I move:—
That the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1942, made by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for Finance under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1928 (No. 32 of 1928), be confirmed.
Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1942—Motion.
Is é is priomh-chúis don scéim leasuighthe seo deireadh do chur le leath-trom d'fhéadfaí do dhéanamh ar mhúinteoir ar bith, tré oibriú Mhír 9 den Phríomh-Scéim — leath-trom do thárla cheana féin do dhá mhúinteoir ar a laighead. Faoi théarmaí na míre sin, má chailleann múinteoir a phosta tré ádhbhar ar bith agus, tríd sin, é do stad de bheith ina bhall den Scéim Pinsean, níl sé ion-ghlactha ath-uair sa Scéim, má tá sé ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois agus má tá níos mó ná dhá bhliadhain caithte ó stad sé de bheith ina bhall. Os a chomhair sin, má tá a leithéid de mhúinteoir faoi 50 bliadhain d'aois, d'fhéadfaí a ghlacadh isteach sa Scéim ath-uair, mura mbeadh níos mó ná 10 mbliadhna caithte ó stad sé de bheith ina bhall. Le n-a rádh i bhfocla eile, do ceadóchthaí bearna, nach mbeadh ós cionn deich mbliadhan, do bheith i seirbhís mhúinteoirí faoi 50 bliadhain d'aois, ach ní ceadóchthaí ach dhá bhliadhain de bhearna do bheith i seirbhís mhúinteóirí ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois. Do cuireadh an coingheall seo isteach sa bhun-scéim ionnas nach leigfí isteach ath-uair sa seirbhís múinteoirí meadhon-aosta do bhéadh tamall fada as an seirbhís agus ar dhócha a n-éifeacht do bheith laghaduighthe dá bhárr sin. Do measadh, freisin, go mb'fhéidir posta eile do bheith le fagháil taobh istigh de dhá bhliadhain ag múinteóir ar bith do chaillfeadh an posta do bhí aige.
Acht, le linn oibriú na Scéime, do fuarthas amach go ndéanann an coingheall seo leath-trom ar na seanmhúinteóirí, óir do thárla nach dtáinig le cuid aca sin postaí nuadha d'fhagháil taobh istigh den spás ama do bhi orduighthe. An leasú atáthar anois ag iarraidh a dhéanamh ar Mhír 9, d'athróchadh sé teóra na bearna seirbhíse ó 2 bhliadhain go dtí 10 mbliadhna, agus dá réir sin, d'fhágfadh sé múinteóirí do bheadh ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois ar aon-téarma leis na múinteóirí is óige ná iad. Mar atá baint ag coingheallacha na scéime seo leis na sean-scéimeanna, ní misde míniú gearr do thabhairt ar na míora éagsamhla, ionnas gur fusaide tuigfear a gcuspóir. Míora I—IV, níl ionnta ach na gnáth-choingheallacha maidir le teideal na scéime agus leis na mínighthe.
Mír V, ghní sí roinnt leasuighthe ar an mbun-scéim, agus atá siad sin luaidhte sa Sceideal. An ceann is mó tábhacht aca sin, is é an leasú úd atáthar a dhéanamh i Mír IX é, .i. spás deich mbliadhan do bheith dhá chur isteach i n-ionad spás 2 bhliadhan maidir le bearna seirbhíse i gcás múinteóirí ós cionn 50 bliadhan d'aois. Na leasuighthe eile atá luaidhte sa Sceideal, atáthar ghá ndéanamh ionnas go n-aistreóchthar, ón Aire Airgeadais go dtí an tAire Oideachais, cúram riaracháin an chisde pinsean agus neithe eile bhaineas le hoibriú na scéime.
Ach maidir leis na neithe is mó tábhacht bhaineas le moladh pinsean, tá an smacht dhá fhágáil ag an Aire Airgid mar do bhí sé.
Mír VII, is é is cuspóir di direadh do chur le hádhbhar beag gearáin do thárla ann i gcás beagán múinteóirí. B'fhéidir nár mhisde dhom a mhíniú nach éigeantach do mhúinteóirí bheith ina mball de'n Scéim, gur tré n-a n-iarratas féin leigtear isteach iad, agus go gcaithtear fiadhnaise áirithe fé n-a sláinte, etc., d'fhagháil uatha sul a leigtear isteach iad. I gcás gnáth-mhúinteóirí Meadhon-Scol a leigtear isteach, do socruigheadh go bhféadfaí a seirbhís in-phinseanta d'áireamh ó dháta nach mbéadh os cion 15 míosa roimh dháta a n-iarratais chun ballraíochta—ar choingheall gur híocadh a síntiúis do'n Chiste Pinsean le haghaidh na tréimhse sin. I mbliadhain a 1935 do rinneadh Scéim Leasuighthe do bhain le cás Mhúinteóirí Meadhon-Scol a raibh seirbhís in-phinseanta déanta aca roimh ré mar Mhúinteóirí Náisiúnta. Ba riachtanach do na múinteóirí seo a ughdarú, taobh istigh de dhá mhí dhéag ó na-a leigint isteach sa Scéim, go n-aistreóchthaí a síntiúis pinsin go dtí Cisde Pinsean Mhúinteóirí na Meadhon-Scol. Do thárla dá bhárr sin, gidh nár chuspóir é, nár bh'fhéidir níos mó ná 12 mhí de spás ama do bheith idir dáta a leigint isteach sa Scéim agus dáta a n-iarratais chun a leigint isteach. Mar sin de, do bhí sé de leath-trom ortha sin nach raibh ach 12 mhí de spás aca-san, gidh go raibh 15 míosa ag múinteóirí eile. Táthar ag iarraidh deireadh do chur leis an éagcothromacht sin agus na múinteóirí go leir do chur ar aon-dul sa scéal—rud a dhéanfadh an leasú atáthar a dhéanamh ar Mhír 5 de Scéim 1935.
