Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 1986

Vol. 363 No. 9

Teachers' Pay: Motion.

Minister for Education (Mrs. Hussey)

I move:

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.

This is a motion asking that the House approve the proposal by the Government to implement the recommendation in the findings in Report No. 14 of the Teachers' Arbitration Board that the pay of teachers in primary and second level schools be increased by 10 per cent, subject to a modification of the recommendation on the phasing of the increase.

The phasing of this special increase for teachers which the Government propose is the same as that included in the Proposals for a Pay Agreement settled in recent negotiations between unions representing other public servants and the Minister for the Public Service, in respect of adjudication hearings which had taken place prior to 1 January 1986. It is a three-part phasing: one-third of the increase to be paid from 1 December 1986; a further one-third to be paid from 1 December 1987; and the remaining balance to be paid from 1 July 1988.

In arriving at their proposal in relation to the teachers' arbitration findings the Government gave careful consideration to all relevant factors, such as: the particular arbitration report in question, Report No. 14 of the Teachers' Arbitration Board, copies of which were presented to the House on 5 December last; the various provisions of the Proposals for a Pay Agreement, already mentioned as settled in negotiations with other unions; those proposals in general are also on offer to the teachers; they provide for (i) a 25th round of general pay increases in three phases — 3 per cent from 1 May 1986, 2 per cent from 1 January 1987, and a further 2 per cent from 1 May 1987 — (ii) the phased implementation of special increases, (iii) certain concessions on pensions and retiring gratuities (lump sums); and, of course, the cost factor, particularly, the fact that implementing the increase on the phasing basis recommended in the report, that is half the increase from 1 September 1985, and the second half from 1 March 1986, would cost £110 million in excess of what is being proposed by the Government.

It is with considerable regret that I move this motion and commend it to the House for its approval. I say "regret" because I hoped, as all Members of this House hoped too, I am sure, that we would be able to come to the House with a motion which had been agreed with the teachers' unions beforehand. I want to make it clear that I share in the general unhappiness in this House at the latest developments in the dispute about the pay of teachers. I do not yield to anyone in my admiration for the work done by the teachers. No one can appreciate more the importance of the responsibilities they discharge and I fully recognise the debt owed by every member of the community to the teaching profession for the manner in which they have discharged these responsibilities.

It would be my earnest wish, and that of the Government, that, even at this late hour, the teachers' unions would reconsider the position they have adopted in the dispute and see their way to recommending to their members for acceptance a settlement of their claim on the same terms as those that have been taken away for consideration by the other public service unions. It is a matter for personal regret on my part and on the part of the Government that it is not possible to improve on those terms.

In my remarks here today I am appealing most earnestly to teachers to recognise the difficulties which the whole country faces in terms of its financial problems. I am asking them to put the country first for the sake of its children and to avoid at all costs causing major disruption to the education system. We do not seek dispute or confrontation. We want to go as far as possible to meet the teachers' case. We must, however, act responsibly towards all sectors of society. This is not a Government trying to get the better of teachers, or point scoring or political brinkmanship. The future is at stake for all our young people. These are not normal times. We ask teachers to exercise restraint not because we want to, because we have to.

Let us be clear about one point. The Government cherish the procedures laid down in the public service conciliation and arbitration schemes and they have been careful in dealing with this claim to adhere firmly to these procedures. The present conciliation and arbitration scheme dates from 1973 and is a common scheme covering teachers in national, secondary, vocational, comprehensive and community schools. This scheme replaced three separate schemes which had been set up in the fifties for national, secondary and vocational teachers. The parties to the scheme are the three teachers unions — INTO, ASTI and TUI — the managerial authorities of national, secondary and vocational schools and the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the scheme that its existence "does not imply that the Government have surrendered or can surrender their liberty of action in the exercise of their constitutional authority and the discharge of their responsibilities in the public interest".

Where there is disagreement at the conciliation council on a pay claim the claim may be referred to the arbitration board for teachers, set up under the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

All of the parties to the scheme are represented on the arbitration board. The chairman of the board is an independent person, normally a senior counsel, who is appointed by the Government, on the nomination of the Ministers in agreement with the other parties to the scheme. Also on the arbitration board there are two representatives of the Labour Court, one of whom represents employer and the other employee interests. When the board have considered a claim, the chairman submits a report incorporating his findings on the claim to the two Ministers who in turn submit the report to the Government.

Paragraph 46(1) of the conciliation and arbitration scheme sets out the procedures to be followed by the Government. It states as follows:

In relation to a report from the Chairman of the Board, the Government will adopt one of the following courses:—

(a) within three months of the date of receipt of the report by the Ministers signify that they, the Government, propose to give immediate effect to the finding of the Board in full....

(b) at the expiration of three months from the date of receipt of the report by the Ministers.... introduce a motion in Dáil Éireann

(i) proposing the rejection of the finding or

(ii) proposing the modification or the authorisation by the Minister for Education of the modification of the finding or

(iii) proposing the deferment of a final decision on the report until the Budget for the next following financial year is being framed.

I want to emphasise here that the procedures set down in the conciliation and arbitration scheme have been agreed between the parties to the scheme — the teacher unions, the managerial authorities and the Minister. The terms of the scheme provide for an arbitration board who make a recommendation on a claim referred to them and also for the submission of such recommendation to the Government. If the Government wish to reject or modify the recommendations, the procedure requires that the matter be referred to Dáil Éireann.

Accordingly, in introducing this motion, which proposes that the findings in Report No. 14 of the teachers' arbitration board the implemented subject to modification, the Government are adhering strictly to the agreed procedures laid down in the conciliation and arbitration scheme for teachers.

I have given this detailed account of the conciliation and arbitration scheme because many people, indeed many teachers, seem to be under a misapprehension regarding the Government's responsibilities and freedom to act within the terms of the scheme. The claim is often made that by proposing a modification in the arbitrator's award the Government are in breach of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. This is not so. I remind the House again of what it says in paragraph 2 of the scheme, that its existence "does not imply that the Government have surrendered or can surrender their liberty of action in the exercise of their constitutional authority and the discharge of their responsibilities in the public interest". This is part of the scheme, agreed to by the teachers. Can we clearly lay to rest, therefore, any claim that the Government are in breach of the scheme by bringing this motion to the House today?

The Government recognise the importance of free collective bargaining between workers and employers as part of our industrial relations process. A product of the process of free collective bargaining in relation to teachers' pay is the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

The claim which is the subject of the findings in Report No. 14 of the teachers' arbitration board was submitted to the conciliation council for teachers and was formally presented at the council in December 1982. The claim was for an increase in the salary and allowances of teachers in all types of schools "based on pay awards in both the civil and public service since 1 September 1980". Disagreement on the claim between the teachers unions and the official side was recorded at a meeting of the council on 12 December 1983.

The unions let the matter rest until 30 January 1985, when a statement of case for arbitration was submitted by them. This is an important point to note, because teachers have come to me, and perhaps to others, to complain about the length of the procedure; in fact, their unions did not take any steps for over a year to press their claim. I stress this, not to criticise but to clarify a point which seems to have worried some people. The claim was referred to the teachers' arbitration board and was heard by the board on 27 June 1985.

I received the report of the arbitration board on the claim on 5 November 1985. The chairman of the board in his findings stated as follows:

It is recommended that there be an increase of 10 per cent in the salary and allowances of all the claimants, such increase to take effect as to 50 per cent thereof as and from 1st September 1985 and as to the balance as and from 1st March 1986.

I submitted the report of the arbitration board to the Government, and the findings were carefully considered by the Government. It was, of course, essential that the Government in their consideration of the findings should take account of the financial constraints on the Exchequer. It is estimated that the implementation of the award recommended by the board would have cost £10 million in respect of 1985, would cost £55 million in respect of 1986 and £60 million in each year thereafter.

As we all know only too well, there is an extremely difficult economic and financial situation facing the country in 1986 and it is against that background that the arbitration findings and other public service pay issues have to be considered. I need hardly remind the House of the nature of our economic problems. Our major objective must be to stimulate the economy in a way which will provide employment for our people. Our young population, of which we are all so proud, rightly expect to see us direct our energies and resources towards creating a climate conductive to job creation. This is what this year's budget is all about. We have an impressive record to date of new jobs being created but we need to improve on this to keep pace with the increasing numbers seeking work.

If as a country we are to be serious about our commitment to job creation we have to look to the following major economic areas — taxation policy, control of expenditure, good financial management to reduce State borrowing and prudent investment. A key factor in relation to these areas is the size of the public sector to pay bill. Can we claim to be honest in caring for the unemployed unless those in secure jobs are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of those who long to work?

All employers must judge their capacity to meet increased pay costs having full regard to the other commitments to be met in ensuring overall financial stability and viability. This is just as true for the Government as paymaster as it is for the decision makers in the world of industry or commerce. Indeed, the responsibility on Governments is all the greater since it is the people's money they are managing.

The published Estimates for 1986 include a provision for Exchequer pay and pensions of £2,600 million. Adjustments in the budget to the published allocations incorporate reductions of £18 million in the pay area. However, the recently negotiated 25th round pay package, if it were applied to all groups in the Exchequer pay bill, together with the cost of phasing in of certain special adjudication findings, including the teachers' finding if paid from the dates specified in this motion, would add £68 million. Certain concessions in relation to public service pensions and ex gratia public service widows' pension will cost £2 million more. On this basis the pay and pensions bill for the whole public service in 1986 will come to £2,652 million. This represents an increase of 6.8 per cent over the provisional outturn for 1985.

In the context of the present debate concerning teachers, it would be well to draw attention to a provision in the present Proposals for a Pay Agreement which would be of particular benefit to teachers retiring on pension in the next couple of years. I refer to the provision under which retirement lump sums would be calculated by reference to the amounts and the effective dates recommended for the pay increase in the arbitration findings. Teachers retiring on pension would get the benefit of that provision notwithstanding the effect on pay of the motion now before the House. It would mean that for teachers retiring during the period 1 September 1985-28 February 1986, the lump sums would be based on existing pay increased by 5 per cent and for those retiring after 1 March 1986 the 10 per cent increase would apply in the lump sums. About 400 teachers retire annually.

The House will recall the difficulties encountered last autumn in arriving at a situation where the unions would find themselves able to respond to the Government's invitation to talk about the payment of a 25th pay round and related issues, such as the arbitration award.

We had a very interesting and useful debate in the Seanad on this issue. I spoke very briefly — and I hope to the point — in that debate. My purpose was to urge on all concerned that the most important requirement at that time was that everything possible should be done to facilitate a resolution of the difficulties encountered by the teachers' unions. I expressed the belief that my views accorded with the feeling on both sides of the House. I suggested that a resolution of the issues would be in the interest of the teacher unions, of the teachers, of everyone with the interests of education at heart.

I am happy to say that there was a general welcome for my remarks and for my announcement that talks had been arranged between the Minister for the Public Service and myself on the one hand and the teacher unions on the other. There followed a series of four meetings commencing on 2 January 1986 and ending on 15 January. I am happy to say that the negotiations were conducted throughout in a spirit of constructive courtesy, that they reflected an understanding of the respective positions of both sides and that they were characterised throughout by the highest standard of decorum and goodwill. Regrettably, and no one can regret this fact more than myself, the negotiations did not produce an agreement. It proved impossible for the teachers' side to accept that they should forego retrospective payment of their 10 per cent award to the dates recommended by the arbitrator. For our part, the Minister for the Public Service and I could not meet the teachers' demands.

We strove with might and main to persuade the teachers' unions to recognise the Government's point of view and to accept that the circumstances of the country and in particular the financial state of the Exchequer left the Government with no option, if they were to discharge their responsibilities to the community at large and to the tax-paying public in particular, but to offer the 10 per cent without the payment of back money. No one could regret more than I that we did not succeed.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Cá bhfuil Páirtí an Lucht Oibre?

Mrs. Hussey

In the course of the discussions we told the unions that the Government were prepared to implement the recommended 10 per cent increase in pay, but that in view of the cost involved it was not found possible to approve its implementation from the dates recommended by the arbitration board. They were offered a three-stage phasing, corresponding to offers made, in parallel negotiations, to other unions representing civil servants and certain local authority and health board employees, in relation to special pay increases. That offer was rejected by the teachers' unions even though it was intimated to them that it would be hoped to improve further on it. Such an improvement would have been in line with offers made to those other groups. However, the teachers' unions were demanding a committment to have the 10 per cent increase paid in full from the dates recommended by the arbitration board and they made it clear that they would not compromise on this point.

The offer to those other groups was subsequently improved significantly and in relation to the implementation of existing special fundings the final offer was: one-third from 1 December 1986; one-third from 1 December 1987; one-third from 1 July 1988.

The proposed modification of the arbitration findings is in line with the terms offered to other public service unions in relation to existing findings. The Government have been anxious to be as generous as possible while taking into account the severe financial constraints on the Exchequer. I must stress that this is as far as the Government can go in the matter. If the Government were to concede the teachers' demands, instead of the phasing set out in the motion it would mean adding substantially to costs over the period 1986-88. The Government's obligation to control the public finances would be put in jeopardy by such extra costs. The other groups have already decided to take away the Government's final offer — which consisted of a package covering a 25th round increase, provision for dealing with adjudication findings and other pay-related matters — for consideration by the individual unions. Concession of the teachers' demands would clearly lead other groups to press for concessions in their case also.

The Government wish to ensure that, within the available resources, there should be equality of treatment for all groups of public service employees. I, as Minister for Education, am determined that the teachers will get their fair share of the moneys available for pay in the public service in general.

It is estimated that payment of the arbitration findings in full would involve a cost of £110 million in excess of what would arise under the terms of the draft proposals for a pay agreement which I referred to earlier and which were settled in negotiations with unions representing other public servants and are at present being considered by those unions.

In the context of framing the budget, the Government felt it absolutely necessary to give every penny we could in two areas: tax relief for the whole workforce, including teachers, and protection for those in receipt of social welfare payments. In arriving at the figures for public service pay for this year, and anticipating the knock-on effects in subsequent years of increases granted, a package was designed which we felt reached the upper limit possible for pay increases while also allowing us some leeway to ease the tax payers' burden.

In addition to the £68 million extra needed to meet the terms of this package in 1986 about £150 million will be needed in 1987. To increase these figures by £110 million over that period would severly restrict any further help being given to the taxpayer and damage the economy and the prospects of bringing down unemployment. The amount needed to pay full retrospection to teachers is almost exactly the same as that granted in tax relief in the 1986 budget.

Alternatively, the amount due in meeting the full cost of retrospection would be equivalent to postponing the abolition of the 1 per cent income levy for all taxpayers for another 1½ years. Will taxpayers willingly wait so long? Indeed, we might ask: should they be asked to do so?

I need scarely remind this House about the need to reduce the burden of taxation. The demand for such reduction comes from all sides of this House, including teachers. The more money given in pay increases in the public sector, the less there is available to reduce the tax burden. To hold down gross pay levels and reduce the amount of pay taken away in taxes, would leave people better off and make more economic sense than allowing both pay and tax levels to rise simultaneously. The call to "pay us more and tax us less", simply does not make sense. Why not ask instead to "keep pay levels as they are but leave us more money in our pay packets". Obviously, this cannot be done if bigger pay increases are granted.

If the £110 million were not to be raised in increased taxes it would have to be found by cutting expenditure elsewhere or by increasing borrowing. Among those who call for cuts in expenditure we very seldom hear anyone brave enough to spell out what this means in specific terms. I suggest that many who advocate this way do not seem to know what they are talking about. Cutting expenditure means doing things such as: reducing social welfare allowances; cutting back in social services, in health and education; employing fewer teachers, gardaí or nurses. Those who want us to go down this road should please come clean and name their cut.

If we were to meet the £110 million bill for retrospection by an adjustment in social welfare expenditure it would be necessary to postpone for a year or more the increases proposed in this year's budget for pensioners, the unemployed and other social welfare recipients. It would be extremely difficult to point to any areas where cuts of the necessary magnitude could be made which, in the particular circumstances, might gain public acceptance or more important, be seen to have social justification.

