I move:—
That the Secondary Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1949, made by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for Finance, be confirmed.
Secondary Teachers' Superannuation Scheme—Motion.
The purpose of this amendment is very simple and is contained in Paragraphs 5 and 6. From the 1st September, 1946, new scales for secondary teachers were introduced. The secondary teachers have a pensions scheme to which a number of them belong, though it is not a compulsory scheme. They pay in certain contributions. Secondary teachers are paid a salary which consists of a basic salary derived from the capitation grants paid to the schools and an incremental salary paid from the State direct. They give a contribution for their pensions, which contribution consists of 4 per cent. of their complete salary—the basic plus the incremental—and there is a contribution also of 2½ per cent. paid from the schools.
A teacher's pension is computed in relation to the last three years of his salary. When new scales were introduced on 1st September, 1946, and teachers retired after that date, you will understand that some of them retired having received salaries at the rate of the new scales for part of their three years and at the rate of the old scales for another part. The purpose of this amendment is that those teachers who went out after the new scales were introduced will be paid pensions as if the new scales had been in operation for three years previously. That is provided for under Section 5 (a).
I indicated that teachers pay a contribution towards their pension fund amounting to 4 per cent. on the money they receive. Section 5 (b) provides that, in order to become entitled to the greater benefits provided under Section 5 (a), a teacher will have to contribute the 4 per cent. on the difference between the actual salary he was paid prior to September, 1946, and the notional salary upon which, under this scheme, his pension will be assessed. The section provides for the payment of that differential amount.
Then Section 6 provides that this scheme will operate as if the amendment had been enacted from the 1st September, 1946. There will be arrears payments to be made under this scheme to people who retired after 1st September, 1946. Senators will understand that a Pensions Bill is going through the Dáil at present which is intended to increase the smaller pensions paid before 1st September, 1946. The bringing into force of this scheme, by raising the pensions paid to people subsequent to that date, will raise the ceiling up to the level of the increases provided for in the Pensions Bill. Therefore, as well as improving the position of the secondary teachers who retired after the 1st September, 1946, this scheme, in association with the Pensions Bill, will increase somewhat the pensions of teachers who retired on small pensions before 1st September, 1946.
Arrangements have been made that will make it possible to pay the arrears due under this scheme and under the Pensions Bill before Christmas.
As a representative of the National University constituency, which consists largely of teachers, I would like to ask the Minister if the rates mentioned in this scheme meet the wishes of the secondary teachers' association. I presume the Minister, before putting the scheme into its present form, had consultations with the mouthpiece of the secondary teachers and that he met their wishes as far as possible. I would like to be assured on that point.
I am not in a position to say personally and positively that the matter has been discussed with the representatives of the association. I have had consultations with them on other matters and I feel perfectly confident that the provisions of this scheme will be welcomed by them.
Thank you.
What is the purpose of basing the pension on the salary paid for the three previous years? Is the idea that there might possibly be a fall in the salary? A problem was created that the Minister has had to deal with now. Why is it not based on the salary that the teacher is paid the year he is retiring?
The Minister also mentioned that there will be a new contribution to the scheme based on the new scale. I take that to mean that the new contribution will be payable back to 1946, not further retrospectively. I am rather at sea as to what it means. Of course, the people who get a pension are not paying, I take it, but what is the meaning of increasing the amount? Is it increased from the date that the increased salary is paid or is there a retrospective increase?
Could the Minister explain the reason for the delay of practically three years in bringing in this Order?
The change of Government.
No.
It would not be brought in at all otherwise.
In reply to Senator Colgan, the basic scheme that was arranged with the secondary teachers accepted that the pension would be based on the average of the last three years before a person went out on pension. Normally it is the same, that is, assuming a person has worked for the 40 years that would entitle him to full pension. If, however, a person went out on pension arising out of disability, it might be that he was still in that period of his career where he was receiving increments and he might be stepped up. At any rate, it is part of the basic scheme and, while it might be a subject for discussion as to why it is and as to whether or not it would be better to change it, I am afraid that would be for some other occasion. Senator O'Connell asked me what was the reason for the delay. I could not say. An amendment of the scheme for national teachers exactly parallel to this was arranged some months ago.
Years.
It could not be much more than a year ago. Why this was not done at the same time, I cannot say but any material wrong that arises out of that delay, I hope will be made up, say, spiritually.
What exactly does that mean?
The fact that this comes as a Christmas gift, as I hope it will, may make up on the spiritual side for any wrong that the delay created. Senator Colgan also asked why there should be a repayment. If you take the case of a person who retired, say, about September, 1947, and had two years before the 1st September, 1946, at the smaller scale and a year afterwards, the incremental maximum for a married man was £210 up to 1st September, 1946, and it was £410 after 1st September, 1946. The pension at the present time is paid on the basis that for two of the three years the man was paid at the rate of £200 less than he was paid in the third year. He did not get that money but he is now getting for pension purposes the same credit and payment of pension as if he had got that money. He has already paid 4 per cent. on what he got. He is now being asked to pay 4 per cent. on what he did not get in those two years.
That is fair enough.
Because, in future, he will be getting pension as if he had paid.
He is getting the best part of the bargain.
At any rate, he is doing in respect of what he will get in addition, the same as he has already done in respect of his present pension.
Motion put and agreed to.