Before I call on Senator O'Toole to move the motion I wish to point out that Senator Quinn's name should have been included among the names of the proposers of the motion.
Early Retirement for Teachers: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann notes recent developments in the negotiations between the Teacher Unions and the Departments of Education and Finance on the issue of early retirement.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht bheith anseo anocht. I wish to use this occasion to raise some of the issues that are crucially important in this debate. We now have an opportunity to attempt to make progress. Over recent days the Minister has indicated that it is possible to resolve this issue.
I wish to respond in detail to the issues that are raised in the briefing document which has been circulated widely over the last week and today to Members of the Oireachtas. I wish to refer in particular to the differences in money terms between what the teacher unions have put forward and what the Department put forward. I do not believe the calculations of either side are necessarily wrong. I know for a fact that the figures put forward by the teacher unions are correct. They were compiled by an independent group. It is, however, disheartening and frustrating not to have access to the assumptions and calculations which gave rise to the figures of £20 million and £30 million. I feel particularly aggrieved that, despite the fact that we have made all our figures and calculations available, I still do not know how the figures of £20 million and £30 million were arrived at. I believe they were arrived at honestly but I also believe that the assumptions were incorrect.
I gather from page 5 of the document that the figures are based on a possibility or potential of 1,000 teachers retiring in any year. The document refers to the high numbers that might retire from teaching over the next few decades. It cites in particular 2012 as a year in which there would be a very high number of retirements. I wish to point out a simple mathematical fact. There are approximately 40,000 teachers between primary and post-primary schools, although that number might increase or decrease slightly depending on demographic trends, pupil/teacher ratios and so forth. That means that mathematically — and nobody can deny this fact — over a period of 40 years the average number of teachers who will retire from the system on an annual basis is 1,000.
We have looked carefully at the information we have gathered to date. There is one reality: it is not possible at this stage to work out any set of conditions in which an average of 1,000 people could or would avail of early retirement. There are a number of reasons it cannot happen. First, approximately 50 teachers die each year. Second, approximately 150 go on disability each year; at primary level the total is about 100 each year between disability and death. In addition, a significant number of people leave the service each year without having full pension, possibly with preserve benefits; some of them might leave and emigrate and some might re-enter. However, a significant number cannot do that.
I have looked at the figures for primary level for the last 16 years, which is a long enough period to make judgments. Since 1979 there has never been a year in which more than one-third of the teachers who are entitled to retire at 60 years of age took that option. That is significant. The largest number was in 1993 when 107 people took early retirement. However, if I group them according to those of between 55 and 60 who can leave, those between 61 and 64 and those who must go at 65, there has never been an instance where more than a third leave before or at 60 years of age. Of the people who continue beyond 60 years of age, the vast majority are still paying into a pension fund, even though it will not gain a higher pension for them. They do it either because they are happy in their work and want to continue teaching or because they cannot afford to take a cut in salary. Who knows which would apply? However, the fact is that they continue to teach. I ask the Minister to consider this issue.
I am worried about where we go from here. We have made every possible attempt to ring-fence the proposal we have put forward. We have looked at issues within the public service and the Civil Service to see if there is any issue on which we can find to move forward. There is a great deal at stake. Take, for example, the recommendations in the White Paper. Whatever differences of opinion we would have on issues, there is a broad measure of consensus on what might be done in the White Paper. There is also a strong partnership in education. If we get into a situation after the summer holidays where, apart from whatever industrial action that might take place, there is disruption at school level in certain areas, such as not covering for absent teachers or on whatever issues that might come to the fore at that time, that would be in nobody's interest. There is now an opportunity to make progress if progress is to be made.
There are three options open to the Government. First it can set its face completely against this so that it becomes a long term row; second, the Government wishes to find a reasonable way forward; if that is the case, now is the time to do it; and third, the Government will say it has other more important things to do and that it will look at it again in September. Leaving this matter until September or putting it on the long finger will cause all sorts of problems with which we all will have to deal in our own way. However, at least we are aware of that.
We have put forward a proposal that is ring-fenced within the public sector. There are 208,000 people employed in the public sector. If the teaching and education elements are excluded there are approximately 158,000. If one subtracts all the people who have 30 years or more served, the professional people in the public service who can get added years and those who do not need an essential pre-service qualification, there is a very small number of people. Examining the possibility of a solution based around the 1956 superannuation legislation, and the deal nurses have always had whereby they can get or buy credit or count training years, is perhaps a way in which we can move forward. All these things have been said before.
When trying to find a resolution, one thing is not clear. We can argue about figures forever. We can give the Minister all our calculations and she can continue not to give us her calculations except for her bottom line figure. We can continue to use independent people and the Minister can continue to use her Department and this can go on interminably. People are generally sick of it. I make one appeal to the Minister tonight and that is to let us see the calculations and assumptions on which her figures were based.
I do not have the slightest difficulties about sitting down with anybody to establish what the gap is. There is a unique difficulty in this dispute. I said publicly that there was a narrow gap between us and the Minister said publicly that there was a very wide gap between us. When I went to examine it, I found that neither of us was right. I do not know what the gap between us is because there has never been an established position of movement from the Government side. There is another matter that gives me a huge difficulty. I know that when there is a row or a dispute, comments must be made and things must be dealt with. Maybe these things should be taken with a grain of salt, but if it is the Minister's view that nothing more needs to be offered in the area of pensions, this will go on forever.
The reality is that there is little in it in terms of costs. The most significant issue is that even if one takes the £20 million that it is said it would cost, along with any variation or quota, we are still working within the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and even within the option B system of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. I am not seeking a detailed response to that. We have put forward something for which we have prepared in different ways but strictly within the context of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. We have put forward something that is ringfenced in terms of how we deal with professionals in the public service and those with essential pre-service qualifications. If we are within the cost parameters and the area of existing precedent, I do not understand where exactly the problem is.
For a long time there was a view that this would not be conceded to the teachers because it would have an impact on the wider public service. I have come suspiciously to the view that the real problem might be that what we are proposing does not have any impact on the wider public service and that might be upsetting many other people. It has been put to me by some people in positions of authority that they would like to see teachers breach the barricades and leave a hole big enough for the rest to come in behind us. We have put forward a proposal which would be parallel to what has been available to nurses, similar to what has been available to professionals in the public service and not far from the provisions of the 1963 legislation which allowed the Government extricate itself from its difficulty yesterday.