I hope we will not waste time in the House today reviving the myth of the hoard of uncollected taxes. This is escapist nonsense, grasping at straws. The amount of collectable taxes is already fully taken into account in the budget arithmetic. One cannot spend the same money twice.

Will we also hear more from the borrowing brigade who will urge us to rush to the international bankers to get them to pay the £110 million to teachers, money which we do not have ourselves, but which will eventually have to be paid back with interest? Borrowing in this way represents deferred taxation. Pay now and let future generations meet the bill, it seems to me is simply not a credible option.

The total increases payable to teachers up to mid-1988 under the terms of the draft proposals for a pay agreement which are now an offer to them would be in excess of 17 per cent. Under these proposals the starting pay for a teacher with a three year training course and a pass primary degree would go from its present £8,940 to £10,539, an increase of £1,599. A teacher on the maximum of the scale with a pass primary degree and without a post of responsibility would go from £15,913 to £18,758, an increase of £2,845. These figures would, of course, be further increased by any general increases which might be negotiated following the expiry of the proposed pay agreement. I feel it must be agreed that in present circumstances those increases would have to be regarded as being very substantial.

It should also be remembered that teachers generally fall into the income groups which stand to benefit substantially as a result of the budget change. For example, a single teacher in the first year of service with a gross salary of about £9,000 stands to gain £211 in tax relief; a married man with two children with gross salary £16,000, can gain £330. Obviously, these sums are in addition to the pay increase on offer to teachers.

The accusation has been made I am sorry to say by the teachers' unions that the Government, is not agreeing to implement the arbitration findings in full, are undermining the system of free collective bargaining. They have also said that the Government are throwing into disarray the system of third party determination of claims and disputes.

As I have already mentioned, the Government in their handling of this matter, have adhered strictly to the procedures laid down in the conciliation and arbitration scheme for teachers. With regard to the reference to third party determination, I would point out that the conciliation and arbitration scheme does not provide for a third party to determine claims and disputes in the sense of making an award which is binding on the parties. The terms of the scheme provide for an arbitration board who make a recommendation on a claim which is referred to them. The scheme provides specifically that the Government may modify or reject an arbitration finding subject to moving a motion in this House.

No Government can abdicate their responsibilities to a third party when it comes to financial management of the country, how much the taxpayer be asked for, what size the budget deficit will be. So when a Government appoint an arbittrator they do so in the knowledge that in the final analysis the decisions must rest with those elected by the people. That is why the provisions about a Dáil motion are written into the scheme and why the Dáil can decide whether or not to accept the arbitrator's decision. That has always been accepted by the teachers. Therefore, I cannot stress too emphatically to this House that the Government are strictly adhering to agreed procedures.

Mr. B. Ahern

Which have not been used for 35 years.

Mrs. Hussey

The chairman of the arbitration board when forwarding the report of the board said in a letter accompanying the report that it was not his function to determine whether the Government could afford to meet the award or not, and that his findings could not be interpreted as adjudicating on the Government's ability to meet the award or not.

This is the nature of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. While it is proper and legitimate for the arbitration board to take into account the financial circumstances of the State they could not be expected to decide definitively on the Government's ability to meet the cost of any findings that they might recommend.

If a Government where automatically obliged to accept an arbitrator's award they could find themselves powerless to determine key elements in their own budget. Governments, of course, appoint responsible people to act as arbitrators. But it does not make sense to suggest that an arbitrator is given absolute power to name any figure which must be paid without question.

It should also be pointed out that in the recent past the teacher unions have themselves rejected the findings of independent third party adjudication on teachers' pay.

Mr. Wilson

But not arbitration and conciliation, unlike the lies that some of the media put forward.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mrs. Hussey

In 1979, they demanded a review of the level and structure of teachers' pay other than through the normal conciliation and arbitration machinery. After threats of industrial action the unions got acceptance for their demand for the institution of a review body. The unions were consulted about the membership of that body. The review body on teachers' pay were appointed by the Government in March 1980. They made an interim report in September 1980, which contained recommendations which represented their "considered conclusions on the levels of salary and allowances of teachers". The recommendations of the review body were rejected in practically all aspects by the teacher unions and further threats of industrial action were made.

After the teacher unions rejected the review body's recommendations on salary and allowances they had direct discussions with the then Minister for Education, resulting in agreement on a significantly improved scale of salary which took effect from 1 September 1980. The agreement was formalised by having it processed at conciliation council and recorded as an agreed recommendation of the council.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister got it right. She should get some of her supporters in the media to get it right.

Mrs. Hussey

The members of the review body resigned in protest, and so did not complete the second part of their brief which was to report on work in connection with the certificate examinations of the Department of Education and the rates of payment for such work. The House may be interested to note a total of £5.8 million was paid to teachers in 1985 for work in connection with the State examinations.

The question of teachers' allowances, after rejection by the unions of the review body's recommendations in that respect, was referred to the arbitration board and substantial increases were eventually recommended by the arbitration board in 1981. These increases were then implemented from the dates recommended.

Thus in the recent past the teacher unions have shown themselves prepared to depart from agreed conciliation and arbitration procedures by pressing, with threats of industrial action, for a review body. They subsequently rejected the findings of that body — again with threats of industrial action — despite the fact that it was one whose establishment they had themselves sought and on whose membership they had been consulted, and to which they had every opportunity to present their case. I make these points not to criticise——

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Hussey

——but to state——

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

They are irresponsible.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I am addressing——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I am addressing all Deputies in the House. This is a confined debate. I do not want any interruption. I do not want heat engendered. I want a calm and collected debate and I appeal to Members of the House to co-operate with me.

Mr. Wilson

A man after my own heart.

Mrs. Hussey

I make these remarks not to criticise but to state a fact in view of the contention that there never has been——

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Hussey

——any deviation from the scheme. That contention has been made several times and it was necessary to set the record straight on that. Among the demands being made by the teacher unions is that the Government should appoint a chairman of the teachers' arbitration board, a position which has been vacant since 1 August last. I have written to the unions advising them that if it were possible for them to give me a commitment that they would take away for decision by their members the draft Proposals for a Pay Agreement settled in negotiations with other public service unions I would, for my part, be prepared to recommend that the Government appoint an arbitrator in the immediate future. In saying that I have taken into account the commitment they have already given to enter into meaningful discussions, to be completed by 1 August 1986 about changes in the conciliation and arbitration scheme. I have also said that I would be pleased to meet with them should they wish clarification of any points of detail arising from my letter.

In their reply, dated 31 January, they said they did not wish to meet me, but gave no indication of their intention or otherwise to inform their members of the offer which had been made to them. I hope that the Government's offer, amounting to 17 per cent over the next two and a half years, and the rest of our proposals, will be put before teachers for their decision.

Education is an area of great importance to every family in the country. Teachers, as I have often stressed, are the linch-pins of the system. I have rejected criticisms of teachers time and time again, because the simple truth is selfevident: we have an education system in Ireland which is respected as first-class throughout the world. How could that be so if our teachers were not performing extremely well? How could that be so if teachers had not co-operated with management and Ministers down through the years? In the major reform and restructuring which I have embarked upon since becoming Minister, I have relied heavily both on the advice and the help of the teaching profession who are so expert in knowing what should be done and in carrying through the reforming work.

It pains me when people unthinkingly criticise the whole profession because of some teacher who is not working well.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Every Deputy, or some Deputies, will have an opportunity to speak.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

It is unadulterated hypocrisy.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mrs. Hussey

I am sorry the Deputies opposite have so little respect for teachers.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Could we have order, please?

Mrs. Hussey

I am sorry that the members of the Opposition should join in criticism of teachers by laughing at them like that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We are laughing at you.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I appeal to the House to co-operate. I try to get order for everybody. Will the Minister continue?

Mrs. Hussey

It is important, too, to recognise the stresses and strains of teaching, the massive job it is to stay fresh and alert all day, every day, to respond to the lively onslaught of keenly inquiring minds. I am conscious of the new demands on teachers in a restless, often turbulent modern society.

I regret greatly the confusion and conflicts of the past six months concerning the implementation of the arbitrator's award. When I first learned of the proposed award, I did not see how it could be paid at all. However, anxious to do all in our power to keep faith with the teachers, the Government sought ways to go as far as possible in meeting the award in the context of a general policy for public service pay. We eventually determined the position which represented the absolute limit as regards how far we could go. This position was reached after the most detailed, painstaking study of the financial possibilities and after a careful pruning of expenditure in other areas. We cannot go further without doing damage to our whole economic strategy, to our capacity to grant tax relief, to our efforts to achieve job creation. The reality is that no matter what road is taken, the paying of the £110 million would inevitably involve the loss of existing or potential jobs.

There is one point arising in connection with the dispute which has been a source of some anxiety to myself personally. I am satisfied that it has been based wholly on a misunderstanding and I am anxious to clear up that misunderstanding once and for all. It has been alleged that I suggested that the teachers were guilty of immorality in pursuing their claim.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister did say that.

Mr. D. Gallagher

We know what the Minister said.

Mrs. Hussey

I never did say that, and if anyone understood me to say it, or to convey such an impression, I want to put the record straight as I have endeavoured to do many times already. My reference to morality was in the context of newspaper reports that it was proposed to target children in specific constituencies in order to apply pressure on particular Ministers. I questioned the morality of such tactics, particularly as this was proposed long before the arbitrator's award was officially received by the Government.

Mr. Wilson

The responsibility rests with the Minister.

Mrs. Hussey

In all the circumstances which I have outlined today, I have to say again that I regret that we must bring this motion to the House. I would very much rather be in a position to meet fully the terms of the arbitrator's recommendation. As a member of the Government, however, as well as Minister for Education, I have to consider my responsibilities to every sector of society. In short, I have to balance the national interest against the interest I am most involved with. It is in the national interest that I make my appeal to teachers, asking them not to embark on a course of confrontation which could only result in endangering the life chances of a generation in the classroom, to look at the offer we have made which goes a long way towards meeting them. Their pay packets will contain not only the extra money from the concessions in the budget but gradually more and more ahead of inflation, until they contain the full 17 per cent on top of any other pay round, by July, 1988. Colleagues retiring before that date will get the full 10 per cent in their lump sums. Teachers on pension will receive full equality and pre-1986 widows will be brought up to parity. I appeal to them as a profession who have played a fundamentally important role in the development of this country to accept this offer made in good faith and made in a spirit of conciliation.

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.

Mr. Wilson

Without conditions.

Mrs. Hussey

This motion had to be moved today, 6 February, because of the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. I have, I hope, made clear exactly what we are offering to the teachers. This offer, as I have said, was made to the teachers' unions in writing on 30 January. The Government would be very glad to resume discussions for clarification of any point arising in that offer which is similar to that taken away for decision by the other unions.

I understand that the teachers' unions plan to meet shortly to consider possible industrial action to press their claim. I would particularly urge that the unions should not take such an extreme course without balloting their members. I implore all those who carry the heavy responsibility of representing teachers at these meetings to use the occasion instead to look carefully at the situation, thoughtfully and with due regard to the points I have put forward here today and to the concern for the educational welfare of our children which is shared, I know, by all Members of this House. If wisdom and courage can prevail now, the country will gladly recognise a gesture made in generosity and in recognition of the great needs of the country at this time.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Calleary

We need a new Government.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The Minister is making the sort of history I should not like to be associated with.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputies opposite should take their heads out of the sand.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 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."

I am privileged and honoured, as spokesperson for Education on behalf of my party to propose this amendment. In doing so I am conscious of our history and tradition in the field of education and the part Fianna Fáil have played in that process. This is a matter of both written and verbal record.

By putting the Government motion before the House, the Minister is prescribing a recipe for educational chaos. This must be put clearly on the record. For the first time in the history of the State we have a Minister in charge of Education who is visibly hostile to teachers.

Deputies

Rubbish.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will not tolerate interruptions from either side. I did my best to have order for the Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

When I heard the unctuous verbiage with which the Minister's contribution was laced and interlaced and when I heard the duplicity of her words in the light of her earlier statements and of her attitude to teachers, I asked myself what have the Government come to.

Mrs. Fennell

The Deputy cannot take the facts.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Not only are the Government trying to fool the country on fiscal and all other measures but they are prepared to put on the record complete untruths about their actions, their attitudes and their deeds in relation to teachers. The Government record speaks for itself.

Since the Government came to office three years and two months ago the Minister has taken actions which have gravely undermined the stability of the education system, a system that had been built up down through the years by devoted educationalists, public servants and politicians of all parties. Since the Minister took charge of this portfolio we have witnessed the demise of the school transport system and harsh cutbacks in teacher numbers leading to damaging curtailment of subject choice.

Mr. Dowling

Who initiated that?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dowling should not interrupt.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The truth is bitter.

Mrs. O'Rourke

There have been relentless increases in third level fees and finally this week we have had the clumsy and crude announcement of the closure of Carysfort Training College.

Mr. Dowling

Who began it all?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must obey the Chair.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Minister's crude and clumsy approach to education matters has been recognised not only by the public and by those of us on this side of the House but also, I am glad to hear, by members of her own party. Her Philistine approach to State matters is totally unsuited to the education portfolio and is totally out of line with the attitudes of the very proud holders of that portfolio down through the years.

The Minister has succeeded very well in one matter since coming to office, that is, she has united managers, teachers, parents, students and the general public in a determined bid to oppose her proposals firmly at every level. I have seldom seen, following the actions or words of any Government Minister, such public distaste for the announcements and pronouncements she has made and for the actuality of the work she has carried out. There is absolutely no relationship with what she says and what she does. One wonders about truth and harmony in public life when statements such as she has made in her speech can actually be written by advisers——

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Minister is quite capable of writing her own speeches.

Mrs. O'Rourke

——and put forward by a Minister as if they represented her actual feelings. It is amazing. Her hostility to teachers was shown clearly and quite unequivocally by her infamous "immorality" speech of last August which created the confrontational environment between teachers and the Government which has led to this "High Noon" situation today.

I want to refer to a statement made by the Minister this morning regarding her August speech. It is simply not true that the charge of immorality which she levelled at the teachers at that time had anything to do with targeting a specific number of children in specific constituencies. I well remember the occasion because I heard the Minister speaking on the "Morning Ireland" radio programme. The charges of immorality were contained in her speech of the night before to a Young Fine Gael meeting in Bray. The charges of immorality arose because she said the teachers were immoral to press their claim for their just reward.

Mrs. Hussey

That is a lie.

Mrs. O'Rourke

A Cheann Comhairle, the word "lie" has been used.

An Ceann Comhairle

Sorry, my attention was distracted.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

We will have to remind you that the Minister used the word "lie".

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is of the very firm opinion that the word "lie" in all its shapes and forms should be avoided. I had the word "untruths" on the record from this side of the House. I am against the use of the word "lie" in all its shapes and forms. If I did not hear it, it was simply because I was talking to a Deputy. If the Minister used the word "lie" or any form of it, she should withdraw it.

Mrs. Hussey

I will use the word "untruth" instead.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Minister now says she will change it to "untruth". That does not alter the fact that she said the word "lie".

An Ceann Comhairle

If she is withdrawing the word "lie"——

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Let her state unequivocally that she is withdrawing the word "lie".

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the word "untruth" which was used on the Opposition side of the House and the word "lie" which I understand was used on the other side of the House should be withdrawn. I would appeal that this word in all its forms should be left out of the debate.

Mrs. O'Rourke

If the Minister withdraws the word "lie", I shall gladly withdraw the word "untruth".

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that both of them are withdrawn.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I recognise that red herrings are used as very substantial weapons in the armoury of the Coalition Government and that is the purpose of the interventions today. I wish to lay completely at rest the charge which the Minister made. She made it because the teachers had pressed for their just claims. The remark reported in a newspaper four days later about targeting children was after——

Mrs. Hussey

Two days before.

Mrs. O'Rourke

——her immorality remarks. The comment made by the Minister to the effect that she is so greatly in love with teachers, admires them and recognises their work is not correct because of her earlier remarks which set the scene for the confrontation which later arose. No matter how many times the Minister comes to the House or goes to any other forum to reiterate how pleased and proud of and how pleasant she is to the teachers, the August speech will come back to haunt her. Of course it was pleasant in August. There were no teachers in schools and politicians, she hoped, would have been about other types of business. She could, she thought, be abusive without any measures being directed against her. That remark will come back to haunt her.

