Deputy Fahy has given notice of a question to be raised on the adjournment, arising out of the answer to question 17 on the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. - PAYMENT OF DISMISSED TEACHERS.
Bainnean sé leo le ceist a seacht déag. Bhí na muinteóirí ag obair ins na scoileanna ar feadh no haimsire seo. Tháinig na cigirí scoile chun na scoileanna agus bhíodar sásta leis an obair a bhí 'gá dhéanamh ionta.
A DEPUTY
Speak English.
Iarrtar orm labhairt i mBearla. Dhéanfaidh mé sin, mar ba mhaith liom go dtuigfeadh Aire an Oideachais an méid atá agam le rá.
In question No. 17, I do not think that the request was unreasonable. That is that the Department of Education should pay the teachers who were dismissed for political reasons, and to whose restoration to schools, where they can secure appointments, the Minister for Education recently consented. Such teachers, many of whom had been working in the schools after sanction had been withdrawn, should be paid for the actual time they were teaching. Their classes were inspected and I suppose there was no adverse report from the inspectors. The Minister gave an emphatic "No," and said: "They will not be paid." I think in justice that they should, and I do not raise this matter as a Party question at all. A few days ago we had a debate, and the President said that it served no useful purpose to be raking up the past, that we should try and work in a better spirit together. Unfortunately the Minister for Education was absent from the House when that appeal was made. I do not know whether he agrees with it or not, but I say that it is raking up the past if you still keep inflicting such injustice on people and not pay them for work they actually did—men from whom sanction had been removed for political reasons. It is decidedly raking up the past if we refuse to pay them for the work they actually did.
I see the Minister for Education is heavily briefed. I have just a few short cases to put before him. There is the case of Seán Scully, Curraghbeg National School, Glencar, Co. Kerry. He taught as assistant in that school from the beginning of 1924 to the autumn of 1926. The Principal then died. From the date of his recognition by the Education Office recently, he has taught alone. He is now Principal with an assistant, and he has not been paid for the years he was teaching without sanction. He is now sanctioned as Principal. Another case is the case of Humphrey Murphy, Kilsarcon National School, Currow. He taught as assistant from the end of 1923 up to the present date in that school. His work has apparently been satisfactory. He has not been paid for it. Then there is the case of Séamus Connor, Kildreelig National School, Ballinskelligs. He taught as Principal of that school from the autumn of 1923 till the autumn of 1926. From then till the date of the removal of the ban or the recognition by the Education Office, he has been idle. The school has since been without a teacher and is closed. He is now assistant to Seán Scully.
There is another case, which perhaps is not quite on a par with those I have mentioned, but I might be allowed to refer to it. It is the case of Tomás O Maólín, who is teaching in a city school. Such teachers get annual increments of £12 less 10 per cent. He was entitled to seven such increments. He resigned on 31st March, 1921, to take up active service in the I.R.A. He was arrested and interned while on active service. National teachers who were arrested in their schools or coming from their schools for political reasons and were interned got increments of salary. This man has got neither increment nor salary. I think, in justice and apart from all questions of politics, he should get his increments, the increments that would naturally come to him at least up to the start of the civil war. Assurances were given in 1922 that this anomaly would be rectified, but it has not been rectified yet. In the other cases the teachers were recognised by the managers. The managers in most cases are clergy. I believe. The managers believe that they are fit men to keep in the schools and to educate the young. They know the local circumstances. Many of the managers in question have the same political tenets as the Minister for Education. I put it to the House that these local managers were as good judges as the officials in Dublin as to the fitness of such teachers to continue their services in the schools. In fair play, in ordinary justice the men should be paid for the time they worked. Inspectors visited the schools, and I know personally that they were quite satisfied with several of them. I as not sure of all. I do not know how many teachers are concerned, but I ask, without looking at it from a Party point of view, that the Minister should, in the interests of the country, in the interests of peace, and in common justice, give to these teachers the salaries which they have earned.
I do not presume to know very much about this matter, but a few cases have been brought under my notice. I would like to support the appeal made by Deputy Fahy. I think I can say that when the Government went so far as to recognise those men after a certain number of years and to give them the right to go on teaching under official recognition, they might have gone the whole way. No matter what complexion the Minister or the Government may try to put on it, people will think that those men are still being penalised and that the Government of the day is going to go on penalising them for what happened in the past. I think that is a wrong policy. I think, as has been already stated in the House, we should try to wipe the slate clean and that the men should not be allowed to go on thinking that they have been badly treated. I suggest to the Minister that from those of them who have got schools and go on teaching, you are not going to get the very best service if they feel that they have been badly treated, and have a grievance against the State. There is not a very large number of teachers involved in this matter and the cost in actual money to the State would be almost negligible. It seems to me that in the interests of harmony, of trying to bring about a better feeling in the country and in order to get the best possible service from those men, the Government would be well advised to give them all the money to which they are entitled. It may be said that they have taken certain action against the State and that they did wrong. Many people in this country did wrong since 1922, and perhaps before 1922. I think myself that the best interests of all would be met if the Government were prepared to go the whole way in this matter and if the Minister were prepared to accede to this request put forward, if I might say so, reasonably and clearly by Deputy Fahy.
I happen to know one case in Cork County somewhat similar to those of which Deputy Fahy has spoken. The particular teacher was a man when men were wanted. He was one of the best men prior to 1922. That being so, we ought to try to throw oil on the troubled waters, and I appeal to the Minister to use his good judgment in reconsidering all those cases.
