Vol. 60 No. 10
I move:
That the National School Teachers' Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1964, prepared by the Minister for Education, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, under Section 6 of the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1928 (No. 32 of 1928), and laid before the House on the 30th day of June, 1964, be confirmed.
Tá dhá aidhm leis an leasú atá dá bheartú anois ar scéimeanna aois-liúntais na múinteoiri náisiúnta. Sé an bun atá leis an gcéad cheann ná foráil a dhéanamh chun na cnapshuimeanna ar a dtugtaí deontais ex-gratia a híocadh faoin leasú scéime 1953 le múinteoirí a chuaidh ar phinsean roimh 1 Eanáir, 1950, d'athríomhadh sa tslí go dtabharfar an chreidiúint chéanna dóibh i leith a gcuid seirbhíse is a tugadh do na múinteoirí a chuaigh ar phinsean i ndiaidh an dáta sin. I mí na Márta, 1960, ghlac an Dáil le Vóta chun an soláthar cuí a dhéanamh i gcóir an chostais bhreise sin agus rinneadh íocaíocht leis na múinteoirí, nó lena mbaintreacha, bunaithe ar an triochadú cuid in ionad ar an gcéadú cuid den tuarastal inphinsin i leith gach bliana dá gcuid seirbhíse idir an bhliain 1905 agus an bhliain 1934. Bé méid na n-íocaíochtaí a rinneadh ná £328,070 agus sé an scéim leasaithe seo an ionstraim reachtúil a rialaíonn na híocaíochtaí sin.
Is é an dara cuspóir atá ag an leasú seo ná éifeacht a thabhairt do mholadh a rinneadh ag an Chomhairle IdirRéitigh do na Múinteoirí Náisiúnta. Faoin moladh sin bheadh na múinteoirí i dteideal tuille creidiúna a fháil chun críocha pinsin i leith a gcuid seirbhíse mar fhó-mháistreás chúnta nó mar thuathoide cúnta roimh 1 Aibreán, 1934. Faoi na scéimeanna a bhí i bhfeidhm go dtí seo ní raibh ag dul dóibh ach dhá dtrian den tréimhse sin chun críocha pinsin agus tá creidiúint i leith an triain eile dá tabhairt dóibh faoin scéim leasaithe seo. Tá foráil eile sa scéim a thugann creidiúint chun críocha pinsin i leith seirbhíse i dTuaisceart na h-Éireann mar fhó-mháistreás chúnta i mbunscoil nó mar thuathoide cúnta i mbunscoil chlochar i gcás múinteoirí a d'fhág scoileanna sa Tuaisceart agus a thosaigh ag múineadh i scoileanna anseo roimh 1 Aibreán, 1934.
Tá socrú déanta chomh maith sa scéim seo chun éifeacht a thabhairt do mholadh eile a rinneadh ag an Chomhairle Idir-Rtigh do na Múinteoirí Náisiúnta. gcás oide a shroiseann 65 bliana d'aois sa ráithe deiridh den scoilbhliain, is ceadaithe dó, faoin socrú seo, fanacht sa tseirbhís go cionn tréimhse breise nach sia ná trí mhí ón dáta ar a shroiseann sé an aois sin, má thugann an tréimhse bhreise sin bliain eile de sheirbhís inphinsin dó.
I do not propose to follow the Minister in speaking in Irish on a scheme which we have before us only through the medium of the second national language but will refer to the text which is in English.
In the translation of his remarks which the Minister was good enough to furnish in the first sentence there is a reference to the repayment in full of lump sums known as "ex gratia grants”. I did not catch precisely the word the Minister used in Irish and I am wondering if there is any significance in the word “repayment”. I should have thought it ought to be “payment”. “Repayment” suggests that at some time teachers have paid money to the Minister and he is now handing it back. Is this the case and, if not, then why is the word “repayment” used here?