The Minister spoke about what the country owes to teachers. This nation owes the teachers a very great debt. They have worked in difficult conditions to give us one of the highest recognised standards of education. They have maintained a great record of industrial peace within the educational service. They have looked to their conciliation and arbitration scheme as a mechanism and procedure by which their legitimate salary claims could be processed and assessed by independent arbitration. They have always accepted those decisions, whether in their favour or not. The Government are throwing away that principle of conciliation and arbitration and replacing industrial peace with industrial unrest.

We know that teachers are doing a very tough job well under very difficult circumstances. The days are long gone when a teacher went into a classroom, used chalk and talk and occupied 40 minutes imparting useful knowledge. This has been replaced by the many-faceted role of the man or woman who is a teacher in a classroom today. A teacher must play many diverse roles, daily involved in the environment, dealing with the problems of drug-taking, marital discord in pupils' homes, unemployment, urban decay, alienation and teenage pregnancies. They act constantly as councillors and advisers as well as leaders and motivators both in the classroom and in society in general.

All of this has been carried out against a background of steady determination by teachers to take on these extra roles willingly, despite the fact that the chances for them to undergo meaningful inservice training courses are very limited and despite the fact that many of them, beyond the hours and the call of duty, spend their time with pupils and their parents working through their problems, talking with them and taking a much more deep-seated interest than heretofore has ever been the case.

This is a logical follow-on of the strong educational commitment in Ireland. We can all wax lyrical about hundreds of years ago when the tradition of education grew up. It has been built up steadily and has never been eroded but I maintain that the action of this Government, and particularly the action of the Minister for Education, will do grave disservice to the cause of education. No matter how many pages or how many scripts are read today, prepared by careful advisers, the clear fact remains that justice is on the side of the teachers in this issue. Justice and equity are at the base of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. This scheme has been carried through by every Government and all arbitration awards for teachers have been implemented in full.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. O'Rourke

There was concern to avoid any disruption in the education service. I received a very interesting letter this morning. It brings out the point very clearly that General Richard Mulcahy, the then Coalition Minister for Education, took the view that the bitterness resulting from the 1946 strike must never be allowed to occur again. It was in that spirit that the then Coalition Government implemented in 1951 the present conciliation and arbitration scheme. Times move on, Ministers change, and how they change. Exactly 35 years later is it not ironic that we have in this House a Fine Gael Minister for Education attempting to put through the House a measure which will undermine the structures and integrity of the principles of conciliation and arbitration?

Mrs. Hussey

Nonsense.

Deputies

It is true.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am well able to handle all of them. When I speak about the traditions, the scope, the level of education and of interest in education in this country, I am well aware that parents too recognise the commitment and dedication on the part of teachers in their communities. This sense of community care on the part of teachers is not only evident and manifest in the classrooms but is made available to every cultural, charitable and sporting organisation.

I pose this question: are the Government now prepared to use the parents and pupils — because that is what they intend to do — as pawns in this industrial game they are now playing? Are the Labour Party going to vote in this House for a statutory wage restraint totally against all their stated principles?

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. O'Rourke

I know that Deputy McLoughlin has a heavy heart but let not his heavy heart overcome his heavy feet this evening when he goes through the division lobbies.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy has his overcoat on——

Mrs. O'Rourke

It was funny when we heard of the heavy heart of the Labour Party last night on television. Fianna Fáil are never allowed to have heavy hearts; they take their decisions and stick to them. I hope the feet of the Labour Party are heavy too and that they will not go through the lobbies in support of this motion.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy will have time to take off his coat.

Mrs. O'Rourke

At the end of the day, there must be justice, there must be seen to be justice on this issue. All the teachers are doing in processing their claim is seeking that justice. They are willing to compromise on the implementation dates of the award. Bear in mind that the arbitrator's award was in itself a compromise — a matter to which the Minister made no reference at all. It was a compromise on the original claim submitted by the teachers and as the due dates were specified as September 1985 and March 1986 it can be seen clearly that the teachers have been very ordered and conciliatory in their approach to the whole question.

On the question of retrospection — taking up a point the Minister made when she said that it could not, would not be paid, that it would be unfair and so on to pay this claim — is the House aware that retrospective payments were effected this month to prison officers, nurses, craftsmen, certain local authority employees, certain grades of civil servants and other grades of employees throughout the country? That matter was not mentioned by the Minister in her remarks. Retrospective payment has been made to those groups: why not to the teachers? Clearly this is discrimination against a particular occupational group and constitutes a direct denial of the principles of conciliation and arbitration.

I could put the matter no better than did the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in their statement of Thursday, 23 January 1986 when they said, inter alia, that what is at stake here are fundamental and hard won principles by which industrial relations in the public service have been conducted satisfactorily for close on half a century. They continued to say that the sacrosanct nature of an arbitrator's award is the bedrock on which all industrial relations practice in the public service, not to mention normal commercial practice, operates. Without it there will be anarchy. Regardless of what fiddling around with arbitration and conciliation proceedings the Minister and some public service unions achieve, this overriding principle cannot be ignored. If it is, conciliation and arbitration are only a sham.

I want to come to an issue which is important in the light of some public statements made by some elected representatives. It is the question of lobbying. All of us Deputies will have been lobbied by local teachers in our towns and communities, lobbied in a dignified, informative and democratic way. They have made appointments to see us privately, told us of their case and sent us their literature. I submit this is proper lobbying procedure and forms an essential part of democracy. I strongly refute suggestions that teachers have behaved otherwise. If we are engaged in a democratic process, in turn, it must be remembered that we go to people's doors. There is nothing shameful in that. We go to their doors at election time. We place ourselves at their disposal, at their service, and ask for their support on the understanding that we will listen to their points of view if they wish to convey something to us.

The teachers have done this. They have met us in an orderly, civilised, informative fashion. They have put forward their point of view and it is up to us to accept or reject it. To contend that the lobbying system is wrong is a negation of democracy. It points to a very dangerous trend developing in our society today under the present Government. Anyone who peeps up over the wall and says yea or nay to any Government Minister is immediately described as being anti-national, or against the public interest. Indeed, in this House frequently when I have spoken on education matters, I have been upbraided by the Minister who has asked: how dare I put forward demands on behalf of education? How dare I come into the House and say that education should have this or that resource. I have reiterated that as long as I have the honour to represent this party on education my voice will be heard in the Dáil and throughout the country and it would appear the Minister does not want other issues discussed in the Dáil.

Let us lay the myth for ever that lobbying is not right. If that is the view held, then I would say to every teacher, whether here or elsewhere in the country, that when next a Government Deputy presents himself at their house, come the next general election, a few well chosen words on the desirability of lobbying will go down very well in that context.

I call on the Government to honour in full the principles of arbitration and to seek an urgent meeting with the teachers' unions. But, contrary to what the Minister said in the course of her remarks — and about which Deputy Wilson so cogently inquired — I pose the question: will such talks envisage a prior, binding commitment on behalf of the teachers? If they do, then they will not be the full, frank, open negotiations which we seek in our amendment.

I understand that the teachers are anxious to reach an amicable agreement. I understand also that they are prepared to discuss the deferred implementation of their award, provided that the principle of retrospection is upheld. Let us talk for a moment about this whole question of retrospection. The overall conciliation and arbitration scheme embodied the concept of retrospection. It is a well known fact that, when the teachers' unions representatives presented themselves to Ministers for discussions on this matter in early January, they were given to understand quite clearly by the Minister for the Public Service that full implementation would be honoured and observed, pending an agreement on deferred implementation. I do not know whether the Minister was deliberately faulty in his misunderstanding of the scheme, or whether it was an aberration on his part, but it emerged later that he went back on his word and that retrospection was not to be included in what the Government were considering.

Non-payment of retrospection is a clear breach of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. When one thinks that it is to be paid shortly in many other areas of employment and to many other grades of workers, one is forced to ask why this Government are hostile to teachers, why this Minister is hostile to teachers, why they are hell bent on creating an environment of confrontation on all education matters. Because of the various manoeuvres and activities which this Government and their spokesmen have engaged in, the essential issue of this dispute has become clouded, and vigorous attempts have been made to portray teachers as raucous and unreasonable. This campaign has not succeeded and I am convinced that the public at large see very clearly the issue of principle, of justice, and of equity, and I will be very surprised if they do not in the main and in great numbers support the teachers in their case.

Remember what we are talking about here today. Will this Government now place on the line the forthcoming certificate examinations, the future education of our children, the commitment of our teaching profession? If this House passes the Government proposal today, the whole tranquil tenor of our education system will be threatened. I make one last appeal, not in any spirit of animosity. Neither do I wish deliberately to bait Deputies or the Labour Party, but it is important that we dwell very carefully on what we are doing today, that we do not leave this House this evening and go home to our constituencies having set in train a whole series of events, measures and actions which will undermine seriously the credibility of teachers and the education system and lead to dissatisfaction, disruption and unrest, not alone throughout the teaching system but throughout all the public service which will spread gradually to employment in general.

If one is not seen to have a word, a bond, something on which one can stand, then all the unctuous verbiage, all the hyprocritical phraseology, all the high minded, alliterative sounding words which come in bulky strips from Ministers opposite will mean nothing and the general unease and malaise which people feel towards public figures will grow. In the end your word is your bond. The word of this Government and of their Labour partners was given to the conciliation and arbitration scheme, and that word is about to be broken. I appeal to the Government to turn back from the brink before it is too late and to initiate immediate talks with a view to full implementation of the arbitration award as our amendment states.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach and at the Department of Justice (Mrs. Fennell)

I take this opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate mainly to appeal in the strongest possible terms to the teaching profession to consider the position which the Government are obliged to take very carefully and to accept the bona fides of the Government's case in the current difficult financial position of the Exchequer. In doing so, I in no way wish to denigrate the sterling and very important work which our teachers are doing for the youth of this country. I have no hesitation in saying that they are in the vanguard of our country's efforts to provide a competent and well-educated workforce for our economy and that they have not failed successive Governments who have identified this as a paramount objective of their policies.

Nevertheless, the underlying consideration in moving this motion, a Cheann Comhairle, is the basic question of the responsibilities which the Government must face up to in addressing the whole range of economic and social issues which they encounter while in office. Indeed, I would contend that there is a certain irony in this Government's predicament at this time, in that it was the failure of Fianna Fáil while in Government to face up to such responsibilities that has led us directly to this motion here today and, indeed, to other measures which have been announced in recent days and which have been such a source of cynical political capital for the benches opposite.

I do not intend in this contribution to dwell at any length on the position of our public finances, because the House has been fully informed of this matter in the recent Adjournment debate and in the budget debate which is continuing, and the Minister for Education has outlined these in her speech. Nevertheless, it must be clearly stated that the underlying reason for the motion before the House is the concern of this Government to build upon past achievements in cutting back the Exchequer borrowing requirement and the current budget deficit so that sustained economic development to the benefit of all our citizens can be achieved. In pursuing this goal, it is my contention that all interest groups in our society must play their part and that the teaching profession cannot be excluded from this process.

As was indicated in the recent Financial Statement of the Minister for Finance, it is simply not possible for the Government to consider further increases in public service pay without having regard to the capacity of the Exchequer to fund such increases, given that expenditure on pay represents nearly half of expenditure on net current supply services. Quite apart from any general increase in pay for the 25th round, the Government were faced with adjudication findings for special pay increases which, in the case of the groups concerned, including the teachers, would have cost in excess of £70 million per annum to implement.

It is for this reason that the Government are obliged to conclude that such a figure on top of a 25th round increase is simply beyond the financial capacity of the Exchequer and that the package being offered to all groups in the Exchequer pay bill — including the teachers — provides for these special adjudication findings to be paid on a phased basis, commencing on 1 December next. I believe, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that any fair-minded individual will interpret this package as an honest attempt on the part of this Government to face up to the very real responsibilities of Government without causing undue hardship to any group in the Exchequer pay bill. I believe further that the vast majority of Irish people in their fair-mindedness will support the Government in this action which, if accepted by all groups in the Exchequer pay bill, will cost the taxpayer an additional £68 million this year.

No matter what attempt is made by the teachers' unions to cloud the issue, the simple fact of the matter is that this Government are responding to their claim for a special pay increase and to the arbitrator's findings in the most reasonable way possible in the current economic climate. In placing this motion before the House, it must be emphasised that the Government are abiding strictly by the procedures laid down in the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for teachers and, while my aim in this contribution is to appeal to reason rather than to dwell on contentious issues, it must be said that the teachers' unions have shown themselves prepared to depart from these very conciliation and arbitration procedures.

As the Minister for Education recalled in her speech on the motion, in 1979 all three teachers' unions demanded a review of the level and structure of their pay otherwise than through their normal conciliation and arbitration machinery with threats of industrial action. Having secured a review body, they subsequently rejected its findings despite the fact that it was one whose establishment they had themselves sought and on whose membership they had been consulted, and to which they had every opportunity to present their case. I believe it is import-and to recall these recent past developments and to highlight them in the context of the current accusations from the teachers' unions that the Government have departed from the agreed negotiating machinery.

Given that this House is certain to endorse the Government's stance on this issue on the grounds that it is a fair and reasonable one in current circumstances, I believe that it would be the utmost folly for the teachers' unions to go against the democratic decision of Dáil Éireann in the matter by organising further industrial action in support of their claim. I strongly appeal to the unions to accept this democratic decision and, in doing so, to show appropriate example to the hundreds of thousands of pupils such action could affect.

It is the clear responsibility of the teaching profession to show such an example if we are to ensure the respect of all our citizens for the institutions of this State, and I urge the teachers' unions and the teachers to consider very carefully the consequences for their profession of their failure to do so. This fact must, I believe, far outweigh all other considerations, because it is not an exaggeration to say it strikes at the very core of their hitherto well-earned professional integrity.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I believe that the discussion on this motion cannot be undertaken without reference to the commitment of this Government in particular to the educational system since attaining office. In their annual budgetary allocations for education and in their Programme for Action in Education, this Government have clearly outlined their priorities in the educational sphere and have underlined their commitment to providing sufficient funds to ensure the very high educational standards which Ireland has achieved and to which this Government are committed are maintained.

The Programme for Action in Education, published in 1984, sets out this Government's approach to the priorities to be met in education over the period 1984-87 in the clear context of the financial and economic situation of our country at present. It also sets out the following principles which underline the programme:

(i) the education system should, as far as possible, enable all citizens to have access to an education which is relevant to their needs and which will assist them in seeking to fulfil the potential of their abilities and talents;

(ii) education should be continuously updated to make it relevant to the modern world, to developments in technology, to changing employment opportunities and patterns as well as to increased leisure time;

(iii) the education system should seek to make permanent and continuing education available for all citizens and to equalise opportunities for educational advancement between the various socio-economic groups in society and between the sexes;

(iv) educational provision should discriminate positively in favour of the educationally disadvantaged within available resources;

(v) the development of our linguistic and cultural heritage should be at the core of our education system;

(vi) responsibility and authority should be delegated as far as feasible, subject to necessary controls, with a view to achieving a full partnership between all the interests involved.

I believe that these principles — enshrined in the first major initiative by any Government since the sixties in the educational field and signalling a return to planning and stability, rather than to the ad hoc decisions of the sixties and seventies — underline a keen awareness on the part of this Government of the social forces which pertain in modern society and to which any effective education system must respond. For my part, the fact that for the first time ever, a Government policy document on education contained a positive commitment to the promotion of equality between the sexes represents a major milestone for those of us — including the teaching profession itself, let it be said — who have worked hard to gear our educational system so that it would be in a position to fully exploit the talents of all, both girls and boys. I believe, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that only when this position has become a reality will our country be in the position to use all its human resources for its future development and wellbeing.