Wherever I look I see possibilities of doing business, but that can only be done if there is space for movement from people. The question I ask tonight is not can we all sit around the table getting back to talks, but rather can we establish that the Government is prepared to move on this issue. What that movement has to be is a matter for negotiations. School management, parents and other groups have a right to know our plans in this area. I have a duty representing members of the INTO and it is the strongly held view of the INTO executive that we have a responsibility to take every step possible to try to resolve problems before they create disruption at school level.
The only reason that there was strike action on the streets last week was because the Department of Finance was misrepresenting the position and giving wrong advice to Ministers and members of Government. People spoke openly to me and said that teachers would not be prepared to take a strong line on this and that they could all go away until September. That kind of talk causes problems for the Minister's interests and the interests of teachers and everybody else. Within the context of what I have said tonight, the Minister has a responsibility to put forward her price in terms of the proposals she thinks should be put into play. We said from the beginning that we would negotiate under option A and that we understood this was quid quo pro— let me try that again —quid pro quo.
It is the Latin that does it.
Try it as Gaeilge.
Sometimes even I get tongue tied. Those things can be done. It is proper that the Minister would seek to extract a price. Somebody asked me to explain what I meant last week when I said we would offer each other a Chinese bargain. That is where two people walk away from the table feeling that they have both won something. People sit down with parity of esteem.
That is called deception.
I am a generous man. We would sit down with parity of esteem, put our needs on the table and be prepared to move towards each other, which is reasonable. We would get up and walk away from the table and both feel that we had won something.
I want to finish on what I hope is a lighter note. It has been put to me during the course of the day that teachers all over Ireland are wondering if they refuse to answer departmental correspondence for five or six months whether they could expect to enhance retirement possibilities.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach seo. I am not sure that anything I have to say will be helpful to anybody, including myself incidentally.
That is very honest.
Say it in Latin.
Put it in a historical context.
We had the Famine earlier today, so if we were to take that model, God knows where we would finish up. As somebody who I hope has shown an interest in education over the years, I think it is a sad day for the country when so many teachers are so concerned that they arrive en masse in Dublin for a one day stoppage. I hope that whatever steps are necessary to ensure that sort of thing will not recur will have been taken before the beginning of the new school year and that this type of dispute will not continue on an open-ended basis. It damages everybody involved and certainly damages the reputation of the educational system and perhaps the teachers, the Government and the Department. I do not think that can be in anybody's interest. Our common interests ought to and can transcend the specific differences that divide us from time to time.
We recently discussed the White Paper on which perhaps some of the most significant education legislation this State has ever seen can be based. No one would dispute that the teaching profession is playing an ever more central role in our society. Teachers in the last generation and even more in the next generation are having to increasingly substitute for inherited structures and organisational institutions, such as Churches or families, to which we turned and on which we relied for social bonding in this society and which are now under pressure or in decline.
The education system is having increasing responsibilities imposed on it, whether it wills it or not, to play roles that simply were not expected of it previously. The burden of social responsibility and expectation that is increasingly imposed on the teaching profession at both primary and secondary level — and in some respects at third level — requires one to stand back and ask what we can reasonably expect from people who undertake this responsible social role.
Likewise, as is stressed in the White Paper, the economic expectations of the education system have increased. There is far more responsibility now attaching to education for the long term economic development of the country than used to be the case until recently. So the teaching profession is of central significance in this society.
It is unfortunate when ones sees media contributions invoking relativities which do not take cognisance of the changing and increasing responsibility of the teaching profession. In many ways claims of this sort offer targets for expressions of envy, jealousy or begrugery as well as legitimate criticisms. The quality of the criticisms of the teaching profession and of teachers' incomes that we have seen in many newspapers and have heard on some programmes over the last couple of months, when these claims were under public discussion, do not do any credit to those involved either in terms of short term political opportunism or concern for the long term welfare of the country.
Because of the wider implications of this issue, it is central to good citizenship and general societal development that this type of problem should be resolved. I am sympathetic to Senator O'Toole when he points out that it is difficult for a lay person like myself, without having the calculation spelt out, to know where validity lies in the claims and counter claims. In that respect the briefing document, which is a useful one that could be discussed at length, states:
It was estimated at that time that the cost of conceding such a claim would over time be of the order of £260 million per annum.
I never like the passive tense and I do not like phrases like "it was estimated". Who estimated it? What was their basis for estimation? What were their qualifications for estimating, and over what period of time? I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong, but it is loose. I am intrigued to see the reference to "an independent and competent team of experts". I see that independence is no guarantee of competence.
Precisely.
Mind you, competence may be no guarantee of independence either. However, I doff my cap to the person who drafted that particular sentence because they were covering a variety of angles. I do not doubt that the enhanced provisions for the public service bill is already set to double in real terms. The whole issue of pensions is a major problem not only for teachers but for all of us in society. I do not like the phrase "in the years ahead" which is an open-ended loose sort of thing.
I noted carefully what Senator O'Toole said about 1,000 retirements per annum. Page 5 contains one of the nubs of the briefing document. On the one hand, estimates that 150 teachers will retire per annum were taken as the basis of certain calculations and, on the other hand, it is argued that "the official costings will be based on a much more realistic prediction of up to 1,000 retirements per annum". What does "up to" mean? Is it 1,000 and whatever the margin of error is? It is not possible for someone like myself, who does not know the density of calculation behind it nor the precise assumptions, to know how compelling or how convincing these types of assumption are.
I am not trying to make opportunistic points. I would like to know what weighting one can lay on the assumptions of what I would call the official mind in this respect as well as on the assumptions of the unofficial mind, if I may say so. Maybe I should say the alternative official mind.
Thank you.
I am not sure that that was a compliment, by the way. "Official mind" does not normally rank in my vocabulary as the highest praise I can think of, however unfair that may be to individual officials, present company naturally included.
On the basis of this document I would not be able to say that I was convinced of the case against the teachers' claim any more than the case can be put that the teachers' claim can also be subjected to a comparable type of scrutiny. I do not have sufficient comparable data on the table to allow a rigorous evaluation of the validity of the conflicting claims. As far as I am concerned that would be the first step to arriving at some sort of reasonable compromise.
Towards the end of the document it says that "the gap between the Government position and the teachers' unions position is large, not small". The outlines of a possible compromise arrangement have to be spelled out clearly, and such an arrangement will have to be arrived at in due course anyway. We all know that in such things there is not 100 per cent on one side or on the other.