Mír VII, is é cuspóir di ughdarás d'fhagháil maidir le húsáid na síntiús do'n Chisde Pinsean do bhí íoctha ag Múinteóirí Meadhon-Scol do ceapadh ina gcigirí agus ar ceaduigheadh dóibh a seirbhís mhúinteoireachta d'aireamh mar stát-sheirbhís bhunuighthe le haghaidh pinsean. I mbliadhain a 1929, nuair do rinneadh Scéim Pinsean na Múinteóirí Meadhon-Scol, ní raibh ughdarás dleaghthach ar bith ann le seirbhís mhúinteóireachta d'áireamh le n-a aghaidh seo mar stát-sheirbhís, agus do rinneadh riaghail do chuirfeadh i gcumas cigirí mar iad siúd a mballríocht sa Scéim do choinneáil, ionnas go bhféadfaidís pinsean moillighthe do tharraingt tar éis a n-éirghe as an stát-sheirbhís. Ina dhiaidh sin do socruigheadh, i n-Alt 21 de Scéim Pinsean 1936, go bhféadfaí—faoi choingheallacha áirithe—seirbhís mhúinteóireachta d'áireamh mar stát-sheirbhís, agus atá úsáid dhá dhéanamh de'n tsocrú sin ag cigirí áirithe do bhíodh ina múinteóirí. Do réir na gcoingheall faoi n-ar ceaduigheadh sin dóibh, do chaithfidís na síntiúis do bhí íoctha aca le Cisde Pinsean na Meadhon-Mhúinteóirí d'aistriú chuig an Aire Airgeadais, agus is é is cuspóir do'n mhír seo an t-aistriú sin do dhéanamh dleaghthach.
Mír VIII, is é is cuspóir dí gan an tréimhse chéadna ama do leigint dá háireamh le haghaidh pinsin mhúinteóireachta agus pinsin mhíleadhta, agus, freisin, chun socrú do dhéanamh le haghaidh cáis ar bith ina mbéadh in dá chineál sin pinsean saothruighthe ag múinteóir.
Is dóigh liom go mínigheann an ráiteas seo agam gach nidh dá bhfuil sa scéim leasuighthe, agus táim ag súil go nglacfar léi go lán-toilteannach.
Nílim i gcoinne an rúin seo agus sílim gur ceart dúinn glacadh leis. I am not opposing this motion. I would like to see certain other things in it, and I would like to be allowed to make a few remarks upon the subject of teachers' pensions in general, and upon the register upon which teachers' pensions are necessarily based. I was thinking, while the Minister was making his statement in Irish, that there are times when the Irish language is more satisfactory than the English. "Ta an smacht dhá fhágáil ag an Aire Airgid mar do bhí sé" seems to be somewhat better than the mere bald English that the Minister for Finance still retains control of the scheme. "Smacht" appears much more suitable for the strong hand of the Minister for Finance than the more polite and less vigorous word "control." These alterations in the scheme —for the benefit of those who have not understood the Minister—are, in all cases, satisfactory to secondary teachers, their grievance being, in so far as they have a grievance, that certain other things are not included.
The teachers' pensions scheme is on a contributory basis, and, as the Minister said, is voluntary. Four per cent. of the registered teachers' salaries are deducted as a contribution to the scheme. The scheme itself is by no means generous, nor are the salaries of the secondary teachers, particularly when one considers the immense rise in the cost of living in recent years. Apart from the amount involved, the scheme itself has one very grave defect not shared by the pensions scheme for university teachers, primary teachers, or civil servants. A secondary teacher on retirement gets no gratuity, although I think the amount he receives is calculated on 80ths of his years of service. The teachers themselves would be willing, since that gratuity is of great importance to them, to make a small additional contribution to the scheme if a gratuity could be arranged, and I wonder if the Minister could give that matter his attention and see whether he could do anything with the Minister for Finance about it.
There is another point, that the pensions scheme could not have been put in operation but for the existence of the register, and I can remember well —I was at that time a secondary teacher myself—when the register was arranged. It was thought that it would have two excellent effects, that it would provide that the bulk of the teachers in the schools would be properly qualified. That would, of course, be a good thing for education in general in the country. It would be for the national good, and, as well, the register would effect an improvement in the status and pay of secondary teachers themselves, and more particularly in the status of lay teachers in whom I was naturally peculiarly interested.
The number of pupils in secondary schools has, I think, been going up for a number of years, particularly in girls' schools. The number of registered teachers has been increasing also, but I am not able to get any figures on that matter except from the very full table which the Minister for Education supplied in answer to a Parliamentary Question in the Dáil on the 15th April. I would like to say that that reply gave the maximum information possible. I wonder if the number of registered teachers is increasing as fast as the number of pupils in the schools, especially in the girls' schools? I hear that there are a number of unqualified teachers. Perhaps it should be said that the teachers in secondary schools who have entered since the register was established must have a degree and a higher diploma in education. Other teachers qualified to be on the register are those who have a university degree, and who could get the higher diploma in education and go on the register; but there are other teachers not qualified at all and not registered, and, presumably, not on the road to being qualified for registration.
I think that it is true to say that a number of teachers who have the qualification are afraid to go on the register lest the school might not be able to pay them the basic salary. I should say that the basic salary is paid by the school and the increments by the Minister. Unless I am mistaken in my reading of the original scheme—I should like the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—the position is that a school must pay the basic salary for one registered teacher for every 30 pupils, the registered teacher being either lay or clerical. Outside that number, a registered teacher may be employed but may not be paid the minimum salary prescribed by the registration provisions. If he is employed, the State must pay the increments. I think that it would be possible to increase the number of registered teachers without increasing the strain on individual schools. I should like the Minister to say whether or not it would be possible to increase the number of registered teachers. Looking at the return made to the Dáil on the 15th April, this year, one gathers that, amongst the lay male teachers, 111 out of 708 are not qualified. For the Minister's information, I may say that I am taking teachers who are registered and also those who have university degrees and are, therefore, qualified. About 14 per cent. of the laymen employed are not qualified for registration and are, therefore, not registered. In the case of lay women, the figure is much higher—165 out of 587. About 28 per cent. of lay women teachers are not qualified. In the case of male religious, the number is 202 out of 809. That is much higher than in the case of laymen. In that case, 25 per cent. are not qualified. In the case of women teachers belonging to religious orders, the number unqualified is 410 out of 1,075 or about 40 per cent.