In making this point, I am happy to be able to refer to an initiative which as been taken by the Institution of Engineers of Ireland in association with my office in launching a Women in Engineering in Ireland Year. This year is the beginning of a long term strategy to influence educationalists, parents, the media, and the general public to create an environment in which girls will be encouraged to consider engineering as a career. I was particularly pleased to note that the president of the institution, in launching the year with me earlier this week, specifically mentioned that the institution were concerned with the standard of excellence of the engineering profession as a whole——

Tomás Mac Giolla

On a point of order, is it in order for the Minister to have a debate on the whole educational system or are we merely to debate the terms of the motion and the question of teachers' pay?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hoped it would be a passing reference. I hope to be in a position to call the Deputy later.

Mrs. Fennell

It is important that we put it in context.

Mr. Wilson

I shall make my contribution about the teachers of Ireland.

Mrs. Fennell

There have been very scurrilous accusations from the Opposition benches and we cannot consider the role of the Minister for Education singularly on this issue. However, I shall abide by the Chair's ruling.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy Mac Giolla is right.

Mrs. Fennell

The Minister for Education has not simply enshrined the principle of equality in her policy document and left the matter to gather dust. Rather has she worked tirelessly since attaining office to give practical effect to this principle by a number of means.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have emphasised the foregoing initiatives in order to underline the fact that in the Minister for Education the teaching profession have — for the first time, I believe — a Minister for Education who is prepared to effect major qualitative changes in our educational system in a very short period of time by any standards. Many, if not all, of these initiatives have been demanded by successive annual conferences of the teachers' unions, and the fact that they have been given practical effect by the present Minister for Education speaks for itself.

I will conclude, a Leas-Cheann Chomhairle, by stating again that in Deputy Hussey the teaching profession have a Minister who has proven to be highly competent in her work and willing to face up to the challenge which the powerful social changes being experienced by our society poses. In doing so, she is working for the benefit of the teaching profession as a whole as well as for our society in general, and I would very much hope that this important point is not lost by the weight of argument on this issue. While naturally I regret the circumstances which compel the Minister for Education to move this motion, I support it for the solid reasons I have outlined and I also commend it to the House.

Tomás Mac Giolla

On a point of order, the first amendment to the motion was circulated in the name of The Workers' Party. I would like to know when I shall be allowed to speak on that amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will call you.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Could we have any idea of the order in which people will be called?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure you are aware from the order made today that this is a very limited debate. At this stage I cannot give any indication. I hope I shall be able to allow the Deputy to speak later on. Will the Deputy bear with the Chair?

Tomás Mac Giolla

How limited is limited?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is 20 minutes per speaker and the vote will be called at 4.45 p.m. Question Time will be from 2.30 to 3.30 p.m.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I want an assurance that I will be allowed to move the first amendment which was circulated to the Dáil motion and I want to know when that will be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

At this stage I cannot give you any assurance. It is my ardent wish to get you in on this debate. I will keep you in mind as the debate continues.

Mr. S. Treacy

I trust that the Chair will see to it that the voice of minorities will be heard in this House. I, too, am offering and wish to avail of an opportunity to speak in this debate.

Miss Harney

I wish to speak and hope that the Chair will call on me also.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar an mholadh seo atá os comhair na Dála. Ba mhaith liom é a cháineadh agus tacaíocht a thabhairt don leasú atá molta ag mo pháirti fhéin, sé sin:

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."

Ní mian liom deighilt pholaitiúil a dhéanamh idir na páirtíthe atá anseo i láthair. Ba mhaith liom iarracht dhíograiseach, dhúthrachtach a dhéanamh deireadh a chur leis an gconspóid seo idir an Aire Oideachais agus múinteoirí na tíre; deireadh a chur leis agus é a thabhairt chun críche le deá-thoil agus gníomh ciallmhar.

Tá bá faoi leith agam le gairm na múinteoireachta — is múinteoir mé d'réir gairme. Tá tuiscint agam do dheacrachtaí an Aire — is polaiteoir mé d'réir méine. Tá mé ag iarraidh idirbheartaíocht a dhéanamh a rachadh chun sochair do ghairm na múinteoireachta, don Aire, don Dáil, ach go háirithe do aos óg na tíre.

Ní mian liom ionsaí a dhéanamh ar éinne. Tá ábhar na conspóide ró-thábhachtach le bua pholaitiúil a lorg. Ach is trua liom a rá go bhfuil locht le fáil ar an Aire i láimhseáil na conspóide seo.

I mí Lúnasa seo caite chuaigh sí i mbéal na gaoithe ag cáineadh gairm na múinteoireachta——

Mr. Wilson

Tá sé sin fíor.

Mr. G. Birmingham

Níl sé fíor.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

——agus ag gríosadh tuairim an phobail i gcoinne na múinteoirí agus i gcoinne breith an eadránaí. Mar thoradh air sin tá moladh anseo inniu os comhair na Dála. Tá an moladh bunaido mhuintir na tíre seo ar feadh na gcianta. a thabhairt don Aire níos mó ná ar chóir agus cheart na hargóna.

Tá leasú déanta ag mo pháirtí-sa ar mholadh an Rialtais. Tá an leasú bunaithe ar chearta an cháis agus ar mheas na ndaoine ar ghairm na múinteoireachta.

Níl rún an Chomhrialtais bunaithe ar chríonnacht eacnamaíochta; tá sé bunaithe ar dhílseacht an Taoisigh don Aire Oideachais — fáth mo bhuartha. Agus muna ndéanann Teachtaí an Tí seo beart na córa inniu beidh sé mar chúis bhuartha do mhuintir na tíre seo ar feadh na gcianta.

The Government's motion before us today seeks the endorsement of the House for the most abhorrent course of action in the course of any dealings — the reneging by one side on something that was considered basic to the dealings. Here we have a demand to reject the referee's report, an arbitrator's decision.

This arbitrator, appointed by the Government — unilaterally — having heard the full case of the Government and the full case of the teachers, made certain recommendations. Now this House is asked to reject this report. Why?

Some very convoluted and spurious reasons were put forward by the Minister here today. The Minister said that in the past teachers rejected arbitration awards but that is not true. The Minister expressed all types of pious platitudes and hypocritical statements to try to demonstrate her concern for teachers even against what she described as a background of financial constraint. Those sentiments, hollow in the extreme, will be rejected by anybody who has regard to principle and justice. I should like to put it to the House that the real reasons are different from those described by the Minister. We have a Minister whose erstwhile claim to a teaching background was based on an entrepreneurial dabble in the enterprise of teaching English to foreign students, with all the empathy of what we might refer to as snobbery despising her underlings, last August issuing a morality lecture to the nation's teachers. She did this, we must assume off her own rather silly bat, and now, to save her face, the Government, and their supporters, received the clarion call to rally to her support and depart in a most irresponsible fashion from the well established principle of honouring an arbitrator's report.

The Government lost the game on the field. They had the opportunity to plead their case. Why, we must ask, if they considered the case so fundamental to Cabinet policy, did they not put the best team in the field to put that case across? Surely their approach to the whole process of conciliation and arbitration in this instance must be regarded as irresponsible and incompetent. Their case did not convince the arbitrator; they cannot now, I suggest, change the rules and change the result. If they do they deserve to have the wrath of students, parents and teachers poured down on them.

The Government naively believe that the public are not concerned with the rights or wrongs of this issue, that, like the Government, the publicity battle is what is important. Let me emphasise that this occasion merely underlines the absolute immorality of the Government. Propaganda is more important than principle or justice. Image is more important than substance. The Government have deluded themselves into the belief that honour is expendable. What matters is the propaganda and the image.

The most sinister reason of all underlying the Government's motion is the deliberate and calculated attempt by the Ministers for Education and the Public Service, with the compliance of the Government, to subvert and dismantle the system of conciliation and arbitration throughout the entire public service. This has been clearly demonstrated for us over the past six months by the refusal to reappoint an arbitrator, by the irresponsible public statements from both the Ministers for Education and the Public Service clearly designed to denigrate publicly and antagonise the teaching profession as a bunch of immoral, self-seeking, subversive saboteurs and the repeated attempts by these Ministers to blackmail teachers by attempting to set illegal conditions for the reappointment of an arbitrator.

This very process of conciliation and arbitration has served the country well since its inception in the late forties and operation in the fifties. Let us look briefly at some of its most positive features. It has produced a record of strife free co-operation throughout the public service. It facilitated the smooth and efficient development of the educational services for successive generations of our students. It enabled all Governments through those years to formulate and implement programmes and policies in the secure knowledge of the full support of a loyal and co-operative public service, always accepting the outcome to conciliation and arbitration however unpalatable.

Surely it goes without saying that when the free collective bargaining process does not resolve the issue, the appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate on the merits of each case has proved to be a mechanism unsurpassed in industrial relations. Therefore, there can be no logical, rational, sensible reason for dismantling such a worthwhile and successful process other than a determined move by the Government towards statutory control of public service pay awards.

It is deeply regrettable that the Government would seem to have embarked on a course that if persisted in would lead to anarchy in collective bargaining, needless confrontation and a very serious threat to good order in industrial relations. Surely even at this late stage the Government must pull back from the brink and recognise their commitments and obligations and observe established procedures. But, if it is to be otherwise today, then let me chart the consequences of their actions for those who support the motion.

Inevitably there will be an escalation of industrial action in the schools. Firstly, there will be further short term strikes leading to regional strikes which will create public unease and disquiet. Students in some regions will suffer acute disadvantages in the preparation for examinations that will be the platform for their careers and their futures.

Those students who already are under such immense stress and strain from the rigours of exam-orientated courses are now to be subjected to increasing uncertainty and disruption of their classes. How can this House be so callous and devoid of humanity as to deliberately inflict such unnecessary hardship on these young shoulders?

We have also the likely disruption of the examinations. In this latter regard, I want to record in the Official Report of the House the attitude of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on the likely consequences. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions — I must presume that its attitude will influence other trade unions and trade unionists — unequivocally endorse the stand of the teacher unions.

In their public statement of 15 August 1985, in response to a statement by the Minister for the Public Service, Congress warned:

If the Minister's statement is a first indication of a threat to dismantle the conciliation and arbitration schemes in the public service then it is embarking on a path that out-Thatchers anything that has been done by the present British Government.

They went on to state firmly that any attempt by Ministers to bring about confrontation with the public service unions in true Thatcherite style could be seen as a declaration of war on the trade union movement. This would indicate that civil servants, and educational inspectors in particular, will not do work associated with the exams, work which is normally done by teachers.

The outcome of this would be catastrophic for our young people. What if the employees of An Post refuse to handle the papers? What if the civil servants in the examinations branch refuse to handle the papers? What if the Irish Federation of University Teachers refuse to process the matriculation? We will then be faced with a serious problem.

Passing this motion today may bring about a situation where there will be no winners but there will be losers. Our vulnerable youth, anxious parents and the system which served us well since the forties and, in many ways the worst of all worlds, the credibility of the House should be considered.

Let us ponder for a moment on the words of Hugh Geoghegan, the arbitrator, in his findings as reported in the Irish Independent on Monday 21 October last. It is important that we consider all aspects of his statement. He said:

The state of the Exchequer finances is particularly relevant to this claim, having regard to the very high cost to the State of teachers' pay, and full regard is being had to the economic circumstances in these findings, but this cannot mean that the claim should be rejected irrespective of its merits as suggested by the official side. Such an approach would constitute a quite unjustified discrimination against teachers as distinct from all other professional grades in the public service.

Where does that leave us? It ridicules us, our integrity our sense of fairness, our credibility. I should like to stitch it into the record of this House that my party stand for an honourable solution. We have put down an amendment and we seek the support of the House.

I should like to appeal for a sensible reaction to our amendment. I appeal particularly to Members who belong to the teaching profession, not only to stand by the principle that their teacher colleagues must uphold and to counsel tact and commonsense among their parliamentary colleagues here. I want to address myself to some Members of the House, to the Minister for Justice whose membership of this House is in no small way due to the efforts and organisation of his former teaching colleagues in Limerick; to the Minister for the Gealtacht and Fisheries, himself a former teacher, and a man who owes his professional status and success to devoted teachers.

I appeal to the Minister, who would claim to have been a teacher but whose record does not stand up and whose performance at the Cabinet table is not known ever to have shown support for the teaching profession. I appeal to the Taoiseach, who flirted with the profession and used it as a platform on the road to politics but whose affiliation is in the realm of eaten bread being soon forgotten.

I appeal to all the other teachers in this House — we all know who they are — to stand by their colleagues. Respecting the awkward position in which the Minister for Education has placed them, I appeal to them to seek the moderate solution of an honourable resolution through the mechanism proposed in the terms of my party's amendment.

Another scenario we are witnessing here today is the ludicrous spectacle of the Labour Party, well known in the past for their victories over their consciences, now seeking victory over their principles, traipsing in to support a lady whose indiscreet outbursts rather then her good sense launched her on a path of conflict and downright confrontation with one of the most respected professions in the country.

Here we have a Labour Party whose very lifeblood is the trade union movement, whose links pre-date the foundation of the State, whose membership professes allegiance to and solidarity with the deeds of men like Larkin, whose coffers are filled annually by trade union subscriptions and many of whose members are trade union officials who up to recently included in their ranks people like Deputy Michael Bell, Deputy Frank Cluskey, the Minister, Deputy Desmond, the Minister of State, Deputy Pattison, Deputy Frank Prendergast and other Labour Party public representatives.

Where is their allegiance today to trade unionism? Where is their solidarity, which always has been the hallmark of the movement? How can these people reconcile their stand here today with their own professed beliefs? How can they spurn their colleagues in the trade union movement on a point of such fundamental principle? Indeed, how can they reconcile their stand with their own party election programme as stated in November 1982 under the title Jobs Equality and Justice with Labour? I will quote from that document.

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 employees 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.

Are the Labour Party here today going to stand up for their professed beliefs and honour their commitments or rather, by capitulating to their right wing partner, are they prepared to face inevitable condemnation because they are manifestly dishonest, totally hypocritical and devoid of any shred of credibility?

It is not unusual in this House to advert to the way others see us. There is no doubt about how we will be seen internationally if we reject the terms of the arbitrator in this instance.

Let me quote for the record and for the information of the House the attitude of the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Professions in regard to this issue in their message to our teacher unions. Above all, I quote it in support of a reasonable and informed decision. I argue in favour of the profession to which we entrust the future of our country. As one philosopher said: "A man should first direct himself in the way he should go. Only then should he instruct others." We cannot expect to be a progressive people if we deny those who influence our youth and form the character of our people. I quote:

It is 36 years since the International Labour Organisation adopted Convention No. 98, which Ireland duly ratified, and which requires that measures be taken to "encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for negotiation".

Are your Ministers such slow readers?

Or does your Government really think that if it asks the Dáil not to ratify acceptance of an arbitration, but to over-rule it, it will be keeping its promise "to encourage and promote the full... utilisation of machinery for negotiation?"

If they think that, they are flying in the face of world opinion.

Shall we talk about morality? It is not moral to ignore international treaty obligations, which is what membership in the ILO and ratification of conventions amount to. It is not moral to play the game of declaring that you are in a financial crisis and then using your own declaration as a pretext to subverting fair and agreed procedures. It is not moral, when teachers have bound themselves in good faith to accept conciliation and arbitration, to use political power to make a mockery of those processes.

It is not moral to justify all this with the plea of inability to pay, when it has been proved that administrative laxity and a blind eye to dishonesty are costing far more money than it would cost the Government to behave honourably, and when that very issue of ability to pay has been ruled upon within the arbitration.

We are not involved here today in a debate about money. We are involved in a debate about principle, about whether we should give recognition to those who influence our future. We are not deciding what our teachers are worth. We are determining how much we are prepared to invest in our own future. What we invest is not just money. It is our goodwill, our sense of justice and a public statement of the regard and esteem this House bestows on those who nurture the attitude and values of future generations.

I ask the House to give positive expression to its attitude to the teaching profession, to act in accordance with the implications of its attitude to the International Labour Organisation conventions to which it has subscribed. I commend to the House the Fianna Fáil amendment, not for political advantage, but in the interest of fairness, commonsense and reasoned argument.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

It was interesting to hear Deputy Fitzgerald reading his supplied script. In speaking to the debate on this motion, I should like to begin by dealing with the most important points at issue. The Minister for Education has covered them already in her speech, but I think the House ought to be reminded of them before it takes its decision. It has disturbed me, not only during this debate but in the weeks preceding it, that so many of the issues have seemed to be distorted and obscured. Much of this misunderstanding has, no doubt, been genuine; but I find it hard to believe that all has been. I want to take this opportunity to spell some things out clearly once and for all.