The sooner one begins working towards a constructive compromise arrangement with all the assumptions and calculations open to scrutiny from both sides and from independent — and even competent — people, the sooner that a satisfactory solution will be arrived at.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I compliment the proposers of the motion for putting down a non-contentious motion which will not force a division. Given the delicate balance we have in the House, it could have been used to divide us into all sorts of acrimony which would not have achieved anything. It is good to have such a discussion which gives the Minister an opportunity to speak about it in public as well as giving us an opportunity to put some of our views before the House and listen to the views of others.
The While Paper on Education is widely recognised as being a tremendous document. We are in very exciting times educationally. At some stage in the future the problem we are discussing this evening will have gone away, and the sooner the better. We can then get down to the business of dealing with the White Paper, and all the matters arising from it, and thus get a better understanding of the whole system. The White Paper has a strong commitment to the teaching profession and, as a teacher herself, the Minister for Education has a strong commitment also. The Government is committed to the work that the Minister is doing and, all in all, the education system in future will be a better one than it has been in the past.
The White Paper would not have been possible but for all the processes that we have been through since the 1960s. The development of educational philosophy is an ongoing process and the White Paper has done a magnificent job in that area. The early part of the document sets out the aims, objectives and basic philosophy as it has never been done before. We can be proud of that brilliant achievement. The Minister would be the first to recognise that that was not all her own work. She is the motivator behind it and her name is at the bottom of it, but it is the culmination of a lot of thinking and discussion as well as previous Green and White Papers published since the 1960s.
Being the Minister for Education is an awkward and difficult job. As public representatives we are approached almost every week by some pressure group within education seeking something that will cost money. We approach the Minister for Education with gusto, trying to persuade her that what the group wants is essential and they must have it now. But setting priorities, particularly short term priorities, is difficult because, as a member of the Government, the Minister has restrictions. These are dictated by the Government's financial strategy whose guidelines have to be adhered to.
I am sure the Minister wishes that any notion she ever had could be financed that afternoon. That would be great. We all have our priorities for the education system. We have a set of priorities here in the White Paper too which will guide us over the coming years and the implementation of the various elements will depend on how much money is available. That is always the problem. For example, we all want additional remedial teachers or more educational psychologists, a further reduction in the pupil/teacher ratio as soon as possible, a renewal and refurbishment of buildings all over the country and new buildings put in place where existing buildings are not adequate and the introduction of client-friendly curricula. We want all those things now. Of course, we have to be sensible and realise this is a progressive process. These things must be put in place as time goes by and money becomes available.
There is no problem setting overall goals in education; the White Paper has done that brilliantly but trying to implement them is the difficult thing. I am sure the Minister is in conflict with the Government on a regular basis because she is the one who must fight our comer and fight on behalf of all the various clients of the system so that as much money as possible is provided every year for education. In the autumn, I am sure there is an uneasy relationship between Ministers, each fighting for a bigger slice of the financial cake. We can luxuriate in the meantime in the knowledge that we do not have to make decisions. We can continue to clamour for x, y and z with abandon and the decision, good or bad at the end of the day, will not be ours.
The education system is a good one. We are agreed on that. Generally speaking, we have fine teachers who do an excellent job. The Minister and all of us agree that many teachers are not working in ideal conditions. Many teachers are working in schools which are not adequate for the basic job they have to do. The Minister made a strong commitment and has, over the last couple of years because money became available, managed to take a lot of the old schools out of the system. All of us have the experience of visiting schools where the new curriculum and what happens on the ground are a thousand miles apart. Teachers say they cannot possibly teach some element of the new curriculum in the circumstances in which they are forced to work. I have been in schools like that myself and I am sure the General Secretary of the INTO has been in many of them. Indeed, I have seen secondary schools where——
Acting Chairman
The Senator has one minute left.
That is a surprise.
Saved by the bell.
I do not believe I have spoken about the issue yet.
Well done.
Senator O'Toole will say that was the intention anyway.
His opening paragraph.
I am surprised. I thought we had 20 minutes per speaker. Obviously, we do not.
Acting Chairman
I do not make the rules. Eight minutes per speaker.
Eight minutes will have to do. I am sure we cannot change it now. There is a commitment at ministerial and Government level that there should be a system of early retirement for teachers. There are many good reasons that should be the case and, obviously, the Government recognises that. Those of us who were teachers can easily identify with all the good reasons there should be system of early retirement. Indeed, in discussions with the Minister and the Taoiseach about this problem, I get the feeling that there is a strong commitment there but they must keep in mind the cost and that is a huge difficulty when coming to a decision on this issue.
The briefing document has put down various different positions which can be examined and, hopefully, over a period as further negotiations continue, the positions will get closer. I am hopeful that we will have a solution to this problem within a relatively short period. We must resolve it. The job, as outlined in the White Paper, is too important to be set aside because of a niggling difficulty in the system.
I started teaching in the middle of the 1960s. Within a few years I was joined by a huge number of teachers as the system expanded. I am in my early fifties and I assume many of the teachers in our schools today are middle aged or older. Teachers would agree that this is not good. We need new energy, ideas and focus in education and that is one of the reasons I would like to see an early retirement system in place, particularly at a time when education principles are being examined. There is a renewal going on in education. We need new people, ideas and energy in the system more than ever before.
That is only one reason and there are others. Teachers who are unhappy and want to get out should be given the opportunity to do so because they are under-performing. Teachers who are burnt out are under-performing. The Minister and the Government are aware of all these matters. My hope this evening is that this will be another small step in the direction of finding a solution.
I must congratulate Senator O'Toole for wording the motion the way he did. I interpret it as noting the breakdown of negotiations between the teacher unions and the Departments of Education and Finance. As a result, there has been a withdrawal by the teacher unions from the various courses and departmental committees that had been set up, for example, the sexuality and relationship committee and in-career development courses. What are we going to do? What proposals is the Minster going to bring on stream to resolve this conflict?
The school year is drawing to a close. There are three months to September and some steps must be taken between now and then to try to get us moving again. I fear an escalation next September of what occurred last week and none of us want that to happen. I speak for responsible teachers who do not want to go down that road the first week of September.
