I am sharing my time with Deputy Calleary who will have ten minutes. On a point of order I should like to know if the Minister for Education is coming to the House for the debate?
Private Members' Business. - Teachers' Pay Dispute: Motion.
That is not the business of the Chair.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann, in view of the deep and widespread anxiety of parents and pupils in regard to the holding of the school examinations this year, calls on the Government to arrange for the immediate appointment of an independent mediator in the dispute with the teachers.
Several amendments have been put down to the motion which is in the name of our Chief Whip. Before I address myself to the motion I should like to refer briefly to the announcement that the Taoiseach is to address the nation tonight on the teacher's issue. I, and the many people who have contacted me, find it unseemly and quite discourteous to the House — to be bolder I would call it an affront to democracy — for the Taoiseach to see fit to go on television to give us his point of view when a debate on the issue is in progress here and a vote has to be taken. I realise that under an Act the Taoiseach is entitled to make a ministerial broadcast at any time he wishes but I question his decision to do so while a debate which is important for the future of the House and the country is taking place.
In moving the motion I should like to refer to some of the matters I mentioned in the course of the debate on 4 February. The idea that the teachers in seeking the award made by the arbitrator are profligate is the first matter that must be settled. The process that led to this award being made started in 1982. The arbitrator announced his award last autumn and it was a compromise in that the original claim was for 22 per cent. The award amounted to an increase of 10 per cent to be paid in two stages, the first in September and the second in March. There was a further compromise in that the teachers agreed to a further compromise. In effect, what we are discussing is a further compromise. Last week the Minister said in the House that there was no need for a mediator in this dispute because there was no confusion. However, there is confusion over the monetary implications of the agreement. When any member of the Government deals with the amount involved he or she gives a figure of 17½ per cent as if that was the amount that had to be paid out immediately. I should like to make it clear, because the Government are confusing the issue, that the arbitration award was 10 per cent and the other 7½ per cent is the amount offered to all public servants, payable in two stages. It has never been envisaged that the 17½ per cent would be paid out in one lump sum.
I am satisfied that great room for flexibility exists in the staged or phased implementation of retrospection. That is one of the issues that a mediator could deal with. It is an issue about which the Minister said there was no confusion but in my mind confusion exists in the minds of the public. Mediation has been called for by almost everybody in the country. I am delighted to be able to say that we find ourselves in tune with most of the people concerned with education, the three teacher unions, the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, the Conference of Catholic Secondary Schools, the Joint Managerial Body for Secondary Schools, VEC committees — including our VEC last night — the National Parents Council, the Conference of Catholic Secondary School Parent Organisations, the Christian Brothers Parent Federation, the Episcopal Commission, the Irish Council of Churches, Cardinal Ó Fiaich, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the Religious Society of Friends. Those groups in one way or another in the last four weeks viewed with alarm and disquiet the tension which is creeping into the ordered tenor of education. They decided quite freely to add their voice to the call for mediation. It is worth nothing that representatives of all the Churches were met by the Taoiseach in recent days and had extensive talks on the holding of a referendum on the issue of divorce. I do not object to the Taoiseach having such meetings but it is odd that he could spare such energy and enthusiasm to meet people who are calling on the Government to agree to mediation. The Taoiseach cannot see his way to spare one minute in his busy and fussy schedule to meet any of the parties anxious to talk about mediation.
There is nothing strange about mediation in the resolution of disputes. If one looks back through history one will see that from primitive times, through wars and so on, consideration was given to the appointment of a mediator, a person who would view a problem dispassionately taking account of the causes of a dispute and, in his or her wisdom, putting forward a suggestion to solve the problem. Many disputes were settled in this way but on this issue the Government are determined to adopt a "no surrender" line. We hear a lot about no surrender daily and great exhibitions of strength. They have led to an escalation of all types of unrest and tension. It ill behoves the Taoiseach, who has made such a case for himself of being a democrat and one concerned to adopt the consensus view on all issues, to adopt this attitude. This dispute is affecting parents and pupils throughout the country. They are anxiously awaiting the outcome of this debate. It is irresponsible of the Government to continue with their entrenched view of no talks, no mediation and no surrender.