First of all, we have heard it said again and again that, by seeking to amend the arbitrator's recommendation, the Government have somehow been throwing agreed procedures out of the window. That, of course, is not true, and the Minister for Education explained earlier, in detail, why it is not true. But the point is such an important one that I feel it is worth while to make it again.

In the first place, when a pay claim is submitted to the arbitrator it is for a recommendation, not for determination. In other words, under the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme the arbitrator's finding is not the final stage in the proceedings. Both parties have to consider that finding and decide whether to accept it. If the Government wish to reject a finding, or to modify it, they have that right under the agreed scheme and may do so by bringing a motion before this House.

The Government have followed these procedures to the letter. Naturally, no Government decide lightly to amend the recommendation of an independent arbitrator. That is an option to be taken up only in extreme circumstances. But the option is there, written into the scheme which was last amended and freely accepted by the teachers' representatives as late as 1973, and the circumstances are, indeed, extreme.

The second point I would like to make is that, right from the start, the Government have made every effort to reach an accommodation with the teachers and other public service unions on all outstanding pay matters. Perhaps I should now set out the facts in some detail for the information of the House.

Last October I extended an invitation to the Public Services Committee of Congress to meet me for talks on all relevant issues relating to pay. I indicated that the state of the Government finances left little room for manoeuvre but, given that background, I would try to be as positive as possible in endeavouring to reach an agreed solution to the problem of public service pay.

At the meeting with the committee on 11 October I explained the extremely difficult economic and financial situations which faced the country in 1986, including the expected major overrun on the 1986 Exchequer pay bill target in the national plan. I asked the committee to enter into immediate negotiations on the relevant pay issues, but regrettably the requested negotiations never really got off the ground. The leaders of the unions were not able to respond in any meaningful way and, in effect, indicated that they had no mandate to negotiate an agreement on the various issues. It subsequently became clear to me that there was little or no prospect of reaching an overall agreement on pay with the public service unions — this was not due to any lack of effort or desire on my part — and that the prospects of reaching settlements in the various sectors of the public service would be a matter for resolution in the various sectors.

Subsequent to the abortive attempt at centralised talks I embarked on a prolonged and difficult series of discussions on pay and pay-related matters with some of the major groups of public servants: Local Authority and Health Staff Panel, Civil Service General Staff Panel, Civil Service (Higher) Staff Panel and the Teachers Staff Panel, in which the Minister for Education also participated.

In the weeks before and after Christmas I had some 25 meetings with these groups culminating in a series of discussions totalling over 50 hours in the period 12 to 20 January. In these negotiations the bottom line for me, at all times, was cost. The negotiations took place in the context of published Estimates figures for the Exchequer pay and pensions bill of £2,600 million which represented an increase of 4.7 per cent over the provisional outturn for 1985 of £2,484 million — an increase far in excess of £100 million — even before any negotiations began.

Throughout the negotiations I was conscious of the fact that any further increases in 1986, whether by way of a general round increase or by the payment of a special increase to a particular group, would be over and above this increase which some people might regard as already very generous. Given that the Government must have regard to the overall cost of any agreement — of special increase plus the general increase — it followed that a concessionary stance on the standard round terms would necessarily entail a restrictive line on special increases and vice versa.

I therefore endeavoured to come to an agreement with the public service unions, an agreement which, while covering all outstanding pay-related matters, would clearly not fully meet the desires of either side in all its aspects but would satisfy, in so far as it was possible to do so, as many as possible of the priorities and concerns of the two sides.

In other words, we were trying to arrive at a "mix" relating to the 25th round, special increases and other pay issues, a mix which would be as generous as circumstances would permit and would be designed to cater for the needs of both sides. It is in that context that the eventual package emerged, involving a 25th round increase of 7 per cent over 18 months, the phasing in of existing special awards in three phases over the next 2½ years and an agreement to phase in future awards in three phases beginning in December 1987. The package also included a variety of other matters including an agreement to have meaningful discussions about the machinery for pay determination in the coming months and a commitment to make greater use of conciliation which unfortunately is an aspect which has not been given the proper amount of attention by either side, without recourse to adjudication.

This package, together with some recent concessions by the Government relating to pension matters, will add a total of another £70 million to the Exchequer pay and pensions bill in 1986 and a further £150 million in 1987. Two of the pension concessions which, it seems to me, have not got sufficient attention relate to superannuation lump sums and the question of pension parity for special increases.

As regards lump sums, in my talks with the various public service unions including the teachers' unions. I included as part of the package on offer a proposal that superannuation lump sums, whether they arose as the result of a retirement or of a death, would not be affected by the proposed phasing in of special awards. This meant that the lump sum payable to the public servant or to his dependants would be calculated as if the award were being paid from the dates recommended by the arbitrator or the Labour Court, as the case may be.

In the teachers' case, this would mean that any lump sum payable in respect of a death or retirement in the period 1 September 1985 to 28 February 1986 would be increased by 5 per cent; after 1 March 1986 it would be increased by 10 per cent. Roughly 800 teachers stand to benefit from this concession, 400 in 1986 and 400 in 1987.

This to me is a very significant concession. It has always been represented to me that the whole question of lump sums and how they stand vis-à-vis pay increases at around the time of retirement is an important factor for public servants when they are considering offers relating to their pay. I understand that teachers' unions, in particular, have been very conscious of this issue and that it caused quite a number of problems for them in 1980, as Deputy Wilson will remember. Deputy Wilson sold them down the river.

Mr. Wilson

Snivelling sycophancy.

Mr. Boland

I tried to pick up the pieces, after the way he sold the retiring teachers down the river. I was glad, therefore, to be in a position in relation to the package as it affected all public servants to be able to ensure that for those retiring or, in the unfortunate cases of deaths of public servants their dependants, the lump sums involved would not be affected by the phasing in of the awards.

The other matter I referred to was the question of pension parity for special increases. During the discussions which led to the 1983 public service pay agreement, I had agreed that public service pensioners would benefit from general pay increases from the same dates as these increases apply to serving staff. In the context of the recent pay discussions the Government decided that as and from 1 July 1986 this concession would also apply to special increases. The practice to date has been to adjust pensions once a year only on 1 July to take account of any special increases which had occurred since the previous 1 July.

This concession would apply to all public service pensioners, including teacher pensioners. Such pensioners would benefit from the first two instalments of the 10 per cent increase in December 1986 and December 1987 and would not have to wait until the following July for the increase to be applied to their pensions, as they would under the present arrangements.

The package of draft proposals has already been formally offered to four different groups of public servants — the two Civil Service staff panels, the local authority and health services staff panel and to the main Garda associations. These terms were never formally offered to the teachers' unions simply because the teachers' unions broke off negotiations on 15 January, with the result that I was unable to make an improved offer to them, even though they were told that an improved offer would be made if the negotiations continued and were urged to continue with those negotiations.

Since then the Government have decided that the same terms as have been offered to the other groups, and which are now being considered by them, should be offered to teachers if and when they return to the negotiating table. This would mean, for teachers on the common basic scale, a total increase of 17.9 per cent over the next 2½ years, made up as follows: a 3 per cent increase from 1 May next, followed by the first third of the special 10 per cent award from 1 December next, followed by a 2 per cent increase from 1 January 1987 and a further 2 per cent increase from 1 May 1987, followed by the second instalment of the 10 per cent award from 1 December 1987 and finally, the final instalment on 1 July 1988. These increases would apply not only to the common basic scale but to the whole range of teachers' allowances as well.

As the Minister for Education has already pointed out, the total increases payable to teachers up to mid-1988 under the terms of the draft proposals for a pay agreement would be in excess of 17 per cent. Under these proposals the starting pay for a teacher with a three-year training course and a pass primary degree would go from its present £8,940 to £10,539 — an increase of £1,599. A teacher on the maximum of the scale with a pass primary degree and without a post of responsibility would go from £15,913 to £18,758 — an increase of £2,845. These figures would, of course, be further increased by any general increases which might be negotiated following the expiry on 30 June 1987 of the proposed pay agreement. The increases would also be reflected for teachers who have special allowances for their Higher Diploma in Education, Higher Diploma in Education (Honours), Ard Teastas, Master's Degree, Master's Degree (Honours), doctorates, TDG and diplomas for teaching in special areas. There are also special awards for those who teach on islands, the Gaeltacht and for those who teach in comprehensive schools. Increases would apply to all those allowances which the general public are not always aware are payable to teachers.

The offer which I have outlined would mean an increase of over £100 million in the teachers' pay bill over the period and would bring the total bill for teachers' pay and allowances from the current figure of approaching £600 million to something in excess of £700 million. This offer to increase teachers' pay in this way is clearly a very generous one and it clearly behoves the leaders of the teacher unions to consider it very carefully, both in the interest of their members and, even more importantly, in the national interest. As I said to the teachers' negotiators at the meetings last January, our teachers have always had a very strong belief in the national interest.

Let me turn now to the question of retrospection. The figure of £110 million which the Government have used has been disputed by some of the spokesmen for the teachers. That figure represents the difference in the overall cost to the State between the offer which I have just outlined — the phasing in of the 10 per cent special award in three phases over the next two and a half years — and the full implementation of the 10 per cent on the dates recommended by the chairman of the arbitration board. That £110 million is, in effect, the reason we are here today. It represents a cost which the Exchequer simply cannot afford. To look at in its wider context, it is equivalent to an increase of over 4 per cent in the total Exchequer pay and pensions bill in any one year. Even over the three years 1986 to 1988 when, under the proposed package, existing findings will be phased in, this £110 million represents an increase in public service pay of almost 1½ per cent per annum over that period.

The Government tried, as I have already said, to arrive at a package or mix which would achieve the fairest possible balance for all sides between the various elements in the package.

A change in any one element, such as the phasing of specials, would necessarily, given the overriding financial constraints, require a corresponding disimprovement in the general increases.

Another way of looking at this figure is to compare it with the figure of £121 million, the total reduction in income tax in 1986 arising from the changes announced in the recent budget. Payment of the arbitrator's finding for teachers during 1986 would have wiped out half of this money intended to be devoted to tax concessions for all taxpayers.

Public service pay now represents almost one-half of net day-to-day Government expenditure. Since more than three-quarters of the remaining non-pay expenditure is on the social services the Government have no option but to include some limitations on pay in the measures necessary to restrain public spending. Expenditure on the social services includes transfers to those in greatest need in the community, including the unemployed, the elderly, the sick and the disabled. How do those who are opposing the Government's motion propose to finance the cost of retrospection? Are they advocating cuts in the social welfare services? Are they seriously suggesting that the 240,000 or so who are on the live register should forgo the increases in unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance provided for in the budget? Are they saying that the taxpayers' burden should not be relieved? Alternatively is it not more reasonable in current circumstances to ask public servants to forego retrospection?

Having concluded negotiations with (a) the staff panel in the local government and health services conciliation and arbitration scheme and (b) the Civil Service unions, the staff representatives in these areas have agreed to consider, in accordance with their union procedures, the draft proposals for pay agreements covering the 25th round and other pay-related matters. These proposals incorporate an undertaking by both sides to engage in meaningful discussions, to be concluded by 1 August 1986, on changes in the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

In these circumstances I indicated to the parties concerned that I was agreeable to the appointment of a chairman to both the local government and health services arbitration board and the Civil Service arbitration board. In fact a chairman has already been appointed to the local government and health services scheme and arrangements are now in hand for the appointment of a chairman to the Civil Service arbitration board. The Government's position on an appointment of an arbitrator to the teachers' conciliation and arbitration scheme is identical to the position adopted on the other conciliation and arbitration schemes. I appeal to teachers and their representatives, as the Minister for Education has, to draw back from confrontation and to look again at what the Government have offered. In view of the gravity of the issues involved, the unions should put the matter to a ballot of their members to see if they will accept the package.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I move amendment No. 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.".

I wish to speak on the amendment to the Government motion. The motion before the Dáil must be viewed in the context of a number of developments in the last six months, during which long established normal collective bargaining procedures in the public service have come under sustained attack from the Government in general and the Ministers for the Public Service and Education in particular.

The tone of the new departure was set by the Minister for the Public Service on 14 August last when he announced the imposition of a 12-month pay freeze for civil servants and declared the Government's intention of refusing to honour any special pay awards. A week later the Minister for Education launched an unprecedented attack on members of the teaching profession, lecturing them on the morality of their claim, before going on radio to indicate that the arbitrator's award would not be paid, even though it had not been officially published or presented to the Government at that stage. Given these facts, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government deliberately sought confrontation with the public service unions and the teachers' unions in particular.

The motion before the Dáil involves far more than simply the terms of a pay increase for teachers with which the Minister for the Public Service was dealing. What is involved is the right of teachers to be accorded equal treatment with other workers, which is what the claim is about, and whether a Government have the right to cast aside an award made to a section of their employees under a scheme of arbitration to which they were a willing party.

The current conciliation and arbitration scheme, which was a rationalisation of the scheme which existed since 1951, was signed by the Coalition Government and teacher unions in 1973. Teachers' unions and successive Governments since then have agreed that conciliation and arbitration is the best process for solving disputes in the education area. The procedure is clearly established. If agreement cannot be reached by conciliation, the matters under dispute are referred to the teachers' arbitration board. The public service arbitrator, who is appointed by the Government, is the chairman of the teachers' arbitration board and it is his duty, having heard the issues involved, to present his report to the Government.

The scheme has served the community — Government, teachers, parents and pupils — very well and has been largely responsible for the absence of pay disputes in the education area for nearly 40 years.

If this motion is passed, it will have enormous implications for the whole principle of the third party determination of disputes in the public service. The present claim was initiated by the teachers' unions in December 1982, over three years ago. They have patiently and systematically gone through the complicated stage by stage process set out in the conciliation and arbitration scheme. If, after all that, the award of the arbitrator can be casually cast aside by the Government, through their majority in this House, why should any other public service workers, or the teachers themselves, in the future, agree to go through these complicated procedures? Surely the temptation will be to by-pass conciliation and arbitration procedures and go straight into industrial action, the very thing that conciliation and arbitration are designed to avoid.

It is all right for Ministers coming into this House to say they are acting within the procedures laid down and that they have every right to come into this House, which is quite true, but nevertheless it is unprecedented for a motion of this kind to come before the House. This is destroying the whole principle of conciliation and arbitration the aim of which is to avoid industrial disputes.

A fundamental principle of arbitration is that both parties agree in advance and understand that it will be accepted. If the teachers' unions had decided that the arbitrator's award was not sufficient for their members, and they refused to accept it, just imagine the lectures on morality and the damage they were doing to the arbitration system that would have been directed at them from Government Ministers and editorial writers alike.

The review body, to which the Minister for Education referred, was dealing with the whole structure of teachers' pay, which was different from the normal matters dealt with at conciliation and arbitration, and no industrial dispute took place at that time.

This unprecedented attempt to overturn an arbitrator's award must also be considered in the light of commitments given by each of the two parties in Government. The Government in their document, Building on Reality, spoke of no effort being spared to ensure that our industrial relations institutions and procedures are the best possible. The commitments given by the Labour Party in their 1982 election manifesto were even more specific and were referred to already by a Fianna Fáil speaker. Under the heading “Free Collective Bargaining” it said:

The trade union movement and the public service have faced unprecedented attacks from the Government on pay and on 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 negotiation rights of trade unions".

Given that specific commitment, how can any member of the Labour Party agree to support this motion which is clearly attempting to deprive the teachers' unions of the right to negotiate for their members through free collective bargaining? How can those on the Labour benches, who are trade unionists, agree to this attempt to impose statutory wage controls on the one particular group of workers, because that is precisely what the passing of this motion would mean?

