Tairgim:—
Go ndeonfar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £90,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1956, chun Bun-Oideachais, lena n-áirítear Aoisliúntas Muinteoirí Scoile Náisiúnta agus Deontas-i-gCabhair, etc.
The acceptance by the Government of the findings of the recent National Teachers' Arbitration Board necessitates the provision of extra money this year. The Ministers for Finance and Education on the one side and the I.N.T.O. on the other, are parties to a scheme for conciliation and arbitration for national teachers.
The teachers' claim submitted to the arbitration board was that the scale salaries of trained national teachers be adjusted to put them on a par with those paid to vocational and secondary teachers. The board found by a majority that the scale of salaries payable to trained national teachers should not be adjusted so as to put them on a par with those paid to vocational and secondary teachers and, a majority of the board being unable to agree on a scale of salaries for trained national teachers, the finding of the chairman was that the differential, which existed between national teachers and secondary teachers in 1946, when the main basis for the scales now in operation for the three groups of teachers was first laid down, should be restored as far as possible; the chairman accordingly recommended scales designed to achieve that objective.
A second claim by the teachers' side was that a percentage increase be granted to all untrained teachers, equivalent to the overall percentage increase to trained teachers, following the granting to trained teachers of parity in salary with secondary and vocational teachers as set out in the first claim. The finding was that since a majority of the board was unable to agree upon a finding on this second claim, the chairman recommended salary scales for untrained teachers adjusted in relation to the scales recommended by him for trained teachers in the first claim.
The Government presented the report of the board to Dáil Eireann, and announced that they proposed to give immediate effect to the findings of the board in full, and that it was also proposed to make a proportionate increase in grants to national schools paid on a capitation basis. The estimated cost of these increases in the remuneration of national teachers, and in grants to capitation schools for the first full year of operation is £275,000, rising eventually to £315,000, per annum. The findings take effect from the 1st October last, and the amount required to implement the findings for the current financial year ending 31st March, 1956, is £120,000. It is expected, however, that there will be a saving of £30,000 on the sub-head and the net amount to be provided is therefore £90,000.
I consider it desirable that I should make reference to some matters which by way of Press comment and by way of I.N.T.O. campaign have come before the public since the award. Notwithstanding the fact that the nature of the claim and the basis of the award are quite clear as I have quoted them to you from the report of the arbitration board, there has been much misrepresentation and misunderstanding regarding them. As this has been substantially contributed to by statements issuing from representative bodies of the I.N.T.O. I think it necessary further to clear the matter by quoting from, not inappropriately, the November issue of the Irish School Monthly (page 223) which is published under the editorial control of the I.N.T.O.:—
"Arguments based on economic factors, such as the cost of living, the national income, etc., were not discussed. The I.N.T.O. sought the establishment of a principle, and in presenting the case it was made clear in our written statement and orally by our representatives that the granting of parity or otherwise would in no way prejudge our claims to further increases in salary should we choose to make them on economic or other grounds. The award, therefore, was not an increase in salary, as such, and must not be so interpreted. What the judge, in effect, said was: ‘I do not think that national teachers should be paid the same salaries as vocational and secondary teachers. I think, however, that the difference between their salaries is too big, and I recommend that the gap be reduced'."
This quotation is from a special contribution dealing with the arbitration award, and signed by the general secretary of the organisation.
The position can further be made clear by another quotation from the same article—page 224:—
"New salary claim: A salary claim based in the main on economic factors has been submitted to the Minister for Education. The economic factors cited are the cost of living and the national income."
The new claim, here referred to, was submitted to the Minister for Education on the 28th October, 1955, and the normal steps are in process of being taken for consideration of the claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme, which is a continuing scheme. All this will, I hope, clear up, at least for the Deputies, what the claim made by the organisation was for, and what is the basis of the arbitrator's award.
A second matter I have to mention is a serious one not only as a particular instance but in principle. The scheme of arbitration provides that when an application is made the persons making the claim will submit with their claim a statement of the grounds upon which it is based. Within a stated time the official side representing the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance will supply the claimants with an outline of the grounds upon which they rely to make any rebutting case. If the claim has to be brought to the arbitration stage then the claimants make their case before an agreed chairman; it is replied to on the official side, and the claimants are given the opportunity of then counter-replying. This stage of the arbitration proceedings may take place in public, and the arguments on both sides are put forward by selected advocates who for the official side must be serving civil servants and for the teachers' side must be officers of the I.N.T.O. or serving teachers.
