By agreement, and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members shall be called in Private Members' Time this evening as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.10 p.m. to 7.35 p.m. a Government speaker; 7.35 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. a Progressive Democrats speaker; 7.40 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.45 p.m. to 8 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker; 8 p.m. to 8.05 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker; 8.05 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. a Workers' Party speaker; 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. a Government speaker; 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Teachers' Pay Dispute: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Rourke on Tuesday, 15 April 1986:
That Dáil Éireann, in view of the deep and widespread anxiety of parents and pupils in regard to the holding of the school examinations this year, calls on the Government to arrange for the immediate appointment of an independent mediator in the dispute with the teachers.
Debate resumed on amendment No. a1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"having regard to the resolution passed by this House on 6th February, 1986 as an integral part of the procedures under the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme for Teachers and which provided for the phasing payment of the Arbitrator's recommendation of 10% increase and noting in addition the offer of the terms of the 25th round totalling in all an increase of 17.9% and having regard to the fact that the Minister for Education has been and continues to be available for talks with all interested parties, calls in the meantime on the teachers unions and all other relevant parties to facilitate the holding of examinations as their importance transcends all other issues."
—(Minister of State at the Department of Education.)
Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Wallace, to conclude at 7.10 p.m.
In speaking to the motion, it is with regret that I have to talk on this very serious matter. This dispute has been handled very badly from the outset. There is no doubt that the performance of the previous Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey, is the cause of our problems here tonight, her arrogance and her attitude to the teachers. Before the terms of the arbitrator's award were brought to the Government and before the Dáil had an opportunity to hear them, she took it upon herself to refuse to grant it. She also incensed thousands of teachers throughout the country by her moralistic and degrading tone.
Because of their position in society, teachers have always been responsible in their actions and the industrial action taken by them was not taken lightly, but as a result of the arrogant manner in which they were treated by the Minister, Deputy Hussey, and also by the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland.
For over 35 years since the teachers' arbitration and conciliation scheme was first introduced in 1951, there have been peace and harmony in the field of education. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that peace and harmony continue. Unfortunately, we are here tonight because the Government have failed totally in their duty. Due to the incompetence of Deputy Cooney's predecessor, the Minister now finds himself trying to resolve this problem.
Teachers have always been held in respect and esteem by children, parents and citizens. It is in the interests of the country that that respect should continue. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that this dispute be settled as soon as possible. If the Government adhere to "no compromise", as came over very clearly in the Taoiseach's performance on television last night, the future of the children in our schools looks very bleak.
If the Minister, Deputy Hussey, had taken the advice of Deputy O'Rourke, the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Education, in the early days of this dispute, and meaningful discussions and negotiations with the teachers' representatives had taken place, we would not now be in the present very serious situation. Instead of confrontation, we should have co-operation with the teachers. It is quite obvious to all, including many Deputies on the front benches and in particular Deputies on the other side of the House, that an impasse has been reached and that a mediator must be brought in to try to resolve it.
It is not in the interests of the children, many of whom are preparing for examinations, that their future careers should be put in jeopardy because of a certain Minister threatening to resign from Government if that Government compromise with the teachers. This is a most unsatisfactory and unacceptable situation and the Taoiseach should face up to his responsibility and deal with that Minister. The future careers of many thousands of our children should take precedence over the wounded pride and career of any Minister. The use of the veto at the Cabinet table in relation to this dispute cannot and should not be condoned.
Is it not a matter for serious concern also that a non-elected Government handler should be instrumental in taking a decision to reject the pleas of many people, including the Hierarchy, in refusing to accept a mediator? Was this decision not taken without even consultation with the Minister himself who has the ultimate responsibility for resolving this dispute?
The time for mediation is now, not in five or six weeks' time when the examinations are due to take place. The teachers' unions have indicated their willingness to accept a mediator. It is time for a Government response. The Taoiseach on television last evening posed the question: "What would the appointment of a mediator mean?" Perhaps the Taoiseach does not know, but I know and everybody else knows that it would mean the resolving of this problem on behalf of both sides, bringing this dispute to a conclusion. His action in appearing on television in the middle of a Dáil debate on the dispute seems to suggest that he does not have the support of some of his backbenchers, but, more importantly, the support of many Labour backbenchers. I now call on these Deputies to support the motion before the House. They must do so in the interests of the children.
The Taoiseach spoke last evening on television of going back on decisions made in Dáil Éireann. Surely this is what democracy is all about. There are precedents in this House for that. If it is in the interest of and for the good of our citizens — and in this dispute it clearly is — then it is our duty to go back on these decisions which were made in the House. It was wrong and misleading of the Taoiseach to suggest last evening that the teachers were challenging the authority of the Dáil and that many of them were not familiar with the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme resulting with the Dáil vote. We all know, on all sides of the House, from our discussions with the teachers that they are well versed in all aspects of this dispute. They have certainly had enough time to become conversant with them.
Having complimented the role of the teacher, the Taoiseach last night on television castigated them for what can only be described as pursuing their democratic rights, a point clearly accepted and supported by Deputy Bell, whom I am delighted to see here in the Chamber. He made that comment on the Pat Kenny radio show yesterday and I am looking forward to the Deputy's contribution here tonight.
The Taoiseach in his closing address to the nation last evening issued an invitation to the teachers to sit down for talks with the Minister, Deputy Cooney. Would he and his Government not take up the invitation of the general secretary of the INTO, Gerry Quigley, issued minutes after the broadcast for both the teachers and the Government to sit down with a mediator to settle this dispute? No doubt they would come to a satisfactory conclusion. The Taoiseach also stated in relation to examinations that the standard of other years could be maintained. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Lord Mayor of Cork I have had many representations from parents and pupils, even by telephone today, conveying their concern. The Taoiseach should know better, as a man who has been involved in education. It goes to show how out of touch he is at present. It is not true that things would be as they were. This House has been very clear about that. It must go out clearly and loudly tonight that the Taoiseach has misrepresented the situation and we do not accept his statement.
It is also clear from the Taoiseach's performance on television that the Government have lost the confidence of the people to handle and solve this dispute. Surely if common sense is to prevail, a mediator must be appointed immediately. I appeal to the Minister here tonight. This motion has been tabled in the interests of the Government and the people and the Minister has a responsibility to face up to that responsibility with his colleagues, and to get this dispute over quickly. I cannot do it. The Minister can take the initiative and show the kind of leadership which has been totally lacking on that side of the House during the past few weeks. I strongly appeal to the Minister to act tonight in the interests of the people and the country.