From the point of view of education, generally, and the efficient running of the schools, it would be desirable if a greater number of qualified and registered teachers could be employed. That was, I think, the original idea in putting the scheme into operation. From the Minister's point of view, and from the point of view of any Minister for Education, that would be regarded as a desirable object to pursue. Even if a certain amount of expense were involved, I think that very few things would repay expense better than the provision of properly qualified staffs in the secondary schools.
One other point, not so relevant, I crave your indulgence to make, so that we shall not be raising it later—on the Appropriation Bill, perhaps — and bringing the Minister in specially for it. These teachers—I refer particularly to the lay teachers—are paid their salaries monthly by the schools, as a general rule, but the increments from the Government are paid quarterly. In the present state of affairs, to people on small salaries who have to live, in the main, in cities and large towns and who are compelled, in the nature of things, to keep up outwardly a certain standard of living, the difference between getting their money quarterly and monthly is very great. I notice that, in reply to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Minister stated in the Dáil that the cost of changing over to a monthly basis of payment would be £18,000. I do not understand exactly how that figure is reached. Surely, it does not mean that it would cost £18,000 annually to pay about 1,800 teachers a sum of money monthly instead of quarterly. It would appear to me that a couple of writing assistants could do the job, and that the only other cost would be the cost of postage. Perhaps I am wrong in that. There may be some over lapping of payments or there may be some initial difficulty.
In every case in which payments are made quarterly and an effort is made to have them made monthly, there is an objection. The same objection was made in the case of national teachers long ago. I knew national teachers in the old days who walked the streets of Dublin without a penny for a tram because they could never make their money reach from the beginning of the quarter to the end of the quarter. The younger people were oftentimes dependent on the generosity and forbearance of their landladies towards the end of the quarter. There was an immense fuss about the matter but, eventually, the Lords of His Majesty's Treasury agreed to the payments being made monthly. That did not bring down the State, as it then was.
In University College, Dublin, where statutory officers were paid quarterly, there was some difficulty in getting the payments made monthly but they have been paid monthly for quite a long time now. In the case of the lay teachers in this list, which applies from the 31st January of this year, surely an effort might be made, in the present emergency, to give relief to the 817 lay teachers, as against 1,050 religious teachers, by paying their increments monthly instead of quarterly. The £18,000 which has been mentioned would thus, I presume, be reduced to £9,000 and I can hardly believe but that a considerable portion of that sum would be involved for the first year only.
I am not good at the intricacies of finance but I have conducted constant arguments with the Department of Finance, who are never in favour of anything in the beginning. The Minister for Education and I would be in agreement on that. Nothing is ever put up with which they are in agreement and nobody is more expert than they are in showing that action proposed will cost an immense sum of money when, as a matter of fact, it can very often be brought down considerably by the application of commonsense. When a small number of secondary teachers—817—who are poorly paid are struggling very hard to live in a period of high prices and great shortages, an effort should be made to give them their money monthly instead of quarterly. Even if certain costs were involved initially, the annual cost of the change should not be substantial. With that reservation, with regard to certain matters which arise out of the question of teachers' pensions I recommend wholeheartedly to the House the adoption of the motion.
It is in the nature of documents like these Statutory Rules and Orders that they are rather difficult to follow. I am afraid the explanation given to the House by the Minister as to what this Order contains might be appropriately described as an explanation of what is obscure by what is more obscure, so far as the majority of the Seanad is concerned. My attitude towards this Order is the same as that of Senator Hayes. We both come before the Minister rather in the position of Oliver Twist: we consider the fare we have got so far is on the poor side, but we are prepared to take it and we want some more.
There is no doubt that the Order is satisfactory, but it does not go at all far enough to meet the requirements of the secondary teachers. There are deficiencies in this pensions scheme, as compared with practically all others pension schemes, and it cannot be regarded as a complete scheme until those deficiencies are supplied. In that connection, it is a pity that the Minister should proceed to make these arrangements without any consultation at all—so far as I understand—between his Department and the secondary teachers themselves. There are many organisations connected with education in this country, and there is a very strong and flourishing organisation of lay secondary teachers; and it is a great drawback to the whole situation that schemes like these are devised in the Department, put through the Oireachtas and put into force without any opportunity being given to those concerned with them to put forward their views.
As I have said, there are very serious defects in this pension scheme and this Order does but little to make up those defects. In the first place, there is the lack of a gratuity on retirement for teachers who come within the scheme. In practically every other pension scheme—in the Civil Service, for instance, and in the universities— provisions of this kind are contained. I understand that the teachers themselves have indicated that they are prepared to increase their contributions, so as to go some part of the way to provide for those gratuities, which are badly needed. It is a great pity the Minister has not consulted the teachers, in order to see how far he could meet them in that respect. That is, perhaps, the most serious grievance the teachers have, but there are other minor grievances in regard to this particular scheme.
Most other schemes of this kind contain provisions for a gratuity of some kind being paid to the representative of a contributor in the case of the contributor's death. It is a very normal provision, and everyone will agree that it is just and natural. There is no such provision in the case of secondary teachers, and it is a great pity that the matter could not have been discussed and some attempt made to cope with it. Again, there is no provision for the payment of interest on the contributions of a teacher who comes under this scheme and who retires before the pensionable age. He gets back exactly what he has paid into the scheme, with no interest whatsoever. That seems almost an injustice. The teacher's money is taken for a number of years and is used by the Department for the purpose of this scheme; yet, if the teacher retires and claims his own property, he cannot get the benefit of the use made of that money for those years. It would seem that the teachers have the right to have that little grievance considered and adjusted. The widow of a teacher does get interest on such contributions, but teachers as a whole have the grievance that, if they have to retire for any reason before reaching the pensionable age, they simply get back the sum paid into the scheme.