In the House last week the Minister for Education saw fit to upbraid Deputy De Rossa and myself for not calling on the teachers to cease their action and get on with the work involved in the examinations. I thought it an odd remark for the Minister to make. He and I shared a common forum yesterday in our constituency, when there were a great number of teachers in the audience. The Minister did not see fit to make the same plea to them. He referred to the issue but he did not ask them then to become involved in the examinations. If the green light is given for mediation in this Chamber tomorrow evening, when the vote is taken, then I ask the teachers to suspend any action they had proposed. In the light of that green light for mediation they should enter into talks freely without preconditions. If the talks are approached in that spirit I am sure there will be a strong willingness on the part of teachers to respond.
It is too simplistic for the Minister to contend that they want all of the compromises in their favour while the teachers contend that the Government keep saying no to talks, no to mediation, no to a settlement of any kind. Lest it be thought that I make this plea with scant knowledge I should say that I have a very strong, personal interest in the proper holding of the leaving certificate examination and the validation of its results this year. Therefore, I speak from the heart. I fear and feel for young people who should be pursuing their studies at present with a free, untroubled mind. I hear their conversations, at weekends in my home and all around me. The tenor of their remarks is to the effect: "Oh, well, it will not matter this time". The results will not matter if they are not corrected by practising teachers of the examination subjects. The intermediate and leaving certificates since their inception in 1926 and the group certificate since its inception have all assumed great validity because the papers have been seen to be corrected to proper equitable standards of assessment. It has been my experience that correction of a leaving certificate paper, at pass or honours level, must be carried out by practising teachers of the examination subjects. There will always be exceptions but, in the main, such correction should be carried out by practising teachers, and by that I mean teachers who had charted and followed the course of teaching, teachers with extensive knowledge of history. French, science, or whatever is the subject under examination. They would know how the paper had been tackled by the students and equally how they should go about correcting them. When I read reports in the Sunday papers of some people who were offering themselves as examiners, one particular gentleman in Limerick, I felt I would not like my son to subject himself to that type of supervision or correction. It is difficult to understand the intransigence of the Government on this issue.
To revert to the subject of mediation, there are any number of people who would willingly put themselves forward. Some have already been mentioned. I am sure there are many others, people who would willingly take on themselves the mantle of mediator in this dispute. I have thought of the Employer/Labour Conference. I know that because of a clause in the conciliation and arbitration scheme the teachers themselves would be precluded, but why have the Employer/Labour Conference not been utilised to bring about a resolution of this dispute? Neither I nor my party accepts that some formula cannot be devised by a third party to overcome this impasse. It has been done in other disputes heretofore. It should be remembered that all disputes must end.
When I spoke in this House in February last I warned the then Minister for Education that educational chaos would be rife in the months ahead. It gives me no joy to stand here this evening and say that I told them so. I do not want it interpreted in that spirit. When I said then that educational chaos would ensue I knew quite clearly what would be the effects of the motion put down by the then Minister for Education. Those effects have culminated in the situation now obtaining. If we do not employ a mediator the alternative is serious industrial disruption in primary and post-primary schools this term with whole areas of the country without any educational facilities. Lurking in the background will be the holding of the examinations and their results. A mediator or a forum such as that I have suggested, or any other, could provide the key to the resolution of the dispute. The teachers have been saying they are willing to be flexible, they are willing to phase out the payments but that there is nobody willing to implement those wishes. That is where a mediator would be useful.
I did not mention the teachers' unions so far. They have been willing to have mediation. It is interesting that the various unions, the trades councils and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have all supported the involvement of a mediator. All of these national bodies, organisations and Churches represent a substantial proportion of our people. We hear so many tales out of school, leaks, it is difficult to separate the truth from the many rumours. In that respect I found the intervention of the former Minister in the dispute bizarre, when she spoke on radio on Tuesday morning last saying that there were issues still to be clarified and that she wished to do so. In the recent reshuffle of the Cabinet there were people like Deputy Noonan (Limerick East) moved from the contentious area of Justice with a new Minister taking his place, Deputy Dukes. Yet we have not heard Deputy Noonan give Frankie Byrne-like advice to the new incumbent, saying for example “This is how I would have handled the Glenholmes fiasco”. He kept his counsel to himself. The same applies to the former and present Ministers for Finance. As we know, the Finance Bill has been changed completely since the budget. Yet there was no advice offered retrospectively by the former Minister for Finance. In this sphere of education the former Minister's intervention constituted a very busybody type interference when she told the nation that there were issues still to be clarified and that she wished to set the record straight on those issues. All that did was to set aflame again all of the old tensions and passions which had arisen through her mishandling of the issues as far back as August last. It throws an odd light on the whole of this debate and colours how some of us see the matter being discussed and handled at present by the Cabinet. I cannot believe that a Cabinet, Government or party could view with dispassionate interest the wishes of so many people for a resolution to this dispute. Since it became known that there was to be a debate in Private Members' time here this evening and tomorrow evening, intense speculation has arisen. Probably that highlights the work of Parliament, motions put down by the governing parties or any Member of the Opposition parties. It means that people follow the work of Parliament, listening with interest and awaiting results.
