from Deputies. Surely we are not going to shelter ourselves behind the suggestion that if we give an increase in this case, we will have to give it to other sections of the community. All those people are in need through no fault of their own. The purchasing value of the pound has gone down to 11/-. That means that what those pensioners are receiving has been reduced to a miserably small sum. I think it is time for the Government to come down out of the clouds and look at some of the urgent problems that are around us and that need to be dealt with.
Mr. Corish
Usually, when motions are brought forward asking for an increase in pensions or wages for different sections of the community, we get from the Ministers speeches such as that which was made by the Minister for Education to-night. He said that there are more deserving sections of the community than the pensioned teachers in need of increases. The Minister must admit that the pensioned teachers are his responsibility. He very frequently reminds us that he has no responsibility except for his own Department. Surely he has responsibility either for recommending or refusing an increase to these pensioned teachers. When he tells us that old age pensioners, widows and orphans, blind pensioners and other sections of the community are more deserving of increases than the pensioned teachers, will he or any other member of the Cabinet tell us where these increases are to begin? Last night the Minister for Social Welfare did not hold out much hope of an increase for the old age pensioners. He said that to give an increase of 2/6 to the old age pensioners would cost the country £1,000,000. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Will the debate be resumed to-morrow?
I presume so.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 14th February, 1947.