The condition of our secondary teachers is still very far behind that of their brethren in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Indeed, the position with regard to the qualifications of teachers and the financing of our secondary education as a whole is still very much in need of discussion and improvement. We all seem to accept the position as the work of nature, and to carry on with a state of affairs that everybody connected with it knows to be highly imperfect. It is said that nothing can be done about it, whatever the obstacle is and whether it comes from the State or from the other authorities concerned with secondary education. In any case, those who have contact with the schools know that the position is far from satisfactory. I would not say that all the grievances are on the side of the lay secondary teachers.
The diocesan secondary schools do wonderful work at an extraordinarily low cost. They are able to do that largely because the clerical teachers in those schools are mulcted of whatever official salaries they are supposed to earn, for the benefit of the schools. That is a fact well known to anyone connected with the schools, and I submit it is a state of affairs which should not be allowed to continue, in justice to those teachers and for the sake of the efficiency and progress of our secondary education. The problem is largely one of finance. As compared with other branches of our education, the secondary system has been financed in a very niggardly fashion, both under the British Government and under our own Governments. A great deal of money has been spent on preparatory colleges and so on, but the finances still remain highly unsatisfactory, and it is a great pity that there has not been some effort long before now to put them on a better basis.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer, of which mention was also made by Senator Hayes. It is the question of the qualifications of teachers. There again the position is anything but satisfactory and is not at all as good as in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As far as the qualifications of our secondary teaching staff are concerned, we are in one of the lowest positions in the whole wide world. I think there is no other country in the world where the method of registration and qualification is such that it secures such a poor quality of teacher in many cases. That is a fact recognised, not only by parents and others but by the secondary teachers themselves. The system of registration is such that it puts a premium on the pass man in secondary education. If a man has an honours degree he finds it not merely harder but, by comparison, almost impossible, to get work in a secondary school, while the pass man, though not as highly trained, is in a much better position. We are very much behind both Northern Ireland and Great Britain in that respect. In Northern Ireland teachers are not allowed to teach in secondary schools without having strict qualifications in their special subjects. Our system is such that almost anyone can teach almost anything in a secondary school, whether he or she is qualified or not. As long as that continues, there will be no progress at all in our secondary education.
Senator Hayes mentioned one important point—the raising of the number of teachers. The problem is whether the number of pupils has not risen more rapidly than the number of teachers. That problem is bound up with the question of qualification. If you have poorly qualified people, struggling to teach a large number of pupils, under very poor financial conditions, with very poor remuneration and very poor conditions of employment, how can you expect to get the best out of that most important part of our whole educational system? How can we boast about anything in that most important part of our education? That is well known to be the state of affairs, and I submit that while an Order like this does a certain amount of good in itself it only goes a fraction of the distance the Department will have to go before we have any real improvement in our secondary education.
As the other speakers have pointed out this particular Order is to be criticised more for what it does not contain, than for what it actually contains. I wonder could the Minister explain how it is that the teachers are in a worse position in regard to pensions or in a less favourable position than any other class of public servant. Senator Hayes mentioned that secondary teachers were alone with regard to this disability. That is not so. Primary teachers are in the same position. A civil servant or a servant of a public authority gets a pension, in the case of full service, equivalent to two-thirds of his salary. If he does not get that by way of actual pension he gets a pension of half his salary plus a lump sum on retirement. The same thing applies to the servant of a local authority or the Gárda Síochána and often these pensions are given for much less service than the teachers give. The secondary or primary teacher must have 40 or 45 years' service before he gets the full pension.
The teacher, whether primary or secondary, gets only half his salary at 45 years. The civil servant gets half his salary, plus a lump sum equal to a year's salary. The teacher does not get that lump sum. I should like to hear from the Minister what is the explanation, if there is any explanation, why teachers are put in that invidious position as compared with other public servants. It may be said that, so far as national teachers are concerned, they suffered from a similar disability when our own Government took over from the British. That is so, but the same was the case in Northern Ireland and the disability has been set right there, and teachers, secondary and primary, are now entitled to get this lump sum, and are put in the same position in that respect as other public servants. The secondary teachers' pensions were introduced by our own Government. They had no pensions in British times. But in making the scheme the Government here refused, and still refuses, to insert a provision whereby the teachers would get a lump sum upon retirement.
I think it is something that the public ought to know that the teachers suffer from this disability. There is another point in the scheme to which I should like to draw attention. The secondary teacher who has served for some time as a national teacher gets credit for his service as a national teacher when he goes over to the secondary branch, but there is no retrospective arrangement. If a secondary teacher goes over to the primary branch, he does not get credit for service in a secondary school. It only works one way, and I think that that deserves to be put right. I do not know whether many secondary teachers go over to the primary branch, but some have gone over, and they do not get credit for service in the secondary branch. I agree with the other speakers as to the deficiency in the scheme. Senator Tierney complained that the teacher who leaves the service gets back his pension premiums without interest. The Senator said that the teacher got back exactly what he paid in. As a matter of fact, he does not, because he gets it back minus income-tax. I am particularly anxious that the Minister should tell us if there is any good reason why teachers should be placed at a disability compared with other public servants. When a teacher retires, a lump sum is very useful to him at that time. The change from full salary to half salary is a big break, and very often he has to set up a new home and go to live in a different district. A lump sum of a year's salary, or something over, would be of great benefit. It is the practice to give this in all other branches of the public service, and I see no reason why it should not be done in the case of teachers.
