On a point of order, I should like to know if it is proposed to allow me to speak to The Workers' Party amendment.
Teachers' Pay: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Education today:
That in accordance with the terms of paragraph 46 (1) (b) (ii) of the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for Teachers, the Government having considered the findings in Report No. 14 of the Teachers' Arbitration Board and—
(1) having regard to the terms of the draft Proposals for a Pay Agreement settled in negotiations with unions representing other public servants and at present being considered by those unions and now on offer to the teacher unions, Proposals which provide for
(i) a 25th round of general pay increases in three phases, a first phase of 3% from 1st May, 1986, a second phase of 2% from 1st January, 1987 and a third phase of 2% from 1st May, 1987;
(ii) the three-stage phasing of implementation of increases resulting from adjudication hearings which took place prior to 1st January, 1986, one-third of the increase to take effect on 1st December, 1986, a further one-third on 1st December, 1987 and the balance on 1st July 1988;
(iii) increases as in the 25th round of general pay increases to be applied also to pensions:
(iv) lump-sum entitlements under superannuation codes of persons whose pay is the subject of an adjudication finding to which (ii) above applies to be calculated by reference to amounts and effective dates recommended in the adjudication finding; and
(2) recognising the fact that payment of the Arbitration findings in full would involve a cost of £110m in excess of what would arise under the terms of the Proposals at (1) above, £63m of which would fall to be paid in the current financial year,
Dáil Éireann approves the proposal made by the Government to implement the said findings, subject to modification as follows:
(a) one-third of the recommended 10% increase to take effect as from 1st December, 1986;
(b) a further one-third to take effect as from 1st December, 1987; and
(c) the remaining one-third to take effect as from 1st July, 1988."
Debate resumed on the following amendments:
2. To delete all words after ‘That' and substitute the following:
"conscious of the importance of retaining confidence in the Conciliation and Arbitration machinery which has ensured satisfactory and peaceful industrial relations in the public service for many years and recognising that since the introduction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme for Teachers in 1951 every Government has implemented all Arbitration Awards for teachers in full and concerned to avoid any further disruption of the education system, Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to immediately initiate meaningful negotiations with the Teachers Unions with a view to securing agreement on the full implementation of the Arbitration Award in terms of percentage increases and operative dates and on the basis of an acceptable phasing of the actual payment of monies due under the award."
—(Deputy O'Rourke.)
1. To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann noting,
(1) the importance of free collective bargaining between workers and employers as part of our industrial relations process,
(2) the relative absence of disputes over pay in the education system as a result of the Teachers' Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme,
(3) the serious effects that strikes in the education system would have,
(4) that any changes made to the findings of Report No. 14 of the Teachers' Arbitration Board by Dáil Éireann, without the advance agreement of the teacher unions, would amount to statutory control of wages,
(5) that failure by the Government to honour the award in full may place this country in breach of its obligations under the provisions of ILO conventions, to which Ireland is a party,
therefore calls on the Government to accept in principle the report of the independent arbitrator and to enter into immediate negotiations with the teacher unions with a view to reaching agreement on the full implementation of the arbitrator's award."
—(Deputy Mac Giolla.)
No, your party did very well in that 50 per cent of the membership of the party got an opportunity to speak.
I am sure the Chair will agree that we are probably the only party——
The Deputy should not be taking up the time of the House. We are in the middle of a very confined debate.
Will it be possible to get five minutes to reply to the points made on our amendment?
The occupant of the Chair will call on the speakers as he thinks proper.
Before Question Time I was making the case that it would be far easier for the Government to accede to the request of the teachers and grant the award being sought. However, a resolution of the problem in that manner could create enormous problems in the future, ones that would not be easy to solve. I should like to assure the House, and the people, that it was not due to any vindictiveness on the part of the Minister, or the Government, that they did not accede to this request. Under the offer we are making to the teachers they will be getting increases in salary in excess of 17 per cent by mid-1988. As the Minister has said, the starting pay for a teacher will increase from its present figure of £8,940 to £10,539, an increase of £1,599.
