Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Nov 1965

Vol. 218 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Teaching Service in Britain and Northern Ireland.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that qualified secondary and vocational teachers who are nationals of Ireland and who have had suitable teaching experience in Northern Ireland or Britain should on returning to teach here, be given credit on a basis commensurate with their services in these areas for the purpose of computing salary payable by the Department of Education, and that similar credit should be given to those who have already returned.

—(Deputy P. Byrne).

Mr. Jones

Before the debate was adjourned last night, I had referred to the fact that the Minister had thought it wise that officers of his Department should go abroad and gain experience in the methods of education being pursued in other countries, the methods available for the promotion of language, the study and treatment of children, and so on. For some time the Minister and his Department have been encouraging teachers to go abroad. This is a clear indication that the experience so gained is a very valuable asset in the matter of education.

I had also suggested that the Minister need have no fear that the three aims which he has set himself in encouraging Irish graduates to take service abroad will in any way upset the balance between the number of teachers going to Africa and the countries enumerated last night and the number going to Britain.

I also suggested that the number of teachers likely to return to this country to take up service here would be rather small, that the experience the Minister has gained, short though it may be, in regard to the return of teachers from Northern Ireland does not lead one to believe that the number who would return would be in any way embarrassing. I am sure the Minister will agree that it would be considerations other than those of finance which would prompt graduates to return to this country from teaching service in England inasmuch as remuneration in all branches of the teaching profession is higher in England than it is here. One factor which might operate to induce teachers to return to this country is the desire to bring up their families in the atmosphere prevailing here.

In those circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that the Minister should extend to persons returning to service here the same facilities in regard to remuneration as they would have if they had given all their service in this country. As I have said, the number would be very small and the price we would have to pay would be comparatively small, having regard to the fact that the experience these persons would have gained abroad could be used to our advantage. There should be no difference in treatment as between persons coming from Northern Ireland and persons coming from Great Britain.

I would appeal to the Minister to consider this matter very seriously. In accepting the motion, the Minister will be acting not only in the interests of ordinary justice but in the national interest because the advantage to be gained by employing teachers who have had experience abroad will more than compensate for the amount of money involved in recognising their services abroad for salary purposes. The fact that the Minister has recognised service in the Six Counties is an indication that he considers that that recognition is due to the persons concerned. I welcome that and hope the Minister will accept the motion in the spirit that such acceptance will confer a benefit on the country as well as on teachers who elect to return.

Mr. Lindsay

I want to make a brief intervention in the debate for the purpose of getting clarification, if I can, on a few matters that clearly emerge. It would appear that since this motion was put down, the Minister and his Department have to some extent acquiesced in principle to it. While they have surrendered to the views expressed in the motion on a geographical basis, I cannot understand the underlying principle expressed by the Minister in so far as the test to be applied is what is good for the educational system as a whole. I take it the Minister means the educational system here and the advancement of education in this country generally. If we are to receive back on a basis advantageous to them persons with experience in Northern Ireland and in the emerging countries of Africa and the South American countries named, I do not see why those with experience in Great Britain are left out. They appear to be the only people who have been left out. It must be clearly understood that by and large, when persons qualified to teach in a secondary school or a vocational school go to Great Britain to take up employment, most of them are largely compelled to do so by reason of circumstances obtaining at home—the fact that there are not enough places to absorb our graduates and our qualified people from technical centres.

Why should they, if they want to come back at a time which appears opportune to them—largely when a vacancy occurs at home—be restricted in any way because they work in Great Britain rather than in Northern Ireland, Africa or South America? I cannot see why the distinction is made. That question may be pertinently asked, having regard to the Minister's statement that the overall consideration is what is good for the educational system here. If he means by that that people with experience gained in Northern Ireland, Africa or South America can bring back something good for the system here, whereas people coming back with teaching experience in Great Britain would not make a similar contribution, I should like some further clarification on that point.