Ba mhaith liom an méid seo a rádh ar an bpoinnte— gur mór an sásamh dom gur labhair an tAire agus é a' cur na scéime seo ós ár gcómhair i nGaedhilg. Ní minic a bhíonn Gaedhilg le cloisint ón suidheachán ina bhfuil sé anois. Is truagh nár dhein na cainnteoiri eile aithris air agus leanamhaint don díosbóireacht í nGaedhilge. Táimíd ar fad, is cosamhail, ar aon intinn i dtaobh na scéime seo as ucht an fheabhais a bhainneanns léithi. Mar sin féin tá rud nó dhó ar iarraidh agus dhein Seanadóirí eile tagairt dóibh. Táim ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir Ó Tighearnaigh agus an Seanadóir Ó hAodha nuair d'iarr siad ar an Aire iarracht a dhéanamh ar an deóntas faoi leith a thabhairt do na múinteoirí ar eirghe as an seirbhís dóibh. Is dóigh liom go mbíonn deontas mar sin le fagháil faoi gach scéim pinsiúin go bhfuil eolas agam uirthi. Rud eile, ba mhaith liom a rádh go bhfuilim ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir Ó hAodha gur ceart an increment a chur ar fáil do na múinteoirí i n-aghaidh na míosa.
Do léigh mé ins na páipéaraí go ndubhairt an tAire go gcosnóchadh sé £18,000 chun sin a dhéanamh ach b'fhéidir go bhfuil dearmad ins an meastachán sin. Ba mhaith liom go mór tagairt reasúntá mion a dhéanamh do roinnt eile pointí a chuir cuid de na cainnteoirí os cóir an tSeanaid ach tá sórt faitchíos orm nach mbéadh sé de cheart agam agus go mbeinn ag dul thar teorainn na riaghlacha díosbóireachta. Mar shompla bhí comparáid á dhéanamh idir Eire agus Sasana maidir le feabhas an léighinn agus na múinteóireachta insna meadhon-sgoileanna agus maidir le tuarasdal na muinteóirí. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh an tír seo ar aon dul le Sasana maidir le tuarasdal agus eile ach mar sin féin tá sórt imníomha orm go bhfuilimíd ag cuimhneamh an iomarca ar Shasna agus go bhfuil an iomad compáráide á dhéanamh idir an tír seo agus é. Ni fheadar nach bhfuil an lá i ndan dúinn nuair a chaithfimíd aith-bhreithiúntas a dhéanamh ar an gceist seo agus caighdeán nua nó "standards" nua dár gcuid fhéin a bheith againn. Rud eile ní dóigh liom gur fíor a rádh go bhfuil caighdeán nios fearr sa mheadhon-oideachas í Sasana ná mar atá annso i n-Eirinn. Ní indiu ná indé a chuir mé spéis sa cheist seo.
On gcéad lá tosnuigheadh ar an gearán a dhéanamh i dtaobh na múinteoirí bhí spéis agam sa cheist seo feabhas an léighinn mar atá sé ins na meadhon-scoileanna in Éirinn agus mar atá sé ins na meadhon-scoileanna i Sasana. Tá aithne agam ar mhórán múinteoirí i Sasana agus bhí sgrúduitheoir Gallda againn san Ollsgoil tráth, fear go raibh eolas mór agus taithighe mhór aige ar an oideachas i Sasana. Bhiodh sé a' léigheachtóireacht i nOllsgoil i Sasana agus 'na cheann sin bhí eólas mór aige freisin ar an oideachas i nÉirinn. Sé an tuairim a bhí aige—nach gádh náire bheith orainn maidir le cúrsaí oideachais i nÉirinn. Ar an gcaoi gcéadhna tá eólas agam ar cursaí oideachais i nAlbain le fada agus chomh fada agus a théigheann an t-eolas atá agam air níl aon chúis ann go mbeadh náire orainn mar gheall ar chaighdeán an oideachais i bhus.
Ins na meadhon-sgoileanna an eadh?
Ins na meadhon-sgoileanna. Maidir leis an méid adubhairt an Seanadóir Ó Tighearnáigh i dtaobh cáilidheachta na múinteóirí ba mhaith liom focal no dho a rádh. Tá an cháilidheacht acadamhúil ceart go leór ach ní leór an cháilidheacht acadamhúil. Is féidir go mbeadh cáilidheacht acadamhúil ag dúine ach mar sin féin ní dhéanfadh an duine sin múinteóir maith go deó. Sin é an locht atá le fáil agam ar an scéim oideachais atá againn ach níl fhios agam conas is féidir an locht sin a leigheas. Fiú na múinteoirí náisiúnta i n-aimhdheon chomh cúramach is a hoiltear iar tagann cuid díobh as na coláistí agus is dóigh liom gur fíor a rádh nach ndeineann siad múinteoirí maithe.
Níl an dúthchas ionnta.
Níl, níl an dúthchas ionnta. Níl fhios agam conas is féidir sin a leagheas. Bhí an Seanadóir Ó Tighearnaigh ag cainnt fé cháilidheacht na múinteoirí ins na meadhon-sgoileanna ach—bíodh nach mbaineann sé go díreach leis an gceist seo is fiú sílim a meabhrú dhíbh—nach bhfuil aon cháilidheacht acadamhúil riachtanach le haghaidh post ins na hOllsgoileanna. De réir riaghalacha na hOllsgoile is féidir le duine post d'fháil san Ollsgoil gan aon cháilidheacht acadamhúil bheith aige le haghaidh posta ar bith. Maidir le sgéal ais-íoc na síntiús íocann na mhúinteóirí do'n chiste pinsiún tá sé díreach mar atá sgéal ciste árachais. Ní féidir an t-iomlán a aisíoc. Dá dtéigheadh na múinteóirí go cumann árachais níorbh fhéidir ní b'fhearr a dhéanamh. Dá ndéanfaí an rud a hiarradh ar an Aire tá faitchíos orm go gcuirfeadh sé as do chiste an phinsiún an iomarca.