Education touches everybody, not just parents like myself with students taking examinations this year. All of us know of somebody, in our family, among neighbours or friends, people with sons or daughters undergoing State examinations this year, all of whom are concerned. I do not want preaching. Everybody shares my anxiety, on all sides of the House and throughout the country. All of us are interested in education. We share a common feeling for young people and what they are facing. Though the Minister on many occasions has sought to soothe the minds of our young people by telling them that the examinations will be held correctly, his amendment states:
...the Minister for Education has been and continues to be available for talks with all interested parties, calls in the meantime on the teacher unions and all other relevant parties to facilitate the holding of examinations as their importance transcends all other issues.
The importance of the examinations transcends all other issues in this land. We are anxious about what is happening outside the country but the proper holding and the validation of the examinations have every one of us in their tentacles and therefore every one of us is seeking a resolution of the dispute.
That is why we are all keen to see mediation. I expect that when the Minister will speak here and when the Taoiseach will speak on television and radio, they will tell us quite simply that the Government do not intend to put themselves in hostage to any grouping, that they do not have the finance to pay increases to any sectional interest above another. To allay the profligacy which will be attributed to us, I would point out that in the past two and a half years sudden issues arose for which immediate finance was found. I can think of ICI for which £170 million to £200 million was found. We had Dublin Gas. We read a statement by the former Minister, Deputy Cluskey, and the advice he gave to the Cabinet. We heard about fighting in the Cabinet. I speak of facts because we had a statement by a Member of the House. If his advice had been taken some years ago, at least £100 million would have been saved. We had a solution to the PMPA problem. All these issues meant enormous sums of money and they had to be and were found suddenly.
Here we are talking about a small amount by comparison with the enormous sums the Government have had to find in the past two and a half years. At the time, we on this side gave our views on and our agreement to those payments because of possible disquiet in the country, but we did it with our traditional caution.
This issue goes back three years but its roots go back further. The Government cannot talk about this relatively small amount of money except in that context. Both the Minister here and the Taoiseach later will talk about £110 million over three years. Do they not realise that at least half of that will go back into the State coffers by way of income tax, VAT, PRSI, and that the other half will be spent throughout the country, in every village, townland, city and town? It will go back into the economy in mortgage repayments, furnishings, the buying of groceries and so forth. The money will go round and round the economy, this time not only in Dublin. It will be spent in a decentralised fashion by men and women who have given their working lives to the education of children. Let us not put any gloss on it: we are talking about whether we are willing to give the value to our education system which we have always done.
The legacy of this dispute will not go away. There can be no winners and no losers. I am looking for fair play for teachers, parents, but above all for the children. I appeal to the teachers to let that be their outlook, and I appeal to all the groupings in education and to all political parties to appreciate that there cannot be winners or losers. I am talking, for instance, about my son and about all other sons and daughters in the country who will soon be crossing the threshold into manhood and womanhood, whether they go into jobs in supermarkets or to AnCO. They will need their script to show they got their maths, their English, their Gaeilge and so forth, and they will need the authority of that script to show that they got those exams correctly.
I appeal to the Government, and the Taoiseach in particular, to pull back from this. The slogan "No Surrender" has no place in the Dáil or on the national airwaves. I thank the House for listening so attentively to me. I hope that when Deputies go to vote they will do so in the realisation that the motion was put forward without aggression but with the active intention of solving this dispute. Many thousands of people throughout the country have expressed agreement that the way to solve the dispute is through mediation. I call on the Government to accept the motion.
