asked the Minister for Education why registered secondary teachers who accepted the Department's settlement proposals of February, 1969, have not been given the eleventh round increase negotiated for employees in the public sector.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Secondary Teachers' Salaries.
109.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply of the 5th February where I set forth the whole background to this matter. In that reply I pointed out that the agreement of March, 1969, with the secondary teachers contained a clause stating that the agreement was subject to review. I also pointed out that the result of this review showed that the agreement could not continue to operate as it stood. I now give the reasons why this is so. The allowances of £100 to £300 from the tenth point onwards on the basic scale were dependent on sufficient money being made available under the system of points and rates of allowances proposed in the findings of the teachers' salaries tribunal. The review disclosed that in fact the money thus being made available was not sufficient for this purpose. It is also disclosed that while the allowances were related to special functions which are common to all schools no money would be available in some schools while in others the number of teachers in receipt of allowances would exceed the number that on any real basis might be required to discharge special functions. Moreover the review revealed that while the total money by way of allowances being distributed was in the case of County Dublin £11,000 more than the findings of the salaries tribunal would warrant in relation to the schools in this area it was £9,000 less than the entitlement of schools in three of the north-western counties. There is the further fact that the awarding of allowances in the manner provided in the agreement has been questioned on educational grounds. It was these considerations allied to the considerations set out in my reply of the 5th February that impelled the Government to accept that the solution to the problems lay in the establishment of posts on the pattern proposed in the findings of the salaries tribunal and the making of payments commensurate with the responsibilities allotted and undertaken.
Can the Minister guarantee that if the secondary teachers were to opt for the Ryan Tribunal scheme of posts of responsibility that, in fact, such posts would be given to them in the private secondary schools? Is it not asking too much of them to request that they accept the Ryan scheme when under the present agreement they have the certainty that they will qualify for a promotion post? Can the Minister give any guarantee that these posts of responsibility would be made available to lay secondary teachers?
I would say that this is a matter which could be discussed under the conciliation and arbitration schemes. Of course, the Deputy is aware that this is a difficult situation but one thing I can say is that there is no hope of reaching a solution through dealing unilaterally with any one group and, therefore, I consider the proposed scheme of conciliation and arbitration, with the amendments that have been accepted by some of the groups, would provide effective machinery in helping towards a solution.
We are all sympathetic with the Minister in this matter but does not the answer which he has read out today prove conclusively that the tribunal did not understand the job they were given to do?
I certainly cannot agree with that statement.
The Minister would not go that far?
I would not. It is not relevant to the tribunal.
But your answer states that.
The answer I have read out does not refer to the tribunal's findings.
But it refers to their implementation which is the same thing.
No, it is not.
Is it not a fact that the Department of Education at one time attempted to secure that a promotional post would be available to lay secondary teachers but, in fact, they failed to get this assurance? While I have every sympathy with the Minister's position does he not think he is expecting rather a lot from secondary teachers, who know that the Department has attempted to secure this assurance and failed to get it, to go into negotiations which could only be acceptable to them if this arrangement which has been rejected was made?
All I can say to the Deputy is that this is a matter which can receive full consideration if the teachers agree to come into this scheme. In the circumstances I do not want to say any more.
The Minister has said they can receive full consideration. What does that mean?
This seems to be going beyond the scope of the question which is on the Order Paper and I am afraid it might lead to a debate.
I submit it is not, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because the nub of the question is really the acceptability or non-acceptability of the Ryan Tribunal scheme of posts of special responsibility.
If the secondary teachers were to accept the principles contained in the Ryan Tribunal's proposals, then I have no doubt that negotiations in relation to the finer points as well as the various points of difference could be thoroughly examined.
We are not talking about the finer points. Does the Minister not think it would help towards a solution if he were now to approach the clerical managers again and seek from them an assurance, at this stage which they might more readily give now that they have seen the consequences of a refusal to give it, which would give secondary teachers some prospect of getting into these negotiations? At the moment if they come in they know that on the basis of the failure of the Minister's Department to get such assurance before they will not get the posts of special responsibility.
The Deputy has phrased his question in a way which makes it very embarrassing for me to answer it. He has stated that the Department tried to do this and failed but the answer is that it neither failed nor succeeded. I do not want to say anything here that would cause any further problems in relation to the matter; all I would say is that it is possible to have discussions in relation to it. It is not a fact that we approached the managers and that they refused. There was no question of their either refusing or otherwise. That is the point I want to make and that is the reason why I said it was rather embarrassing for me to answer the question because of the way the Deputy phrased it.
I accept the Minister's assurance, but given that they were approached but did not agree, would the Minister not think that, perhaps, a further approach at this stage might secure agreement to something which makes it much easier for the secondary teachers? I leave him with that thought.
I want to make it clear that this does not represent what the position is. What the Deputy suggests is not a fact.