I have to say that I deprecate the personal note of attack which has been introduced by at least three speakers on the other side, Deputy O'Rourke, Deputy Tunney and Deputy Wallace, in regard to my predecessor. They have made personalised attacks on her which are singularly unfair and equally singularly inaccurate. The policy which is being pursued by the Government is collective policy agreed to by all the members of the Government, including myself. There has been no difference in policy since the change of officeholder. I want to make that very clear. It does not add to the debate to have this element introduced into it.
(Interruptions.)
It takes considerably from the status of the debate and from the seriousness with which I hope the Opposition approach this debate. Deputy O'Rourke in her speech yesterday evening said there was an attempt by the Government to confuse the size of the offer, that it was being presented simpliciter as 17.9 per cent with the implication that this was now immediately available. In no speech of mine, in no statement issued by the Government, will she find such a presentation. It was always made very plain that the offer was an accumulation of phases — the phase of the 10 per cent and the phases of the 25th round that are available. That has been made very clear.
It also has to be made clear and reiterated that the action taken by the Government in coming to the Dáil was totally and correctly in line with the provisions of the teachers' conciliation and arbitration scheme. This does not seem to have got across to the public in as wide a manner as one would have thought. Indeed, it does not seem to have been appreciated by the totality of the teaching profession. I want to put on record again what that scheme provides. This scheme was agreed many years ago by all the parties to it, one party being the teachers.
Paragraph 2 of the scheme states:
The existence of the scheme 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.
Paragraph 46 (1) provides:
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
That was the option the Government decided to avail of in the motion voted upon on 6 February.
It could not be clearer that the Government moved precisely, strictly and accurately in accordance with the scheme for conciliation and arbitration which had been agreed by all the parties. It is open to both parties not to accept the findings of the arbitrator. The union side can reject them, full stop. The Government side cannot do that and are limited in what they can do if they find that they cannot implement the award. The limitations are very precise. It is no easy thing for any Government to come to this House and ask the House to reject or modify an arbitrator's finding. This is something which can only be done in exceptional and grave circumstances. It was in such circumstances that the Government moved in accordance with the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme which had been agreed to by the parties. The Government are not in breach of that scheme and, no matter how much it is misrepresented by the other side or by anybody else, those are the crystal clear, simple facts. I hope they will not be called into question anymore.
It is important to realise that the charge of inflexibility which has been made against the Government does not lie. When the arbitrator's findings were originally announced and the award of 10 per cent became known, it was felt because of the size of the public service pay bill that a finding of 10 per cent would be beyond the public pay budget. That was the initial reaction, our initial thought. On reflection and reconsideration of the figures in the context of the entire budgetary situation, the Government felt that they could accept the finding in so far as the 10 per cent award was concerned, provided it was phased. In the sense that the Government have accepted the finding of 10 per cent, albeit phased, the Government have moved and any suggestion of inflexibility does not lie there. There has been no move by the other side. There has been a suggestion of phasing the retrospective element, putting the bill into the future on the back of some other Government, putting the bill on the Irish taxpayer later rather than sooner, but that does not reduce the weight of the bill.
During the time preceding the Dáil debate on the modification of the finding the question of the reappointment of the arbitrator was a major issue. It was said that the Government's failure to reappoint the arbitrator was a grave breach of faith and a reflection of inflexibility on the part of the Government. In order to take that issue out of the scene, the Government have now agreed to reappoint the arbitrator. The teacher unions wrote to me before Easter asking that the arbitrator should be reappointed and shortly afterwards I was happy to announce that the Government had agreed to reappoint the arbitrator. I have so informed the three unions concerned and have put forward a name to them. One of the unions has responded to date. The Government have moved. They have initiated the mechanics for the reappointment of the arbitrator and have conceded the 10 per cent, which is of course the kernel of the arbitrator's finding. Any charge of inflexibility or intransigence on the part of the Government does not lie, is not justified by the facts.
The current issue is the question of the appointing, the invoking or the recruiting of a mediator. The idea of a mediator is something that people seize on quickly and avidly without too much reflection in the context of a dispute. It seems at first sight to be a handy mechanism, a way out, something that will get everybody off the hook. One has to consider what is involved in the idea of a mediator, some prestigious third party, coming in. It has to be considered in the context of the issues between the parties at the moment. That issue is essentially the question of the payment of this award retrospectively. The total cost of that retrospection, no matter how it might be phased or blurred, is £100 million. If one were to invite in a mediator who has no responsibility to the Government or to the taxpayer, who does not have to frame a budget to present to this House, a mediator in accordance with the normal procedures of someone put in that position would look for a via media. He will seek to split the difference, to see what is the sum and whether there can be any compromise on it. He would have been brought in to try to find a solution so he would not be very interested in how equitable that solution might be either to the taxpayer or to the other side. The obvious solution that a mediator would opt for, and the whole history of mediators confirms this, would be a compromise on the sum outstanding. The Government feel, and feel sharply, that there cannot be compromise on a sum of the magnitude involved. The matter then is made more complex by the fact that the present position into which a mediator would be called if some people had their way would be in effect to set aside a vote of this sovereign Parliament.
It has been said that parliamentary procedure can permit a second vote. Of course that is true. The mechanics involved in that respect would not present any difficulty but that is to ignore that what would be involved would be the reversal of the substantive issue. What credibility would this House have if, within a matter of six weeks after making a solemn adjudication following a lengthy debate, it were to decide suddenly to reverse engines because some third party decided that line should be adopted?
Did the Government not introduce a Finance Bill that had no relevance to the budget?
Order, please.
It would be less than credible——
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
——if Government and the business of this nation were to be carried on in that fashion, that the Dáil came to a decision on day one but reversed that decision on day 21. To act in that way would make of us a laughing stock. The realities behind this benign concept of a mediator are unpalatable and unacceptable. This issue is not one that can be subjected to haggling or horse trading. The matter involved is much more serious and fundamental than that.
Having made that clear, as the Taoiseach made it clear last evening also, I wish to refer to the statement issued yesterday by the teachers' unions and I quote:
The National Co-ordinating Committee of Teachers United decided this afternoon that in the event of the Government accepting mediation or third party intervention in an effort to resolve the current dispute the Teachers Unions would review their proposed industrial action. The teachers believe that given good-will on both sides it should be possible to reach an amicable solution.