We have a new programme being put in motion, the leaving certificate applied programme; in-service training is about to start and school managements are in a terrible predicament wondering whether that programme will come on stream next September, so the Minister can see the concerns that exist out there because of what happened last week. About three weeks ago we spoke on the White Paper and many good issues were raised. I was very impressed with it as a discussion document. Maybe down the road we will be able to implement some parts of it. In the course of the discussion, the Minister said she put great store in education and the quality of education. She recognised the stress caused in the last number of years by unemployment, alcohol, drug abuse and the increase in the number of disturbed children coming to school. We need a backup service to deal with these problems. That has been acknowledged. Teachers in every school are feeling this stress.
In the process of discussions, we must ask ourselves where we are going from here. Look at the volume of change that is coming about. There is a new junior certificate, the transition year, the LCAP, the leaving certificate vocational programme, a new curriculum for leaving certificate, PLCs, NCEA, NCCA and NCVA. I asked my staff this morning if they could tell me about these programmes that were coming on stream. They told me not to talk to them anymore. They literally cannot cope with the number and volume of changes coming on stream. The Minister talked about a quid pro quo of productivity in relation to the issue of early retirement. That should be a formula for discussion.
The volume of change taking place and the number of new courses coming on stream — if that is not enough productivity — as well as the number and amount of administrative duties that every teacher has to perform in the process of doing his or her teaching routine, combined with producing points at the end of the leaving certificate under the pressure of parents and students trying to get into third level, is causing a huge strain. It requires a whole new think in relation to our teachers. Many of them, as Senator Cotter said, are over the age of 40 years and we cannot get new blood into the system. Many fine teachers of 25, 26 and 27 years of age, who are trying to get into the system, cannot do so because there is no early retirement. They cannot find vacancies. They are excellent people with new ideas who would love to come into the system. I could not keep up with them. There is a fresh new blood coming out of the colleges. They cannot get into the system because we cannot loosen it up at the other end. This is a golden opportunity to allow those people in and to try to look for some way to open up the discussions between the Minister and the teacher unions.
The Minister also mentioned this document and I wish I had it two weeks ago — I received the document yesterday. I would like to have spent more time reading it. I am not one who can flick through it and then think I can talk about it. There are many things in it I would agree with. The Minister said that she brought her own independent facilitator in to assess the number of teachers who would retire each year, the costing and what the teacher unions had said. I understand that the independent facilitator has reported to the Minister. Can we have that report made available to us so that we can see what is going on? I do not know, but I feel there is some other document that I do not know about. I am not in a position to calculate whether the teachers are right or whether the Minister is right, but it is surely time for some middle ground to be found. We are now at the end of May and we have three months until the end of September. I ask the Minister to make sure she does not close the door with the result that, when we all come back in September, she — and we public representatives — will have trouble on our hands if we cannot find a nucleus for discussion.
I understand what Senator O'Toole said about the training end of our teachers's programmes: that they would be allowed two years credit for pension entitlements at that level. I do not know if that is an acceptable suggestion, but it should be considered. The Minister also talked about the other end of the scale. I appreciate what she is doing in lifting the cap off allowances for principals and vice-principals. She also mentioned posts of responsibility and shortening the salary scale. I acknowledge all of that and it is good that we are moving down that road. I am worried that the Minister is using the fact that teachers were allowed five years extra credit in pension rights because of stress. That is grand, but it is taking them off the payroll. It is a gain for us so we should not use that as a base for discussion on the issue of early retirement. All I am saying to the Minister is to get an independent facilitator on the ground. Get around the table again. I know there is movement on both sides and it is time to open discussions again.
I want to thank the Independent Senators for proposing this motion and giving me the opportunity of coming here to speak on this important issue. It is the most important item on my agenda at present. I know the House shares my disappointment that the stage has been reached where the teacher unions have decided on a campaign of non-co-operation with my Department and that members of the INTO and the ASTI have engaged in strike action. It has been a major tenet of my policy that partnership is an essential ingredient in developing and improving educational provision. That partnership of managers, teachers, parents and the Department is something which I have encouraged since I took office as Minister for Education early in 1993. I am fully aware that in the development of future education policy and provision, as set out in the White Paper, the partnership of which I have spoken is important. The teachers are one of the major parties in education and it gives me no pleasure that they have signalled their intention not to cooperate with my Department in a number of important areas.
Already we have lost six most important in-service training days, which were to provide the foundation for some 7,000 teachers to introduce new syllabuses in several subjects at the leaving certificate beginning in September. Similarly, training in respect of the new leaving certificate applied — the LCAP — has not taken place, putting in jeopardy the introduction of this most important development at senior cycle. The extension to more schools of the leaving certificate vocational programme is similarly affected. I am not prepared to introduce these initiatives into schools unless and until I am satisfied that the teachers who will be charged with their implementation will have had adequate training for the task. Therefore, I have decided with regret that the introduction of those initiatives, which were due in September next, must now be postponed. A circular to this effect has been issued to schools today. Apart from these specifics, I am only too well aware of the negative effects that disruption caused by teacher strikes have on school life generally. These are serious issues for the education sector and I refer to them because I want to assure the House that I am fully conscious of how serious they are. In doing so, I want to impress on Senators that this dispute is not a matter of the Government digging in its heels on a simple issue. I want Senators to ask themselves whether any Minister for Education would allow the kind of disruption I have referred to take place if the issue giving rise to it could be easily resolved.
I have said that I welcome the opportunity of this discussion, not least because it gives me the opportunity of setting out for the House my position in regard to some of the allegations made against me and the official side. These include allegations of broken promises, refusal to negotiate, inordinate delay and scare tactics in regard to costs. I want to deal firstly with the allegation of broken promises. At the teacher conferences at Easter 1993, I, as Minister for Education, referred to the issue of early retirement. My statements clearly indicated my concerns about stress in the teaching profession and how a scheme of early retirement might help to alleviate the problem. At the INTO conference I said:
I have indicated that I am prepared to enter into discussions with all the interested parties to examine proposals for early retirement. There are (at present) very limited opportunities in this area for primary teachers and I would wish to see enhanced opportunities for early retirement.
Such a development would address the particular problems facing teachers including the problem of burn-out arising from the appalling stress facing some teachers in the classroom.
I repeated those sentiments at the ASTI and TUI conferences. In negotiations on the early retirement claim the official side made an offer of early retirement with up to five years full pension credit, that is added years, for teachers who, for reasons of stress or otherwise, find that they can no longer function at acceptable levels of performance. I honestly consider that this offer meets the commitment I gave to deal with the early retirement issue in the context of teacher stress. I might add that I am seeking to address stress-related problems in teaching on a comprehensive basis. In addition to this early retirement scheme, provision is being made for relevant in-service training and the development of a welfare service for teachers.