Secondly, I note the Minister says this is an amending scheme of a statutory instrument governing payments made under the authority of a Supplementary Estimate passed by Dáil Éireann in March 1960. I wonder why more than five years elapsed from the time the Supplementary Estimate was passed until the scheme was introduced. It seems a very long delay and, talking of delays, I was wondering, too, why it has taken six months from the time the order was made to submit this scheme to the Seanad for approval. There may be and, no doubt, are, good reasons for these delays, but I think it is worth inquiring as to the reasons for them.
I notice that the service of certain teachers who taught in Northern Ireland is to be given credit for pension purposes, provided the service is pre-1934. I suppose this date has some special significance in relation to national teachers' pensions but I should be glad if the Minister would enlighten me as to the reason for this particular date and as to why service given by teachers in the past 31 years should not be credited for pension purposes. There are, perhaps, good reasons for this, but it would be helpful to know just what they are.
The scheme makes special provision to enable teachers who have nearly completed a year to continue working for another three months in order that they may be credited with a further year. That is a good thing. I suppose it is necessary to limit it but it has been my experience that teachers retiring at the age limit are very often far from being beyond good teachers. On the contrary, some of the very best teachers are teachers over the age limit who have continued to teach. I know that it is the practice now on the part of some secondary schools to snap up first-class national teachers when they reach retirement. In particular subjects in secondary schools, some of these teachers are exceptionally good and, indeed, better than any other teacher available for these subjects because of their long experience. I suppose we have no alternative but to insist on the retirement age, though many people continue hard at work and make a contribution well beyond the age of 65, and it seems a pity that this retirement age should be rigidly applied in a sphere in which experience is so valuable and in which age does not necessarily constitute a barrier to effective work in all cases.
There is another question I should like to ask in regard to abatement. Not very long ago we had legislation dealing with abatement of pensions. What happens if a national teacher takes up employment after retirement in a secondary school? Is there abatement of pension or has that anomaly been removed? If it is still in existence, then it is something the Minister should look into because it would seem undesirable to discourage teachers in this way. Of course there must be a provision with regard to retiring in the case of those who have gone beyond teaching. Where, however, a secondary school decide they want as the best possible person for a particular post a retired national teacher because they believe he is the best qualified, it seems a pity that he should be discouraged from continuing to serve because of reduction of pension. I wonder if abatement governs his pension in such circumstances. If it does, then it is something that should be examined into without delay.
In section 4 (1) (b), there is a reference to a widow. I take it that includes a widower as well. I take it there is no discrimination against the male sex here. The Minister might confirm me in that conclusion.
In section 10 there is something I do not quite understand. Quite frankly, I have not had an opportunity of studying the original order. I found this on my desk only today at lunch time when I returned from Cork. In section 10 there is a reference at the end to the limitation of three years' pensionable service. I am wondering if the Minister would explain what that limitation is in the principal scheme. It is not selfevident on the face of it here and not having had an opportunity of studying the principal scheme, I wondered what the limitation was and what its purpose is.
Finally, I should like to welcome the fact that the scheme refers to the other part of our country by its proper name of Northern Ireland, which is in accord with more recent Government practice in dropping pseudonyms such as the "Six Counties". It would be a good thing if the Government were to use its influence with Telefís and Radio Éireann to get them to follow the same practice and cease referring, in these ecumenical days, to Northern Ireland as the "Six Counties."
It is somewhat astonishing to find a reference to Saorstát Éireann cropping up. Presumably this is an historical reference and it is, I suppose, necessary for legal reasons. It seems an odd way to refer to the State, but no doubt there is good reason for it.
Níl san tairiscint seo ach ordú chun feidhm dleathach a thúirt do neithe atá in úsáid cheana. Cuireann múinteoirí fáilte roimh an ordú ach ceapann siad gur ceart don Roinn aithint a thúirt freisin don tseirbhís iomlán a thug oidí nea-oilte roimh 1934 agus oidí a mhúin i scoileanna caipitíochta roimh 1934 le haghaidh cnapshuim.
