andMr. R. Burke asked the Minister for Education if he will make a statement on the present position in the teachers' salaries dispute.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Teachers' Salaries Dispute.
31.
Dr. FitzGerald
As the Deputies are no doubt aware recent salary proposals have been accepted by both the INTO and the VTA and are due to be ballotted on next Tuesday by members of the ASTI. That being so I will confine myself to referring to two misapprehensions under which apparently many teachers in secondary schools labour and to allaying any fears they may have in relation to them. Firstly, the various Associations of Secondary School Managers have made their position in relation to appointments to posts of responsibility clear and have indicated unequivocally that there is no foundation for any feeling that lay secondary teachers will not receive their due share of these appointments. Secondly, any question of secondary teachers on joining a joint scheme of conciliation and arbitration being outvoted by other teaching groups does not arise. Any teaching group is entitled to bring in a claim under that scheme and to have it processed right up to a hearing by an independent arbitrator and no group or groups can prevent another group from proceeding to arbitration.
While we welcome that clarification I take it from the form of the Minister's reply that he does not wish to say anything about the terms of the proposal which is now being ballotted at this stage?
I could expand——
I do not want to press the Minister.
——a little further perhaps, not on these specific proposals, but on the general situation. One of the great difficulties I find in regard to the problem generally is that those who are not directly involved in it tend to over-simplify it, either because of the manner in which it impinges on their own particular situation, and this is understandable, or because it permits them to come up with what may appear to be an excellent solution.
If I might paraphrase part of a leading article which appeared in one of our daily papers recently it might explain what I mean. This leading article said that the Minister had stated that no solution could be found which did not include the three teaching bodies. It also said that while there was some merit in this, nevertheless this was not the immediate problem.
What it did not recognise was that if I attempted unilaterally to solve the problem in relation to one group I would have an immediate problem in relation to the other two groups the following morning. At this moment I feel that those who were not convinced of the fundamental truth of what I was saying in relation to the three teaching bodies have every reason to be convinced now because in the last fortnight they have seen the reaction of the various groups.
I would like again to stress that a solution to this very serious situation must involve the three teaching bodies. Since I first began to deal with this matter one and a half years ago £650,000 has been added to teachers' salaries. I have made my final offer and I feel it would be very wrong of me to allow anyone to be under any misapprehension on that point.
I was asked on one occasion by a member of the standing committee of ASTI in the course of discussions which we had, if I were satisfied that the present scale of salaries for graduate teachers was satisfactory. My reply was that, recognising as I do the fundamental importance of education to the wellbeing of the nation and the great contribution made by all teachers that it is very doubtful if any country could pay teachers sufficiently for their services but the Government, when allocating funds, had to take into consideration all the other sections of the community. I pointed out that we were paying salaries to our teachers which were considerably in excess of the salaries paid to teachers in Britain and Northern Ireland and I felt that was an earnest of our goodwill in relation to this matter.
I would like to add that although the present discussions have ended this does not mean an end to salary negotiations. A joint scheme of conciliation and arbitration is available to teachers and discussions can take place between the various bodies concerned as to the most acceptable form that this can take. I am aware that the ASTI have rejected the joint conciliation and arbitration scheme already in existence, but I now know that this particular scheme was widely misunderstood by them at the time and that is what I referred to in my reply. They were of the opinion that they could not go to arbitration should conciliation break down unless they had the consent of the other two teaching bodies. This, of course, is not the case as I have already stressed in my reply. I think I should also say this: my greatest worry particularly knowing the intricacies of this problem is that if the secondary teachers should go on strike it would be almost impossible to reach a solution. We know how difficult it is to reach a solution in an atmosphere which is relatively calm. How much more difficult is it likely to be in a strike situation? Bearing in mind that the three teacher bodies must be involved and that substituting one strike for one or two other strikes is no solution, I can only hope that the wisdom of an orderly approach will be obvious to everybody.