The teacher unions have put forward a number of claims to be negotiated under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, including the claim relating to early retirement. The impression has been created that no serious negotiations have been undertaken by the Government side over the last year or so in relation to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work claims. This is not so.
In response to their claims the teachers were offered the extension to post-primary teachers of the general provision of retirement at age 55 with 35 years service already available to primary teachers. This addressed a long-standing complaint by post-primary teachers regarding the anomalous situation that existed in relation to teachers on the common basic scale. The offer meant that all post-primary teachers with 35 years service could now retire from the age of 55 rather than 60.
They were offered early retirement with up to five added years for teachers who because of stress and other difficulties find themselves unable to function at acceptable levels of professional performance. This was a direct response to the teachers persistent demands for a mechanism to deal with the problem of stressed out teachers and a management need to deal with long serving teachers whose professional performance was no longer adequate.
They were offered early retirement with added years for teachers who are surplus to requirements because of school closure, amalgamation and enrolment decline and who cannot be readily redeployed. This measure would provide significant opportunities for early retirement for teachers. They were offered a reduction of the common basic scale from a 26 to a 24 point scale. This offer addresses an ongoing union complaint about the length of the salary scale and would be of benefit to teachers not on the maximum of the scale.
They were offered a phased payment of the pass degree allowance to teachers who do not have a degree. This addresses a claim dating back to the early 1970's. The offer would benefit some 8,000 primary teachers and about 2,000 specialist post-primary teachers to the extent of £765 per annum. They were offered payment of the higher diploma allowance as well as a degree allowance to teachers holding a four year concurrent degree which includes a qualification in the theory and practice of education. This would give the teachers concerned allowances of £513 for an honours degree or £244 for a pass degree per annum.
They were offered a raise in the existing limits on the allowances payable to principals and vice-principals to £13,000 for principals and £8,336 for vice-principals. This provides for increases of up to £2,500 for principals and £1,700 for vice principals. It addresses a long-standing grievance that these allowances were capped at £10,506 and £6,636 respectively. They were offered the payment of a once-off lump sum to all principals, vice principals and posts of responsibility holders. This was offered as a payment on account pending further discussion on claims relating to promotion posts in the context of the White Paper.
They were offered full recognition for pension purposes of capitation and supernumerary service given by existing teachers in convent and monastery schools. This will afford full, as opposed to half, pension credit for teaching service by certain religious and ex-religious. It would also give full pension credit for service in convents and monasteries by certain lay teachers which currently does not count for pension purposes.
The offers made to the teacher unions were subject to there being a successful outcome to negotiations on productivity, including securing the integrity of the school year. These were significant offers made during many months of negotiation. The offers were made in the context of the teachers campaign for early retirement on the grounds of increased stress as well as their other claims on non-retirement issues.
In the course of later negotiations, the unions changed their position and emphasised a demand for improved pension provisions at the age of 60 for all teachers as well as a general scheme of early retirement for teachers with 33 years service. This is a much more costly claim than a scheme of early retirement for those teachers who were unable to continue in the profession. Most recently, the teachers indicated that they are seeking pension credit for two years of their training period.
There is no great mystery about the difference in the costings arrived at by the Government side and those presented by the teacher unions. It depends on the assumptions made. The teachers took an example of the costs arising in relation to 150 retirees per year. The Government's costings were based on a much higher number of teachers per year. Let me explain the reason for this.
The latest proposal from the teachers was for two extra free pensionable years to be added to service in respect of initial training. What that means is that every retiring teacher, except those who already have 40 years service, would be given two extra years pensionable credit whether retiring early or not. The number of teachers reaching the age of 60 will climb to about 1,700 in the year 2015 — just 20 years from now. By this time the cost of teachers' pensions will have more than doubled in real terms without any improvement in pension provisions.
The teachers themselves have claimed that it is difficult for a teacher to accumulate 40 years service. In the face of these facts, it is quite clear that the number of beneficiaries would be many times the 150 suggested by the teachers. Estimates of the number of teachers who took to the streets recently go as high as 15,000. Is it seriously suggested that this number would engage in public agitation for something that would benefit a relative handful?
Much has been made too of ringfencing, that is, confining any concession to teachers so that it could not spread to the wider public service. It is the view of this Government that any general concession made to any public service group, whether it be a reduction in retiring age, added years or revising how pensions are calculated, could not be confined to the group benefiting initially. Apart from any other consideration it would hardly be equitable to confine it to one group.
In the circumstances it is legitimate for the Government to examine the teachers' claim in the context of the superannuation provisions of the wider public service. I want to stress that this is not a scare tactic. It is a legitimate concern of the Government to ensure that public service pensions will not place an unbearable burden on the taxpayers of the future.
The public service pension scheme is a generous one. Pensions are index-linked and enjoy pro rata increases with pay. In addition national teachers can retire at 55 years of age provided they have 35 years service. An offer of similar provisions has been made to post-primary teachers. By any standards, teachers have very good pension provisions. It has been said by the teacher unions that there has been inordinate delay in dealing with the teachers' claims by the official side. Again, I would like to explain to the House why this is not the case.
Negotiations on the teachers' early retirement claim have to be conducted within the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work along with other outstanding cost increasing claims. In early 1994 the teacher unions opted to pursue as a priority a 1 per cent increase on pay and pensions with effect from 1 April 1994 as allowed for under Clause 2 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. In line with budgetary and expenditure parameters that underpin the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, no payment on any settlement of special pay claims, including the early retirement issue, would fall due before 1 June 1995.
In effect, therefore, no concessions on any of the claims could be implemented prior to 1 June 1995. The offer made to teachers on a general early retirement scheme was made well in advance of that date on 10 February 1995. In negotiations to date the Government side has responded where feasible to all claims put forward by the teachers. The Government considers itself to be acting fully in accordance with the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. As further evidence of the Government's commitment to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, I am ensuring that a 2 per cent increase in pay and pensions in line with the terms of Clause 2(i) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work will be paid to teachers, with effect from 1 June 1995. The annual cost of this increase is of the order of £24 million.