I was encouraged by that statement and today I wrote to the three unions as follows:
You will be aware of the remarks made by the Taoiseach in his address on radio and television last night including his invitation to the Teacher Unions to meet with me to discuss the current dispute situation.
I wish, now, formally to invite your Union, and also your colleagues in the other Unions concerned, to meet with me as soon as can be conveniently arranged. It is in no one's interest that this dispute should continue or that the education of our children should be damaged. I believe it is essential that we explore together every possibility for reaching an understanding between us having regard to your statement of yesterday afternoon and also having regard to the constraints within which we are forced to operate.
I hope that you will respond positively to this request and that a meeting can be arranged forthwith.
If the teachers have difficulty in coming directly to me, despite my clearly stated willingness to meet them, I would not be averse to the use of some kind of mechanism by which we could talk to each other or by which options or ideas could be explored. If such a body or group — for example, the Employer-Labour Conference has been suggested — can serve the purpose of being a neutral channel of information, for my part I would be willing to co-operate. I trust that what I am saying now will be taken on board and that we can sit down to talk, but to talk with realism and with a realistic acceptance of the options that are available. There is no point in my misleading the teachers or in their coming to talks hoping to achieve something that has been excluded. However, there must be other avenues to explore, within the mechanisms I have suggested, which would bring new perspectives, fresh ideas and perhaps ingenuity to the scene. It may be possible to devise something that could have within it the seeds of a solution. The problems are difficult and may require talks about talks, but I will be anxious that this process of consultation be got under way. If some such development takes place I shall be very happy to co-operate in it.
I should like to refer to the question of the examinations. It has been suggested that my advertising for superintendents and examiners to fill the gap left by the possibility of the teachers not volunteering for this work has been in some way provocative. Since early in March when this possibility of their not volunteering first became apparent, it has been made clear to teachers that contingency plans would have to be put in train and were being put in train and that a critical and fundamental part of those plans would be the recruitment of an alternative corps of superintendents and examiners. I must reject the suggestion that the advertisement in this regard is in any way provocative.
I had hopes that the teachers' unions and the members of the profession would regard the examinations as transcending the dispute. I made the analogy of power workers on strike but maintaining supplies to hospitals without prejudice to the overall industrial dispute. By analogy, the teachers could volunteer to undertake the work associated with the examinations without in any way prejudicing the other industrial relations issues. I had hoped, too, that the Opposition would have joined me in that call in the hope that the combined forces of this House would have taken that point but unfortunately that is not the case.
I wish to take issue with the Opposition also, and particularly with Deputy Wallace who spoke last, and to state categorically, unequivocally and as clearly as possible that the standards of the examinations this year, if they are to be marked by a substitute corps of people, will be the same as in any other year.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Those Deputies on the other side who are saying that cannot be done have not a bull's notion of how the work is carried out.
Of course we have.
In an article in today's Irish Independent there are outlined the mechanics, the details, the formulae and the procedures used in marking. These are set out in considerable detail.
Who ordered the paper to write that?
It is clear from that article as to how the markings are made. It comes badly from the Opposition — and this is in line with their failure to join me in the appeal to the teachers — that they do not wish the examinations to go ahead.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself.
Order, please.
I say to the people opposite that they should join with me in the appeal and stop denigrating the efforts to hold the examinations by the use of an alternative corps of examiners. For the information of Deputies opposite I might add that part of the corps of examiners has been composed for many years of people who are not engaged in education, people who had retired for some years from teaching and who were, therefore, no longer teaching the curricula. The point being made by people on the other side is that only teachers teaching currently can mark examination papers satisfactorily. That is nonsense. To parents or pupils who might be disturbed by these irresponsible allegations I repeat the assurance that the examinations will be marked to the normal standards and that the certificates will have the same validity as was the case in any other year. I must be critical of the Opposition and suspect their motivation in this entire debate and in putting down this motion.
I am suspicious of a certain sense of opportunism on the part of the Opposition also because in all the words that have been spoken in this House on this issue since the original debate in February last on the motion to modify the arbitrator's findings at no stage did they say they would be prepared to pay the retrospective element of the award or any part of it.
If the Opposition are to be honest with the teachers, with the country, with the taxpayers and with this House, before the debate ends we should hear from the benches opposite whether or not, if they have the opportunity in Government, they will meet the outstanding claim for retrospection amounting to £110 million, or any part of it. The taxpayer is entitled to know what is the thinking of the main Opposition party on that point. That is the kernel of this issue.
We will honour the decision of the mediator.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
That is an awkward question. One tactic in this House when faced with an awkward question from the benches opposite is to try to drown it out with noise. Let me repeat it again. I would like to hear from the party opposite before this debate ends if they will pay the retrospective element of the arbitrator's finding. That point has not been made clear up to now. Until it is made clear by the party opposite, having regard to this whole scene, having regard to their attitude towards examinations, having regard to their failure to clarify the position on the kernel issue, I have to make a charge that political opportunism is behind most of their approach.
I would first like to thank the Government for allowing me time to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, I was denied that opportunity on 6 February last when we voted on this very important issue. So I am delighted to have the opportunity tonight.
In the light of what the Minister for Education has just said I am pleased that the Government have finally decided that, if necessary, a third party can be involved in bringing the two sides together in this most sensitive and difficult dispute. I regret that it took so long for the Government to come to this decision. Nonetheless one has to welcome, albeit at this late stage, their decision to, if necessary, allow the Employer-Labour Conference to get involved in bringing the teachers' unions and the Government together to talk about difficulties and to negotiate on a possible settlement to this most horrific dispute. In view of what the Minister has said, let me say that this party will not, therefore, have any need to move our amendment. We have sought——
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Let me say to Deputy Leyden that if he thinks he is going to stop me now he is going to have another think coming to him. I hope I will be allowed to speak in this debate. The main Opposition party have sought throughout this issue to politicise it, to use it as an opportunity for purely political opportunistic reasons, to score political points, as was evidenced by their failure to allow a pairing arrangement for you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, when you were deputising for the Ceann Comhairle who is away on official business. This was as predictable as it is despicable. This party will not, on this issue or on any other issue, engage in that kind of politics. I know the vast majority of parents and students have, throughout this debate, been forgotten and they are not going to thank those of us who seek to score political points off each other, to prolong the agony, to delay and to worry those people who are affected. Listening to the Taoiseach's broadcast last night I was disappointed that the Government did not at that stage see fit to announce what the Minister announced tonight. In that broadcast the Taoiseach seemed to close the door, to leave no way open whereby a third party could be involved in bringing the two sides together. The Taoiseach said that the possible appointment of a mediator may be leading the teachers up the garden path. I would suggest that in saying last night that no third party could be involved he was leading the teachers up the garden path.