There is in this order nothing more than giving statutory effect to provisions already in operation for a number of years. From the teachers' point of view, the provisions are welcome, but there is one point I want to make on the section which gives recogntion to two-thirds of service prior to 1934 in respect of junior assistant mistresses, untrained assistants and those who gave service in capitation convents and monastery schools. We think the Department should have gone all the way and given recognition to two-thirds of the same service in respect of lump sun as well as pension. I cannot understand the reasoning of the Department when they stop more or less half way, giving recognition to two-thirds of the service for pension but giving no recognition to two-thirds of the same service in respect of lump sum, whereas in regard to the teacher who serves in the capacity of a national teacher in the ordinary way, for service prior to 1934 and thereafter, entire recognition is given for pension and lump sum. We have that criticism to make of the order before the House today.
In regard to the section which deals with the granting of recognition to people for service so that they can make up a further year of pensionable service where their birthday falls in the quarter ending 30th of any June, we welcome that provision also, and I have had the pleasure of being a member of the Conciliation Council which negotiated that arrangement.
While speaking of pensions, I think I should avail myself of the opportunity to express what I consider would be the opinion of every side of the House, that parity of pensions should be introduced whereby pensions will be related to current salaries. Many of the people affected by the depreciation in the value of money reducing the purchasing power of their pensions are people who have given wonderful service to the State since it was founded. They came into the nation's service in difficult times and have made a major contribution to its welfare. We would appeal to the Minister to convey to the Government our desire to see pensions based on current salaries. It is a shocking experience to be present at a meeting, as I and other members of the House were, to see ex-superintendents of the Guards, exinspectors of schools, ex-nurses, expublic servants generally, in their seventies and eighties all trooping in, asking for justice in this matter, people to whom we should be very grateful indeed for the nation they have left in our hands. A community or a society which allows these old people to end their years in anger and disillusionment does not deserve to prosper. It would be appreciated if the Minister would be kind enough to convey the appeal for parity of pension to the Government.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
I do not intend to make more than three points on this order. The first is very strongly in support of what Senator Brosnahan has said. I am not very often given an opportunity of supporting what he says, but what he says about parity of pensions is absolutely sound. It seems to me the Minister and the Government must agree with him in this. It applies not only to teachers' pensions but to all pensions. It is obvious that when the cost of living goes up sufficiently to warrant an increase in salaries within the Civil Service, this should apply also to pensions and to parity of pensions. Of course this is looking forward to some future Order, but I urge on the Minister the justice and the necessity for doing this and of putting it before his Cabinet colleagues.
The other two points I wish to make were mentioned by Senator Garret FitzGerald. One is in relation to allowing a certain amount of service in the North of Ireland to count towards pension rights. Quite clearly, this is a very good thing. I am disappointed, though, to find it is apparently to apply only to service in the distant past—pre-1934 I understand—and this does not seem to me to be just. I ask the Minister again to see if he could not consider service in Northern Ireland or indeed in Britain in primary schools to be regarded perfectly legitimately towards pension rights in this country. The effect of such a consideration would be an increase in the recruitment of valuable and experienced primary school teachers in Ireland, because there must be many in the North of Ireland, and more particularly in Britain, of Irish parents or Irish extraction who would quite gladly come back here were it not for the fact that they would, by coming back, be sacrificing many valuable years of pensionable service. This point has been made very well already, but I stress it, and hope the Minister will view it with sympathy. In this respect I refer to paragraph 7 on page 6 of the Report before us, though it is not sufficiently extended. It seems to me the Minister might well consider in relation to secondary teachers on the incremental scale that their years of service in Britain and the North might similarly be counted.
The last point is in reference to retirement at the age of 65 years. Is the Minister really satisfied—Senator Garret FitzGerald put the question to him—that he is not losing most valuable members of the staffs of primary schools by insisting on retirement at 65 years? It is well konwn to me, too, that many national school teachers give long years of valuable service in secondary schools. I can think of specific examples of absolutely brilliant teachers with long experience, and the primary schools no longer want them at the age of 65. I know voluntary hospitals in this city which allow surgeons to serve on to the age of 70. Teachers can still work extremely well with a shake in their hands. I am not quite so sure about surgeons. If it is all right for surgeons to continue working up to 70 years, I do not see why teachers, if they want to, should not have their service extended, which might then increase their rate of pension. This is also a point to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. It was touched on, too, by Senator FitzGerald. Apart from this, as far as I read it—I do not claim to have read it in all its implications— the order is clearly a good and just one.