I should like to pose a question. Where do those who advocate the Government's acceptance of the 10 per cent award think the money will come from? Is the £110 million to be plucked off the money tree? It is a curious but baffling phenomenon that it is very often those who cry out for less taxation who in the same breath ask why the Government are not spending more on this, that or the other. People cannot have it both ways and there is a lot of that attitude in the House. Certainly, the 10 per cent could be paid in full immediately and with full retrospection. The money could be found but where and at what cost to other vital services?
We could find the £110 million if we were to cancel all the tax reliefs announced in the budget, if we reduced social welfare benefits. We could stop building new schools and colleges. We could pull the plug on job creation and industrial development. We could raise taxation on every taxpayer to intolerable levels.
Of course we could borrow the money and take the slippery path which has led the country and its finances into the quagmire in which we find ourselves. The people would not tolerate that and the next generation would not thank us for it. They should not be asked to pay the bill for our excesses.
Already the people of Ireland owe £20 billion. How much more would they tolerate? The teachers are not the only group of public servants who have to be paid. Paying pensions to the public service will cost £2,650 million in 1986.
I will turn to those unfortunates who are most vulnerable and have most to lose if the teachers carry their campaign into the classrooms through strikes and disruptions — the children and young people who will suffer most, the people to whom the teachers have dedicated themselves over the years. Is this unique relationship and tradition to be thrown away in a conflict that can benefit nobody? This conflict is being watched by an audience who have no jobs or whose jobs are at risk. It is being watched by the low paid workers. I wonder what are they thinking of us.
Let us think of the attitude the teachers' dispute will engender in the children at school, the confusion and strike in the classrooms. Many of them will not understand what is going on, but they will know that their teachers are locked in some kind of strange conflict. Of course the older students will know too well what is going on, that their education and their potential careers are in jeopardy. Goodness knows, they already have to put up with sufficient pressure, with exams, competition for higher education places and efforts to get jobs and make a living.
In all these circumstances, I repeat the Minister's appeal to the teachers to call off this dispute, to come to the bargaining table for dialogue with the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service. Conflict and confrontation can only be destructive, particularly to the chances of our young people.
If the country could afford £110 million the teachers would have it in the morning. The sad hard fact is that the money is not there, and that cannot be ignored. I hope they will accept the reality that is staring us all in the face. A good generous package is on offer to the teachers and I plead with them not to throw it away lightly. Otherwise, the country and its young people will not forget it.
I would point out that the demand we are discussing here now cannot be taken in isolation from all the other demands from the public service. The teachers cannot be allowed to determine the level of pay because that would set a precedent for all others in the public service. I repeat what I said before Question Time, that we appeal to the teachers, the three unions, to appreciate the difficulties involved in the provision of the moneys necessary to meet the claim they are making. I said that if we acceded to the claim of the teachers it would be much easier for us. Governments are confronted with decisions of that kind and unfortunately some Governments took the soft option and yielded to pressure. Today we have pressure groups all the time demanding more and more from the national cake. It would be much more comfortable for a Government to accede to those requests without taking into consideration the full effects of such a decision in the future.
In the budget debate yesterday an Opposition Deputy advocated more borrowing. In reply, Deputy McCartin pointed out that not only would we be committing the next generation, our children, but our grandchildren to pay those debts. I appeal to the teachers to appreciate that they have secure positions in the public service where they have advantages which those in the private sector do not have. I appeal to them to make this sacrifice, which is necessary in today's circumstances because of the situation which the Government and the Exchequer are facing. There is an offer on the table for them and I appeal to them to get their members to consider it and to resume dialogue with the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service.
I think I heard the Minister of State saying that teachers cannot be allowed to determine the level of their pay. It is that kind of thinking that has caused us to be here today discussing this motion. The teachers and their unions did not determine the level of their pay: that was suggested by an arbitrator, but because of the Minister's unwillingness to accept it we are here today. It is almost unbelievable that the Minister of State should have made the innuendoes and suggestions that teachers themselves have been trying to determine the level of their pay.
Every one of us has been considering the record of the Minister and the Minister of State in relation to school buildings. School building has been almost stopped. Tenders have been in for months but no decisions have been taken, while the teachers, to whom the Minister referred so glowingly, have to work in terrible conditions.
We have been getting another lecture on borrowing. Will somebody please tell the Government that since they came to office in 1982 they have borrowed far more money, with fewer results, than any other Government since the foundation of the State?