That was a nice political deal.
(Interruptions.)
I have had a lot of offers in my day and they have not been offered in recent times.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach said he did not want to lead the teachers unions up the garden path by appointing a mediator when there was nothing that could be offered. I suggest that it was leading the teachers up the garden path to say that last night when the Government have had a change of heart today.
The deal was done today.
So, too, were they led up the garden path when the arbitrator was initially appointed because every reasonable person knows that in a year when we have a borrowing requirement of £20 billion, when taxation is at a height that is unsustainable, we cannot raise the money that is involved to pay the teachers this amount in full. I listened last night to the remarks made by the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Education. I have not heard Fianna Fáil say that they would pay this award if they were in Government. Neither have I heard them say——
(Interruptions.)
Neither have I heard them say where the money would come from to meet this award.
(Interruptions.)
I see that my old friends on this side of the House are still trying to stop me speaking. I know I have something serious to worry about when they prevent me from speaking. If this House goes back on its decision made on 6 February, a decision which this party supported, and agrees to the payment in full of the retrospection which is being sought by the teachers unions they would be putting the sovereignty of this Dáil at stake. What we have sought throughout this dispute, particularly in recent weeks, is a mechanism whereby the two sides to this dispute could be brought together. I am pleased that this evening we seem to have this formula. I hope that the teachers' unions and the thousands of teachers around this country who are reasonable people, professional people engaged in the education of our young people, will respond to what the Minister has said, will prevent the boycott of the exams and will now sit down with the Government and try to come to terms——
Your time is up, Deputy Harney. Please conclude.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, the time Deputy Harney had was up to 7.40p.m.
I am well aware of the time. Deputy Harney, would you please resume your seat. Your time is up.
My time is up so I will end by saying that I hope the teachers' unions will respond to what is on offer.
I am grateful to the Whip of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Vincent Brady, for allocating a few minutes to me in this debate. But I feel bound to say that I, as an Independent Member of this House, should not be dependent on any party, for time to speak in this Assembly. It is the duty of the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann to ensure that the rights of minorities are safeguarded in this House. The voice of minorities must be heard. That is the first and primary duty of the Chair as guardian of the rights of the Members of this House. I resent deeply the fact that I was denied the opportunity to speak on this fundamental issue on 6 February last. The rights of minorities in this regard is not open to compromise and the Chair must have strict regard to that fact.
I support the contention that everything possible be done to avert the obstruction of the national certificate examinations this year and I appeal to both parties, teachers and Government, to come together forthwith and initiate talks which will lead to the speedy conclusion of an agreement which will enable our 100,000 pupils to settle down and study for these crucial tests which will determine in very large measure their future status in life. At present the situation is bedevilled by fear and rancour, by anxiety and uncertainty, by bitterness and strife. The good relationships which existed between the Government and teachers, between teachers and pupils and parents, have been shattered and the educational future of our young people is seriously blighted. The integrity of the examination system must be upheld, must be safeguarded, and the fears of the parents and pupils allayed. The children of this nation should not be used as mere pawns in the battle between any union or any Government. Their future must be safeguarded at all costs. In the name of all that is good and noble in the character of the Irish race let us have mediation, and let us have that mediation now.
I believe the real damage was done when this House, by a majority vote, rejected the arbitration award in the teachers' case. I voted for the implementation of the arbitration award on that occasion because, as a lifetime trade unionist and supporter in the cause of labour, I learned as a fundamental principle that when an issue goes to arbitration and an award is handed down, no outside body interferes. To do so would be to make a mockery of that procedure and to create turmoil, as has transpired. Let us not forget that when it comes to arbitration one has reached a pinnacle of negotiation and to repudiate an award at that final stage is to throw the issues in dispute into a maelstrom of strife and strike, as is happening today. These issues will have serious repercussions and I appeal to the Government to rescind that decision, to adhere to the arbitrator's award or at least to give us the type of mediation we now desire in order to settle this serious matter.
Deputy L. Fitzgerald has 15 minutes.
Ba mhaith liom mo thacaíocht don rún seo a chur in iúl don Dáil agus achainí a dhéanamh ar na Teachtaí as gach páirtí vótáil ar a shon. Níl tada le gnóthú as easaontas ach imní agus crá croí agus sa chás seo is iad óige na tíre agus a dtuismitheoirí atá faoi imní agus faoi bhuaireamh.
Is bocht an scéal é go ndeachaigh an Taoiseach ar raidió agus ar theilifís aréir le brú a chur ar a Theachtaí féin vótáil i gcoinne an rúin seo. Is cinnte nach ndearna sé ach a thuilleadh searbhais a chur san easaontas.
Is beag tionnchair atá ag a chuid gealltanas go rachaidh na scrúduithe ar aghaidh agus go mbéidh caighdeán ard ceartúcháin agus marcála déanta ar na páipéir.
Tá a fhios ag an saol nach bhfuil aon mhuinín ag iarrthóirí nó ag a dtuismitheoirí i scrúduithe nach mbeidh daoine gan taithí á gceartú. Nuair nach bhfuil muinín ag an bpobal sna scrúduithe níor cheart don Dáil bheith á mealladh féin.
Ba cheart dúinn aitheantas a thabhairt don scéal mar atá sé agus gníomh ciallmhar críonna a dhéanamh. Ba cheart idir-mheánaígh a cheapadh a chuirfeadh idirbheartaíocht ar siúl idir na páirtithe, le socrú cothrom cóir a dhéanamh ar an easaontas.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I appeal to this House for support for our motion
That Dáil Éireann, in view of the deep and widespread anxiety of parents and pupils in regard to the holding of the school examinations this year, calls on the Government to arrange for the immediate appointment of an independent mediator in the dispute with the teachers.
Fianna Fáil have been compelled by the sad scenario of recent events and the escalation in this dispute which is causing anxiety, concern and hardship throughout all our communities, to bring this Private Members' motion before Dáil Éireann over the past two evenings. I am appealing to the House for support for the motion. It is essential that the motion be supported because each day of the conflict embitters and polarises the parties to the dispute. It is sensible, therefore, to seek a solution as soon as possible to avoid this polarisation. Anybody genuinely concerned with a solution must support our very reasonable motion. Remember, no matter what stand is taken by either side, this dispute must be settled some time and the sooner genuine, magnanimous attempts are made by both sides, but particularly by the Government, the less venom there will be to extract before good relations are restored.