Maidir le ceist cáin ioncuim is fíor go mbaineann lucht cána an cháin ioncuim as síntiús a tugtar thar n-ais do mhúinteóir ag eirghe as an seirbhís ach níor baineadh an cháin den mhúinteóir ar an airgead nuair a bhí sé á íoc isteach sa gcisde phinsiún, ar an ádhbhar sin, ní féidir locht fhághail ar an gcigire cánach má bhaineann sé an cháin de nuair a bhíos sé á aisíoc leis an múinteoir. Sé an locht atá agam ar an sgéal go mbaintear an cháin ioncum amach de réir an ratá atá i bhfeidhm i láthair na huaire a ndéantar an aisíoc i n-ionad an ratá a bhí i bhfeidhm nuair d'íoc sé na síntiúis. B'fheidir go mb'fhiú an cheist seo a sgrúdú agus réidhtéach a dhéanamh urthí muna bhfuil cómhacht ag an gcigire canach an laghdú a dhéanamh uaidh fhéin. Tá aithmhéal orm an Seanad a choimeád chom fada ar na ceisteanna seo. Tá rudaí eile ba mhaith liom a phléidh ach tá faitchíos orm nach ceart iad a phléidh.
The Minister is to be congratulated on bringing forward this amendment of the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation Scheme not only because it remedies a very real hardship but also because it has occasioned a most useful discussion on an important aspect of our national life. Senators who have spoken— Senator Hayes and Senator Tierney especially—have pointed out the ever-growing numbers of pupils attending secondary schools. The lesson we should draw from that is that the secondary schools are playing an increasingly important part in the life of the country. The secondary school is the university of most people. Therefore, it requires a good deal of fostering and it is just that the teachers who are employed should be highly qualified, well paid and contented. It is not very easy to achieve that. It seems to me that the whole question of secondary education—and this has been stressed by other speakers—is of such importance that it would need special consideration. It is not too soon to give it such consideration because it is on the quality of our people that our existence as a nation will depend. There are difficulties connected with the secondary school that do not arise perhaps in the case of other schools.
As Senator Tierney has stressed, it is really owing to the very unselfish services given by the religious orders, the clergy in the diocesan colleges and the Sisters in the convent secondary schools, that it has been possible to carry on secondary education on the present basis. It is looked upon as work for God's sake more than for profit. Secondary education was made available to a great many people under conditions which people in other countries would never have thought of aiming at. That means that secondary education does not belong to the State. The State contributes to it but these private schools are, I suppose, private property. That makes it difficult to solve all the questions that arise in connection with the teachers.
The great difficulty that I see about it is the insecurity of tenure, as regards teachers, which economic conditions sometimes impose on the schools. As a consequence there is insecurity of tenure for the teachers, especially women teachers. A good many of them lose their positions at a time when they are entitled to a fairly good salary. The conditions in the schools are such that the services of these teachers are dispensed with and they find it hard to get other positions or even to qualify for a good pension. It is a difficult thing to settle. There are a great many difficulties of a similar nature, but once we recognise the important part which secondary schools play in our national life, we shall face up to these difficulties and, with goodwill on the part of all Parties, we shall arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
I did not intend to join in the debate, but some Senators seem to be labouring under a misapprehension, judging from what Senator O'Connell stated. Officers of local authorities get no lump sum on retirement and the officer of the local authority who dies in harness is merely paid salary up to the date he dies. They do get a maximum pension on the basis of two-thirds of their salaries but they get no gratuity. As I have said, the pay of an officer of a local authority who dies in harness stops on the day he dies. His dependents receive nothing in the nature of a lump sum.
But an officer of a local authority gets two-thirds of his salary as pension.
A teacher gets one-eightieth of his salary for each year's service but no gratuity. The officer of the local authority gets two-thirds of his salary as pension on giving the maximum service.
Yes.
That is a very much better scheme than that operated in the case of teachers.
But if an officer of a local authority dies in harness after, say, 20 years' service his dependents get nothing.
I think that perhaps I should explain to the Seanad that the secondary teachers' pension scheme was framed in 1929. It was not then possible to determine what the probable cost of granting pensions to this very deserving body of public servants would be. The scheme was voluntary in its membership, and it was extremely difficult to give any reliable forecast of the numbers of teachers who would avail themselves of it. It was arranged to have an actuarial inquiry into the working of the scheme after five years' experience of its operation, and that in the meantime, the State should pay the cost of the pensions from the contributions paid to the fund by teachers and schools. The actuarial inquiry was held in 1936 and the report showed that a sum of about £380,000 would be necessary to place the pension fund on a solvent basis, that is to say in a position to meet all its liabilities at that date. I need not pursue the matter of the recommendations which were made by the actuary in that connection. Anybody who has experience of pension funds knows that a very heavy annual contribution or subsidy is necessary to make a pension fund of that character actuarially sound and solvent beyond question. It would have taken a good many thousands, say, £19,000 for 30 years or £16,000 for 40 years, to place the fund on the sound actuarial basis that the actuary would like.
It was decided, however, that that would not be done, and that contributions would be made to the fund by the State from time to time, according as the additional charges came to fall due and further commitments had to be met. Up to the end of the financial year 1938-39 the contributions from teachers and schools were sufficient to meet the cost of the pensions. Since the year 1939-40, a sum has been included in the Vote for secondary education as a contribution to the pension fund. It amounts to £4,000 in the present year. It will increase annually, and it is believed that, when the pensions reach their maximum, a contribution of £10,000 annually will be necessary on the Vote. The contribution paid to the fund by teachers and schools during the year 1941 amounted to £10,600. The cost of pensions and gratuities during that year amounted to £14,000, but it is estimated that this cost will increase annually during the next 30 years to a maximum of about £21,000, of which a little over half will be borne by contributions from teachers and schools, and the remainder by the Government. The anticipated increase in the cost of pensions arises from two causes, an increase in the number of pensioners and in the amount of each pension paid. The teachers who came in for pensions since the scheme was established had not the service which would entitle them to the larger pension. They were non-contributing to a very large degree, and the value of their service was based on a lower figure than in the case of those who had contributed. When all pensions are calculated on contributing service, that is to say after 1969, it is estimated that the average annual value of pensions will be at least £200. The maximum pension will be £240 for men and £187 10s. for women.