The Government are propped by a party who believe in collective bargaining and who pride themselves on being the safeguard of the integrity of arbitration awards. In opening the debate the Minister for Education misrepresented the entire position. Her speech reeked of condescension and venom, the opposite to what a Minister for Education should have been saying to those on whose co-operation she relies for the smooth running of our educational system. It affects every family in Ireland.
One would have expected that the Minister would be sympathetic to the demands of the unions and to the award of the independent arbitrator. She held out an olive branch this morning but it was held in an iron first clothed in a velvet glove. It is a long time since I saw or heard of a Minister almost blackmailing the unions by saying she will recommend that the arbitrator be reappointed if the unions agree to the terms offered. It reminds me of a young lad a long time ago saying: "if that is a goal, I will take home the football". That was fun, but what the Minister is doing is very serious. The Minister says that she regrets the confusion and conflict of the past six months. I would remind the Minister that she was mainly responsible for the conflict of the past six months. The Minister was responsible for bringing into being "Teachers United".
The Minister tried to give a reason today as to why she delivered her infamous morality speech, but that speech was delivered with knowledge aforethought; it was not done off the cuff; a script was distributed. That speech would appear to have been delivered only to portray the trade unions involved in negotiations as greedy, selfish and uncaring people caring only for their own wants. Even in her speech today the Minister has adopted the old colonial policy of divide and conquer.
Both the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service have missed the principle involved here, the fact that all the unions involved in conciliation and arbitration are looking very hard at what is happening here today and at the Government's decision in this case. Both Ministers have missed the harsh reality that this insensitive and divisive action has undermined the confidence of those unions in the system of conciliation and arbitration. The Government and the Minister should be reminded of the importance of conciliation and arbitration and how well they served us over the years.
They should also be reminded that a very small percentage of work days lost in the Civil Service and the public service have been lost by those unions and organisations who have had the benefit of conciliation and arbitration. The Minister and the Government have today knocked the foundations of the scheme. They have undermined the confidence that has been so painstakingly built up over the past 30 years. It is significant that other bodies, organisations and unions at present involved in negotiations are troubled not only by the placing before the Dáil of the Government motion but by the attitude of the Government in seeking to portray the teachers' unions, and by implication all other unions involved in negotiations, as greedy, uncaring money grabbers.
It is to the Government's shame that they have used their third arm, their information services, some of their friends in the media, to portray the teachers' unions in this light. It is obvious that this Government are proceeding with blind arrogance on a course that could lead to chaos in industrial relations in the Civil Service and to disruption and hardship not only for pupils attending school but also, by implication, for people throughout the whole area of public administration.
Speaking in the Seanad, proposing a Government amendment to a Fianna Fáil motion, on 11 December 1985 Senator Bulbulia talked about the tremendous improvement in curricular development and reform which the Minister has brought about. I still have to see it. The Senator pointed out that this could not have been achieved but for the very good co-operation which the Minister had with teachers and school managements. The placing of this motion before the Dáil has thrown away all that goodwill and has put an end to the confidence of the unions and organisations in the arbitration system. This Government, who are kept in office by the support of the Labour Party who are supported by the unions, particularly by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, have turned their backs today on the advice of those with whom they are friendly.
(Interruptions.)
I am sorry that my friends opposite are now feeling the pinch.
You felt the pinch in 1969.
Deputy McLoughlin, please. Order, please.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Calleary, without interruption, please.
I am sorry to have hurt and annoyed Deputy McLaughlin.
What did Dev do in 1947 when he paid the scab workers?
(Interruptions.)
I am very sorry for the Minister for Labour who is now also here, and for the party he has represented for a long time, because that party have been finally seduced by Fine Gael and I understand that Fine Gael are now looking for other sleeping partners.
You seem to be providing them.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Have the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service even asked the unions over what period they would have been willing to phase the 10 per cent if retrospection had been granted? I do not think the Minister bothered to ask them. The feeling I got from those who came to me, and from talking to colleagues, is that the point at issue, the main principle, is the question of retrospection.
The Deputy has five minutes to conclude.