In this regard, I want to question the Minister for Education on the statement he made in this House in relation to his invitation to the three teacher unions for discussions. This House should know if any pre-conditions have been set down or implied by his Department in relation to these discussions. From time to time I had a certain respect for the level of discernment of Deputy Harney, but her statement this evening disappointed me because in my view she has either been deliberately or unwittingly misled or she has chosen to accept what Deputies have aptly referred to as a pig in a bag.
Despite the Taoiseach's deplorable discourtesy to the Dáil in hijacking the airwaves last night, the people want compromise, the parents want compromise, the students want compromise, all responsible bodies and organisations throughout the country are calling for compromise, and they have repeatedly made that view known over the past few weeks. They all realise that if there is one thing this country does not want, and the nation simply cannot afford, is an embittered, defeated and demoralised teaching profession. They are only too painfully aware of the short, medium and long term consequences of such a situation. Their appeal tonight to this House, to the Taoiseach and to his Government to appoint an independent mediator, particularly when it is widely known that there are many able, responsible and experienced people about, must not fall on deaf ears.
In his speech last night on radio and television when dealing with the Dáil decision of last February he said that if the Dáil were now to go back on that decision:
The authority of Dáil Éireann — the supreme democratic authority of this State — would thus have disappeared so far as arbitration findings are concerned...
Any Government which allowed this to happen would have betrayed the nation's trust, and in respect of this area would have deprived the Dáil of its effective authority to govern.
This is a load of rubbish, it is balderdash. This is a democratic House of Government where publicly elected representatives are duty bound to take cognisance of ongoing situations and developments. If a decision made there in one month has to be reviewed the next month because of subsequent developments, so be it. That is the essence of democracy. It makes no sense for the Taoiseach, the Leader of the House, to suggest publicly that to reconsider, even to the slightest degree, decisions made here two months earlier would be to subvert the authority of the House.
Many people, having listened to and watched the Taoiseach last night, are now concerned that his intervention during the course of a very serious discussion in this House, Dáil Éireann, the place to which he refers as the supreme democratic authority of the State, was a deliberate attempt to circumvent this Dáil. Many people are alleging it was an attempt to subvert the very authority of which he boasted so proudly last night. That is a very serious development.
We have the unions readily acknowledging in their press release today that there is no impediment to Dáil Éireann considering the teachers' case and making, through their own procedures, any further decision they may democratically decide. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to which the teachers unions, the public service and other unions are affiliated, clearly and succinctly are expressing what we all know to be the truth.
The people are not impressed by the facile promises of the Taoiseach, that the State examinations this year will be conducted to their usual unimpeachable standards. No one believes that a professional standard of supervision can be achieved uniformally and universally by inexperienced, untrained personnel. If the Minister does, he knows very little about education. Copying will be rampant in some centres. We all regret that but if what he is proposing is proceeded with, that will be one of the immediate outcomes.
There can be no confidence in a supervision corps that is totally inexperienced when we know that in the past the Department of Education were careful to recruit for this job only teachers who were over 30 years of age, with some years of teaching experience and these people are put in centres where there are more experienced supervisors to guide them. Are we now to believe that this practice is worthless and over the years was only pursued for a cosmetic reason; or was it really pursued to ensure high standards and uniformity? How will this year's corps of supervisors measure up? I wish to tell the 120,000 candidates, not for opportunistic reasons or to be irresponsible, but because of the concern felt genuinely on this side of the House, that I would not wish to have my child sit State examinations this year if that is what the Minister proposes to do.
Supervision may be bad, but correction, evaluation and marking cannot be done to an objective and professional standard without the professionals, without the experienced directors, without the senior examiners whose job is to monitor in each case 20 examiners. In the past these jobs were given only to teachers of high standing and extensive experience of teaching the course and of correcting State examination papers. Are we to believe the Taoiseach in the face of this? Are we to believe for one moment that, even if they were willing, the inspectorate could ensure uniformity of standards and objectivity in marking, realistic expectations and thorough professionalism? In the absence of the professionalism and the experience nothing of this nature is assured. Children and their futures are to be subject to lottery, chance and the vagaries of fortune. This is not good enough for my child or for any other child. They deserve better, and the Taoiseach's prima donna attitude must be rejected so that better can be achieved.
I do not believe that the inspectorate will co-operate in running these examinations. Let us face it, the contract of an inspector obliges him or her to do the work which has traditionally been done by inspectors at examination time, that is supervising, briefing and monitoring professional and experienced supervisors and examiners. This year, if we are to believe the Taoiseach, they are going to supervise, brief and monitor people who are not necessarily qualified and most certainly not likely to be experienced. This will represent a change in their working conditions which I do not believe the inspectors will accept, especially since it would mean giving their professional approval and endorsement to work which cannot be expected to reach their normal standards of excellence. For many other reasons which I will deal with, but especially and primarily for this reason, I call on all responsible Deputies still left in this House to support our motion.
We have reached a time of crisis in education in our schools and classrooms, a crisis that need never have happened. We have been brought to this sorry, sad state by ineptitude, bungling and downright insensitivity on the part of the Government. One recalls sadly the first shots fired last summer in the form of a morality speech by the then Minister for Education. I say to the Minister across the floor that I make absolutely no apologies for being critical of the then holder of that office for her insensitivity, irresponsibility and failure to appreciate the need for consultation and greater discretion in her dealing with professionals who had a long standing tradition.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
This set the scene for ongoing confrontation and in that process threatened to dismantle and wreck long established, dearly cherished machinery for conciliation and arbitration. The politics of confrontation — it can be called nothing else — perpetrated by the present Government which have led us directly into the present impasse must not continue and this House must put an end to it tonight. Confrontation is not the solution to a problem that is basic and fundamental to the value we as a society place on education and the regard we must have as legislators for our youth and students. Education has always been about consultation, discussion, reasoned argument. It is simply not good enough, it is not sufficient or acceptable, for any Minister or any Government to say that this row, this needless damage to our students, to our examinations, to the education system generally, is in essence about money.
