I move:
That in accordance with the terms of paragraph 46 (1) (b) (ii) of the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for Teachers, the Government having considered the findings in Report No. 14 of the Teachers' Arbitration Board and——
(1) having regard to the terms of the draft Proposals for a Pay Agreement settled in negotiations with unions representing other public servants and at present being considered by those unions and now on offer to the teacher unions, Proposals which provide for
(i) a 25th round of general pay increases in three phases, a first phase of 3% from 1st May, 1986, a second phase of 2% from 1st January, 1987 and a third phase of 2% from 1st May, 1987;
(ii) the three-stage phasing of implementation of increases resulting from adjudication hearings which took place prior to 1st January, 1986, one-third of the increase to take effect on 1st December, 1986, a further one-third on 1st December, 1987 and the balance on 1st July 1988;
(iii) increases as in the 25th round of general pay increases to be applied also to pensions;
(iv) lump-sum entitlements under superannuation codes of persons whose pay is the subject of an adjudication finding to which (ii) above applies to be calculated by reference to amounts and effective dates recommended in the adjudication finding; and
(2) recognising the fact that payment of the Arbitration findings in full would involve a cost of £110m in excess of what would arise under the terms of the Proposals at (1) above, £63m of which would fall to be paid in the current financial year,
Dáil Éireann approves the proposal made by the Government to implement the said findings, subject to modification as follows:
(a) one-third of the recommended 10% increase to take effect as from 1st December, 1986;
(b) a further one-third to take effect as from 1st December, 1987; and
(c) the remaining one-third to take effect as from 1st July, 1988.
This is a motion asking that the House approve the proposal by the Government to implement the recommendation in the findings in Report No. 14 of the Teachers' Arbitration Board that the pay of teachers in primary and second level schools be increased by 10 per cent, subject to a modification of the recommendation on the phasing of the increase.
The phasing of this special increase for teachers which the Government propose is the same as that included in the Proposals for a Pay Agreement settled in recent negotiations between unions representing other public servants and the Minister for the Public Service, in respect of adjudication hearings which had taken place prior to 1 January 1986. It is a three-part phasing: one-third of the increase to be paid from 1 December 1986; a further one-third to be paid from 1 December 1987; and the remaining balance to be paid from 1 July 1988.
In arriving at their proposal in relation to the teachers' arbitration findings the Government gave careful consideration to all relevant factors, such as: the particular arbitration report in question, Report No. 14 of the Teachers' Arbitration Board, copies of which were presented to the House on 5 December last; the various provisions of the Proposals for a Pay Agreement, already mentioned as settled in negotiations with other unions; those proposals in general are also on offer to the teachers; they provide for (i) a 25th round of general pay increases in three phases — 3 per cent from 1 May 1986, 2 per cent from 1 January 1987, and a further 2 per cent from 1 May 1987 — (ii) the phased implementation of special increases, (iii) certain concessions on pensions and retiring gratuities (lump sums); and, of course, the cost factor, particularly, the fact that implementing the increase on the phasing basis recommended in the report, that is half the increase from 1 September 1985, and the second half from 1 March 1986, would cost £110 million in excess of what is being proposed by the Government.
It is with considerable regret that I move this motion and commend it to the House for its approval. I say "regret" because I hoped, as all Members of this House hoped too, I am sure, that we would be able to come to the House with a motion which had been agreed with the teachers' unions beforehand. I want to make it clear that I share in the general unhappiness in this House at the latest developments in the dispute about the pay of teachers. I do not yield to anyone in my admiration for the work done by the teachers. No one can appreciate more the importance of the responsibilities they discharge and I fully recognise the debt owed by every member of the community to the teaching profession for the manner in which they have discharged these responsibilities.
It would be my earnest wish, and that of the Government, that, even at this late hour, the teachers' unions would reconsider the position they have adopted in the dispute and see their way to recommending to their members for acceptance a settlement of their claim on the same terms as those that have been taken away for consideration by the other public service unions. It is a matter for personal regret on my part and on the part of the Government that it is not possible to improve on those terms.
In my remarks here today I am appealing most earnestly to teachers to recognise the difficulties which the whole country faces in terms of its financial problems. I am asking them to put the country first for the sake of its children and to avoid at all costs causing major disruption to the education system. We do not seek dispute or confrontation. We want to go as far as possible to meet the teachers' case. We must, however, act responsibly towards all sectors of society. This is not a Government trying to get the better of teachers, or point scoring or political brinkmanship. The future is at stake for all our young people. These are not normal times. We ask teachers to exercise restraint not because we want to, because we have to.