I have no desire to engage in an unproductive barrage of recrimination and propaganda. My main concern is that the education of children will suffer because of the disruption being brought about by this dispute. I am concerned, too, that the progress towards a better education planned in the White Paper on Education would not be disrupted. Therefore, it is my wish that we would find a basis to resume negotiations with the teachers. This, I know, is the wish shared also by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with whom Government Ministers have discussed the issue. We on the Government side are seeking ways of finding a basis for resuming discussions. I thank the House again for the opportunity of speaking here this evening.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I do not think this is the place for this debate at this time. We are in the middle of what is, essentially, a trade union dispute. In my short time in the Seanad we have not gone into the inner details of any other trade union dispute in this House. I do not see why this issue should be discussed here simply because the general secretary of one of the trade unions involved happens to be a Senator. He should separate his job as the general secretary of a trade union from his job as a Senator. The debate tonight has been blurred somewhat by this.
I am also very perturbed that what is being lost in all of this debate are the people who are directly involved in this dispute; the children and the teachers who are looking for early retirement, because I do not think the INTO or the Department has really examined the situation of stress and how it impacts on the teaching profession. I do not honestly think — and I can speak with a fair amount of authority on this — that the INTO has talked to these teachers.
In 1994, 105 teachers had to retire because of ill health, 60 from the primary sector and 45 from the secondary sector; there were 251 voluntary retirements from primary education, 161 of which were over 60 years of age and 90 were between 55 years and 60 years of age; and there were 75 voluntary retirements from the secondary sector, all of whom were over 60 years of age. I do not think that the management of the INTO has spoken to any of those teachers. No questionnaire has been sent around and no attempt has been made to quantify the problems which cause teachers to suffer from stress.
We talk about the awful problems which teachers have in classrooms but we have not quantified how many teachers would like to retire early because of stress. There are some, but we do not know enough about them. It is in the public arena that this dispute is primarily about stress and this does not do justice to the majority of teachers who are not under stress or who would happily go on teaching after the age of 60 years — some would like to go on after 65 years of age. Not every teacher is totally stressed out and not enough is known about this problem.
This Minister and this Government have, in their own way, recognised that there are problems. Since the Minister has taken office, we have seen increased funding, whether it is in capitation grants or extra resources for schools in disadvantaged areas. We have seen a greater commitment to support services, with more caretakers and secretarial staff being employed in schools. There is a general recognition that that back up is needed in some schools, which this Minister is providing. A hyped up campaign using the few stressed teachers to try to get a better deal for all teachers is unfair and disingenuous.
I am also concerned, as a former member of ASTI, that the concerns of second level teachers are being swept under the carpet. Many of the things they have looked for over the years seem to be lost and the INTO seems to have taken over the negotiating for all three unions. The other two unions are not necessarily looking for the same as the INTO. Christina Murphy, a very respected journalist who has written for many years on education, stated in the education supplement of The Irish Times that:
O'Toole and the INTO are seen to have effectively hijacked the whole campaign and successfully concentrated it on the aspects of most interest to INTO members... Even the controversial costings of an early retirement package were commissioned by the INTO and not by the three unions together.
Acting Chairman
Could the Senator give the exact reference for the quotation?
The Irish Times' education supplement of Tuesday, 30 May 1995. The Minister stated in her briefing document that “the teachers' unions have rejected an offer by the Government to have all costings submitted to an independent expert group for examination in order to resolve the difficulties in approach and interpretation”. I would like to know why the teacher unions have rejected that. An independent body, such as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, would see both sides of this argument and could fairly adjudicate on the differences between them. There is a huge difference between £2 million and £20 million or £30 million, which is the official estimate.
There is too much at stake here. As a mother of six children, I am very concerned that the progress which we were all looking for in the White Paper will not now take place. As the Minister pointed out tonight, various programmes have had to be postponed because of the withdrawal of teachers from in-service training. This is very regrettable because we all want to see progress in education, whether we are parents, teachers or public representatives.
It is very unfortunate because this country owes a great deal to our teachers. They have worked very hard over the years to produce people of great quality and integrity, often working under atrocious conditions. We must all acknowledge that. It is regrettable that there could be a fight over what may be a very small number — if the teacher unions are to be believed it is about 150 people a year. The teacher unions and the Department need to resolve this dispute sooner rather than later.
Unlike the previous speaker, I see every reason this issue should be discussed in Seanad Éireann. I was very disappointed by the negative tone of the Minister's address this evening. When she attended the annual conferences of the teachers' unions in 1993, she correctly identified early retirement as the issue which was uppermost in the minds of the vast majority of delegates. This was not a new issue. It had been gathering momentum for a number of years. It was clear that teachers were becoming impatient at the lack of progress on the early retirement issue. This is why they gave a warm welcome to the clear commitment given by the Minister that she was prepared to initiate and become involved in discussions with a view to agreeing an early retirement scheme for teachers. I believe the Minister gave that commitment in good faith and that it was her intention that there would be meaningful discussions which would lead to that commitment being honoured. Regrettably, this has not happened. It would appear that somewhere along the way other forces with a different agenda intervened. Despite the fact that a joint claim had been submitted by the three teacher unions to the conciliation council, I am satisfied no real effort was made over the past two years by the official side to resolve this issue.
When industrial action was threatened last year, a commitment was given that the negotiations would be concluded by 30 September. Again, this did not happen. There was no movement until February of this year when a totally unrealistic offer was made to post-primary teachers and no offer was made to primary teachers. The offer in the case of post-primary teachers was totally unrealistic because what was offered was a provision whereby teachers with 35 years service could retire at the age of 55. The Minister knows as well as everybody else in the House and I that it is virtually impossible for any post-primary teacher to have 35 years service at the age of 55.
In the past week the Department provided us with a briefing document dealing with early retirement. Page 6 contains a table which gives the number of teachers who will reach 55 years of age each year for the next 20 years. It would be very interesting to get a breakdown of these figures into primary and post primary teachers. It would be even more interesting to be told how many of the post primary teachers reaching 55 years of age each year will have 35 years service. The Minister and I know that the vast majority of post primary teachers are much more likely to be 60 years of age or more by the time they have 35 years service. It is no wonder, therefore, that the talks broke down.
The appointment by the Government of a facilitator enabled the talks to resume, but the hopes of an agreement before this year's teacher conferences were soon dashed when there was no improvement forthcoming on the offer which had led to the breakdown of the talks some weeks earlier. This sequence of events left nobody in any doubt as to what the mood at the teacher conferences would be like. It came as no surprise that there was overwhelming support at each conference for a programme of industrial action and non-co-operation with the Department of Education.