Just as the Government motion of 6 February last called on this House to endorse a course of action which represented reneging on a principle, this evening's amendment seeks the support of the House to reject a motion from this side which is reasonable and rational and which expresses legitimately the concern and anxiety so widespread around this country among parents, students, the clergy, management boards, the national parents' council, the trade union movement and other responsible and concerned organisations. I suggest to the Chair, to the Government and to the Minister that this House's reputation is at stake this evening. Its sense of fairness and appreciation of its duties is in question. The very humanity of its deliberations is being put to the test. We are not talking about numbers or figures here, but about young human beings whose future is at stake, whose commitment has been given as a mark of confidence in our educational system and whose plight at this time must be our primary and statutory concern.
The question really is: are we prepared to let down our young people, or are we, as we should be, prepared to take a mature, sensible and reasonable approach to this issue? If we are not, each of us must ponder on the consequences of our actions; each must ask to what extent we too can be impugned for either refusing or failing to appreciate what is at stake here. This is a most vital time of year for our students studying for examinations, for the leaving certificate, intermediate certificate and group certificate. It is the culmination of all their hard work and their commitment to research and study over the years in pursuit of a goal set for them through the machinery established in this House in the provision of an educational system. They have worked tirelessly and with confidence so that, at the end of the day, the results they would obtain as a reward for their efforts would provide them with a platform for their future careers. They believe in this system because we convinced them that it is the best system for them. It is the high point of their efforts. It is a time when motivation and morale are high in the expectation that their respective goals are attainable.
Surely these students, caught up in stress and strain from the rigours of examination oriented courses find the going tough enough in the normal course of events without further uncertainty or disruption of their classes. If we refuse here tonight to take the reasonable step of calling for the appointment of an independent mediator rather than spurious invitations to talks with what we detect as definite pre-conditions set down, we are deciding to impose on these already over-burdened shoulders unnecessary distraction which inevitably will have a heavy impact on morale and motivation. These two key elements, morale and motivation, are among the most important assets that a student has at this time of year.
An Leas-Chean Comhairle
Deputy——
I propose to give the remainder of my time to Deputy Blaney.
The first thing I want to say is that I was prevented by the order of this House from talking or voting on this matter previously. I add my voice to that of Deputy Sean Treacy who has already spoken about the ignoring of the right to express minority views in this House, although I am now given a few minutes — far too few to express myself fully on this matter.
We are told that the arbitration award could not be honoured because it would cost too much. I have heard mention of £110 million and of roughly 100,000 students. I make that out to be £1,100 per student and that reckoned in terms of a student's education is a very small drop in the ocean. We should get it into perspective and stop codding ourselves that we cannot afford it. I ask the Fianna Fáil Members if they are prepared to honour it in Government. I do not mean now, but when they become the Government.
Yes.
That has been asked not just in this House but of me by people outside who feel that I should know. I do not and I want to know, so that I can assure them that the noises we have been hearing are that they are prepared to honour the agreement of the arbitrator which the present Government have not done. I say seriously to the Government that if they did not wish to honour it, then they should not have entered into it. They should have said in advance: "Because of the stringency of our finances we are not capable of honouring whatever may be the reward. Here is the most we can give", or: "We are not prepared to give an open cheque to the aribtrator." That would have been honest and we would not have the strife we have at the moment had they taken that course.
Now damage has already been done. Many of our students are confused as to whether there are to be exams. They are unsettled and unsure, and this in itself will have an impact whether or not the teachers become involved in the examinations and the whole procedure in the months ahead.
I appeal that between the Government and the teachers' unions this should be resolved quickly. I welcome the new Minister's suggestion tonight, which I have no doubt derives from the fact that a motion has been put down in the House, offering talks, apparently unconditional and under any aegis whatsoever that might be helpful. This is a move in the right direction. I sympathise with the Minister who inherited this dilemma the Government find themselves in. On the other hand, collective responsibility being what it is, I suppose he is as much to blame as everybody else in that Government.
The people who are most affected by this and who would lose most are not only the leaving certificate students who would be going on to third level education who, either through a debased certificate or none, would not be entitled to enter third level education next year as planned, but the group certificate, inter certificate and vocational pupils who are not capable, because of financial stringencies, of going any further will also be denied the right of having even that qualification. Because of lack of funds they will not be able to do the examination again. They will really be hit if the examinations do not take place and, despite what the Minister said, I do not think these examinations will take place unless teachers are involved in them. In any event, if teachers do not participate those certificates will be regarded as somewhat debased in value in the years ahead.
The Government and the unions count for nothing compared to the students. It is a sad day when their future is at risk. Therefore, I appeal to all concerned to try to solve this dispute. All credit is due to the Deputy who moved the motion which sparked the reaction of the Minister in offering talks. I believe that the teachers will respond and I hope it will be tomorrow because the first practicals in the examinations to which I referred start very early in May.
It was clear earlier today that this dispute was rapidly approaching the point of no return. The Fianna Fáil motion and The Workers' Party amendment are the last opportunities to avoid a very serious situation where pupils, parents, teachers and the Department would all suffer serious disruption. Despite the impression given by the media and Government spokespersons, the teachers' unions have not refused to supervise examinations or to correct papers. However, they have decided to ballot their members on that issue and there is a strong possibility that they would vote to boycott examinations unless there is a movement in the direction of mediation. That makes this debate and the placing of the motion and the amendment before the House extremely important because it is clear that the very strong position which the Government adopted up to tonight in relation to this dispute meant that the Government were on a course which sought total victory over the teachers' unions.
It is clear from the Minister's statement tonight that they have backed off from that position and I have no doubt that the teachers' unions will respond positively to the offer which the Minister made. However, I hope that it is not simply a device to get the Government off the hook and to avoid losing the vote tonight. I also hope that the Minister is genuine in regard to a third party reaching some accommodation with the teachers' unions. The House and the people will be watching very carefully to see that the Minister is not playing games with us because there has been a very dramatic turn around in the Government's position since last night and tonight when the Minister made his statement. There has been wide acceptance for many weeks that a mediator or a third party was required. I have been aware for some time that the Employer-Labour Conference had made it known that they would welcome an invitation to become involved. The teachers' unions made it known that they were open to that procedure but the Government adamantly refused to become involved in that process. The motion and The Workers' Party amendment should be passed by the House to show the Minister and the Government that the House wants serious negotiations to take place between the Minister and the trade unions involved.
