asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that under the recently announced salary scales for teachers, untrained women assistants, appointed after the 1st January, 1921, are being treated differently as regards conditions of service to those appointed prior to that date, although both hold the same qualifications; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for this differentiation, and whether it is proposed to remove it.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Teachers' Salaries.
When revised scales of salary for national teachers were being introduced in 1920 it was decided, as a concession, I understand, to those untrained assistant teachers who were already in the service at the time, to grant them more favourable treatment than those who would be appointed in that capacity after the 31st December, 1920. Different scales were accordingly at that time formulated for the two groups. This differentiation was continued in all subsequent variations of salary, including the revised scales which came into force on 31st October, 1946. The recent proposals of the Government for new scales of salary, in continuing this differentiation, did not, therefore, break new ground, and it is not intended to modify the proposals as suggested by the Deputy. I might add that untrained assistant teachers appointed after the 1st January, 1921, will receive substantial benefits under the present proposals. The 1938 scales were £115 10s.-£137 10s., and under the 1946 scales, £160 to £218 for efficient service and to £236 for highly efficient service. The scale now proposed as from 1st January, 1950, is £200 to £300 for all those giving satisfactory service.
Does the Minister think that those people have a grievance, and will he consider it at any time?
I can only refer the Deputy to my answer. I cannot add to it.
asked the Minister for Education whether he has had further discussions with the Irish National Teachers' Organisation since the announcement of his proposals on 21st September, 1949, with regard to national teachers' salaries; and, if so, with what result.
I would refer the Deputy to the copies of the correspondence already circulated, i.e., the letter of the general secretary, Irish National Teachers' Organisation addressed to me and dated the 28th September, 1949, and the letter in reply addressed by me to him on the 6th October, 1949.
I had an interview with representatives of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation on Saturday, 8th October, and there followed further correspondence consisting of a letter from the general secretary to me dated the 24th October, and reply thereto by me dated 23rd November, and which reads as follows:—
"The representations contained in your letter of the 24th October regarding the Government's proposals in the matter of salaries and other grants and pensions for national school teachers have been fully and carefully considered by the Government.
As a result it has now been decided as follows:—
(1) The new scales of salary and other grants and the revised pension arrangements as set forth in the memorandum of 21st September last will be brought into operation with effect as from 1st January, 1950, instead of 1st April, 1950, as originally proposed.
(2) The introduction of the revised pension arrangements shall not operate to deprive any woman teacher who, on the 1st January, 1950, is serving in a recognised capacity in any national school, or who, though not serving in such a capacity, is on that date eligible for recognition under the Department's regulations, of the right now possessed by her, subject to the usual statutory conditions, to have paid to her legal personal representative, in the case of her death in the service, a gratuity equivalent to a year's salary.
It will not be possible to make any payments arising out of the introduction of the new scales until after the 31st March, 1950.
The Government is not able further to modify in any way its proposals."
On the 7th December the president of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation and some of his colleagues were received by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and myself, and further representations on behalf of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation were made and discussed.
Following full consideration of these further representations by the Government the general secretary was informed yesterday that the Government finds itself unable to modify its proposals except as indicated in my letter of the 23rd November.
Will the Minister say what the net cost of the variation in the Government's proposals to the teachers is?
That is a separate question.
The Deputy might put that to me in a separate question.
asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that the teachers of County Dublin are very disappointed at the non-implementation of the Roe Report; and, if so, whether he will now consider revising his offer.
asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that despite the recent modification of his offer for increased salaries, national teachers are still very discontented that the recommendations of the Roe Commission were not accepted; and, if so, whether he will re-examine the matter with a view to allaying this discontent.
With your permission, a Chinn Chomhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
I would refer the Deputies to copies of the correspondence already circulated. They will have seen from my letter of the 6th October addressed to the General Secretary, Irish National Teachers' Organisation that in addition to concessions amounting to approximately £225,000 a year made since the present Government took office the proposals which it is now intended will come into operation from the 1st January, 1950, will cost initially an additional £750,000 a year rising after some years to about £880,000. In view of the various heavy demands which are being made upon the finances of the State, the Government finds itself unable to modify these proposals.
Is the Minister in a position to state whether Deputies Gilbride, Burke and Davern were as solicitous for the welfare of the national school teachers in 1946 as they are to-day?
That is not a relevant supplementary question.
They did not humbug about setting up a commission, anyway.
What was Deputy Palmer doing for the teachers then?