There are many who would ask if teachers were deliberately manoeuvred into a position where they had little choice but to take such decisions. Was there an expectation in certain quarters that strike action by teachers would alienate public support and sympathy for their case? If that was the hope or intention, it has not materialised. The vast majority of the general public, and parents in particular, know that teachers are not people who will down tools and take to the streets at the drop of a hat. They know the reason teachers were on the streets of this city yesterday week was because it was the only way left to them to bring home to the Government the extent of their disappointment and frustration at the total lack of progress on their very reasonable claim for early retirement.
The last thing teachers want to become involved in is industrial action. Teachers want to be in their classrooms teaching their pupils. When there is disruption of schools and classes, nobody regrets this more than teachers themselves. They regret the inconvenience to parents and pupils and are angry that this action was forced on them last week.
In the briefing document and in the Minister's speech this evening great play is made of the fact that an offer of up to five years full pension credit was made for teachers who, for reasons of stress or otherwise, find they can no longer function at acceptable levels of performance. This offer is a red herring in the context of what is being sought. Teachers see this offer as a device to deal with the issue of so-called problem teachers by introducing a compulsory early retirement scheme for such teachers. This is a totally distinct and separate issue.
What is being sought by the teacher unions is an option of voluntary early retirement for all teachers. This does not mean they are looking for early retirement for every teacher or that all teachers would avail of it if it were on offer. The operable word is "option". Teachers are not looking for any reduction in the normal retirement age of 65 years. They are simply seeking to bring about a situation in which teachers who have given the best part of a lifetime to teaching but who find they are no longer able to discharge their duties and responsibilities as satisfactorily or as well as they would like could, if they wish, retire with dignity.
It is obvious that in all the discussions which have taken place, the teacher unions have acted reasonably and fairly. They have shown flexibility and a willingness to compromise in their efforts to reach agreement. This is more than can be said for the official side. During the course of the negotiations teachers have modified their claim considerably and have offered to pay increased pension contributions. They have also offered that the number qualifying for early retirement in any year would be governed by a quota.
In an article on page 8 of the Irish Independent of 19 April, 1995, dealing with early retirement, the paper's education editor, John Walshe, wrote that:
The union leaders took a considerable risk in modifying their original demands so much and there have been some misgivings voiced at the three conferences over the approach taken.
This is the observation of an independent and impartial observer. On page 17 of the Government's briefing document, this flexibility and willingness to compromise on the part of the unions is unfairly presented as the teachers changing their position. It is presented as if they were making it more difficult for the official side to do business with them, when the opposite was the case.
Even if the teachers were not prepared to agree to a quota in respect of the number qualifying for early retirement each year, I believe the official side has grossly overestimated the number of teachers who would be likely to avail of an early retirement option. It would appear this is being done so that the worst possible cost scenario can be used in an effort to mobilise public opinion against the teachers' claim. Rather than engaging in this kind of propaganda, the Government has a clear responsibility to the whole education service to bring the current unrest to an end by putting a realistic offer on the table which will allow the talks to resume and a settlement to be reached. It is in nobody's interest to allow the present situation to continue to fester over the summer with the inevitable implications which this will have for the coming school year.
The introduction of a realistic early retirement scheme for teachers would have many beneficial effects, apart from the obvious one that it would enable teachers who no longer feel up to the job to retire with dignity and make way for new blood. In particular, it would enhance the attractiveness of teaching as a career, and this is very important. Senator Lee said the teaching profession is playing an ever more central role in our society.
It is important that the attractiveness of teaching as a career is enhanced. Regrettably, for some years teaching as a career is no longer as sought after as once was the case. Teachers are no longer seen as being well paid and the perception of teaching as an occupation involving short hours and long holidays no longer exists. The introduction of a voluntary early retirement scheme would be a significant factor in improving the attractiveness of teaching. It is disappointing that the matter has dragged on for so long. I look forward to an early resolution of the difficulties.
Senator Mullooly prefaced a statement with the phrase "the majority of people believe". I accept that proposition but when one spouts propaganda, as the last speaker did, the majority of people recognise it for what it is.
Unless I am mistaken — Senator O'Toole can correct me if I am — this claim by the teaching profession did not drop from the sky in 1993. Questions of teacher stress and burn-out have been on the agenda for a considerable time. However six short months ago Senator Mullooly sat on these benches when we discussed this problem and there did not seem to be any burning ambition in Fianna Fáil to deal immediately with this issue.
I invite Senator Magner to read my contribution on that occasion.
I did not interrupt Senator Mullooly because I was interested in hearing history being rewritten. I am sure there will be a chapter in Senator Lee's next book on how Irish politics is conducted.
The reality is more basic. As my colleague Senator Kelly said, this is an industrial relations dispute which will not be solved on the floor of this or the other House. All we can do is change Governments; on most occasions we cannot do much to improve the system of Government.
Teachers have immense power in terms of their impact if they choose to take industrial action. We have seen similar power exercised in the past by the farming community and ESB workers. With that power comes awesome responsibility. I do not want us to take the same approach as the Tory Government in the UK when, in order to fight off legitimate claims by teachers, it systematically degraded teaching as a profession and those working in it, at tremendous cost to that country's social fabric.
It led not only to a complete loss of morale in the profession but to a total lack of respect from pupils and their parents and has contributed in no small way to making the economy and society of the UK among the worst in Europe. That is not the path we ought to follow and this Government does not intend that. I am conscious of the presence of the general secretary of the INTO when I say I hope the leadership of the unions are not following that path.
This matter will be solved in a rational way, within the confines of what is available. Senator O'Toole said he was not sure there was a gap between himself and the Minister, which is the first indication he was less than certain of it. He always maintained the gap was small and could easily be bridged; if only the mandarins from the Department of Finance, led by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, gave the money to that decent woman, the Minister for Education, the problem would be over. Now we are speaking about anything between £2 million and £40 million.
Eventually Senator O'Toole and his colleagues from the other unions will meet with the Minister and solve the problem. The big question concerns the children who are the fodder. The unions were too quick to bring teachers onto the streets and send children home. There is a climate of expectation of another autumn and winter of discontent.
The Minister's contribution demonstrated her good will and anxiety to bring about a settlement which is fair to all. However while she administers schools she does not control them. She cannot determine whether those children remain in school for the ordinary school week or teachers answer the call of union leaders and send them home. The action was premature and that strike weapon should either be discarded or only used as a last resort. Here it was used in circumstances where Senator O'Toole cannot judge the gap except that it is wider that he said initially——
I did not say that.