The Minister could have had help from the unions to phase in the 10 per cent over a longer period. The Minister conveniently forgets that, because of the Government's tax policy, a minimum of 50 per cent will come back to the Exchequer when one takes into account PRSI and other taxes.
In a leaflet called "Teachers United" the Labour Party state their position as follows:
Of the two Government Parties, only Labour has indicated firm support for the maintenance of free collective bargaining and the honouring of arbitration awards. Under the title "Jobs, Equality and Justice with Labour", the party's November 1982 election programme states "The trade union movement and the public service have faced unprecedented attacks from the Government on pay and negotiating procedures". Labour's policy is:
1. Free collective bargaining between workers and employers linked to a democratic planning process.
2. Opposition to statutory control of wages.
3. Opposition to restrictions by the main parties on the negotiating rights of trade unions...
Representatives of the three teachers' unions met representatives of the Parliamentary Labour Party on 6th November, 1985. The Labour Party representatives stated that as the Labour Party has been responsible for the setting up of Conciliation and Arbitration Schemes in the Public Service they would have to maintain them. They further stated that they would recommend to their colleagues that the integrity of Arbirtation Awards should be upheld.
The arrogant statements, the innuendo and the double thinking of Government speakers today did not help the situation. What the Government are doing today has not been done in the past 30 years. They are undermining the confidence of the organisations and unions in the whole arbitration system. The Government should go back to the unions under the terms of the Fianna Fáil motion which states:
conscious of the importance of retaining confidence in the Counciliation and Arbitration machinery which has ensured satisfactory and peaceful industrial relations in the public service for many years and recognising that since the introduction of the Counciliation and Arbitration Scheme for Teachers in 1951 every Government has implemented all Arbitration Awards for teachers in full and concerned to avoid any further disruption of the education system, Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to immediately initiate meaningful negotiations with the Teachers Unions with a view to securing agreement on the full implementation of the Arbitration Award in terms of percentage increases and operative dates and on the basis of an acceptable phasing of the actual payment of monies due under the award.
I call on the Minister to have the courage she urged the teachers to have today.
Am I not being afforded an opportunity to speak in this debate?
I am sorry——
Is it not the function of the Chair to call on Members of the House? Why have I been discriminated against?
There are others wishing to speak also. It is a very limited debate.
You cannot stop me from voting.
I would not dream of doing so.
I understand that many Deputies want to contribute to this debate and my remarks will be as concise and brief as possible. I speak as Minister for Labour and as a Member of the Labour Party. I have had the opportunity to hear the comments made by my colleague, Deputy Calleary, whose views I respect and I should like to address myself specifically to some of the claims he made in relation to the process of free collective bargaining and the whole principle of maintaining the integrity of the conciliation and arbitration scheme.
My responsibility is to maintain the structures and institutions of good industrial relations and to uphold the process, the principle and the reality of free collective bargaining. The conciliation and arbitration scheme which the teachers enjoy under all Governments, irrespective of who are in office, has been in existence since 1951. It has a number of sections, stages and steps within it and all those steps and stages have been observed by both sides. At no stage has any step or sequence been abandoned or broken off. The Oireachtas is an integral part of that scheme. Otherwise we would not be here today discussing the motion. That scheme was not imposed on the teachers or their representatives, it was freely entered into over a number of years and has served us well.
Any claim Deputy Calleary or any other Member makes that a vote on the modification of any part of the arbitrator's award is in breach of the conciliation and arbitration scheme is patently untrue. People may dislike the outcome of that step in the procedure, but that is a separate matter. Indeed, if I were a teacher I would feel that way, but it is not correct or honest to suggest that the Oireachtas taking a vote on this matter is somehow a breach of the scheme. That point should be made because my responsibility is to maintain the process of free collective bargaining.
In relation to a suggestion in the amendment put down by The Workers' Party to the effect that this is statutory wage control and that we may be in breach of the ILO Conventions, I can now authoritatively tell the House that we are not in breach of the conventions. Yesterday and today I had an exhaustive study made of the conventions and articles within the ILO and the considered advice I received——
Is that all the Minister had to do?
(Interruptions.)
The considered advice I received is that we are not in breach of any ILO convention or article.
Big deal.
Nor are we attempting to oppose——
Will Deputy Shatter recognise the Chair?
Will I be given injury time?