I do not know what particular case Deputy Carey has in mind. There are some cases in Cork. There is one particularly, and, perhaps, it is the case that he refers to. I think it is a case that some of us are familiar with. It is really a case in which the Department should have dealt with the teacher in a disciplinary way without bringing the matter before this Committee at all, apart altogether from any connection with armed revolt or anything else. As regards the general question, even before its last action, even before the matter was discussed on other occasions, the Government's feelings were that it had acted with extreme generosity towards those teachers. I explained what the situation was. It is a matter that was brought up on more than one occasion in this House. It was brought up specially before the Government and myself by the Executive of the National Teachers' Organisation. We pointed out that, so far as the Department was concerned at the time, we were quite ready to overlook that. The plea then was that the teachers should be recognised. What is the plea to-day? The plea then was for a clean slate and for the restoration of the teachers. Well, these teachers have been given recognition again as national teachers. I would point out that the teachers have been treated much more leniently than any of the ordinary civil servants of the State; that they had got much more favoured treatment than had been meted out to civil servants in similar circumstances, and the cases have been thoroughly heard. Wherever there was the slightest chance of weighing the balance in favour of the teacher it was done as I have pointed out already. Not only that, but we have again and again reconsidered cases to see whether there was left of those still remaining a certain number to whom recognition might be granted. That was done. Then, finally—I think a short time ago —a national teachers' deputation again put before me the advisability of taking advantage of the changed political situation and recognising these teachers. I think there was a reply given last October to Deputy O'Connell that the Government was prepared to do that. Let us be quite clear as to the position of the Government. First of all, we do not employ the teachers. We do not pretend to pay everybody that teaches in this country. That is quite clear. They are not our employees. It is quite true to say we pay them, but they are employed by the managers. We make it abundantly clear—so that nobody could say that there was any haste, so far as these teachers were concerned—that recognition would be withdrawn from them after a certain date, the 30th April, 1925. It was quite true that a number of them kept on teaching in the schools. That was not due to any misunderstanding between them and the Government. The Government could not dismiss them from the schools. That is quite clear. Where that was possible, where the teachers were under the direct employment of the Government, as in the Model Schools, their services were dispensed with. In the case of the ordinary national schools in the country such a course could not be adopted. The only course was the one adopted by the Government, namely, that they would withdraw the salaries from the teachers. That course of action was intimated to the teachers and it was intimated to the managers. That was quite clear. Had they been in the position of teachers in the Model Schools, had they been in the position of the ordinary civil servants, this plea that is now made could not have been made. It is precisely because they are not our employees, in the strict sense of the word, that they were able, despite very clear warning on our part, to stay on in the schools. I quite admit that they were not our employees, and the phrase that they stayed on in defiance of the Government might not be quite strictly correct, but if I use that phrase it will not, I think, lead to any misconception. The teachers stayed on, and I do not see what case can be made for paying the teachers who stayed on after the full warning. If the teacher stayed on as a result of a private arrangement between himself and his direct employers, I do not see how the State is involved in that matter.
Were the schools not inspected?
What has that to do with it? We inspect schools at present in which there are teachers we do not pay. Does the Deputy suggest that we gave them the slightest hint that we would pay them? I do not think anybody in this House who has followed the debate for the last couple of years could be under any misconception as to our attitude. Whatever else may be said about it, our attitude was clearly defined. Remember, it is not a case of ordinary amnesty. That is not the position and never was. It was not a case of granting pardon to anybody guilty of offences against the State. That was not the case put forward for the teachers; they were not being punished in that way. What was asked for was that they should not be pardoned for activities against the State, but that they should be paid by the State, even though the Government of the State was convinced that their future loyalty was certainly something that could not be relied on.
As far as the bulk of the cases we are now dealing with is concerned, if we did allow back teachers in a number of cases, they were not allowed back on the merits, but altogether owing to the improved political situation, the improved conditions of the country that existed in the fall of 1927. If the other teachers stayed on, that was a matter for themselves. They took that risk and there was no obligation on the Government to pay them. There are plenty of teachers in the country not recognised by the Government, and there was no obligation to pay the teachers in question any more than the Government pays the teachers it does not recognise. Anybody connected, directly or indirectly, with national teachers in the country knows perfectly well it is not an unusual thing for teachers to stay on. Apart from the question as to why particular teachers were dispensed with, so far as we could dispense with them, it is not an unusual thing for teachers to stay on after the Department of Education has clearly and definitely warned them that salary would not be paid after a certain date. They stayed on, and it is not an uncommon practice. Anybody connected with the Teachers' Organisation and the Department knows perfectly well that teachers will stay on in defiance—if I can use that phrase without being misunderstood—and in the hope that in the long run they will force the Department, whose judgment they are flouting, to pay them.
In this case the teachers have no claim against the Government. They were paid up to the very last moment that they reasonably could be paid to, and they knew perfectly well from the end of 1924 recognition would be withdrawn from them. They were paid to 30th April, 1925. Those of them who were appointed to schools had their payments resumed after 26th October, 1927. There is one case, the details of which I cannot remember, the case of Mr. Mullin of Dublin. I will examine it to see how far it does differ as regards certain periods from the others. Some of the teachers did accept our decision and went away from the schools. Are we to penalise them? In a way we are in danger of creating a very troublesome situation for the Department. Those who stayed on apparently are to be paid. That does not seem even-handed justice. Had the situation continued much longer a very difficult position might have arisen which might have affected the position of other teachers in the schools. We could not ourselves dismiss the teachers. The only way we could secure their dismissal would be the withdrawal of recognition from every teacher in the schools. That situation might have arisen. But it did not arise, and for that the teachers in question cannot claim any particular credit. They have no claim against the State. The fact that they remained on was in defiance of the expressed wishes of the State. They were clearly warned that they were no longer employees of the State, and if they remained on it was a matter between themselves and those who directly employed them.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 15th March.