I should like to welcome what has been done under the National Teachers' Superannuation Scheme because everything in the scheme before us has already been implemented. It is just a question of putting the matter in order. The pre-1950 teachers—many of my friends are among them—certainly appreciate what was done under the scheme. They went out without a gratuity but by the action of the INTO, they have been brought in and the Government have agreed that those people should not be left without gratuity when they retire.
It was a pity the Minister did not see his way to include the pre-1934 teachers for the full amount instead of for the two-thirds. The number of those pre-1934 teachers who are still alive is very small and the amount of money involved would be very small indeed. It would be a tribute to those people to pay the full amount to them.
With regard to allowing teachers to continue to teach after 65 years, I do not agree that teachers should do so. I agree with the three months that has been given. It is a good thing. Someone could be caught for a couple of days and the fact that he will get an extra three months to qualify for another year's pension is very good. When I was trained, there were 300 teachers walking around with their hands in their pockets, and I was one of them. There were people who were kept on after their time and their time was extended because of certain service they had given. I should not like to see that happen again. The average teacher is trained at 20 years of age and by the time he reaches 65 he has 45 years' service in the national school. It is time for him to retire them.
I welcome the three months extension period but I would not welcome extending the number of years because there are too many people emigrating from this country at the present time. If more teachers are required, it should be quite an easy matter to train and employ them in their own country. I am not asking them to take the emigrant boat to England or somewhere else. I should like to see the day when everyone in this country, no matter what his position, whether it be politician or otherwise, would retire at 65 years of age.
Táim buíoch dena Seanadóirí as ucht an méid adúradar, nó cuid de ar aon nós. Ós rud é gur pléadh an rún as Béarla, is dócha gur cheart, mar cúirtéis don tSeanad, an freagra a thúirt as Béarla.
Senator McAuliffe mentioned a point I want to stress, that is, that this scheme really implements a number of agreements arrived at in the conciliation scheme for national teachers. This gives formal, legal effect to matters which have been in operation for some time.
I want, first of all, to apologise for the inaccurate translation which was given to Senators. Senator Garret FitzGerald referred to the word "repayment" in the English translation, which of course should read "revision". The reason for this, if I may mention it, is that due to a slight breakdown in communications, I was not aware until a fairly late hour that this matter was coming before the Seanad today. Therefore, the statement I made, which had been prepared in Irish, was all I had. There was no English translation available at the time. One was prepared in a hurry and I am afraid it led to this slight inaccuracy.
Mention has been made of service in Northern Ireland. I should like to make it clear that what is referred to here is service in respect of which there were arrangements between the Governments in Belfast and Dublin. There were some kind of reciprocal arrangements which came to an end in 1934. I do not think there is any case for reviving them in the form in which they existed then, but I should like to make it clear to the Seanad that there is provision at present for teachers of any kind, including national teachers who serve in Northern Ireland, to get credit for that service, within certain limits, if they teach here. Whether that should be extended beyond Northern Ireland is a much wider question which was debated some time ago on a motion in Dáil Éireann. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides. My position on that question is that I am waiting to see how the scheme with Northern Ireland will work out, and to see whether in fact extending the scheme to Britain would be of benefit to us or would simply be of benefit to Britain.
With regard to the retiring age of 65, I should like to make it clear also that it is possible at present for teachers to continue after the age of 65 for a period of three years, but on that basis their service is renewable from year to year, and they are granted this extension only where their record as teachers is satisfactory. A number of teachers do avail of this.
May I ask the Minister if this is credited as pensionable service?
The pension which they would have got at 65 years is deferred for the three years in which they are in receipt of a full salary.
Supposing they had not got the maximum service behind them, they would not get credit for this extra service?
This would not be pensionable service, no.