When the claimants have thus replied in public the proceedings of the board are continued in private. The discussion of the various aspects of claim and counter-case involved can be continued at length by members of the board itself. The board consists of two officers of the Departments of Education and Finance, two officers of the I.N.T.O. or serving teachers, and an independent chairman agreed on beforehand by both sides.
In the present instance, the public hearing the took place on three days, the 19th, 20th and 21st September, 1955; the board's discussions took place on the 22nd, 23rd and 27th September, 1955; ample time was, therefore, given for argument and consideration before the proceedings were terminated. Immediately following the termination of the arbitration proceedings a serious campaign was initiated by the claimants' organisation against one of the officers of the Department of Education, namely, the chief inspector, who had acted as one of the three advocates on the official side. The grounds were that he had made statements before the board in his capacity as advocate, which were regarded as objectionable by the claimants. Serious charges have been publicly made against this officer, and by way of various resolutions, branches of the organisation have called for strong official action in his regard. This matter culminated in a letter to me from the Central Executive Committee of the organisation, dated 29th October last.
I had deliberately refrained from any action in relation to these happenings lest I add to the difficulties of the situation. When, however, on the 4th instant, I received a further letter stating that it was intended to publish the letter to me of the 29th October, I decided I could no longer refrain from taking cognisance of these happenings. I, therefore, sent a letter to the organisation that afternoon expressing my concern at the developments which had taken place. I have no wish to publish my letter. I have no wish to create a precedent which would suggest that when the arguments at an arbitration board have been finished they may be brought from the arbitration room to be argued to decimal points at either departmental or ministerial level. Such a proceeding would completely destroy much of the usefulness of the contribution which conciliation and arbitration machinery can bring to our conduct or public business.
A version of the letter written by the executive of the I.N.T.O. to me on the 29th October is now published in the November issue of the Irish School Monthly. It does not contain all the charges against the officer which were made in the actual letter addressed to me. The letter as published in the journal is an expurgated version. It would also appear that it must have been this expurgated version which was sent to the public Press and was referred to in uses of Sunday, the 6th, and Monday, 7th instant.
Apart from my fundamental objection to publishing my reply to the I.N.T.O., doing so would inevitably bring to view that part of the letter which it was apparently considered desirable to expurgate, although no part of the letter addressed to me has been withdrawn. I am encouraged to hope that the reflection and the prudence which caused the expurgation of the letter for purposes of publication may further exert themselves on these responsible and may lead to a position in which it will be realised and accepted that conciliation and arbitration is a scheme that must be worked according to certain rules and conventions. The scheme is intended to provide, and does provide, an ordered machinery for the presentation of claims and counter-case, the orderly arguing of the case involved, and the presentation of a decision in the form which enables the Dáil to be assured that the decision has been arrived at in an orderly way after adequate examination. With the Minister for Finance, I share responsibility for approving of the general lines of official statements rebutting anv claim. No officer is commissioned to act as an advocate who has not my confidence and who is not fully competent to discharge the duty assigned to him.
I should like to assure the Dáil that I have the fullest confidence in the chief inspector and his work. Anyone who has ever had any contact with him will understand this. That includes many members of this House. He is a conscientious, painstaking, competent official, as courteous in his manner as he is alert in his attention. I consider it my duty to the general interests served by my Department to protect him from such misrepresentations, charges and attacks as he is being subjected to. The courts of justice could not serve their purpose effectively if either at the hands of advocates or of clients the arguments concluded in the courts poured over into the streets in recrimination or personal vendetta. In the present matter, even our sense of fair play is outraged.
The scheme of conciliation and arbitration was established to serve the interests of all concerned—the Dáil, the Department, the teachers and the public. Apart from its objective of arriving in the most orderly way at decisions with regard to salaries and emoluments, it has the very important advantage that, by creating an ordered machinery for that purpose, it releases time and energy on the part of both teachers and the Department for the general education work that is their raison d'être. In spite of the difficulties which appear at the moment, I shall persistently work to make the conciliation and arbitration machinery what it was set up to be, and I feel sure that I will have the sympathetic help of all sections of the Dáil to this end.