This question has been exciting the attention of Deputies on all sides of the House from time to time over a great number of years. They have received representations from people in these categories who are anxious to get the appropriate increment when they return here. Indeed, people who have already come back at sacrifices to themselves should benefit accordingly. If we are to be sincere in our approach to education in this country —this is where the Minister will have to make up his mind, as well as on other problems—we cannot afford to be seeking education on the cheap. If people are to come back from Great Britain with the advantage of their experience there and are to be precluded from giving us the benefit of that experience because they cannot get suitable remuneration here, then I think our stated objectives with regard to education as being one of our top priorities can be assessed disadvantageously from the point of view of administration on a sincere basis.

In supporting this motion, I wish to say quite clearly that I see no reason for precluding Irish people from Great Britain, while at the same time allowing people from Northern Ireland, who are teaching under the same system of education, to come back here on a more beneficial basis. Why would it be advantageous to the general system to allow people from Northern Ireland back and keep out people with experience in Great Britain ? It is illogical, fallacious, not founded on the principle suggested by the Minister that the overall good of the educational system here is the prime consideration.

My interpretation of the position is this. In Great Britain, there is a large number of our graduates and possibly an equally large number of our trained technical and vocational teachers. As the advantages we seek in this motion might well attract a great number of them to come back, it might upset the supply and demand here and might make a considerable inroad on that part of the Exchequer available for educational purposes. If that is the position, it should be stated. I do not think many would come back from Britain. Of those forced to go, many known to me have made up their minds to stay. Emigration at the beginning was to them distasteful, but having gone there and having worked under good conditions at good remuneration and having settled down in Great Britain, they are unlikely to come back, particularly when their families are being educated under a different system and involving matters which might be different here.

Younger people would come back and we should try to get them back while they are still unmarried or while they have families still young enough to start their education here. I do not think the older people would make any great rush to come back. If a young man or woman in Great Britain is anxious to come back, he should be given some measure of compensation commensurate with the advantages enjoyed by his colleagues who did not have to go away. The Minister will have to give a better reason for precluding those of our people teaching in Great Britain. It is not good enough to set up a distinction and say that allowing our teachers back from other places is consistent with the good of our educational system.

Mr. Ryan

The Department of Education have already to deal with the problem caused by a bulge in the population of young people in this country which is increasing demands for space in national schools. We are advised by people apparently in a position to know that we can anticipate an increase in the population of this country during the next decade of something in the region of 400,000 persons. Most of these will be young people, the children of the children born in the immediate post-war birth rate bulge. At present we are planning our own economic and social affairs in expectation of that development.

To ignore that population development in the educational field will breed disaster in educational affairs in the next two or three decades. That is why we appeal to the Minister to remove the prohibition which now applies to Irish people teaching in Britain. I call it a prohibition because to impose a serious loss of income on a person who returns to teach in Ireland is for all practical purposes to prohibit that person from returning. There are difficulties than any person returning from teaching in Britain will have to overcome, independent of the salary aspect. A person who has been teaching abroad will have lost familiarity with Irish and having regard to the importance attached to proficiency in Irish, it may be difficult for a person who has been teaching in Britain to get a job here. That will be a deterrent to some extent.

However, the need for teachers in mathematics, physics and other modern scientific subjects is so great that we are unable to meet the scarcity. In Dublin at the moment, where there is, for a number of reasons, a certain concentration in educational matters on the scientific field, we are seriously short of teachers with mathematical and scientific skills. As Deputy Byrne pointed out, about 30 per cent of our mathematic teachers have honours degrees. The others have purely pass degrees. That is not good enough. We have not been giving the best to our students for a number of years. If by the adoption of this motion he can improve things in the slightest degree, it is well worth doing even that small amount.

Mr. P. Byrne

This is an honours degree in mathematics?

Mr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. P. Byrne

Some of them may have an honours degree in other subjects.

Mr. Ryan

While an honours degree in any subject is an indication of a man's mental and other capacities, it may not necessarily establish skill in teaching mathematics and indeed understanding mathematics.