Deputy Shatter came into this House with his hands in his pockets, "sluthering" into his seat and not recognising the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister must conclude at 4.30 p.m.
To suggest that this is in some way statutory wage control is not true. What we are talking about here is not a wage round increase. It is an award in relation to a special claim, which is quite different. What is still on offer is the possibility of real discussions with the relevant Ministers on the 25th round. I think the three teachers' unions have been misrepresented in this debate. It should be said on behalf of the trade union movement that it is not the teachers who have made the claim for 10 per cent. It is the arbitrator who awarded it. There are people who tricked the teachers' unions — and I have not been one of them — into saying that the teachers or their unions are offside——
(Interruptions.)
The Minister has her head down.
Tragically, the facts have been obscured by emotion. I restate that it is not the teachers who claimed 10 per cent. It is the arbitrator who awarded it. As Minister for Labour I am trying to refute any suggestion that the procedure of free collective bargaining has been weakened, undermined or overturned because it patently has not. Tragically for the teachers and, perhaps, for the children, we are having this debate today because negotiations did not continue on the issues with the teachers, the unions and the relevant Ministers. We interrupted the budget debate to take this motion——
Deputy Bell said he could have done the job better himself.
The point at issue is not free collective bargaining or procedures. It is nothing but the ability of the nation to pay. We have moved from the original position to an offer which has been made to every other public service worker.
I conclude by reiterating the position in relation to the process of free collective bargaining of which this House and the vote later this evening, are an integral part.
Deputy Mary Harney.
On a point of order. Is cúis mhór díomá do mhúinteoirí aontaithe na tíre seasamh an Aire agus an Rialtais san easaontas seo. Do thréig sí an conradh agus an tuiscint atá ann le blianta maidir le comhráití idir baill den Rialtas agus de na ceardchumainn. Tá na hoidí ar buile leis an méid atá ráite cheana féin ag an Aire agus san méid atá ráite aici inniu sa Dáil. Diúltaíonn na hoidí an dúbláil atá scaipthe trí ráiteas an Aire inniu agus ní chreideann siad go bhfuil an tAire fábharach san méid atá ráite aici ná go bhfuil sí taobh thiar de mhúinteoirí na tíre chun a chearta a bhaint amach.
This is a Government of confrontation. They are in confrontation with every sector of the community—the farmers, the PAYE sector, the nurses, the prison officers, the gardaí, the civil servants and now with the "Teachers United" of Ireland. We level the charge of Government mismanagement for the way the Government have mismanaged the economy and the draconian measures they are using against the teachers and the educational institutions. We are asking them, even at this late stage, to pull back from the precipice and to take on board our amendment which gives the Government an opportunity to disengage themselves from creating a situation of anarchy in industrial relations.
When we wipe away all that has been said, the Government are issuing a straight challenge to the free collective bargaining system which we have come to know, and they are trying to force public servants to forego their right to arbitration. That is the basic reason why the Government are making this move now.
This is a blatant act of discrimination against loyal, responsible, PAYE workers. That discrimination is selective in the way the Minister and the Government have applied it. They gave retrospection to other sectors of the community— prison officers, civil servants, craftsmen and nurses—but they failed to apply the same yardstick to teachers. Surely the size of the numbers does not constitute an argument to renege on a principle? Surely the arbitrator recognised the distinction between equality, justice and economic circumstances. To put such a limitation on an independent arbitrator would render useless the office of arbitrator and condemn decisions to purely Government dictated manipulation which we have seen here today.
When a Government renege on their word solemnly given, that suggests a lack of credibility on the Government's part or a total disregard for responsible leadership. I suggest that both are relevant in this case. The high gloss of Government honesty and credibility looks pretty shabby and flaky today, and it has looked pretty tired of late when we saw the measures which have been introduced by this Government in the past few weeks. When an Irishman tries to welch on his debts he is called a jibber. What a fine unfortunate collection of jibbers we have in the Government at this time.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
The Government's style of negotiation is now public knowledge and it leaves a lot to be desired. It is crude and unprofessional. It lacks sensitivity and understanding. If one applies the level of ineptitude displayed in recent days by Government Ministers to Government administration, then it is easy to see the reason for the ineffectual Government this country has been experiencing in the recent past.