The Government have also been inconsistent in their approach to the awards of arbitrators. Retrospection is clearly the main issue at stake, but the Government have already agreed to pay a number of special claims, including retrospection, under similar special pay claims, to a number of groups including prison officers, psychiatric nurses, non-consultant hospital doctors, and others. A total of 18,485 people have received retrospection under these claims. Why have the teachers been singled out for special discrimination? Neither Minister questioned the justice of the teachers' claim. They merely claimed that the Government are unable to pay. The Minister for the Public Service has just said: "In these negotiations the bottom line for me at all times was cost", not whether the claim was justified.

Attempts have been made both by Government spokesmen and some sections of the media to depict teachers as some sort of pampered, selfish group. Certainly teachers are well paid compared to some other employments, but they are not particularly well paid compared to other similar professions. Teachers' salary scales are lower than those for an administrative officer or a higher executive officer in the Civil Service, lower than those of a parks superintendent, an Army captain, or a civil engineer, grade II. Why should teachers be lower paid than other professional grades in the public service?

Teachers have jobs with unique responsibilities. The community entrusts them with the care and welfare of our children. In addition, their working conditions are often poor, and certainly poorer than those of teachers in many other countries. We have the highest teacher-pupil ratio in Europe, which is the real measure of their productivity. One in every four primary schools have prefabricated classrooms, one in every ten does not even have drinking water, three in every four do not have a telephone, and one in eight of all primary classes has more than 40 pupils. How would any Member like to face a class of 40 pupils every day?

Teachers clearly believe that they have a good case. The teachers have been rock solid in their backing of the unions in this dispute. Anyone who is in any doubt about the teachers' determination cannot have seen the massive display of solidarity in Dublin on 5 December, when 20,000 members of all three unions, from every corner of the country, met in Croke Park and marched through the streets of Dublin. That sort of commitment and solidarity comes only with a claim that the union members know is justified and deserved.

Support has come from many other sources. The ICTU through their General Secretary and Public Services committee, have given the teachers their full backing. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors have said that what is at stake in this dispute are "the fundamental and hard-won principles by which industrial relations in the public service have been satisfactorily conducted for close to half a century". The Secretariat of Secondary Schools have appealed to the Taoiseach and other Ministers to resolve the impasse, but the Government have remained obdurate and uncompromising.

The Government have claimed, of course, that the country cannot afford to pay the award. Before looking in detail at the cost of the claim, it is worth placing on record what the arbitrator had to say in his report on this question. The Minister for Education said in her own words what she felt the arbitrator had said, but she did not quote him. The words of Mr. Hugh Geoghegan were:

The state of the Exchequer finances is particularly relevant to this claim having regard to the very high cost to the State of teachers pay and full regard is being had to the economic circumstances in these findings. But this cannot mean that the claim should be rejected irrespective of its merits as suggested by the official side. Such an approach would constitute a quite unjustified discrimination against teachers as distinct from all other professional grades in the Public Service.

That is the nub of the question. Mr. Geoghegan, the Government appointed arbitrator, was clearly saying that the serious state of the country's finances had been taken into account in making the award, and this could not then be used as an excuse by the Government to refuse to implement the award. They could have used other reasons, for example, if they could prove it was an unjustified claim.

The estimated cost of implementing the award in full would be about £8 million in respect of 1985 and about £55 million for each subsequent year. However, teachers are among the most highly taxed sectors of society and for every £1 of the increase as much as 50p would go straight back to the Exchequer by way of income tax and levies. Therefore, the real cost is about £4 million for 1985 and between £26 million and £30 million for this and subsequent years. This does not take into account what proportion of the balance would come back to the Exchequer eventually by way of indirect taxation. Therefore, the established real cost is about 0.4 per cent of the Government's annual spending or about half of 1 per cent of the Government's total tax take.

The Workers' Party and the trade unions have consistently pointed out how the Government could bring in more money, far more than would be needed to meet this claim. We have asked them to make a real effort to collect outstanding taxes and levies and to deal once and for all with tax evasion and avoidance. We have pointed to the need for a tax system that would ensure that farmers and the self-employed pay their fair share. We have pointed to the need for adequate wealth, corporation and property taxes. We have pointed to the need to reduce unemployment which now costs the State up to £1,500 million per year in social welfare payments. Because of the many people unemployed, the State also sufferes through loss of taxes. We have pointed to the need to generate production that would decrease Government expenditure and increase tax revenue.

The Minister for Education spoke about "reviving the myth of the hoard of uncollected taxes". She said that this was "escapist nonsense, grasping at straws". Unfortunately for the Minister, her Taoiseach has accepted this myth of uncollected taxes. It was referred to in the budget and the Taoiseach also referred to it in his speech last November. That is not to say he is doing anything about it considering that the amount of uncollected taxes the budget will yield will be £15 million. Unfortunately for the Minister for Education, the Comptroller and Auditor General has put a figure of £700 million for uncollected taxes at May 1985. The figure was over £600 million in May 1984 and we can expect it will be more than £700 million in May 1986.

Obviously this Government are not prepared to confront the owners of wealth and property who take all and give nothing but they are prepared to confront the teachers and to lecture and malign them. Of course this would be expected of Fine Gael but the silent support of the Labour Party is a disgrace to the labour movement. The basis of the Government's case is inability to pay. Any Government who claim inability to pay their own employees are declaring their own inability to govern.

Mr. Bell

At the outset I must make a few comments in relation to some of the remarks of Deputy Mac Giolla. If it were not for the participation of the Labour Party in Government it is my belief that even the 23rd wage round would not have been conceded. I suggest to the Deputy that were it not for the refusal of the Parliamentary Labour Party to accept a decision announced by the Cabinet in relation to the non-payment of moneys in the public service for the whole of 1986, we would not have got to the point where the unions could vote on the various offers negotiated. This would not have been possible had it not been that the Labour Party took a clear and definite stand on that issue. As a result, the Government were forced to enter into negotiations and to find the money for the payment of increases not only under this round but under the previous round. That included teachers in the last round and it will include teachers in this round.

We should consider the situation more carefully. The Labour Party have 9 per cent of the electorate in voting terms but they get about 99 per cent of the blame for what happens in Government. It is no joy to those of us who are involved in the trade union movement and in this Parliament to have to be party to any decision that will deprive any section of the workforce of what is their due and just right. Since I was 16 years old I have negotiated on behalf of workers and often I have had to give them bad news as well as the good news. Often I have had to do unpleasant things.

I do not think the situation is exactly as was painted by Deputy Mac Giolla. A substantial element of the award in this case has been conceded. Perhaps it was not conceded in the way the arbitrator made his award or in the normal way of consultation and negotiation. Part of the present problem has been due to the very amateur way in which this whole affair has been handled. I suggest that two reasonably well trained shop stewards would have handled the whole negotiating procedure in a much more professional way.

I agree with Deputy Mac Giolla with regard to the way the negotiations commenced. These were not negotiations across the table but were conducted through the national media. Ministers made statements and there were counter-statements from the other side before the parties sat down to negotiate. I have been involved in negotiations for much longer than the Minister for the Public Service or the Minister for Education and I have never made statements on what I would settle for or would not settle for before I started negotiations. I do not know of any responsible employer who would adopt the same type of tactics as were used on this occasion. In this case we had the Government, the largest employer in the country, conducting affairs through the national media before negotiations commenced. In industrial relations that is a recipe for disaster. It is one of the main reasons we are now in confrontation, why those of us who have been involved in the trade union movement all our lives find ourselves pushed up a culde-sac not of our choosing.

I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that the next time this bungling occurs the people responsible for it will have to resolve it also. It will not be resolved on the backs of those of us in the trade union movement and who are involved in the Parliamentary Labour Party. I am saying to one and all that we have had enough, that the next time this sort of problem arises the people responsible for it will be on their own.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Why not this time?

Mr. Bell

These are early days yet. As Deputy Mac Giolla says, the Labour Party stand clearly for free collective bargaining and we will adhere to that position. We will support it and ensure that it is continued throughout the entire public service. Regardless of what happens here today, the problem will not go away because any trade unionist worth his salt will never succumb to a decision that is forced on him. I suggest to the Minister that in three months' time, six months' time, next year and the year after, the teachers will pursue the retrospective element of what is justifiably theirs.

I suggest also that, before the vote this evening, the Minister should state clearly to those of us who will have to support the decision that is hers and the Government's what the position is in regard to the retrospective element of the award. Are we to take it that when this motion is passed with our support, the door is closed on the teachers' unions? Will there then be no further negotiations, conciliation or arbitration in regard to the retrospective element, or is there to be a down payment on the arbitrator's award with the remaining element being left for future negotiation?

As a responsible trade union official whose lifetime has been spent negotiating I am asking the Minister to state publicly what exactly is involved. We must have this information to pass on to our party members. Public statements in relation to this subject have been changed so often that we no longer know where we are going on this issue. I suggest that under normal negotiating procedures the Labour Court would appoint an assessor in the case of an employer claiming inability to pay. This would be an independent assessor who would report to the court. Obviously, his advice would be considered by the court in reaching their judgment. At all times the end result would be that the unions would put the final recommendation or decision of the court to a ballot of their members.

I suggest respectfully to my trade union colleagues that there is much lacking because good and proper negotiating techniques would ensure that those on the trade union side involved in the negotiations would hang on to secure the final amount of benefit for their members. In normal negotiations that final offer would be put to a secret ballot of the union concerned and on the basis of the outcome the members would decide, with the sanction of their executive, whether they should take formal industrial action. Therefore, you can see readily that the whole procedure — and this applies to some extent on all sides — is abnormal to say the least. I suggest to you and to Minister Boland——

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be preferable that the Deputy would address the Chair.

Mr. Bell

Sorry. I suggested through my parliamentary colleagues that, even as late as Tuesday of this week, the parties concerned in meeting the Minister, the Minister for the Public Service and the trade unions should make a final effort to reach agreement. It appears from the document which has come from the Minister's office that the substantial portion of both the national round and the 10 per cent has a large measure of agreement and that therefore the real element of dispute is the matter of retrospection. Nobody has contradicted this assertion.

Effectively, what is meant by retrospection? In fairness, the unions would be prepared to negotiate on the question of retrospection. I would be confident that a formula could be reached which would resolve that aspect. The question of how and when the retrospection would be paid is a matter which could have been negotiated freely if the will had been present on the part of the Minister and on the part of the Minister for the Public Service to enter into negotiations. I am stating publicly that this whole matter was allowed to reach confrontation stage on the basis that it would be on the backs of the Labour Party Deputies that the issue would be decided. Nobody will achieve that so far as I am concerned. I will make up my own mind and I will do that after I have heard the Minister's reply this evening as to what the future holds in relation to this subject. If we are saying that there will be no retrospection and that there will be no further discussion of that aspect, there will be continuing confrontation, a confrontation that will spread through the entire public service.

It is not correct to say that this decision is linked to the 25th round. The claim was on the table for three years. It was freely and properly negotiated by way of the machinery that exists for that purpose.

I remind the Minister that it was only when the various statements were made through the media that public ire was aroused. I have spoken to teachers who are prepared to accept that there are problems in regard to the economy, but they were more concerned about the way in which they were treated. If the same treatment were to be meted out to the group of people whom I represent as a trade union official, my attitude would be the same as the attitude which has been adopted by the teachers' unions.

Mrs. Hussey

It did not happen.

Mr. Bell

Perhaps the Minister would like to contradict some of the statements that have been attributed to her in the media, or some of those statements I heard her make on television. We are told that the implementation of the award in full would cost £107 million, but the costings of salaries in the public sector and in the private sector are different matters. The £107 million is to some extent misleading. Nobody has yet contradicted the figures I have given to individuals in this respect. I calculate that in 1986 the amount involved would be £13.7 million; in 1987, £61.6 million; in 1988, £96.35 million and that it would not be until 1989 that the cost would amount to £107 million. The tax return on those amounts would be at least 50 per cent, though I am sure many teachers are paying tax at a higher rate than that, while there would be 2.9 per cent by way of PRSI and 6½ per cent by way of superannuation and widows' and orphans' contributions. This is an immediate return to the Exchequer because it never reaches the teachers' pockets. We are talking about a figure of almost 60 per cent — 59.4 per cent, to be exact — which would never actually be paid out. Ironically the dispute saved the Exchequer £5 million. We are talking about a figure of £5.5 million in 1986, £23.6 million in 1987, £38.5 million in 1988 and £42.8 million in 1989. Those figures could be reduced by more than half when one takes into consideration that teachers, like everybody else, pay VAT and tax on everything they buy.

There is a terrible malaise or disease spreading very rapidly through this administration and I suggest that it needs to be halted quickly. The cure might be a dose of conciliation, consultation and negotiation. I appeal to my colleagues in the trade union movement in the public service to remember that as long as the Labour Party are in Government, those of us on the backbenches, and I am sure my colleagues in the Cabinet, will do our utmost to support what is just and reasonable from a trade union point of view. Remember that if we are put out of Government the cure might be a hell of a lot worse that the disease. I will accept the decision of the parliamentary party of the Labour Party which was taken last night. I read about it in this morning's newspapers, unfortunately. I accept it reluctantly.

I will be particularly influenced today and in future by the Minister's reply to the initial question I posed to her: what will happen after the vote is taken? Does it mean that the door is closed for ever in relation to the retrospection element which is rightfully due to the teachers or does it mean that it is open to negotiation? I want to hear the answer to that question.

Mr. B. Ahern

I rise to support the Fianna Fáil amendment which states:

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."

Last Thursday evening and on Tuesday I asked the Minister for Education and the Government, whose decision it is, to go to the negotiating table and try to come to some arrangement with the teachers' unions who had clearly stated to the Fianna Fáil Party last week that they were prepared to negotiate the phased payment of the arbitration award which was conceded to them following the proper procedures last year. Unfortunately the Government did not take up that suggestion. The talks broke down on 15 January and nothing has happened since.

It is slightly confusing to sit in the Opposition benches and listen to various speeches from the Fine Gael backbenches last night and from the Labour backbenches today putting forward all the arguments which would normally be made by people in Opposition. I know that they will vote this evening in accordance with their Whips and I can understand that. I have some sympathy with people like Deputy Bell whom I respect as a person who has strong trade union beliefs and has fought to uphold those beliefs. He is a person who has high principles and has walked through the lobby with the Opposition on a previous occasion. He is not just a man of words. People should listen when he talks about the malaise creeping through this administration. It was said also last night by the lone Fine Gael backbencher who has bothered to listen to the debate today. Deputy Bell was the only speaker today for the Labour Party — indeed the only member of that party to come into the House today.

Mr. Skelly

I have been listening all morning.

Mr. B. Ahern

I accept that the Deputy has been here and that he is the only one. This whole issue is about the principles of conciliation and arbitration. It is not about money, teachers, the rights and wrongs of "Morning Ireland" programmes or speeches. It is about something which this country has had for about 35 years which has managed in a most successful way to keep industrial action out of the public sector. We have had strikes and disputes but by and large the services which the State provides have been extremely peaceful, whether those services involve teachers, hospitals, health board workers or civil servants involved in administration. Only a few months ago, arising out of this whole issue, did we have the first national strike by civil servants since the foundation of the State, all because of the way negotiations had been handled by this administration.

I know that some of the Labour Party Deputies are involved in the trade union movement and it is part of their employment, but they are part of the Administration and sit at the same Cabinet table. They are dismantling the conciliation and arbitration system.

The Government scripts have all come from the one source today. The same kind of English is used in each one. The two statements by the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service had almost the same mistakes. They are undermining the arbitration system.

It might be provided in some clause that a Government can come to the House under some constitutional obligation but they have never done so in the case of teachers. It has happened only once in the case of anyone else, when Fianna Fáil meddled — wrongly, in my opinion — with an arbitration award in 1952. I will say it today because the Government do not want to say it. I had been waiting for the Minister for the Public Service to mention it. Fianna Fáil changed the decision by 67 votes to 66 votes. In the next election campaign Fine Gael gave a commitment to reverse the decision and Mr. Sweetman, the then Minister, brought in an order reversing it and paid the arrears. It is fully reported in the Irish Independent of 16 December 1954. It has never been meddled with since. That was the understanding, if understandings mean anything any more to this Government. It has formed an honoured part of the discussions and negotiations that have taken place, that when somebody went through the conciliation and arbitration process and a decision given, the Government were honour-bound to pay that award. That is what we are arguing about today. Is it to be the case that henceforth Governments will not be honour-bound to pay arbitration awards? That is how I interpret the position. If so, then the conciliation and arbitration procedure is finished in this country, finished as we have known it obtain as part of the industrial relations scene.