With regard to the contributions, at present those are as follows: Each teacher pays 4 per cent. of his salary, and the school in which he is employed pays 2½ per cent. of his basic salary, £200 for men and £180 for women. It is estimated that those contributions, if paid throughout the whole period of a teacher's service, would defray about 7/12ths or slightly more than half of the cost of the pensions, and the balance, of course, is borne by the Government. Many of the existing members of the scheme had teaching service before 1929, but no contributions were paid on that service, and, as I said, the Government had to bear the cost, with the result that a very heavy burden was thrown on the fund since its inception. I will refer to that matter again. I want to say with regard to gratuities that the only gratuities for which provision is made in the scheme are: (a) a short service gratuity which consists of a refund of the contributions paid by the teacher to the fund. This gratuity is paid to a teacher who retires from the scheme and is ineligible for the grant of a pension; (b) a gratuity paid to the representatives of a member on his death. This consists of his contributions to the fund together with compound interest at 3 per cent. This gratuity might amount to a year's salary or more, but the teacher would need to have very long service—30 years I think—before the gratuity would reach that amount. As has been pointed out, the gratuities under this scheme are short of the Civil Service gratuity. In the Civil Service, a gratuity amounting to a year's salary is paid to the representatives of a civil servant who dies while actually in the service, and also in the case of retiral a civil servant is given a lump sum amounting to one year's salary. If we were to consider giving the same type of gratuity to secondary teachers, it would mean a big additional cost on the scheme, and the State would have to make further financial provision.
I do not think there is any possibility of the rather large financial provision which would be necessary being made available at present, owing to the war situation. Even in normal times, I think the history of the fund will clearly show even those who are most sympathetic to the claims of the teachers—I should like to be classed amongst that section—that a very strong case could be made, from the actuarial point of view, against putting additional charges on the fund unless we are absolutely satisfied that we are making arrangements for additional contributions accordingly from one source or another. If it is claimed that the teachers would be willing to pay for this gratuity, all I can suggest is that, so far as one particular gratuity is concerned—that is the gratuity applicable in the case of a teacher who might die while actually in the service —the matter might be further considered, but, as Senator O Buachalla has pointed out, it would probably be shown that, if the teachers were to approach a good insurance company and ask them for terms for endowment insurance, they would probably get terms which would compare very favourably with what even a generous Minister for Finance, if there be such——
There never was.
——would be prepared to grant. It is forgotten, and I am glad that the Senator pointed out, that one does not get back from the insurance company or from the State what one has paid in. If we were to include the other type of gratuity, where the teacher retires from the service and would get a year's pay, say, if he were to get the same treatment as a civil servant, that would involve a big financial consideration, because that body of teachers, which is so very ably represented by Senator O'Connell, would be very likely to ask a question as to why they should not get what the secondary teachers were getting, and in that case it would probably run into six figures, so that as regards the gratuity on retirement I do not think it is practicable. Any assistance I can give in making the case, if it is put up to me, I shall certainly give, but I see no hope whatever of anything being done while the war lasts, even if the teachers show that they themselves are prepared to bear heavy additional contributions to secure this concession. Perhaps the question of a gratuity in cases of death in the service might be examined further, but I should like to make it clear that that, of course, is not a matter for me. There is the question of what the teachers are prepared to do, and there is the question of what the Minister for Finance is prepared to do at the present time.
There have been complaints that consultation was not made with the representatives of the teachers. Actually, although no formal consultation took place about the introduction of this scheme, the fact is that the particular amendment to which I have referred— the amendment to Section 9 of the main scheme, permitting teachers over 50 years of age to re-enter the scheme; where, for some reason or another they had ceased to be members, on the same basis as teachers under 50 years of age —arose from representations made to the Department of Education by the secondary teachers, and it was to meet the case of two teachers that this amending scheme was brought in.
Any Minister who has to deal with pension schemes will, therefore, always be faced with this position that, if, as in this particular case, he brings before the Oireachtas proposals for the amendment of the main scheme to cover particularly hard cases which are few in number, he will be immediately told from all sides of the House: "Oh, this is nothing, nothing at all. You are omitting this, that and the other." The fact is that the scheme was brought in as a result of representations with regard to a small number of cases, and if I had left the matter so, it would have been left so. If I had tried to get the Minister for Finance to put in all these proposals which we now hear of, of course the scheme would probably never have seen the light, and, in any case, it was only when we sent a copy of the scheme to the teachers, early last month, that this complaint was made.
When you are amending a scheme to cover hard cases, you cannot amend it in globo without having regard for the whole character and history of the fund. I had a great deal of experience of the troubles that arose in connection with the national teachers' fund when the new scheme of salaries was brought in—and a very worthy step it was under a foreign Government—improving greatly the salary rates of the teachers. Corresponding changes were not made in the rates of contribution, with the result that the national teachers' pension fund got into an insolvent condition. Once these funds start going wrong, they seem to go wrong at a rate of geometrical progression, falling very rapidly over a period of a few years until they become so lop-sided as to be almost completely insolvent. We have taken the whole of that responsibility on the annual Estimate for the Department of Education. It is a very substantial proportion of the annual cost of education and, by the time it reaches its maximum in the 1960's, I think, the Exchequer will be bearing a cost of £540,000 annually, which keen financiers or actuaries might describe as, to a certain extent, uncovenanted benefit, and that is an annual charge.