As recently as 1982 the election heading for the Labour Party was "Jobs, Equality and Justice with Labour". They suggested that they always supported collective bargaining and the honouring of arbitration awards. What is the price for Labour to renege on those solemn commitments to the electorate? Is it to keep this unfortunate Government in office for a few short months more, or it it to allow them to qualify for their miserable pensions or for their miserable salaries for a few short months? They know the people have lost faith in them and in the Government they support, and the sooner they hand back the government of this country to a party who understand and know how to deal with problems, the better for all concerned.
It is not too late, even at this eleventh and a half hour, to recognise that there is a group of loyal, responsible PAYE workers, the "Teachers United" of Ireland, who are willing even now, having been insulted, denigrated and pilloried by Government Ministers over the past six months, to sit down and talk about how the Minister and the Government will pay them their just entitlement under an award granted in the full knowledge of all the political and economic circumstances of the day. We ask the Minister even now to relent and go back to the negotiating table. She will have the full support of this House, the teachers and the public.
I hope to make in my concluding remarks some response to some of the points raised and I hope to do so in a claim and reasoned manner and without interruption. I listened carefully to this debate and what struck me was the very careful avoidance by Fianna Fáil speakers of the main point of the Government motion, namely, the cost of implementation of the arbitrator's award. Speaker after speaker on the Fianna Fáil benches indulged in hyperbole and in vague incoherent statements in order to avoid the challenge of facing up to the question of where they would get £110 million to pay the full award. It appears it is of no consequence to Fianna Fáil that they would have to take it from the taxpayer.
That is not so.
Coming as it does after recent statements by Fianna Fáil in other fora, that, for example, they are about to find an extra £200 million in capital expenditure, it seems to me that once again they are in the game of piling up debts for future taxpayers.
That is like a long playing record.
They have not the guts to say where they would get the money.
The House should be allowed to hear the Minister.
I can understand the great upset on the benches opposite.
The Minister should take the advice of Deputy Skelly and resign.
They have avoided facing up to the only reason this motion is before the House. It has been made clear by many speakers on this side of the House that the Government would like to pay the arbitrator's award in full and that the only reason we are here is that we cannot see how we can impose a further £110 million on the taxpayers now or in the next few years.
The Minister for Labour said the Government would not continue the negotiations.
Once again Fianna Fáil have failed the test of responsibility in this House and outside it.
Let the Government test the country next week.
It is a sad reflection on the main Opposition party that once again they avoid their responsibilities.
Who wrote that script?
It is important that I make the next point because people who are interested in the debate should be quite clear regarding the terms of the offer made by the Government to the teacher unions. We are offering an increase of 17.9 per cent in teachers' pay between now and mid-1988. In addition, we are offering arrangements to make sure that retiring teachers will enjoy the full terms of the arbitrator's award in their lump sums on retirement and we are offering pension parity for retired teachers. I have asked repeatedly, and I do so again in this House, that this offer should be taken away for consideration by the teacher unions and put to their members as has been done by all the other public service unions following negotiations and settlement with the Minister for the Public Service. That is something that cannot be overstressed.
There is no question of any discrimination whatever against any part of the public service. The Government have been scrupulous in observing negotiating procedures and in making a fair and similar offer to all public service unions so that there should be no question of any one group suffering discrimination. I repeat my appeal to the teacher unions to take that offer and to put it before their members for full consideration.
A third point was made by the Minister for Labour a few minutes ago and also by other speakers on this side but it seems to be something the Opposition find difficult to understand. Therefore, I shall explain it to them again. In bringing this motion before the Dáil the Government are absolutely adhering to the scheme of conciliation and arbitration. There is no question of trying to damage it. At all times the Government have operated within that scheme and are doing so now and that has been made quite clear in this House. The terms of the C and A scheme have been read out to the House in order to establish without question that there is no way this Government are trying to depart from the terms of that agreed scheme freely entered into by teachers, management and Government. In bringing this motion to the Dáil we are following the final aspect of the scheme which is that in the final analysis a Government must decide how much money they will take from the taxpayers and how it will be spent. Quite frankly, I am astonished to hear Opposition speakers suggest that a Government may and should abdicate their responsibilities in that area to other parties outside this House.
