Vol. 501 No. 2
338 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Education and Science when he will authorise vocational education committees to pay the increases due under the PCW to retired principals, vice-principals and post holders of vocational schools and community colleges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5732/99]
The increases due under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work to holders of posts of responsibility were finally agreed in early 1998. My Department notified vocational educational committees of the arrangements under which these increases would be payable to serving teachers in April 1998. In order to qualify for payment, it was necessary for teachers to confirm that they were prepared to carry out the duties associated with the newly-designated posts. Teachers were given until 30 September 1998 to give an undertaking to carry out the required duties.
Following notification of the responses to my Department vocational education committees were authorised to pay the increases to serving teachers. They were authorised to pay the increases to retired teachers by circular issued on 2 December 1998. It was emphasised that an increase was payable, without the need for an undertaking, to all retired teachers who held posts of responsibility during service and who had retired prior to 1 September 1998, the beginning of the 1998-99 school year.
I should point out that my Department has regulatory responsibility for the pensions of vocational teachers but that the pension of any individual teacher is calculated by the relevant vocational education committee. If the Deputy has a particular case in mind, my Department's pensions unit in Athlone will be glad to look into the matter if he will give them the details.
339 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason a pensionable payment to teachers with 35 years service is not being extended to retired secondary teachers. [5719/99]
340 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a clear precedent was established in 1970 and 1971 where his Department agreed to pay teachers, who had already retired, the benefit in their pensions of allowances which they never held during their own service. [5722/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 339 and 340 together.
The position is that the PCW agreement provides that the long service allowance is payable in the pay of eligible teachers who are in service on or after 1 August 1996. Since it is an allowance, rather than an increase in incremental salary, it is not payable in the pensions of teachers who retired prior to that date.
It has been contended that the long service allowance should be regarded as an increment in salary. It has also been contended, and the Deputy has referred to this, that there is a precedent for paying the allowance to teachers who retired prior to 1 August 1996 on the grounds that, in 1971, retired teachers received the benefits of post of responsibility allowances which they did not hold during service.
The position regarding the contention that the long service allowance should be regarded as an increment is that, under the restructuring pay deals, this payment was specifically agreed as an allowance. Because allowances may be pensionable or otherwise, the agreement specifically provides that "in the case of teachers retiring whilst in receipt of the allowance, the allowance would be reckonable towards superannuation entitlements subject to the normal averaging arrangements".
The position regarding the precedent cited in the case of post of responsibility allowances is that these allowances were introduced, in the early 1970s, with retrospective effect. As in the case of the long service allowance, however, teachers who had retired prior to the agreed effective date of establishment of the post of responsibility allowances did not receive the benefit of those allowances. Specifically, no teacher who retired prior to 1 July 1968, the earliest agreed effective date, received the benefit of the allowance.