Mr. Colley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ryan

In all humility, I can say I am the possessor of honours degrees, but they are certainly not in mathematics. I would abhor having to try to understand it, much less teach it. That is the sorry situation we have at the moment. We have 70 per cent of the mathematics teachers without an honours degree in mathematics. That is not a healthy situation. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that among Irish teachers in Britain you may have a number with skill in mathematics who would be happy to return here. I think we should encourage them to return by making it clear they will be at no monetary disadvantage by so doing. We have more than one million Irish people or people of Irish descent in Britain at present. Irish people in Britain have tended to be clannish. I suppose they will always be so. There are quite a number of educational establishments staffed almost exclusively by Irish men and women. One does not wish to deny the Irish in Britain the skill and knowledge these teachers can bring to them, but it is an indication of the large number of Irish people in Britain already. It is fair to estimate that at least some of these people would return if we removed the incremental barrier we impose on them at present.

The Minister has over-simplified the problem. He fears that the adoption of this motion would lead to mass emigration of teachers. Maybe I am going further than the Minister. The Minister said it would lead to a significant and damaging flow of teachers from the number available here. I do not think that is so. There is a natural reluctance on the part of most people to leave their native land. Teachers, who are associated with it in their training and background, perhaps have an even stronger inducement to remain at home than to go. I do not believe it will lead to the situation the Minister suspects may develop—that teachers will be unable to get appointments here unless they can show they have had teaching experience abroad. I doubt very much indeed if that is ever going to happen under the structure and management of our educational system. In fact, the reverse is likely. The advantages will still go to the people who stay at home. I think we have nothing to fear from allowing this small share of justice to Irish teachers in Britain.

Supposing the Minister's worst fears were to materialise if the purposes of the motion were implemented. Could the Minister do anything about it? I think he could. He could apply the brake immediately. He could revert to the present system. The effect of that would be to stop immediately the flow the Minister fears. I do not like comparing teachers with omnibuses but we are all aware how long it took the Department of Industry and Commerce to change from the rigid policy they had for years of not allowing outside tourist buses in here because of the damaging consequences for Irish transport interests and the Irish tourist trade. At the end of a very long, dark night, they changed their mind, and since then they have been thanking the Lord for giving them the wisdom to see the light. I believe very much the same will happen in the educational sphere.

If we put an end to this unfair system, which is to our disadvantage, we will have every reason to be grateful for seeing the light and we will have in our educational system something the Minister appears to approve of—a corps of teachers with service in other educational systems. That is something worth trying to get. Without speaking disparagingly of the developing countries, it is fair to expect we would have more to gain from teachers who taught in Britain than from teachers who are teaching in undeveloped countries, where the educational standards are very much lower than what we have here.

To develop the line taken by Deputy Lindsay, rather than fearing we will have poorer quality teaching by allowing the emigrants come home, I think the reverse will be the case. We are likely to gain a great deal more from them than we would gain from any corps of teachers we have at the moment from the undeveloped countries.

In his opening statement, Deputy Byrne rightly directed attention to the obligation on countries who are members of the European Community to have a free exchange of teachers and not have any restrictive practices as far as teachers are concerned. If the Government are serious about the ultimate intention of being associated with Europe, then we ought to put our house in order in relation to educational matters. We should ensure now that this restrictive practice we apply is removed. Thereby we will be conditioning ourselves for the greater educational world into which we will have to move and into which we will move, I believe, with significant advantage to ourselves.

There are a number of religious orders which send a considerable supply of their members to Britain. One such order is the Irish Christian Brothers. Is it not peculiar that such an order may send a mathematics graduate to Liverpool to teach and, if he teaches for five or ten years and then comes back, he will not be given the same remuneration as if he stayed at home? The order is thereby the poorer. All this shows a dual approach to the problem of education and the problem of staffing our schools.