The points which the Minister made tonight, and which the Taoiseach made last night, that an employer-labour dispute between the Government as employer and the teachers' unions as employees has created a constitutional crisis are totally dishonest. To imply that every issue which has ever been decided by this House has never been overturned or changed is untrue and dishonest. We had before us over the last few days a Finance Bill which has introduced wideranging changes from the budget passed by this House some time ago. Trying to indicate that there is some kind of constitutional crisis and that the authority of the Government is being questioned is dishonest and the Government should not adopt that approach to the dispute.
I appeal to the Government and backbench TDs on the Government side, particularly the Labour Party members of the Government, to support the motion and The Workers' Party amendment tonight to indicate to the people, teachers and the trade unions involved that serious negotiations are required and will be pursued from tomorrow.
The House should be reminded that in 1948 the De Valera Government fell on the question of teachers' pay. I was a bit worried up to this evening that history would repeat itself——
(Interruptions.)
I was worried until I heard the Minister's speech. The Parliamentary Labour Party had a long and difficult meeting today although it would not be appropriate for me to divulge what took place except to say that it was made very clear——
Deputy Lemass used to say that you wrestled with your conscience and your conscience lost as usual.
There were very strong feelings in regard to the teachers' dispute and I am sure that the Minister for Energy used his good offices to convey that to his Cabinet colleagues. I have had the feeling of late that backbenchers, particularly Labour Party backbenchers, were used as political fodder, rubber stamps for Government decisions, that on many occasions were contrary to Labour Party policy. I must say to the Minister that there is no doubt in my mind that the whole question of the handling of this dispute from the beginning left a lot to be desired.
It was a disaster.
It was handled in a very amateurish way. There is no doubt that many of the problems we are now faced with emanate from the way the dispute was handled at the outset. It is not true to say that the teachers would not compromise because the proposal carried by the House sets back considerably the arbitrator's award and proposes to pay it over a longer period of time with a substantial loss in relation to teachers' pay. It appears to me that they have been very reasonable in their approach to this. I have not encountered any trade unions that would accept an award of any sort, whether it was made by the Labour Court or by an arbitrator, after three years of negotiations, without some form of retrospection. It is only on the basis of a concession in that regard that trade unions can bring their members with them. A period of three years is a most unreasonable length of time for negotiations. I do not agree with the Minister that concessions have not been made by the teachers. In fact, I suggest respectfully that any concessions that have been made to date have been made by the teachers.
Last night I listened with interest to the speech by the Taoiseach and I thought that the door was closed on this issue. At that stage I was very much in favour of supporting the Fianna Fáil motion to appoint a mediator. I look upon the Employer-Labour Conference as the most skilled body in regard to industrial relations. I had the privilege of being involved at that level for many years, particularly from 1969 onwards when national wage agreements were negotiated, and I am satisfied that that body has the skill and the ability to deal with this matter.
There is no point in teachers accepting the Employer-Labour Conference as the mediator unless there is a will on the part of the unions — I am sure that exists — and on the part of the Minister to negotiate a reasonable settlement that will be acceptable not to the negotiators but to the people they represent, the teachers. I should like to make it clear to the Minister that as far as I am concerned the idea of employing people other than teachers to carry out the marking of examination papers amounts to scab labour. There is no other definition for that. That is not acceptable to me as a trade unionist and is not acceptable to my colleagues. If there is any attempt to do that and the matter is referred to the Dáil I will not be voting with the Government. I will be anxious to see how the talks progress and I suggest to the teachers that they immediately take up the invitation the Minister extended by letter today. They should go for the Employer-Labour Conference and we will ensure in the House that every opportunity is given to them and the Government to settle the dispute to the satisfaction of both parties.
Unless the dispute is settled to the satisfaction of the teachers I can assure the teachers that the next time the issue comes before the House my vote will be steadily behind them.
Play it again, Sam.
I do not see any point in voting for the Fianna Fáil motion when the Minister has accepted the idea of the most skilled mediation organisation in the country. That did not come about because of the Fianna Fáil motion.
(Interruptions.)
I would not like the Deputy to be fighting my case.
It came about as a result of the meeting of the Labour Parliamentary Party this morning. If the statement had not been made in the House by the Minister the Government amendment would not have had my support.
The Deputy supported the Government on the first day and that is why we are here.
I support the motion in the name of Deputy Vincent Brady. I had a look at the amendments tabled by Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa and Deputy Harney and I noted that they were in the same vein as the motion tabled by Deputy Vincent Brady. I had intended indicating that to the House but I could be told before I came into the House that the Progressive Democrats had made a deal with the Government. Those who set themselves up as moral arbiters will also have to subject themselves to the moral judgment of other people as regards backdoor arrangements made before a proper debate takes place in the House. I should like to point out that Deputy O'Rourke, the spokesperson for our party, asked last night in the House why the Employer-Labour Conference had not been utilised to achieve a resolution of this dispute. Perhaps Deputy Bell was not listening to that but I want to put it on the record of the House that that suggestion came from this side of the House.
As Deputy Liam Fitzgerald said, this whole problem started from the moral miasma that came from Bray at the beginning of this dispute. A noxious emanation from the same quarter came after Deputy Cooney became Minister for Education, not with the intention of helping to solve this dispute but with the intention of queering the pitch on Deputy Cooney as Minister for Education and other people who are committed to a solution of the problem in the House. When the debate took place on 6 February I indicated that the responsibility lay on the Taoiseach in particular, and on individual members of the Government, as well as upon the then Minister for Education and, as a moral body, the present Minister. At that time I knew what was coming and I said that down the road we would have disputes and disruptions, disruptions in the schools, possible disruption in public examinations and disruption in planned careers. I said that we will have low morale among the teachers. It was easy for anybody who understood the scene to prophesy at that time. That was the time that the Minister for Education should have been about her business in trying to resolve the dispute in good time.
The Taoiseach, who must bear a heavy responsibility with regard to this whole problem, went on television last night and talked about the provision of £65 million. He talked about taxpayers' burdens but I must say that he was very selective when talking about burdens on the taxpayer. The load of the Insurance Corporation of Ireland could be put on the shoulders of the taxpayer and Irish Shipping may end with £100 million of taxpayers' money to pay off people in the Orient because of a mistake in liquidating the company. That will also go on the shoulders of the taxpayers. A total of £135 million was promised from the taxpayer for Dublin Gas. The Taoiseach was very selective about his care for the taxpayer and was only concerned that £65 million should not be paid to the teachers. I condemn that as an outstanding example in hypocrisy on the part of the Taoiseach last night.