One must ask what worker will accept an arbitration award if the Government do not accept it. It will be used only as another part of the process, but not part of the collective bargaining process which has obtained for the past 35 years. Workers will play the game; they will be presented with figures but they will not accept them. This day, 6 February 1986, will be quoted for decades to come as the day when the conciliation and arbitration system within the public service broke down. How a Labour Party, who profess to fight for and believe in the causes and rights of workers, could go through the division lobbies and vote "Tá" on this issue is beyond me. It will be the greatest hypocritical act in which they will ever have engaged.

If this was the first occasion on which any decision taken was against workers I could understand it. But, when one bears in mind the unemployment figures of approximately 240,000, the liquidation of a State company like Irish Shipping Limited, hospitals being closed, Carysfort Training College being closed, with food subsidy cuts two years ago and again, under the provisions of this budget, the miserable increases granted in social welfare benefits, the taxation of old peoples' savings which cannot be recouped under the PAYE taxation system, how can the Labour Party say: "One more time and we will not be able to vote"? That kind of nonsense will not rub and they should realise that it does not rub with the electorate. The electorate have seen through the Labour Party and will give them their answer at the next general election. However, that is of no use when a system of conciliation and arbitration which served this country well for almost half a century is now being abolished.

The teachers are being pushed into a confrontation situation. They have made it clear that there will be strikes — one-day, three-day strikes and so on — with examinations being affected. Yet the Government talk about the morality of it. I am sorry the Minister for Education has left the House. It was pathetic to hear her this morning endeavour to switch something she said in a statement to some youth conference or other in Wicklow and attempt to say what she had really meant. She should stand up and acknowledge that she made one hell of a mess of it. Had she done that this morning I would have some respect for her.

As Deputy Bell said this morning, it is the retrospection that is now at issue. Every person in the country has known for weeks past that it is the retrospection that is at issue and not the amount of money involved. Whether it meant 5p a week from 1 March or any other amount, I would still be making the same case. The point at issue is the principle of departing from an arbitration award. No longer will any Government, trade union or any group of workers know what is the principle of conciliation of arbitration because it will be voted down in this House this afternoon by the Fine Gael and Labour Parties.

This departure from that principle will cause untold difficulties. The teachers have every right to argue their case. Without going into the fact of whether the State could pay all the money now, the awards should certainly have been conceded and phased. I asked the teachers last week if they would have been agreeable to it being phased over a longer period and they answered in the affirmative. The important thing was that they be given the award made in their favour. It should be remembered also that the arbitrator, Mr. Geoghegan, on publishing his findings some months ago, made it quite clear that he had taken into account the economic circumstances of the State. Now one must ask what he or any future arbitrator is to do. Are they to decide: I will offer them 20 per cent. What is the point in my arguing with these people and trying to reach well-balanced findings in the course of an arbitration award? I will offer them 20 per cent, the Government will grant them 10 per cent and it will be phased over four of five years. What difference will it make? Mr. Geoghegan had balanced all of the issues at stake and said that economic circumstances had been taken into account.

Mr. Wilson

He did, indeed.

Mr. B. Ahern

Following on all of that, his decision was 5 per cent from September last and 5 per cent from March next. One might well ask why the Government did not set out their case in a better manner. One could ponder the case. Why should the teachers argue at all about phasing it out? Like the rest of the public servants, they are responsible people. They deserve better than being informed by way of leaked documents of what was their arbitration award. They are people who pay their rightful share of taxation. They do not operate within the black economy. They are all covered under the PAYE system, people with mortgages, people who buy cars, pay VAT on them, do everything above board, people paying more than their fair share to the economy.

Some people have argued that teachers receive approximately £5.8 million annually for the correction of examination papers.

Mr. Wilson

And, by God, it is hard work.

Mr. B. Ahern

But it should be remembered that they work for it, pay tax on those earnings and that many people do not want to undertake the task. It should be remembered also that young people's future is dependent on how they carry out that task, the adherence to the strict marking procedures and so on. They do not receive £5.8 million. If one calculated what the teachers received out of those £5.8 million, then one might well ask why many of them do not emigrate in the summer, enjoy holidays in America or elsewhere, working on short-term visas rather than marking examination papers during those hot summer days.

Then there was the line taken when the £110 million was floated aloft, the implication being that the fools outside think that it had cost £110 million. That is why that line was taken — the old PR machine, Mr. Prendergast and Co. At least the civil servants who wrote the speech today saw it as their duty to give the correct figures: that the award would have cost £50 million in 1986, £55 million in 1987 and £60 million thereafter. They are gross figures. I will not argue with Deputy Bell's figures, but the net figures would be considerably smaller.

We are told the Government have no money. This morning we read that the Minister for Finance can offer no solution to the major problem of money flowing out of the country like a river, the loss to the State, the loss to manufacturing industry and so on. That would put the teachers' arbitration award into the halfpenny place. The Government might well take the same interest in the way money is leaving the country — a large part of it being occasioned by last week's budgetary provisions, the way they scared people by taxing money in the banks. They might put the same effort into that as in trying to bash the teachers, ridiculing public servants, issuing statements in the middle of August, when they thought everybody would be on holidays, as they did the year before with regard to the food subsidies, saying that there would be no increase given in 1986. They said the same in 1985 in their famous document, Building on Reality. Then the Government had to make a U-turn. Today we heard Deputy Bell plead for a final U-turn, asking the Minister for Education if she would make a U-turn to save his colleagues from embarrasment at 4.45 p.m. this afternoon, pleading that she would talk with the teachers again. One might well ask what good is there in talking. There have been months of talks. Yet the Government have refused to do anything. They have forced the teachers into a confrontation situation, they have drawn the battle lines, now they are suffering the effects and they will suffer them from every other quarter as well.

I might say to the Minister of State present, Deputy G. Birmingham, so that he will relay it back to his colleagues, not one of whom has bothered to come into the House or, if they do, they move away just as quickly again; Ministers do not even remain to listen to the debate——

Mr. G. Birmingham

I do not see the Fianna Fáil Party's spokesperson either.

Mr. B. Ahern

I know that the teachers' representatives who have been listening to the debate all morning will relay back to their organisations the concern of this Government and what they think of teachers. If they care to read the statement issued to the media they will find that, in every page, the Minister is saying "I am sorry". Why was she not sorry when she went on "Morning Ireland" last August and made the remarks which drove people mad on that occasion?

Another day will come soon. I do not know who will be over there as spokesmen for the Public Service and Education. But the Labour Party will stand here and shout righteously about the principles of the trade union movement and conciliation and arbitration and talk gobbledegook about the hypocrisy of not accepting arbitration. We have never done it. We have stood with the trade union movement and honoured agreements down the years. In 1982, when we postponed implementation of an agreements because of the severe position of the national debt, the present Taoiseach took off to come back from Paris to ridicule and lambast us and say that we were not competent to be in Government. Shortly afterwards, when we tried to bring in a plan to run this country for a few years, he stood up and moved a vote of no confidence and threw us out. He would not give us any opportunity. That was because we had postponed an agreement for three months. We only postponed it. Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, in the agreement that he fought for and worked hard to achieve in October 1982, gave full retrospection. Not so today. Today the conciliation and arbitration system as we have known it is being dismantled, and nobody can say anything else about it because to do so would be not to tell the truth to himself or to this House. The trade union movement right across the public service will from today work on a different basis from what they have done in the past.

The Government have had a bad week, a bad month, a bad term; but today the death knell sounds. For your party, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is a sad day because they have reneged on the principles of collective bargaining. They have changed the ground rules on them. They should be ashamed of themselves. Anybody who stands up and says that the next time they will change it is trying to cod the electorate. That has failed and it will fail again. The Labour Party have to take the responsibility because they are the ones who say they have the voice and the ears of the workers. They have not. They reneged on the workers, on the teachers and on the entire public service. I do not mind Fine Gael because they are right wing and proud of being so. But if the Labour Deputies walk through the lobbies with them then it will be remembered for a long time in this House that they have turned. Let them not pretend that they are for the workers and for the unions and for conciliation and arbitration and then go the other way and pay lip service to something that has been there for the past 35 years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy George Birmingham.

Mr. S. Treacy

On a point of order, I have sat in this House during the course of this debate this morning. I have offered repeatedly to speak and I have not yet been called. Am I to take it that I am being discriminated against in this matter and are there no rights any more for those of us in a minority position?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have indicated to you as a result of the order made this morning that it is a very limited debate.

Mr. S. Treacy

The order made this morning could not have included me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There was a limited debate of 20 minutes per Deputy and I indicated to you prior to lunch that I could not give any indication as to whether you would be called.

Mr. S. Treacy

I am insisting on my right to speak here. I am an elected Deputy of this House of long experience. I have held high position in this House and I claim the right to be heard. I claim that it is the right of the Chair to safeguard minorities of this kind and that has always been a tradition of this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As you were a holder of the Chair, you will know that the Chair always gives fair representation to people on offer and I am endeavouring to give the best proportion of representation to those people on offer.

Mr. S. Treacy

This is not a matter for agreement among the parties. It is a matter for the Chair to decide whom he shall call and I am asking that that right be recognised as far as I am concerned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have called on the Minister of State, Deputy Birmingham, to speak.

Mr. S. Treacy

I have a view to express on this matter and I want that view to be heard.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. G. Birmingham)

The argument has been made that the Government are unyielding and hard faced and the Opposition spokesman, Deputy O'Rourke, said that we were confrontational. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Government have bent over backwards to be accommodating. They have stretched as far as is humanly possible to meet all reasonable demands.

Let us look at the background to this controversy. The background is of a country with a very high level of public expenditure, one of the very highest in Western Europe. That fact, together with our demographic structure, means that we have a very high level of taxation that is suffocating initiative. From all sides of this House and of society the call for tax relief has gone out. People have been conscious of the very high levels of taxation, of the wide gap between what an employer has to pay and what a worker can take home, of meeting people out of work and of denying people the dignity of work. In those circumstances it is imcumbent on us to look at the level of public expenditure that we think we can maintain.

In the autumn of 1984 the Government brought before this House a plan to guide its affairs over the next three years. Building on Reality, 1985-1987. That set out quite limited objectives, and the criticism from the Opposition benches was just how limited the targets were. It set out very limited objectives of what could be achieved in creating a climate for employment, restoring order to our public finances and protecting and improving the lot of disadvantaged. That plan said clearly that, if progress was to be made towards those targets, public expenditure had to be controlled. Inevitably, for the reasons the Minister for the Public Service indicated, that involved looking at what could be done in relation to public service pay. The targets and the approach set out in Building on Reality, 1985-1987 were an integral part of the framework required in order to achieve very limited targets. The Government were not unyielding or unbending. They indicated a willingness to move and respond.

As Deputy Bell has reminded us, they moved in terms of the 24th round. Again they presented offers which are now under consideration. They have moved from the targets originally set in the plan because they are aware of the importance of the loyalty of the public service and aware too — and the case is made frequently by public servants — that public servants should not unreasonably be expected to bear the burden of restraint. Your public servant has to pay his mortgage and run his car the same as anyone in the private sector. In those circumstances the Government indicated a willingness to move.

In August last year the Government took stock of their position and made the best assessment they could of what could be achieved. They indicated just how little was likely to be available. The anticipation then was of no pay increase during this 12-month period. Again, as we know, the Government moved from that position for the same reason — their anxiety that there should be no confrontation and their anxiety to see to it that there will be industrial peace and harmony.

The aspect we are concerned with today is a special pay award. The Minister for Education has examined the detail of the history of this award, and I do not think it necessary to go into a great deal of the history. What is interesting is the approach being taken by different contributors who have been urging that the Government should go beyond their present position. The Opposition spokesperson on education came into the House and managed to conclude an address of about 35 minutes without once addressing herself to the question of money and where the money was to come from.

Mr. Wilson

Because we are on the principle.

Mr. G. Birmingham

At least the Opposition spokesperson on education had the grace not to refer to the question of money. She thought she could run away from that but then her deputy intervened in the debate——

Mrs. O'Rourke

He did not intervene. He took his place.

Mr. G. Birmingham

The deputy Opposition spokesman was not nearly as coy. He informed us loudly and clearly that this was not about money. Of course this debate is about money. This debate is about making choices and they are choices which all of us would wish did not have to be made. However, we are in politics because we are in the business of making choices, and sometimes difficult choices. What situation faces the Government? Where can the money be found? There are a number of possibilities. We could find the money by extra cuts in public expenditure. Where would they fall? Perhaps the pupil-teacher ratio could be dramatically disimproved. Perhaps the cuts could fall in terms of fewer gardaí, of institutions being closed in greater numbers than has already happened. Is that what is contemplated? Is it contemplated that those on social welfare, those most in need of our support, are to be left without support? Is that what is on offer? Or is it suggested that we could fudge all these decisions, that it is not a question of saying that the money has to be found, but what we could do instead is borrow more?

Mr. Wilson

I will take the Minister up on that.

Mr. G. Birmingham

That we could further allow the current budget deficit to increase? We placed it at the very maximum tolerable and took that decision conscious of the effect that any deflation would have on the present very difficult climate. We could, I suppose, do what Deputy O'Connell advised us to do yesterday in his contribution to the budget debate, declare a moratorium on our interest repayments.

Mr. Wilson

I will take the Minister up on that.

Mr. G. Birmingham

With the exception of Deputy O'Connell, I do not think that particular school of economics has very many adherents in this House.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister's school is a stone age school of economics.

Mr. G. Birmingham

It may well be that in his travels around various parts of the House, Deputy O'Connell has acquired a unique perspective. I do not imagine that there would be very many to recommend that. Very difficult choices have to be made. If the choice is between allowing relief to the taxpayer from which everyone will benefit including teachers — and perhaps teachers more than any other sectors of society because of the particular income bracket in which they find themselves — if the choice is between being fair to the public, as a whole, equitably spreading what is available and paying retrospection, it seems quite clear how that choice must be made. It must be in the interests of the common good.

That is the choice that this Government make. It is a choice that they do not make lightly, that they would much prefer not to have had to make. That is why the Government engaged in very extensive and exhaustive consultations and negotiations in order to secure agreement. Throughout the lifetime of this Government we have shown our commitment to a consensus, to the free collective bargaining process and to our anxiety that progress should be made on the basis of consensus. When that failed, responsibility to govern rests with the Government. The Government and only the Government can decide how resources are to be allocated. The Government as the elected representatives of the people are the only body in a position to determine in what order the priorities are to rank.

I found the contribution of Deputy Bertie Ahern, Opposition spokesman on Labour, particularly curious.

Mr. Wilson

What about Deputy Bell?

Mr. G. Birmingham

As I understand from Deputy Ahern, what he has in mind — and apparently he proposes to commit the Opposition party to this — is that the Government will abdicate their responsibility to determine how much money can be taken from taxpayers in any given year and what it will be spent on, and instead to vest that solemn responsibility of Government in a third party. That is not a way in which any Government could purport to act. No Government have purported to act like that because every Government have been careful to maintain that the right to come before the Dáil with the various options set out in the agreement should be an integral part of conciliation and arbitration. Deputy Ahern spoke of dismantling the arbitration process. That is just not so. It is completely contrary to the facts. The facts of the situation as spelt out by the Minister for Education and reiterated by the Minister for the Public Service are that this motion is taken today four square within the terms of the conciliation and arbitration agreement.

I want to refer briefly to the amendment tabled by The Workers' Party in the names of Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa. It suggested that the motion before the House amounted to an attempt at statutory control of wages. That is quite simply not true. The question of statutory control manifestly does not arise. I have already told the House that the motion we are debating today is strictly in accordance with the agreed procedures. In no sense can it be truthfully or accurately represented as any more than the Government utilising the provisions available under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa — and also Deputy Fitzgerald in great length in his contribution — referred to the serious effects strikes in the educational system would have. I do not think any member of the Government or this House needs to be reminded of that. I do not think we see it, as The Workers' Party amendment apparently sees it and as Deputy Fitzgerald's contribution sees it, as a threat that can be held over the Government and the public. It is on the public's behalf that the Government act. We see it rather as an unwarranted and unreasonable way in which an attempt is being made to settle this issue.

