I think it would be a pity if that position were now to be departed from and I am sure that the Minister himself appreciates that such a departure would render the difficult relationship that already exists in this House still more difficult in the future if members could not accept an assurance given by a Minister in respect of an amendment tabled to a Bill.
In this particular case I had tabled a number of amendments to the provisions of the Social Welfare Bill. That Bill was recommitted on the 21st May in order to have some of these amendments considered. I do not think it is necessary to read the amendments in question; suffice to say that they were intended to ensure that certain categories which were already covered or which did not require to be covered because of circumstances governing their particular cases would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Among the categories I had in mind were the teachers. At column 2042 of the Official Report of 21st May, 1952, I said:—
"I think the matter is one which affects teachers in particular. The majority of them do not want to be included in the provisions of the Bill inasmuch as the benefits they would pay would be completely disproportionate to the advantages they would receive by reason of the fact that they already have security of tenure, are paid during sickness and have a pension scheme of their own. I appeal to the Minister to accept a provision of the nature suggested."
Deputy Norton spoke immediately after and referred to earlier references that had been made to this question on the consideration, I think, of Section 12 of the Bill on the Committee Stage and added:—
"I asked the Minister to have that discussion with the Finance people and let us know what the position was so that the matter could then be reviewed in the light of the Minister's promise, not only to have the matter looked into but to remedy the position. In fact his statement in that debate constitutes an assurance that these classes would be excluded. Would the Minister nowsay what the position is in that respect?"
The Minister replied and, in replying, he said:—
"The intention is to exclude certain classes—civil servants, local authority employees, national and secondary teachers and certain members of the Defence Forces. I shall deal with these classes first."
The Minister went on to deal with these different categories separately, but he did not deal with the teachers separately and at column 2044 he said:—
"The only point that presents any difficulty is in the case of widows' and orphans' pensions in relation to established civil servants."
He made it quite clear there that the only difficulty lay in regard to widows' and orphans' pensions in relation to established civil servants. He was dealing with each class separately. He then dealt with certain general provisions I had proposed by way of amendment, and at column 2046 he said:—
"I would ask Deputy MacBride, therefore, to leave things as they are on the assurance that I would like to see schemes of this kind, and if they are put up there will be agreement as far as I am concerned."
A certain discussion then took place between the Minister, Deputy Norton and Deputy Hickey and again, to make assurance doubly sure, at column 2049 —there had been a certain amount of questioning backwards and forwards across the floor of the House—I asked the Minister:—
"National teachers are definitely to be exempted from the scheme?
Dr. Ryan: Yes."
There was no qualification, no hesitation and no doubt about it. At column 2050, I then pointed out:—
"The Minister has met the position fairly .... I will, therefore, withdraw and ask the Minister to consider providing for that position."
I finished by saying that I would withdraw my amendment and ask the Minister to consider providing forthat position; in other words, to bring in an amendment which would exempt members of trade unions where they so required to be exempted.
On the reading of that debate, I think there can be no doubt that the Minister has given a clear-cut assurance that the teachers would be excluded from the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. In reply to my question to-day the Minister said that at column 2051, I think, he stated that he was in favour of covering certain classes, including teachers, for widows' and orphans' pensions. I do not think that meaning can be wrenched from what was said in that particular column. Most of the column in question is taken up by some comments made by Deputy Norton. Deputy Norton was anxious to ensure at that stage that certain categories, including teachers, would be entitled to coverage if they so desired, but the Minister had already given me an assurance, on foot of which I had withdrawn the amendment I had tabled, that he did not propose to include the teachers. I think that whatever considerations and whatever misunderstanding the Minister may have been under at the time, it is quite clear that he apparently did not seem to have appreciated the position, or he may have met with some difficulties in the Department of Finance subsequently. None of these considerations should permit the Minister now to go back on what was a clear undertaking to a Deputy of this House who had tabled a motion and who, on foot of that undertaking given by the Minister, withdrew the amendment. The workings of this House ought not to be made more difficult than they are. I would feel, in future, that I could never accept an undertaking from the Minister or any other member of the Government. God knows, relations are difficult enough as it is. I would urge upon the Minister, if for no other consideration than that one, to carry out the undertaking which was given.
The matter, I think, cannot be of very much importance to the Minister, and I think it hardly bears examination. There are 10,700 teachers, 7,000 of whom are women. As the Houseknows, women teachers, as soon as they get married, have to leave and cease to be teachers. The marriage ban operates against them. Therefore, as teachers they can never become widows and, therefore, never have orphans. They are excluded. As far as the married man is concerned, the average age for marriage among the teachers is 30, and most teachers of that age are in receipt of £600. Therefore, the vast majority of them cannot benefit either. The single man does not benefit unless he gets married, and when he gets married his income limit puts him out of the scheme.
In effect, the resulting position is that 90 per cent. of the teachers will be paying a contribution of 9d. per week which will be deducted from their salaries and they will have no hope of ever being entitled to any benefit. In effect, this amounts to a tax on their salaries, a tax from which they get no return. It would be a complete fraud to describe that as insurance. They can never succeed in benefiting under the scheme.
I understand that in the course of the last few days the widow of a teacher who was contributing to the scheme wrote to the Department of Social Welfare to ascertain whether she would be entitled to a pension after making contributions for three years. She got a letter back saying that the Minister regretted that she would not be entitled to benefit under the scheme even at the end of three years because she was a widow before she entered the scheme, so that even a widow will not benefit under the scheme. The thing is completely fantastic, and I do not think the Minister can have seriously considered the position.
I think these are considerations which of themselves should force the Minister to exempt the teachers from the provisions of this scheme which is, in effect, only a form of taxation imposed on them. There is no question of being able to get any benefit from this. It is quite possible, if the Minister wants to make provision to enable teachers to voluntarily opt to subscribe to the scheme they might do so but I think it certainly should be left to the discretion of the teachers themselves.
To a certain extent, this matter raises one of the many anomalies which is bound to arise from any attempt at comprehensive social security. Certainly, I think we should have sufficient give and take in a matter of this kind and withdraw when we discover an anomaly of this nature arising.
I hope I have made myself clear. I hope the Minister realises that the women teachers who have been compulsorily insured for widowhood and for their orphans can never benefit under the scheme. As soon as they get married they are turfed out and the vast majority of the men teachers are in receipt of salaries that exceed the income ceiling of £600 and are, therefore, out of the scheme too. The unmarried men teachers are out of the scheme because they cannot have widows or orphans while they are unmarried. As soon as they marry, their income rises above the level of the scheme. This is purely a piece of taxation on their salaries in respect of which they get no benefit.
As a matter of fact, I may say that I have grave doubts as to whether a scheme of this nature is constitutional and whether we are entitled to levy, under the guise of insurance, a tax on the people which is not imposed by this Parliament in the ordinary way. I certainly think that the teachers would be well advised to take legal advice on the matter and I do not think the Minister should encourage that. I can see many difficulties arising from a case of that nature. I want to say it is quite clear that the Minister gave an undertaking that teachers would be excluded from the provisions of the scheme. If the Minister does not honour that undertaking, I, for one, will certainly find myself unable to accept in future a ministerial undertaking given across the floor of the House.