The trouble with these annual charges without funds or satisfactory contributions to meet them is—it has been a source of worry to me, at any rate—that if we were going through a very catastrophic period and slashing economies were being made in all directions, it is a very bad thing from the point of view of education, as well as from the point of view of strict finance that these should be solely dependent on annual provision by the Exchequer. It was most unfortunate that the funds of the Intermediate Education Board were dissipated and not kept for this purpose. However, future contingencies cannot be provided for, and, no doubt, there is a strong case against providing funds of this character to meet the entire actuarial commitments. But, at the same time, it is unsatisfactory that the whole burden should be thrown on the annual Estimate. I merely state that so that Senators will see there is another side to the case and that is the side, of course, that a Minister for Education or any of the secondary teachers themselves will have to bear in mind when they are making a case for additional benefits.
Senator Hayes referred to the question of the register, and Senator Tierney is not satisfied with the method of registration. He thinks, perhaps, it is the lowest in the wide world. I do not know whether we are quite as badly off as that, but, in any case, the matter is receiving attention, and we are examining the question as to whether a standard qualification, such as a university degree, cannot be fixed for all teachers in secondary schools. We are in touch with the schools in the matter, but it will be recognised that a certain amount of time must be given when a decision is reached, to enable the schools to make arrangements to carry such proposals into effect, and we are not taking any decision at present, because I do not think the time is suitable, nor would it be right to inflict what might be claimed to be disabilities or serious inconveniences on schools which have their own troubles arising out of the war situation. Nevertheless, we are examining the matter and we have asked the schools to supply us with information in future, particularly as regards the qualifications of new teachers entering the service.
Excuse me. Does this mean a standard qualification for all teachers, registered or not—allowing no one to teach unless he has qualifications?
Yes.
Over a certain period of course?
Yes.
That will be a great step forward.
I am glad to be able to inform the Senator of the latest figure, since I gave the answer in the Dáil, of the number of registered teachers employed in the schools. It would be no harm to have them on the official record. The number of registered men teachers was then 927, and women, 867, a total of 1,794. I think that represents roughly the same percentage increase—about 21 per cent., but I have not worked out the figures for the previous year. With regard to unregistered teachers, I find there is a definite improvement for 1940-41 in the case of men. The number has fallen from 610 in 1939-40, to 565 in 1940-41, with the result that over the period since 1932-33 it would now seem there is an actual decrease in the number of unregistered men teachers.
In the case of women, the position is different. There has been a further increase, and for the last year, 1940-41, the figure stood at 814. The total number of unregistered teachers was 1,279, which represents a decrease over the corresponding year in the total number of unregistered teachers, owing to the rather substantial fall in the number of men, but there is still an increase in the number of unregistered teachers, the gross number, over the 1932-33 period. I think the percentage, however, will go down on account of the fall in the number of unregistered men teachers. I should, perhaps, explain as the matter has been raised that a large number of the unregistered teachers are part-time teachers. For instance, in the year 1939-40, out of a total of 1,402 unregistered teachers, 865 or 61.7 per cent. were part-time teachers. These teachers are for special subjects such as physical training or music, and they have not the qualifications to enable them to be registered under the existing conditions.
We are endeavouring, as I have said, to discourage the employment in future of teachers who are not properly qualified, and we intend to urge upon the schools that they should not employ persons as teachers who have not the necessary academic qualifications for registration. Senator Tierney may be interested to know that there are 642 graduates with honours degrees out of a total of, roughly, 1,800. As Senator Concannon has pointed out, secondary education is under the control of the Church in this country. The only function of the Minister is to provide grants for the schools in accordance with conditions laid down by him, and also to prescribe certain regulations regarding the qualifications of teachers, the courses to be followed, and examinations, so that the question—a rather vexed one—of security of tenure is not very relevant and is not a matter for me. A discussion on it might lead us very far afield.
It is not mixed up with the question of pensions?
If a teacher's service is broken it affects his or her pension rights. I should have mentioned, perhaps, that Senator O'Connell's teachers have the advantage in that, since the 1934 superannuation scheme, in the case of teachers dying while in the service one year's salary is allowed, or a refund of pension premiums plus 2½ per cent. compound interest, whichever is the greater. This amount is paid to the teacher's dependent if the teacher had at least five years' pensionable service at the date of death. That was given because we were trying to make a final settlement of this terribly vexed question of national teachers' pensions. The secondary teachers' scheme, which was introduced in 1929, has come up for amendment now, and, as I explained, the principal reason this motion has been introduced is to deal with a small number of hard cases. However, the House may like to have the information which I have given.
I should like to explain to Senator Hayes that the £18,000 additional cost which would result from paying the incremental salaries monthly instead of quarterly would arise only in the first year in which the monthly system of payments would be introduced. There would, however, be no possibility whatever of getting that additional provision made during the present year— or even in coming years. While it may be said that it would be to the advantage of teachers to get their payments monthly and that payment on that basis should not involve a large amount of staff, it would involve the employment of some staff. Leaving that question aside, the Minister for Finance would object to increasing his liabilities under the Budget by £18,000 even though, from the Senator's point of view, it would be merely bringing forward the payment.
Is there any estimate of the annual cost? The Minister was good enough to give us some interesting new figures. Could he give us an estimate of the annual cost in this case?
I think that the salary of staff would be the only addition, apart from bringing the payment forward, but there is the difficulty, even if this concession were granted— I do not think it will be—that the returns do not come in from the schools until the first quarter of the year is well advanced, with the result that the payments could not be made monthly in the first quarter. Even if staff were provided and the Minister for Finance were agreeable, it would be only at Christmas that we could do what the Senator desires. If the position is that teachers are not paid monthly, I would suggest that, since the schools are responsible for the major portion of the salary, an approach ought to be made to them in the first instance.
I think that payment by the schools is monthly in practically all cases.
Generally, it is, but in some cases it may not be.
Question put and agreed to.