I am open to correction because I would not want to misquote the Senator but my understanding of what he said was that it was wider, or that he assumed it was wider, than he thought initially and is certainly narrower than the Minister would claim. I may be paraphrasing the Senator incorrectly.
That is incorrect.
I always give way to either him or the professor whenever they request me to do so.
Senator Magner, you should refer to Members of the House as Senators.
As I said, the matter will not be resolved here. The debate is not helped by Fianna Fáil running an open house — that will not wash anymore. Mary O'Rourke was in that Department for years, followed by Séamus Brennan.
Acting Chairman
You should refer to them as Deputies.
Deputy O'Rourke is not a Minister any longer so at least we are spared that. I do not know why you are getting excited, Sir, I am only speaking about history.
Acting Chairman
I am not getting excited, I am bringing you to order in accordance with the rules of the House.
As I said, I hope this dispute can be resolved without either side denigrating the profession of teaching and those who practise it. The leaders of the teachers unions should put aside what has become an old and rusty weapon. The matter will eventually be resolved and it is up to the Government and the teachers to ensure children are removed from the equation.
I thank those who participated in the debate. I will clarify some points, beginning with the last speaker. I appreciate what Senator Magner said but I must clear up some matters.
I have tried to express myself in language with an even tone. I did not say the gap was wider or narrower, I said I did not know what it was. It is unfair and wrong to say that I do not know the assumptions on which calculations were made in the Department of Finance, nor do I know the calculations themselves. I know the bottom line is between £20 million and £30 million, as Senator Lee said earlier.
I have made available to the Department of Finance and the Department of Education all my calculations, the assumptions on which they were made and every piece of information I have. If there was an element of parity of esteem when we negotiated we might have found ourselves in a different position. It was only when it was made clear we would not be given the assumptions on which the Department had based its figures that I said I did not know what the gap was. One actuary in the Department of Finance said he had based his costings on every teacher living until 95 years of age. If that is the kind of nonsense on which this is based, the gap is not big because we can quickly root out such non-logical thinking.
I also think the strike was premature. While the Senator was out of the Chamber I explained it happened because no movement took place. Senator Magner validly asked why we are in this position since these problems have existed for many years. That is true and I wished to have them off the agenda. The two advisers from the Department of Education were there during the negotiations for the Programme for Competitiveness and Work two years ago when I suggested that rather than having running sores year after year, we should agree to deal with them in the course of the programme. We agreed that would be done. That is why they are now being dealt with and why they could not be dealt with before. I want to get them off the agenda during the course of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work so they are not hanging around forever.
In terms of the UK problems, I spent two days recently in discussions with the UK teachers' unions and I am well aware of the damage created by such a dispute. Strike action is an outmoded and useless way of dealing with industrial relations. I have used every new technique proposed by the Department of Finance and others in the course of this dispute, but I have been wasting my time. Every time I have tried to make a move it has been presented as negative. The different claims that have been made are being presented as a vacillation or a change in the ball game. Every one of those changes was an attempt to find a compromise, and not one speech from the Minister or one statement on the Government side has recognised that. It makes it more difficult for me to go to my members and——
Two years ago those discussions were held with Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party.
It was arising from those discussions that we insisted the matter be sorted out through the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
I thank Senators for their views. I recognise the validity of the points made by Members on all sides and the commitment to finding a solution. However, it is important to clear the air on issues. Senator Mullooly made the point on the changing of position during negotiations and the risks we as negotiators took in trying to narrow the position between the Government and us. There was no reciprocal move from the official side on this issue; there has been no move at all. It is unique in industrial relations to spend two years in negotiation and have no move on the other side.
I do not know where Senator Kelly researched her contribution but I recognise the point she made about the different roles of the general secretary of the INTO and a Senator. I advise the Senator to look at the history of her own party and she will find that a previous general secretary as a Member of the other House was leader of the Labour Party. If the practice started anywhere, it started in the Senator's party.
The Senator is getting very thin skinned.
Of the five general secretaries of the INTO there have been since the foundation of the State, three have been Members of the Oireachtas. It is nothing new.
The Senator should not confuse his roles.
I am not justifying it one way or another. The Minister for Finance has rightly said to me that life would be much more comfortable if general secretaries were not Members of the Oireachtas. That day is gone. The Labour Party was——
The Senator sounds like a delicate flower.
——established on the basis of having an input in labour history. I would remind Senator Kelly that during the last debate on early retirement the Minister's response drew copiously from the document on stress commissioned and paid for by the teachers' unions, which included the questionnaire sent to the people the Senator mentioned — although perhaps not in the year she mentioned. That document is available and I will send it to the Senator. The general secretary of the ASTI — the Senator's own union — would be aware of it. I will ensure the Senator receives a copy of the document, although I thought she would have been well aware of it having been involved in the previous debate. We have had long debates in the past on proposals to close post offices, on industrial relations in Arigna, at least three debates on TEAM Aer Lingus——
We never had trade union officials in discussing their side.
One just left the House. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, was well aware of the position of the Communications Workers Union as he was a former activist. I am sure we could find a few more in the Senator's party.
Speaking on behalf of their union?
The Senator raised the point and she should live with it.
On a point of order, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, was never in this House speaking as a trade union official.
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order. I would point out to Senator Kelly and Senator O'Toole, whose time is up, that all Members here are Members of the Seanad and not of trade unions.
Thank you, Chairman, it saves me saying it.
That is my point. The Senator should not confuse the two roles.
With regard to the actuarial considerations, because there is no fund for the scheme half of the £20 million or £30 million extra cost will go back to the Exchequer in taxes and there is also job creation involved. There are aspects of actuarial costing which have to be examined. We need to know the basis on which the Department made its calculations and the assumptions it made.
I thank Senators for their contributions. I have not had the opportunity to deal with all their points. It is unfair, unacceptable and leaves no options if the Minister says she is seeking a basis for resuming discussions but that it would hardly be equitable to confine it to one group in the public sector. I am putting forward a proposal for the teachers.
The points put forward by Christina Murphy would be rejected by the general secretary of the ASTI, who would not agree in any way. After 130 years it is true, unfortunately, that 15,000 members of the teachers' unions would take whatever action was necessary even if only one person was to gain from it. That is our history, our commitment and our future.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.