It is what they always did.
That should be understood clearly. If Fianna Fáil wish to say that this House is not the respository of democracy and decision making then they should come clean and say so because that is what they are implying by every speech they have made in this House today.
That is right.
On the question of discussions with the teacher unions, I will quote what I said earlier in this connection:
I want to assure the House that I am still available and willing to discuss the whole question of pay and related matters with the teachers' unions and, once again, here and now invite them back to sit down with us so that our discussions can be resumed.
That seems to have been one of the main points in the speeches of the Opposition members.
Postpone the motion.
Under the terms of the scheme it cannot be done. Either the Deputy accepts the scheme or he does not.
Minister Dukes, please. Will the House please allow the Minister to continue?
If the Minister is sincere she will adjourn the motion.
That cannot be done.
Please allow the Minister to continue her speech without interruption.
That invitation which I have repeated appears to have been ignored——
On a point of order, will the Chair accept from me a proposal to adjourn this motion indefinitely in view of what the Minister for Education has said?
That is not a point of order.
I am asking why the Chair cannot accept that proposal from me. It is a perfectly valid proposal.
The Deputy does not seem to understand that the terms of the agreement require that this motion be considered today. We cannot go outside the terms of the agreement to which we have adhered scrupulously.
That is totally insincere.
It appears the Deputy wants to depart from that agreement now. I reiterated that invitation to the teacher unions in my speech. Apparently it forms part of the Fianna Fáil amendment to the motion. I hope the invitation I gave will get a response. A point was raised by several speakers that there appears to be discrimination in favour of some other groups as against teachers with regard to retrospection in agreements. Prison officers, psychiatric nurses and hospital workers were mentioned in that context. I must point out something which is well known to the teachers unions, namely, that those arbitration special findings were phased in by agreement in 1983 with the public services committee of Congress and that public services committee included teacher representatives. That is a very important point that should be made quite clear in this House. What we are trying to do now is to get agreement on an orderly, phased payment which the public purse can bear. That is what we are trying to do in 1986.
I should like to stress for the benefit of people who have been talking about the question of retrospection that over 20 unions in the public service have agreed to take away the offer which we have outlined in detail today to put to their members without retrospection. It is very important that this should be stressed. We are putting forward today an offer, which was put forward last week also, which over 20 unions in the public service have already agreed to take away to put to their members. That offer includes special payments without retrospection. The offer was obviously not perfect from the point of view of either side, but it was agreed that it was the best we could offer. They agreed in the national interest to take it before their members. All we are asking today is that the teachers' unions do what the other unions have done in the national interest and adopt the same realistic attitudes as the other unions have adopted.
One element of this debate has been particularly striking to me pesonally. There have been personalised attacks and suggestions of continuing hostility between the teaching profession and myself and the Department of Education.
That is true.
This seems to me to be a great slur on the teaching profession with whom I have worked so well for three years and with whom we have achieved such progress in education. It is a pity that speakers from the Opposition side of the House should set at nothing the progress which has been achieved over the past three years by teachers and with teachers for the future of education.
Ask Sister Regina.
It does teachers less than justice to denigrate their achievements in these years and I am sorry that the Opposition should have indulged in that kind of slur on them.
The main purpose of this motion has been to modify an award which was given to teachers purely and simply because of the great amount of money involved in paying it.
(Interruptions.)
This has been an orderly debate, to the credit of the House. Let the debate finish on those lines.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I appeal to all of our teachers to reflect again on the consequences of embarking on a course of industrial action in the face of an offer which by any standards in this country at this time is a generous one. It is an offer, I repeat, of an increase of 17.9 per cent in their salary. It represents a considerable move on the part of the Government towards meeting their demands. All sides in this House have expressed concern about the effects on the education system of the contemplated industrial action. I ask the teachers to go back with me to the work of strengthening and developing the education system in co-operation and harmony.
I commend the motion to the House and I hope that when we have concluded this debate and a vote has been taken, we will have restored to the education system peace and harmony so that we can progress together in the future. I commend the motion to the House.
I am taking amendment No. 2 since it was moved first.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 2 declared lost.
As a consequence, amendment No. 1 falls.
Question put: "That the Motion be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.