It seems a pity.
I am not aware of many —and I think I can say of any—cases in which this problem arises. Due to the nature of the recruitment of national teachers, it is very unlikely. It is conceivable but not likely.
Surely it must arise or the Minister would not have this three months scheme?
That is probably a different point. That is in connection with the lump sum payments and not the pension.
The point is that he may reach the age of 65 and not have got full pensionable service. There must be teachers who reach 65 years and have not full pensionable service.
Forty years' service is full service.
This scheme covers people who retired fairly recently and the history of some of the teachers of that time would be different from the history of the teachers at present serving.
They could not get a job.
There were other factors, too. Senator Garret FitzGerald asked what was the reason for the delay. The main reason for the delay is that the awards at conciliation which are being implemented did not take place at the one time. They took place at intervals. It was known or suspected that they were coming. I wanted to introduce them together in one instrument. This, combined with certain other matters, held them up. What was held up was the formalising of them, and they have been implemented for some time past.
I think Senator Garret FitzGerald also raised the question of what happens to the teachers who resume employment after retirement. The position is that if a teacher is employed or re-employed after he retires, his pension stops until his employment stops and then commences again.
Employment as what?
As a teacher.
As a national teacher?
Yes.
The secondary teacher's pension is not abated.
I am coming to that. I think Senator Garret FitzGerald raised a question about the limitation of transferred service, which is the case of a national teacher becoming a secondary teacher. In that case, under an arrangement made before this scheme was introduced, a national teacher had a limitation of three years' service. That was all that would be recognised if he became a secondary teacher. This scheme does away with that limitation. His full service would be recognised but this is for pension purposes only. Under our present arrangements also, a national teacher who wants to become a secondary teacher has to comply with the requirements of the Registration Council for Secondary Teachers, apart from the academic qualifications. He would have to start at the bottom, as regards doing the year on probation which secondary teachers have to do, but for pension purposes, his service as a national teacher would count fully under this scheme, and prior to this, only three years' service would count.
That is not quite my point. If a national teacher who has retired and got a pension then takes on secondary teaching, as a number do, will his pension be abated because he becomes a secondary teacher?
He is then in private employment.
Such service is not recognised. He draws his pension as a national teacher. He is in private employment, as Senator Ó Conalláin has pointed out, and this service is not recognised for pension purposes.
It is not abated either?
The extent to which it might have been abated would depend on his salary from State funds. If he retires as a national teacher, he cannot become a recognised secondary teacher. These are the cases that the Senator is thinking about. He must go through a fairly formal procedure. He cannot do this if he serves fully as a national teacher and then retires.
Senator Garret FitzGerald asked whether the reference to a widow included a widower. The answer is "no," and the reason is that what is being dealt with there is a situation which applies only to some teachers retiring between the years 1950 and 1960. The arrangement made is an ex gratia one and does not apply to any teachers retiring after 1960 or before 1950. As I say, the arrangement was an ex gratia one, if I can use that term. It was settled on that basis, I understand, and the terms on which the settlement was made applied only to widows.
If it were the other way round, there would be bitter complaints about discrimination against women.
I think the Senator will appreciate that there is a little more involved where a man dies and leaves a widow, normally speaking, than where a wife dies leaving a surviving husband, and the arrangement come to on an ex gratia basis would have had regard to that fact.
It was not the view taken in the Succession Act.
The Senator is now trying to involve me in something which goes even further afield than what we have been discussing up to now.
There was one other matter raised by Senator Brosnahan, supported by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, the question of the pension parity. I am not sure whether it is a matter that, strictly speaking, arises on this, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that while the present position cannot be regarded by anybody as being satisfactory, nevertheless it is vastly superior to what it was say five or six years ago. A considerable improvement has been made in bringing pensions up much nearer to those being granted to people retiring today. I am speaking not just of national teachers but in general, in regard to pensions for which the State is responsible. While, as I say, the position cannot be regarded as satisfactory, nevertheless considerable progress has been made and it indicates the direction in which one could reasonably expect the movement to be in the future.