In supporting the motion:
That Dáil Éireann, in view of the deep and widespread anxiety of parents and pupils in regard to the holding of the school examinations this year, calls on the Government to arrange for the immediate appointment of an independent mediator in the dispute with the teachers.
I ask if it is not an extraordinary thing that though the future of many thousands is in jeopardy, the Government are in a state of apparent paralysis and have not made any serious effort to settle this dispute. At present, with the leaving certificate imminent, students are under enormous stress. I also have a son who is undergoing this stress. These students are at the culmination of 12 or 13 years of study. What then must be their feelings, their anxieties and tensions? What must be their frustration at the pathetic mumblings and insensitivity of a Government unable and apparently unwilling to extend to the teacher unions even a gesture showing that there can be positive negotiations in an effort to settle this problem? The frustration of very many pupils was ably demonstrated in the Shannon Comprehensive school and in Ennis. That will be the case throughout many areas if this dispute is not soon settled. The pupils of these schools walked out of their classes and took to the streets at a time when they should have been studying, to demonstrate their total dissatisfaction with the present situation.
The repercussions of this dispute on the long-accepted principles of conciliation and arbitration will be far reaching. They are not for discussion under the terms of this motion, but the suspicion and the climate which has been created by the rejection of the arbitrator's decision will influence the thinking and confidence of very many civil and public service unions in regard to the whole machinery of conciliation and arbitration. I reiterate that it was not the teachers who sought the 10 per cent increase, it was granted to them after a hearing before an arbitrator, after the State had had the opportunity of putting its full case and also the teachers' unions. Like Deputy O'Rourke, I am quite sure from my contacts with very many teachers and teacher unions that they would respond in a very positive manner to a gesture, just that, of friendship and conciliation from the Government. Sadly, it appears from what we read and hear that the opposite is the case.
I should like to refer, as Deputy O'Rourke has done, to what I consider to be a most untimely and unwelcome intervention of the Minister for Social Welfare recently, with a suggestion that there may have been some shift in Government thinking. I see that as confirmation of the determination of the majority of the Government to use public opinion, in the form of the media and the understandable anxiety and fear of parents and students, to beat the teacher unions, regardless of the damage that this course of action could have, not only on the present leaving certificate students but all students and countless others, and on the goodwill and co-operation needed between teachers and any future Government.
Do the Government in their arrogant approach really want this dispute to continue into the next school year? Another example of the conduct of the Government in this dispute is the inordinate haste with which they rejected out of hand an earlier suggestion of mediation, made by very many independent people. Deputy O'Rourke listed the organisations which made that plea. One wonders if this is a case of everybody being out of step except the Government. Yet another example of the Government's approach to this dispute, only surpassed by the former Minister for Education's infamous "morality" speech — which in my view was the principal reason for the present conflict — was the suggestion of an unnamed Government spokesman that teachers might not be paid during the summer. Is that the way to negotiate a settlement? Is that the way to encourage teachers to return to the negotiation table? The Minister for Labour on 6 February in the debate on teachers' pay, at column 2019 of the Official Report said:
Tragically,
——this was his word, not mine, but it is very apt——
for the teachers and, perhaps, for the children, we are having this debate today because negotiations did not continue on the issues with the teachers, the unions and the relevant Ministers.
Further, he said — and this comes back to a point which I am sure we will hear from the Minister and the Taoiseach tonight —"It is nothing but the ability of the nation to pay". Unfortunately, the Minister for Labour's reference to the pupils and children was sadly understated. If this dispute is not settled, they will be the real losers. Deputy O'Rourke rightly said that there will be no winners. If the Government accept this motion, the children who are doing the examinations will be the real and only winners. The expression of concern from the Government will ring hollow in the ears of those doing examinations if they do not accept this motion.
The Government amendment offers nothing new and cannot be seen as giving any hope of a new initiative or of reaching any kind of settlement. It requires just a little gesture to enable a start to be made on renegotiation. I ask the Minister tonight to make that gesture. I accept that it will require courage, but the consequences for very many young people could be catastrophic if that gesture is not made. Like all disputes, there will eventually be a settlement; but it behoves the Government, as the employer on the one hand and the custodian and guardian of the rights of the pupils and children on the other hand, to make the opening approach. In a dispute of this nature, when those who stand to lose most cannot influence in any way the outcome, it is the Government's duty to end its obstinate and intransigent stance and, in order to protect the pupils involved, again to start negotiations. I beg the Government to take the first step, to accept this motion and appoint a mediator who will be independent and to relieve the anxiety of the thousands of young people who are looking for some break in the dispute which threatens their teacher. I recommend the motion to the House and to the Government.
