At Question Time to-day I asked the Minister for Education:—
"Whether he is aware of the serious hardships imposed on national teachers by the delay in increasing their salaries and if he would establish the proposed arbitration board within a period of one month so that the claims of the teachers to an increase in their remuneration may be investigated, decided, and put into effect before the 1st day of October next."
To that question the Minister replied:—
"I have already indicated that it is intended to set up an arbitration board to which questions relating to the salaries of national teachers may be referred, but I cannot say at present when the board is likely to be formed."
I considered that answer unsatisfactory and I gave notice that I would raise it on the Adjournment. Quite recently we discussed the Estimates for the Department of Education and the debate on those Estimates was conducted on the basis that an arbitration board would be set up. That was the idea I had in mind during the debate and I think it was the idea that every other Deputy had who took part in the debate. When the Minister was replying he made this statement:—
"On the question of salaries, Deputy Butler seemed to issue some kind of challenge that something had been left undone in that matter. When the change of salaries was brought about at the end of 1946 it was stipulated in the provision then made that there would be a review of salary scales not later than November, 1949. Beyond whatever special things may arise in the meantime, I have not in mind that there would be a general review of the primary teachers' salaries between this and 1949, but I have in mind that the arbitration body that would act as a permanent piece of machinery, arbitrating in matters of salary or conditions of service for the primary teachers, would be set up possibly towards the end of this year, so that there would be plenty of time to have whatever considerations that are to be reviewed fully reviewed before the period contemplated in the last scheme will have concluded and, whatever changes in conditions of service or salary are going to be introduced, the teachers will be quite clear with regard to what these are by September, 1949, so that there will be no lag in any change that will then take place."
The reference to that is Volume 110, No. 16 of Dáil Debates of 26th May, 1948, columns 2237 and 2238.
That statement of the Minister's was like a douche of could water thrown down the backs of the teachers. In effect it was tantamount to saying to the teachers "live horse and you will get grass". Now, the Minister is aware, as this House is aware, that the matter of teachers' salaries has been engaging the attention of most public-spirited citizens of this State for a long period. When the teachers could not get redress in any other way they had to resort to strike action to draw attention to their grievances. In the Estimates for the Department of Education which were debated in this House at the time of the strike there was general sympathy expressed for the claims of the teachers. In the recent general election when the teachers took an active part in the campaign, the great majority of them, I am glad to say, on the side of Clann na Poblachta, they took that part for the purpose of bringing about a change of Government so that the matter of their salaries would receive immediate and sympathetic consideration. During the election campaign a circular was sent out by the teachers to the Leaders of all Parties. To the Leader of every Party contesting that general election a question was put. The question was this:—
"If returned, are you prepared to take steps to raise teachers' salaries to a level commensurate with their qualifications and the importance of their work?"
To that question the Minister, General Mulcahy, as Leader of the Fine Gael Party, answered "yes". Not only did he answer "yes" but he stated: "Among my other Dáil references to this matter see Dáil Debates, Vol. 96, No. 9, 27th April, 1945, columns 2643 to 2260." I am not going to read the Minister's, then Deputy General Mulcahy, indictment of his predecessor for his treatment of the teachers because I would not have time to do it. If any Deputy wants to read what the Minister, then Deputy General Mulcahy, thought about the teachers and their just claims at that time he can find it in the Dáil Debates to which I have referred. The same question was addressed to the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Norton, and he replied "yes". It was addressed to Mr. MacBride, the Leader of my Party, and he answered "yes". No answer was received to this circular apparently from either the Leader of Clann na Talmhan or from the Leader of National Labour. The circular was simply acknowledged by Mr. de Valera's private secretary.
There is no doubt whatever that when the strike ended in the way it did and when the teachers engaged in political action of a strong and earnest kind they did that in the belief that those promises made to them by the Leaders of these Parties were sincere and were intended. As far as I am concerned, standing as I did on Clann na Poblachta election platforms and advocating the claims of the teachers to an increase in their remuneration, I did that honestly and sincerely believing that if there were a change of Government the claims of the teachers would receive immediate consideration.
Now, the teachers issued a leaflet drawing attention to their salaries and that leaflet has been quoted in this House, certainly by Deputy Norton, the Leader of the Labour Party, because I read his contribution in the Official Debates to-day. It has been used also by other Deputies in this House. That would go to show that the salary scales offered to the teachers and upon which the teachers are existing at the moment are entirely inadequate. Taking into account the present-day cost of living, the maximum salary of the most efficient teacher with the longest service is very little more than £5 a week. Everybody realises the importance of the teachers to the community. We depend on the teachers to develop the character of our children. We depend on the teachers to train our children and to make good citizens of them. They take the place of the parents to a large extent. Teachers have always been held in an honourable position in this country and it is only right that that should be so. However, under the salary scales that are in operation at the moment and that have been in operation for some time past many teachers are unable to meet their obligations. Many teachers are unable to pay their way. Many of them are existing on money that they have borrowed from their friends, relatives, or somebody else. I know many cases of teachers with young families who in the years before the war were able to pay a small deposit on a house; who had received the balance of the money from a building society; who had stinted themselves repaying the amounts that were due on these building society loans and who, through the increase in their cost of living, were compelled either to sell their houses or to remortgage them for a higher mortgage and pay off out of the proceeds the smaller one. That in turn put them in the position of having greater expenditure.
When a person, no matter what walk of life he may be in, goes to the trouble of establishing a home in which to bring up his family, it is a very hard thing on him if he has to sell that home because he is not in a position to pay for it. I think it is a scandalous thing when the person involved is a national teacher, to whom the State owes so much, that that national teacher should have to deprive himself of his home simply because the State will not pay him enough wages on which to live. There is no use blinking the fact that in the teaching profession—and nobody has put this more strongly than the Minister for Education when he was a Deputy and Leader of the Opposition —some teachers have had to borrow money from moneylenders. That was explained to this House by Deputy General Mulcahy when he was Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt that in this city teachers going to their work have received threatening letters from people to whom they owed money for household bills or something else. I am personally aware of cases where teachers have civil bill officers calling to their schools to serve civil bills on them, or the sheriff's officers calling about decrees that the sheriff wants to execute. How can a teacher teach and look after the children committed to his care if he or she is worried in that way? There is no doubt whatever that the position is as the Minister himself explained to this House two years ago when he was Leader of the Opposition. The position has not improved since. The position may even be worse to-day. I say that to put teachers in this position is a disgrace. For a government to do it is shameful. I think that one of the tests of good government is the just treatment of the teachers to whom we commit our children for their care and education in their earlier years.
To increase the salary of the teachers is a debt of honour to which this inter-Party Government is committed. It is no use for the Minister to say that he will increase the salaries in 1949, in September or October. During the period from now until October there will be many empty plates on teachers' tables. There will be many a teacher's child going around in the winter without sufficient or adequate or proper boots to wear. The Parties which compose this inter-Party Government have won a general election. We have won it through the instrumentality and the great assistance of the teachers. I repeat that it is a debt of honour and, as far as I am concerned, I want the Government and the Minister for Education to realise and understand that that debt of honour must be repaid.