I would be very grateful to the news media if they would underline the points I have made here. I am very anxious about this whole matter. It is very clear to me and I think to the other Deputies on all sides of the House who are in very close touch with the matter that it is a very difficult one, that it is one which must be solved by the three teaching bodies together and that, difficult as it is now, it would be very much more difficult in a strike situation.
May I ask the Minister if, in the event of this offer being accepted, arbitration is immediately available?
Well, if I might say this to the Leader of the Opposition: if the proposals are accepted I would imagine that the first thing the secondary teachers would wish to do would be to discuss with the other two teaching bodies and with the Department the type of conciliation and arbitration to which all of them could agree. They had some objections apart from the one I mentioned, to this particular scheme. They could immediately then go into conciliation and if this did not produce the result they desired the ASTI, if they so wished, could themselves go on to arbitration. They could insist on having the matter brought to arbitration and this would be done as quickly as possible.
Could I be clear on this? The ASTI can on their own go on to arbitration but can they on their own go into conciliation?
Of course any teaching body which wishes can bring any relevant matter before conciliation.
Yes. There are two other questions I want to ask the Minister arising out of his helpful statement and we all share his hopes that this thing will be regulated without further difficulties. First of all, could I ask whether his reference to graduate teachers and to the door being open of course to further claims—because this does not end the whole question of salary increases—could this be interpreted as meaning that claims for improvements in degree allowances for graduate teachers which are, I think. arguably, very inadequate, would be regarded with sympathy in future?
I would prefer not to go into detail on these matters——
All right.
——but anything about which a teaching body feels aggrieved can certainly be brought before conciliation.
All right, I shall not press that further.
What would worry me in this instance is that I do not want to make a statement on this and then have it said afterwards that I put limitations to certain aspects of the discussions.
I appreciate that. The only other question is that the Minister made a reference to the agreement of the managers to equitable distribution of posts of responsibility. Can we be clear that this would refer to all posts of responsibility including principalships and vice-principalships?
In some cases it refers to all posts; in others to all posts except principalships.
Question No. 32.
Would there be many cases where principalships would be closed off to lay teachers?
This is mainly in the case of the brothers.
Would the Minister continue to press for a more open attitude there?
Well, I will be glad to have any discussions that may be desired arranged between the managerial bodies, the teachers and my Department.
Good. Thank you.
May I ask if the particular points the Minister has made this afternoon in public have been conveyed to the three organisations. I do not think it is unfair to comment that the current prospects ballot-wise seem extremely difficult and certainly, if I may say so on a personal basis, I wish to see a unified conciliation and arbitration system evolving and I have no desire to make any political capital out of this apart from the particular point that has to be made that retribution has come in the context of what was entered into in 1969 and it has cut more ways than one. I am not directing this against the present Minister but I would ask him would it also be possible for him to circulate the terms of the proposals to interested Deputies here because it is extremely difficult for us to discuss the matter internally in our own parties without formally having the proposals before us. Bearing in mind that it is an industrial relations matter, it is taken to be not our function but as public representatives we do have the right to the information.
I would have to think about this, not that I would not want to give the Deputy the information but mainly because I have to be very careful in a trade union matter.
Fair enough.
I am concerned with the trade union aspect of these things and what is proper and what is not proper.
I understand. It is a trade union affair.
Would the Minister consider making the information available to the spokesmen of both parties?
Question No. 32. We have spent a considerable time on this question.
Mr. J. Lenehan
Is it not true——
Please, please.
Mr. J. Lenehan
——that this is purely a question of status, that it has nothing to do with money?
As Deputy FitzGerald is aware, I am always anxious to keep him fully informed as I have also kept Deputy Thornley informed in this regard.
Yes, I quite agree and I am grateful to the Minister.
Question No. 32.
Mr. J. Lenehan
I tried to get in a supplementary and I did not get a reply.
No, please. A Cheann Comhairle, I would ask Deputy Lene-has not to ask any more supplementary questions.
Mr. J. Lenehan
This has nothing to do with money at all. It is purely a question of status. Surely the Minister can find a way around that?
I am calling Question No. 32. I have allowed sufficient supplementaries on No. 31.