The Minister of State, Deputy Kenny, has 30 minutes.
I move amendment al:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"having regard to the resolution passed by this House on 6th February, 1986 as an integral part of the procedures under the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme for Teachers and which provided for the phased payment of the Aribtrators recommendation of 10 per cent increase and noting in addition the offer of the terms of the 25th round totalling in all an increase of 17.9 per cent and having regard to the fact that the Minister for Education has been and continues to be available for talks with all interested parties, calls in the meantime on the teacher unions and all other relevant parties to facilitate the holding of examinations as their importance transcends all other issues."
This dispute has been going on for some time and has been the cause of much public comment and much media reference. I want to make a few reterences to what Deputy O'Rourke said in her opening speech. With regard to confusion about the amount involved, the issue is quite clear. The 7.5 per cent is payable under the 25th round and the special award is 10 per cent. It is true that there is general confusion in the minds of the public, not only among parents but among teachers, students and in some cases among politicians. There is a general air of confusion about the specific facts involved in this matter. One could say that the Government in their deliberations may not have spelled out these facts sufficiently clearly and in that context it is the right of the Taoiseach to address the people of the country with regard to these facts. Deputy O'Rourke questions his authority in this regard and his right to do so while the debate is actually in progress. She refers to his meeting with members of the Churches during the past few weeks. It is also true that the Taoiseach of the day appoints and vests with the necessary authority a Cabinet, democratically elected, with responsibility for various Departments.
The Minister for Education has repeatedly called for talks with the teacher unions, even as recently as last week on an Adjournment debate. He has said that he is available at any time for discussions with the interested parties. I would hope that a level of common sense would enter this debate and that this offer would be taken up. There is no need at this time for the Taoiseach to meet the teacher unions while his appointed Minister for Education has an open offer before the parties concerned. Deputy O'Rourke has referred to the teachers being willing to come forward and I would hope that the unions concerned would now be willing to come forward to discuss these important matters. The call by the Minister last week is an open invitation to discussions to sort out the difficulties in this area.
Deputy O'Rourke speaks of the worth and value of education. In my short time with responsibility as Minister of State in the area of education, I, too, question whether teachers can give of their best in the present circumstances. I have had the privilege and the experience of having already travelled to many of the 26 counties. Having a responsibility in every parish in the country, I am only too well aware to the difficulties and the complexities under which teachers have to operate and conduct their business. Many of our schools are not up to standard and many teachers who are absolutely committed and properly motivated in the true education sense are labouring in very poor buildings, dating in some cases from the last century. The Department and the Government have a responsibility in this area too but much money is involved. The sum of £100 million would go a long way towards sorting out our school building difficulties in that sense. I think it was Edwin Mason who once said that if education is to be the momentum of society it must allow people to give what they have. The teaching staff are unable to give what they have when they have to work in substandard accommodation. While the Department, with the best will in the world, are trying to rectify these serious situations, there are always cases where facilities are inadequate and do not allow teachers to give of their best.
There have been no calls of "no surrender" but there should be calls to commonsense. The detrimental effects of the teachers' dispute are varied but run very deep. If the public perception is true, then quite a deal of confusion exists about it. It is easy to point out the obvious consequences of what can happen in the event of the examinations not taking place or being perceived to be taking place, conducted by people who have not normally done such work over the years. If the examinations are to be held without the teachers, an obvious consequence is that there will be an embittered teaching body. There is a political element contained in that and there will be an escalated and prolonged industrial action resulting. We will suffer the effects of permanent teacher hostility and alienation. That will lead to stagnation and the stunting of the educational system. When one follows that road one eventually aggravates the civic, religious, social and economic problems of the country. If teachers are embittered, there tends to be an end to voluntary service in schools and there is no teacher co-operation either in the general running of the service or with further curricular development. This is a very serious matter to be considered by teachers, by Government, by parents and by students.