I would beg the Minister to open his mind to this matter. I think he indicated yesterday he had a certain sympathy for the proposal but he fears the consequences of it. I would ask him to take his courage in his hands. If, in the light of experience, he finds he is justified in his fears, he can take immediate steps to return to the present situation. I do not think anything really significant will have been lost by the attempt, but I think a great deal can be gained.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I speak on this matter as an ex-teacher who left university in 1925 and started his teaching career in Northern Ireland, ultimately coming back here under the same discipline. Since I left University College, Galway with my degree, I have had plenty of experience in secondary and vocational schools. I am now a member of an education committee and we find it very difficult to get graduates. They are attracted elsewhere because of the high salaries. The point I want to make is that, if we have an international exchange of teachers and no educational boundaries, the people who take advantage of the discipline afforded by other countries should not be those at just graduate level. What does the average B.A. or B.Comm. learn when he goes to England immediately after graduation? What extra will he learn there? If he goes to do a post-graduate course, he will come back with enhanced learning, but, so far as the average graduate is concerned, all we do is rob ourselves of potentially good teachers. That is what this motion will do. I am in sympathy with the motion, but not at the graduate level.

Some speaker commented that one learns nothing in an undeveloped country. One learns a great deal. One smells and touches and tastes the ideas of these countries. There are numbers of people who go voluntarily to these countries simply to know, to taste, to smell the things that are happening there, and they come back better teachers. They bring with them the benefit of that discipline. There is nothing new to bring back from England. Northern Ireland is similar to ourselves. There is that to be said for it. They are our own people. The Christian Brothers who teach in Manchester, in Liverpool and Glasgow are all the time under the same discipline. They are turning out good citizens. While I sympathise with the motion, I am in complete agreement with the Minister in his attitude, and that agreement springs from my own practical experience.

Mrs. Desmond

I support the motion. Most of the arguments for and against have already been advanced. I support it having in mind primarily the urgent need there is to extend our educational facilities. We, in the Labour Party, and I believe we have the support of all Parties in this, believe that education at all levels should be freely available to every child capable of following that education. We believe that every boy and girl is capable of benefiting by post-primary education of one kind or another. In order to achieve this education for our young people, we need all the teachers we can get. The Minister told us recently that he proposes to raise the school leaving age to 15. We congratulate him on that. Raising the school leaving age to 15 will immediately create a greater demand not for national school teachers but for post-primary teachers. There would be no point in raising the school leaving age to 15 if that merely resulted in forcing boys and girls to remain in the national school for another year. Post-primary education must be readily available if they are to benefit, as we hope they will benefit, by an additional year at school. We will need all the post-primary teachers we can get. We will need the best teachers.

It has been stated that great numbers of our graduates emigrate. They emigrate because the starting salary here is too low. I was rather appalled to hear the Minister argue yesterday that the passage of this motion would result in more post-primary teachers emigrating and settling abroad. This motion is designed to remove the injustice which causes these teachers now to emigrate and settle abroad. There is no proper incentive to them to return and teach in their own country. If a sufficient incentive is offered, these teachers will return home.

I appeal to the Minister to revise his attitude and to give every incentive to our nationals who have gone abroad to teach to return to their own country and make their services available here to the community which, in the first instance, subsidised their education. I do not blame them for not doing that at the moment. Financial considerations preclude them from doing so. If they are offered the incentive this Fine Gael motion offers them, then they will return. We will need them if we intend to expand our educational facilities to the point the Minister envisages in a very short time.

I congratulate the Minister on the attitude he has taken towards education since he became Minister. I believe he is sincere in his desire to extend our educational facilities. Our standards are as high possibly as they are in any other country, but the extent to which our facilities cater for our children at the moment is appallingly low. This motion is calculated to afford our teachers abroad an opportunity of returning to their own country. We will need them if we are to make progress. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude and give this motion a trial. I believe such a trial will prove well worth the gamble.