Certainly it would be dishonest of the Government, he said, to go into mediation but that is what the Minister for Education has said tonight, he is going into mediation in accordance with our motion. The Taoiseach said it would be dishonest of the Government to go into mediation with the intention of rejecting any and every proposal to pay any part of the extra money sought by the teachers but was it dishonest to go into conciliation with the teachers and to make no offer to the teachers in conciliation? Was it dishonest to argue the case before an arbitrator who was agreed between the Government and the unions at that time? Was it dishonest then to refuse to abide by what the arbitrator decided. He said he would be leading them up the garden path. Where was he leading them throughout the whole process of conciliation and arbitration? Was it not up the garden path? Was he not fooling an honourable, responsible group in our society by going through the gymnastics of conciliation and arbitration when he had no intention of honouring the actual award when it was made? He referred to the extra burden on taxpayers: my granny's grunt; he is not a bit concerned; he just wants to beat the teachers and that is it. It is a matter of triumphalism; it is a matter of Thatcherism; it is a matter of Sir Keith Joseph transferred across the Irish Sea.
Then he said that, the authority of Dáil Éireann — and I am 100 per cent in agreement with what Deputy De Rossa said about this — the supreme democratic authority of this State would thus have disappeared. He said he felt that many teachers did not fully appreciate — notice the condescension — just what was involved. First we have the placebo and then we have the insult. That seems to be the style of negotiation that this Government and this Taoiseach in particular indulge in. The implications for democracy, as Deputy De Rossa said, were mentioned by the Taoiseach. To impute near idiocy on the one hand and enmity to democracy on the other is to insult and injure. What more stable element is there in our democracy than our 40,000 teachers? Who helps more at local level to sustain and nourish democracy? Who helps more to develop our communities, to make democracy work at community, local and national both professionally and voluntary? Who understands better than our teachers that it is the essence of democracy that what February 6 did April 16 can undo, as Deputy De Rossa said a few moments ago? They have been bulwarks of our democracy, making it work at local level by organising and developing games and athletics, cementing our community, boys' and girls' clubs and so on. That is democracy. That is not Dublin 4 democracy; that is democracy as this party on this side of the House perceive it.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There was mention made of pupils, I do not think anybody in this House, no matter how perverse, would want to harm or damage the pupils of this country. Only practising teachers can understand the rapport that is set up as between teacher and pupil, the interest that the teacher takes in the pupil and the advice and the guidance that are an everyday occurrence in the classroom, about careers and so on.
Deputy Blaney mentioned social mobility which, to my mind, is at the root of our educational system. We are not all that wealthy when considered in the context of the worldwide wealth so that education constitutes the only ladder to social mobility. Anybody who damages that will have a very heavy burden on his conscience for the future. The symbiosis that develops between teacher and pupil is somthing that one must have experienced to understand properly. It is something that this House will damage at its peril.
Both Deputies Bell and Prendergast are senior members of the trade union movement. I expected them to weigh in behind and support this side of the House in paying what the arbirtator awarded from the time it was awarded and honouring it fully.
So we did.
In the letters to the constituents, yes, but not in this House where it counts. A question has been put to me and I will answer it this way: we will settle with the teachers, pay what it takes to settle with the teachers. We have done that in the past and we will do it in the future.
Deputies
Hear hear.
A game was played, a referee was appointed, but it is only the spoiled children, the Taoiseach and his Government, who refuse to accept the referee's decision as to who won the game. That is something that is not lost on the rising generation either.
We are dealing here in the House with a Government whining about £65 million, although they have lashed it out to Dublin Gas. They have lashed it out to Whai Whong in Hong Kong. They have lashed it out to cultivate a very advanced style of living in London for the Insurance Corporation of Ireland. They cannot lash it out to the teachers. There is a national debt of £20 billion. Perhaps a little saving could have been effected there. One billion pounds was taken out of the black economy, transferred out of the country because the people who transferred it had no confidence in the administrative which would encourage them to invest here so that money would be available for worthy causes like the development of education. One might well compare the expenditure of £746 million on social welfare with the figure that was paid by this party when last in office, when one will see quite clearly the failure of this Government to provide jobs and ensure development which would enable them to pay arbitrators' awards when arbitrators had decided on them.
This Government are without honour. They seem to me in every way to be apeing the worst aspects of the present administration in Great Britain. Sir Keith Joseph has his row with the teachers in Britain. We must have our row: otherwise we would not be with it. To be quite frank, the present Minister for Education is not a man who goes along with that kind of thinking. The saddle has been put on him by the Taoiseach and the bridle is the bridle of the former Minister.
(Interruptions.)
I am still asking for support for Deputy Vincent Brady's motion and its interpretations on the Order Paper. I am calling on people who really feel for the young people who are dependent on education and the sacrifices of their parents for a chance to make it in a socially, upwardly mobile society. I know that the practicals — and Deputy Blaney mentioned this when speaking — in woodwork, mentalwork, in music and so on are coming up. No preparation has been made for those examinations. Do not let anybody cod this House by pretending that any preparation has been made. No such preparation has been made and I challenge anybody to deny that in this House.
I might say a few words on the nature of the job of correcting examination papers. It is a demanding, exhausting, energy-sapping job. I resent the Minister for Education saying that we know nothing about it. Many Members on this side of the House have had experience of it. It is not unusual for examiners to crack in the middle of marking 600 papers, having to give up a job because of physical and mental exhaustion. Now we are going to get hirelings to try and do that, hirelings without experience or expertise. These will be paraded as people who will do justice to our national examinations and our students' future. I resent the implication and I reject the proposition that this can be done. The percentages that teachers are getting are irrelevant. What is relevant is the principle. The principle is of paramount importance. The principle is what will count in the end when the existing salaries and demands are items of history.
We do not want the Army and the Garda — and they would find it distasteful — to be brought in on running these examinations.
Will the Deputy please conclude?
Children are not lumps of carbon to be dealt with as Mrs. Thatcher dealt with the coal miners in Britain. Teachers are there to teach. Tá súil agam go mbeidh idirghabhálaí níos fiúntach againn. Tá súil agam go vótáilfidh Teachtaí ar son ar moladh atá os a gcómhair agus go mbeidh na múinteoirí ag ceartú na bpáipéirí i mbliana mar rinne siad anuraidh agus, le cúnamh Dé, mar a shéanfaidh siad sa bhliain atá ag teacht.
Question put: "That amendment No. a1 be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallance, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond j.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seaán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 April 1986.