Let us be clear about one point. The Government cherish the procedures laid down in the public service conciliation and arbitration schemes and they have been careful in dealing with this claim to adhere firmly to these procedures. The present conciliation and arbitration scheme dates from 1973 and is a common scheme covering teachers in national, secondary, vocational, comprehensive and community schools. This scheme replaced three separate schemes which had been set up in the fifties for national, secondary and vocational teachers. The parties to the scheme are the three teachers unions — INTO, ASTI and TUI — the managerial authorities of national, secondary and vocational schools and the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Public Service. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the scheme that its existence "does not imply that the Government have surrendered or can surrender their liberty of action in the exercise of their constitutional authority and the discharge of their responsibilities in the public interest".
Where there is disagreement at the conciliation council on a pay claim the claim may be referred to the arbitration board for teachers, set up under the conciliation and arbitration scheme.
All of the parties to the scheme are represented on the arbitration board. The chairman of the board is an independent person, normally a senior counsel, who is appointed by the Government, on the nomination of the Ministers in agreement with the other parties to the scheme. Also on the arbitration board there are two representatives of the Labour Court, one of whom represents employer and the other employee interests. When the board have considered a claim, the chairman submits a report incorporating his findings on the claim to the two Ministers who in turn submit the report to the Government.
Paragraph 46(1) of the conciliation and arbitration scheme sets out the procedures to be followed by the Government. It states as follows:
In relation to a report from the Chairman of the Board, the Government will adopt one of the following courses:—
(a) within three months of the date of receipt of the report by the Ministers signify that they, the Government, propose to give immediate effect to the finding of the Board in full....
(b) at the expiration of three months from the date of receipt of the report by the Ministers.... introduce a motion in Dáil Éireann
(i) proposing the rejection of the finding or
(ii) proposing the modification or the authorisation by the Minister for Education of the modification of the finding or
(iii) proposing the deferment of a final decision on the report until the Budget for the next following financial year is being framed.
I want to emphasise here that the procedures set down in the conciliation and arbitration scheme have been agreed between the parties to the scheme — the teacher unions, the managerial authorities and the Minister. The terms of the scheme provide for an arbitration board who make a recommendation on a claim referred to them and also for the submission of such recommendation to the Government. If the Government wish to reject or modify the recommendations, the procedure requires that the matter be referred to Dáil Éireann.
Accordingly, in introducing this motion, which proposes that the findings in Report No. 14 of the teachers' arbitration board the implemented subject to modification, the Government are adhering strictly to the agreed procedures laid down in the conciliation and arbitration scheme for teachers.
I have given this detailed account of the conciliation and arbitration scheme because many people, indeed many teachers, seem to be under a misapprehension regarding the Government's responsibilities and freedom to act within the terms of the scheme. The claim is often made that by proposing a modification in the arbitrator's award the Government are in breach of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. This is not so. I remind the House again of what it says in paragraph 2 of the scheme, that its existence "does not imply that the Government have surrendered or can surrender their liberty of action in the exercise of their constitutional authority and the discharge of their responsibilities in the public interest". This is part of the scheme, agreed to by the teachers. Can we clearly lay to rest, therefore, any claim that the Government are in breach of the scheme by bringing this motion to the House today?
The Government recognise the importance of free collective bargaining between workers and employers as part of our industrial relations process. A product of the process of free collective bargaining in relation to teachers' pay is the conciliation and arbitration scheme.
The claim which is the subject of the findings in Report No. 14 of the teachers' arbitration board was submitted to the conciliation council for teachers and was formally presented at the council in December 1982. The claim was for an increase in the salary and allowances of teachers in all types of schools "based on pay awards in both the civil and public service since 1 September 1980". Disagreement on the claim between the teachers unions and the official side was recorded at a meeting of the council on 12 December 1983.
The unions let the matter rest until 30 January 1985, when a statement of case for arbitration was submitted by them. This is an important point to note, because teachers have come to me, and perhaps to others, to complain about the length of the procedure; in fact, their unions did not take any steps for over a year to press their claim. I stress this, not to criticise but to clarify a point which seems to have worried some people. The claim was referred to the teachers' arbitration board and was heard by the board on 27 June 1985.
I received the report of the arbitration board on the claim on 5 November 1985. The chairman of the board in his findings stated as follows:
It is recommended that there be an increase of 10 per cent in the salary and allowances of all the claimants, such increase to take effect as to 50 per cent thereof as and from 1st September 1985 and as to the balance as and from 1st March 1986.