Mr. P. Byrne

We have had a very useful debate and it must now be quite clear to the Minister that the consensus of opinion is in favour of the motion. I am obliged to the Minister for the detailed information he gave us yesterday in relation to the schemes of credit which operate for service in certain undeveloped countries and in Northern Ireland. I wonder would the Minister clear up a doubt? He said that, as far as secondary teachers coming back here are concerned, the credit is restricted to those who have worked in grammar schools in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Colley

That is correct.

Mr. P. Byrne

The secondary modern does not come within the framework of the scheme?

Mr. Colley

Not for secondary teachers.

Mr. P. Byrne

Do secondary modern schools come within the framework of the scheme?

Mr. Colley

For secondary teachers, only grammar schools. For vocational teachers, there is another range, and for primary another. For secondary teachers, only grammar schools come within the scheme.

Mr. P. Byrne

Then service in Northern Ireland by vocational and primary teachers will qualify when they return here. I mention this because certain persons are inclined to be a bit hoity-toity about secondary modern schools and with all their defects and drawbacks, some of them are first-class institutions. We are setting up here these comprehensive schools which are on somewhat similar lines.

Mr. Colley

I should not like the Deputy to spread it abroad that they will be secondary modern schools. They will not.

Mr. P. Byrne

I accept the assurance from the Minister. Nevertheless, I am sure he will agree with me that many first-class Irish graduates worked in secondary modern schools in Britain. The nub of the Minister's reservations about this proposal is that he is afraid that our graduates would go away and would not come back. I want to emphasise that the inspiration for this motion on the Fine Gael side springs from direct contact with Irish teachers working in Northern Ireland and in Britain who are anxious to come back here. The Minister, I am sure, has heard of the Tuairim organisation. This is an organisation whose membership is confined to university graduates, as far as I know, and there is a flourishing branch in London. I have here a recent issue of their bulletin which I hope the Minister has seen. If he has not, I should be happy to make a copy of it available to him.

The London branch of Tuairim— and there are many other branches in Britain—are concerned about this matter. They have a committee of Irish teachers working in Britain who, if they have not already done so, are, I understand, about to make a very strong case to the Minister. Recently they unanimously passed a motion deploring the policy of the Department of Education in regard to their members in Britain. I am convinced that the Minister exaggerates the danger of graduates going away and not coming back, but even if the danger exists, it can be circumvented or, as Deputy Ryan has just said, the brake can be applied if the Minister finds that this is all one-way traffic. Over and above that, the Minister must surely understand, and Deputy Lenihan must surely understand, that the reason these people went away in the first place was an economic one. They went away some years ago before the Minister's predecessor decided to pay them. In their first year they go away for economic reasons and if they are paid well enough here, they will stay here and will be more than anxious to come back from Britain.

At present, as I said in proposing this motion, we exploit the idealism and the dedication of the teaching profession. Teachers in their early years are paid less than a builder's labourer. There is parity of pay in all of the skilled trades connected with the building industry between this country and Britain. Why should there not be parity of pay in the teaching profession? When that state of affairs comes about, the Minister's doubts and disquiet will be resolved automatically. We are exploiting cheap labour at present as far as our young secondary teachers are concerned, and it is gravely wrong that we should continue to do so. We are downgrading the professional status by paying them less than a builder's labourer is paid.

I do not think there is very much more to be said on the matter. We have had a very useful debate and all of the arguments in favour of the motion have been well ventilated. We shall be very disappointed if the Minister does not look favourably on this proposal, with whatever reservations and qualifications he may deem fit to introduce, and cover particularly, on compassionate grounds, the cases I have mentioned previously. The 15 or 20 Irish teachers in London who constitute the Tuairim Committee of which I spoke are nearly all married persons with children. We have a tremendous obligation to our emigrants to try to make it easy for them to return here. On the understanding that the Minister will do what he said he would do, namely, take another look at this matter in the future, we are withdrawing this motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman (Mr. P. O'Donnell)

Motion No. 16?

Mr. P. Byrne

I understand that motion No. 16 is not being moved for the reason that the Labour Party are proceeding with motion No. 20.

Motion No. 16 not moved.

Motions Nos. 17 and 19 not moved.