Naturally, as someone who finds himself in contact almost every day of the week with people who are attending the school system, I would be alarmed by any disruption in our schools. My role in the youth area has made me very aware of our duty to our children and young people. It has made me aware of how essential it is to give them the very best we can from the educational system so that they can take their place in a society which is becoming more complex and competitive. They are growing up at a time when jobs are not always as easy to come by as we would like. I know it is not necessary to point this out to the teachers. I know the great majority of these teachers are anxious and distressed when they contemplate a possible disruption of their schools. They are, by and large, very well aware of the fact that the terms their representatives have demanded would put another burden on an already overburdened Exchequer. They know, too, in their hearts that any disruption of our schools would hurt, first and foremost, those young people who rely on them so much and especially those who will be facing public examinations at the end of this academic year.

The Workers' Party amendment goes on to make reference to the possibility that the Government could find themselves in contravention of an ILO convention. I quote paragraph (5) of the amendment:

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,

There are a number of curious things to be said about that paragraph. First, for a party not renowed for their coyness in asserting their position, this is a rather tentative approach, to say the least. They do not mention any specific convention of which it is suggested we may find ourselves in breach. One might have thought that a not unreasonable thing to do. Undaunted by that lack of willingness to be specific, I had a look at a number of the relevant ILO conventions. It seems that the two conventions that might arguably be germane would be No. 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise and No. 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining. I have these with me in the House. The Deputies did not pay a great deal of attention to this matter in the course of their speeches, so they may not have any great confidence in that argument, but if there is anyone in the House who has any reservations on that score, I would like to scotch those fears here and now. I am quite satisfied, having read the conventions this morning, that the Government are most certainly not in breach of their obligations under any ILO convention.

We are back to the question of choice. That is what this House will be deciding at 4.45 p.m. I have indicated that, unpalatable as the choice is — and it is an unpalatable choice — everyone's desire was that agreement would be reached in the negotiations that took place between the teachers' unions, the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service. That did not happen and the choice now has to be made. Given that the Government's position allows the living standards of those on social welfare to be protected and that the Government's position allows substantial tax relief to the over-burdened PAYE taxpayer, and that any departure from the Government's position would call into question one or more of those areas, it seems that the choice is a very clear one, one that, while we will all take it with a heavy heart, is really the only option available, that is, to support the case presented by the Government. That, of course, does not end matters. This controversy does not end with the vote at 4.45 p.m. today with the expected victory of the Government in the division. That is not the end of the controversy by any means.

A number of Deputies have pointed out the very serious consequences of industrial action and I should like to appeal to the teachers to think long and hard before they engage in that course of action.

Mr. Wilson

Where is the responsibility? That is the big question.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I should like to appeal to the Opposition to be cautious before they appear to lend their support to such a form of action.

Mr. Wilson

Where is the responsibility? We will pin the responsibility.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I ask the Opposition to join with me in saying to the teacher unions, "Negotiations have been held; the Government's final offer is now clear and let that final offer be put to a secret ballot of all the members of the teachers' unions." If, as is suggested, the teachers' unions leaders have the support of their members what is there to be concerned about? Why the apprehension? Why not hold a secret ballot? It seems to me that the Opposition might well be able to lend their voice, but I wonder. I see no reason why responsible trade union leaders would not want to put the final results of negotiations to their members to allow each of them exercise their individual judgment, to allow each of them to decide whether what is on offer in terms of their capacity to benefit from the general increases negotiated, their capacity to receive it over the three-year period, their capacity to benefit from the reductions in income tax provided by the budget are sufficient to cause them to vote, "Yes". It seems to me that any failure to consult their members by secret ballot will inevitably cause questions to be asked about how representative is the campaign now being conducted.

Mr. Wilson

I support the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Rourke which states:

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."

I should like to compliment Deputy O'Rourke on the succinctness and allembracing character of her amendment. It is one that should appeal to the Government and the members of Fine Gael and Labour. It is a sad thing that in our public life for some time there has been a concentrated attack on the public service and on the teachers. There has been a media campaign, a susurration, that somehow or other they were not worthy citizens, were not worth the money they were paid and did not deserve well of the country. This side of the House, with our amendment, reject that as far as teachers and the rest are concerned. Unfortunately, there has been a great clapping, a great approval by other people of this. Like the sheep in Animal Farm, as soon as this is announced the bleating starts that the public service is somehow an albatross around the neck of society, that the teachers are costing too much. I do not know where that philosophy came from. I have a strong suspicion, that as there is a similar campaign going on in Britain, the members of the Government parties have started imitating the move there in this regard.

That is the atmosphere that obtains in Britain. Britain attacks the quangos, we attack our semi-State bodies. Britain attacks the public service, we attack the public service here. Britain develops a row with the teachers and we, in the palest possible imitation, do the same thing. I was very friendly with Mr. Mark Carlisle when he was Minister for Education in Britain and I found him to be a man who stood his corner for the teachers and the education system but what happened to him? He was sacked and they looked around for somebody who would do the mistress's bidding and they got Keith Joseph who has developed the row. The same thing happened here. Who will carry out the orders of the Taoiseach or the Government and crucify the teachers and the public service? I leave the House to answer that, the objectly loyal approach in downgranding the teachers in our society.

I regret to say that this anti-teacher campaign got support in the media, though not all public opinion organs among the media supported it. I take out The Irish Times in particular. That newspaper adopted an anti-teacher line for some time. That organ is capable of great influence and doing great good in our society, particularly in the educational world but it was as if the public relations officer of the Minister for Education was working and directing policy in The Irish Times for some time. This sisterly support is commendable but it should not in any way interfere with objectivity of judgment in educational matters.

The question of the attack on the morality of teachers has already been dealt with. There was a considerable rowing back by the Minister from what she said but she should examine her conscience as to how much responsibility for what has happened since then can be tracked back to her statement in Bray to her own young Fine Gael members some time ago.

I am old enough to remember all the Sturm und Drang about the establishment of the conciliation and arbitration machinery. It has built its muscles over the years. There have been problems, difficulties and attacks from the unions and official side but it developed into a very useful weapon in the industrial relations field here. In my opinion it has been dealt a blow from which it will find it very difficult to recover. I must refer to the shyster leaking of the result before the teachers got it at all. That was cheap and shyster activity in any man's language and it should be condemned by the House. It was one of the things to which people adhered closely in the activities of the conciliation and arbitration machinery.

The Government agreed a referee but when the game was over they refused to accept the results. The score was wrong. How would any team ever play that game again in the knowledge that there was no guarantee that when they won the game the result would be accepted by the official side? Another piece of immorality — I use that word, as I use the word "shyster", deliberately — was when the official side were forced to urge that irrespective of the merits of the case the arbitrator should not make an award. The nausea, the smugness and the hypocrisy we have had to listen to today made me call for the sick bags one gets on an aeroplane. There was talk about sympathy for teachers and so on but nobody believes that on the results of what has happened up to now.

As the Minister of State said, this is not over now. What happens is that positions harden, that offensive statements are made, that there will be jab and counter jab. If there is any one area in public life here that cannot afford that type of atmosphere it is education. It is the one place where damage can be done. On the factory floor there can be no doubt that workers, union leaders and shop stewards can take it and go on with their jobs but once the education system is disrupted, whether one is dealing with a group from babies up to sixth class, or with the post-primary group, it is an insidious and poisonous thing to have disruption, rows or ructions. The responsibility for that rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government. Let nobody be under any illusion about that — let nobody try to pin the blame on teachers.

I said in the House before and I will say it again that there is no greater social welfare contribution in any State than education. It is the social contribution, and I stress the definite article. It is the only ladder of mobility for young people if they want to achieve something in their society. Any damage that is done when they are going through — they will not be back that way again, so every day counts — will be the responsibility of the Government. I would not like to be responsible to my conscience if I caused disruption which would blight, or black, or reduce the potential of pupils. Down the road we have disputes and disruptions: we have disruption in the schools, possible disruption in public examinations, disruption in planned careers. We have low morale among the teachers.

How can anyone go with confidence into arbitration in the future? If a court jury gives a verdict and one of the parties in the trial rejects the jury verdict, who would appeal to a jury like that ever again? Who will play a game again if a referee's decision is not accepted?

What about the morale of the teachers, the people who give so much voluntary effort to the community throughout the country? Their effort is seen in community development, in school management, in games. We know their record is good. Dublin 4 may not see a lot of it, and perhaps that is why we have a purblind Minister and a purblind education administration.

I am proud to say that in many countries I have heard high commendation of the standards achieved in our schools, particularly in rural schools we have had high standards, despite abysmal conditions, because of the professional standards and commitments of our teachers. I do not think you could pay a good teacher too much. When I look back on my own life I thank God for the teachers I had at all levels. The corollary is that I would not pay, and I would not have paid, the incompetent, neglectful or deliberately negligent teacher if I could avoid it.

I do not intend to bait the Labour Party but, honest to God, I expected more from them. I know they are in a pact, but I know that if they were launched into the political scene now they would be in serious trouble. I am sure that is what weighed with them. However, I thought they would stand up and cry "Halt" I thought they would have said, "You will not apply Thatcherism here". Then we would have a guarantee that that sort of thing will not obtain in Ireland. I am afraid the imitation has gone on too long. The Labour Party cannot do it today, but they could have said "Halt" yesterday or the day before. They could have said, "You will not disrupt this education system". It is the same whether it is 5,000 teachers or 40,000 teachers. As our spokesman said this morning, the principle is all important, and by illustration I have been trying to emphasise that.

There has been much talk about retrospection. Big play was made of it. There is no such thing as retrospection here: what we are talking about is the implementation of the award from the date on which the arbitrator decided it should be paid. "Retrospection" has been used a lot, with a connotation of a dirty word attached to it. We are talking simply about the implementation of an award given by the arbitrator.

Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, Fianna Fáil, since we came to power first in 1932 have shown responsibility with regard to public finances. The simplistic, stone age economics of Deputy Birmingham are not relevant here now. The thesis and antithesis of paying teachers and cutting social welfare, paying teachers and increasing taxes, are false. These thesis and antithesis were set up without relevance and they do not obtain in this situation.

It is not my business to indicate where the money will come from, but there are plenty of sources. If this Government had handled the economy the way they should we would not have jumped our £12 billion national debt to more than £20 billion. If the Government had worked the way they should have, confidence would have been put back into the economy and a billion pounds would not have been taken out of the economy in 1985. It would now be available for the payment of this rather small award.

What annoys me is that this will be the propaganda: "Fianna Fáil will raise taxes and cut social welfare benefits in order to pay this award". That is a false thesis and antithesis. In 1980, a Fianna Fáil Government, though we were in the wake of 1979 with its biggest oil price hike ever, far bigger than the one in 1973, had to pay only £152 million to roughly 96,000 people on unemployment benefit and assistance. What is the situation in 1986? We have 97,877 on unemployment benefit and 129,450 on unemployment assistance. How much is the bill? It is £746 million.

I ask Deputy Birmingham to contemplate the mess that has been made of the economy which leaves that much of a load on the Exchequer. If the economy had been handled properly there would be plenty of money to pay the teachers' award and to honour it right back to the date on which it was made.

It is depressing for me to get letters from New York from young people whom we encouraged into the technological sectors of our educational system because we forecast a brave new world for them. We did not think then that a Government would mishandle the economy so badly that the skills and expertise those young people developed through our educational system would be deployed for the benefit of another country. Indeed, that is if they are not furtively doing jobs way below their standard of education in the back streets of New York as illegal immigrants.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has four minutes remaining.

Mr. Wilson

A Government without honour is a Government without support. This Government have no honour left. They have no word. We told the children at school: "fírinne in ár gcroí agus beart de réir ár mbriathar", but I regret to say that the example given by the Government in not honouring their word it is a very poor example for the children. Tá an scéim i gcontúirt. Tá scoileanna na tíre i gcontúirt. Tá na mic léinn agus na daltaí i gcontúirt. Iarraim ar an mbeirt Aire agus ar an Rialtas géilleadh don leasú atá againn anseo. Cuirigí an ruaig ar easaontas. Mar a dúirt mé cheana, níl aon áit sa chóras oideachais do easaontas. Déanann sé dochar do na mic léinn, na múinteoirí, an Roinn Oideachais agus an tír ar fad.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Creed)

This debate occurs during the week in which we are discussing the budget. I listened to many of the budget contributions and some of the most emphasised points were the burden of personal taxation, the level of borrowing and the request to the Minister to try to do something in that area. Whatever Deputy Wilson says about the cost of the implementation of this award, £110 million, it is a fact that the money will have to be provided by the taxpayer. If there were an increase in tax in any area, there would be loud condemnation of it. Many people advocate a reduction in personal taxation, a reduction in the level of borrowing and a reduction in the national debt while at the same time demanding increased services.

I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the teachers who are making a major contribution to the community. I will not labour the point as other Deputies have referred to this.

We are living in difficult times and it is necessary to control and correct public finances. The Government have a duty to ensure that the finances do not get into total disarray. It is a question of the ability of the Exchequer to provide the finance to give recognition to the teachers' claim. In times like this, people are called upon to make sacrifices. I appeal to the patriotic instincts of the three teaching professions to consider the proposals made by the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service for further dialogue to try to come to some agreement to eliminate further disruption of the educational system. I accept that the teaching organisations are highly influential and highly respected, and I would ask them to accept the invitation of the Minister for Education to further dialogue on their claim.

I put it to teachers that they should compare the public sector with the private sector. One of the advantages of being employed in the public sector is that one has job security. If one compares that with people in the private sector——

Mr Gene Fitzgerald

What about Irish Shipping?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, Deputy.

Mr. Creed

I am not surprised, and I do not resent interruptions from Deputy Fitzgerald because he interrupts regularly.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

What about Irish Shipping?

Mr. Creed

There is great security of employment in the public sector. The cost of the public sector is enormous. The private sector have suffered considerably and many people in that sector have lost jobs.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

What about Carysfort?

Mr. Creed

If one has a job in the public service one should be prepared to make some sacrifice on an occasion like this. I appeal to the teachers to make some sacrifice now.

I represent a rural constituency and am well aware of the work being done by teachers. As the Minister responsible for school buildings I have many contacts with the teachers and with deputations from boards of management which sometimes include teachers. In my constituency, as in every constituency, different sectors, industry, employment, roads, agriculture and so on are making legitimate demands for their fair share of what is available in a very limited kitty. The Government must deal fairly and equitably with all demands and must do their duty in the interests of the country as a whole. Look at what it would cost the country to pay the teachers what they are now demanding as an absolute right. The money must be provided from increased taxation or from borrowing. The sum of £110 million is enormous.

Deputies should consider the number of improvements that could be introduced in education with a fraction of that money. How many new school facilities could be provided, or extra teachers could be employed? In relation to the school building programme, the teachers are the first to admit that many of them are working in unsuitable accommodation in dilapidated prefabricated buildings where it is almost impossible to provide the discipline necessary for children and where classes are fragmented between prefabricated buildings and old schools. That is an area which deserves far more attention. It is unfair to ask the teachers to teach in unsuitable accommodation. We need to provide many more new schools and buildings with modern facilities and comforts.

Deputies may not be aware that we have at the moment over 800 applications in relation to primary school buildings, either for extensions, replacements or repairs of some kind or another costing a considerable amount of taxpayers' money. We should think of the numbers unemployed and on social welfare benefit. In drawing up the budget the Government did their best to scrape together the money to do something to protect those on social welfare and give tax relief to the workforce. Like the Minister and the Government, I genuinely regret that it is not possible to meet the full demands of the teachers' unions. We have gone a long way towards meeting their claims. Have the membership of the unions really thought about what is on offer, the same offer that was made to the other public service unions? Teachers deserve to be paid for their job and the important role they play in society.

Debate adjourned.