I submitted the report of the arbitration board to the Government, and the findings were carefully considered by the Government. It was, of course, essential that the Government in their consideration of the findings should take account of the financial constraints on the Exchequer. It is estimated that the implementation of the award recommended by the board would have cost £10 million in respect of 1985, would cost £55 million in respect of 1986 and £60 million in each year thereafter.
As we all know only too well, there is an extremely difficult economic and financial situation facing the country in 1986 and it is against that background that the arbitration findings and other public service pay issues have to be considered. I need hardly remind the House of the nature of our economic problems. Our major objective must be to stimulate the economy in a way which will provide employment for our people. Our young population, of which we are all so proud, rightly expect to see us direct our energies and resources towards creating a climate conductive to job creation. This is what this year's budget is all about. We have an impressive record to date of new jobs being created but we need to improve on this to keep pace with the increasing numbers seeking work.
If as a country we are to be serious about our commitment to job creation we have to look to the following major economic areas — taxation policy, control of expenditure, good financial management to reduce State borrowing and prudent investment. A key factor in relation to these areas is the size of the public sector to pay bill. Can we claim to be honest in caring for the unemployed unless those in secure jobs are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of those who long to work?
All employers must judge their capacity to meet increased pay costs having full regard to the other commitments to be met in ensuring overall financial stability and viability. This is just as true for the Government as paymaster as it is for the decision makers in the world of industry or commerce. Indeed, the responsibility on Governments is all the greater since it is the people's money they are managing.
The published Estimates for 1986 include a provision for Exchequer pay and pensions of £2,600 million. Adjustments in the budget to the published allocations incorporate reductions of £18 million in the pay area. However, the recently negotiated 25th round pay package, if it were applied to all groups in the Exchequer pay bill, together with the cost of phasing in of certain special adjudication findings, including the teachers' finding if paid from the dates specified in this motion, would add £68 million. Certain concessions in relation to public service pensions and ex gratia public service widows' pension will cost £2 million more. On this basis the pay and pensions bill for the whole public service in 1986 will come to £2,652 million. This represents an increase of 6.8 per cent over the provisional outturn for 1985.
In the context of the present debate concerning teachers, it would be well to draw attention to a provision in the present Proposals for a Pay Agreement which would be of particular benefit to teachers retiring on pension in the next couple of years. I refer to the provision under which retirement lump sums would be calculated by reference to the amounts and the effective dates recommended for the pay increase in the arbitration findings. Teachers retiring on pension would get the benefit of that provision notwithstanding the effect on pay of the motion now before the House. It would mean that for teachers retiring during the period 1 September 1985-28 February 1986, the lump sums would be based on existing pay increased by 5 per cent and for those retiring after 1 March 1986 the 10 per cent increase would apply in the lump sums. About 400 teachers retire annually.
The House will recall the difficulties encountered last autumn in arriving at a situation where the unions would find themselves able to respond to the Government's invitation to talk about the payment of a 25th pay round and related issues, such as the arbitration award.
We had a very interesting and useful debate in the Seanad on this issue. I spoke very briefly — and I hope to the point — in that debate. My purpose was to urge on all concerned that the most important requirement at that time was that everything possible should be done to facilitate a resolution of the difficulties encountered by the teachers' unions. I expressed the belief that my views accorded with the feeling on both sides of the House. I suggested that a resolution of the issues would be in the interest of the teacher unions, of the teachers, of everyone with the interests of education at heart.
I am happy to say that there was a general welcome for my remarks and for my announcement that talks had been arranged between the Minister for the Public Service and myself on the one hand and the teacher unions on the other. There followed a series of four meetings commencing on 2 January 1986 and ending on 15 January. I am happy to say that the negotiations were conducted throughout in a spirit of constructive courtesy, that they reflected an understanding of the respective positions of both sides and that they were characterised throughout by the highest standard of decorum and goodwill. Regrettably, and no one can regret this fact more than myself, the negotiations did not produce an agreement. It proved impossible for the teachers' side to accept that they should forego retrospective payment of their 10 per cent award to the dates recommended by the arbitrator. For our part, the Minister for the Public Service and I could not meet the teachers' demands.
We strove with might and main to persuade the teachers' unions to recognise the Government's point of view and to accept that the circumstances of the country and in particular the financial state of the Exchequer left the Government with no option, if they were to discharge their responsibilities to the community at large and to the tax-paying public in particular, but to offer the 10 per cent without the payment of back money. No one could regret more than I that we did not succeed.