If the examinations are held and the public perceive them as being held in a manner not fitting, conducted by those who might not have conducted them in the past but who would have an ability to do so, these examinations may be held in the face of disruption. Calls about the devaluation of these exams will be rife. While the Department can claim that the correction of the examinations and the results will be as heretofore, calls to the contrary will be very evident. This may seem to be a loss of face for any Government and one may perceive it as a loss of authority. The effects of examinations not being held are manifold. It will end up with disrespect for teachers, a deterioration in school discipline, cynicism and disrespect for the Government. The young student population will be open to an intensification of subversive or revolutionary activities, attitudes and inclinations. This is a matter of which we must take great cognisance and show understanding.
The Minister was quite right when he made the announcement with regard to the preparation of contingency plans for the holding of examinations. He was not aware of the position of the teacher unions with regard to the examinations and where the student actually stood. Being in a dilemma in not having the matter fully clarified, contingency plans have had to be arranged so that the students will have to be allowed cross the threshold of the education world, enter into the normal complexities of life and build for themselves, as is their entitlement, an individual livelihood. Emerging out of that and having regard to the potential detrimental defects in that context, it is important to recall some of the facts of this dispute.
The resolution that was put before the House on 6 February followed a detailed and full debate. The effect of the passing of that resolution was to implement the findings of report No. 14 of the Teachers Arbitration Board, so that the pay of teachers would be increased by 10 per cent subject to a modification of the recommendation on the phasing in of the increase. The modification provided for the 10 per cent increase to be paid in three phases — one-third from 1 December 1986, a further one-third from 1 December 1987 and the balance to be paid from 1 July 1988. In arriving at their proposals in regard to the arbitration findings, the Government obviously had to give careful consideration to the relevant facts which included the arbitration award, the various provisions of the proposals for a pay agreement that had been offered to unions representing public servants, proposals, which provided, first, for a twenty fifth round general pay increase in three phases, 3 per cent from 1 May, 1986, 2 per cent from 1 January 1987 and 2 per cent from 1 May 1987; second, for a phased implementation of special increases; and, third, for certain concessions on pensions and retirement gratuities or lump sums. The cost factor had to be taken into account, particularly the fact that the implementation of the increase to the teachers on the phasing basis recommended by the arbitration board, that is, half the increase from September 1985 and the second half from 1 March, 1986, would cost the Exchequer £110 million in excess of what was proposed by the Government, the amount to be spread over the full period.
In modifying the arbitration finding, the Government, with the approval of this House acted strictly in accordance with their terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme for teachers. In my meetings with teacher executives around the country and with individual members of the profession, I have found a good deal of confusion about the conciliation and arbitration scheme. That scheme sets out that in relation to a report from the chairman of the board, the Government would adopt one of the following courses: first, that within three months of the date of the receipt of the report by the Ministers, the Government would signify that they proposed to give immediate effect in full to the findings of the board or that at the expiration of three months from the date of the receipt of the report, a motion would be introduced in Dáil Éireann which would, propose the rejection of the finding or propose the authorisation by the Minister for Education of the modification of the finding or propose the deferment of a final decision on the report until the budget for the following financial year had been framed. The procedures set out in the conciliation and arbitration scheme have been agreed for some time by the parties to the scheme, namely, the teachers; unions, the managerial authorities and the Ministers for Education and the Public Service. These terms provide for the arbitration board to make a recommendation on a claim referred to them and also for the submission of such recommendation to Government. If the Government wish to reject or modify the recommendation the procedures require that the matter be referred to Dáil Éireann as happened in this instance.
It is not a valid argument against the action taken by the Government to assume that the findings of the teachers' arbitration board would be honoured always by any Government. If there is a provision in an agreed conciliation and arbitration scheme either for rejection or modification of arbitration findings by Government, it is obvious that a situation could arise in which a Government might find themselves unable to accept the arbitration findings. This is an accepted fact by the unions to the conciliation and arbitration scheme and is an integral part of that scheme. Such a situation has arisen in the present case. While we are all concerned that there should be a dispute between the teachers and the authority of this House, the Government are prepared to accept the recommendation of the board that there be a 10 per cent increase in teachers' pay but because of the very substantial cost involved they decided it was not possible, in the light of present difficult recessionary and financial circumstances, to implement the award from the dates recommended. The cost involved has been referred to in this debate and before now. The best estimate available to the Government is that in the full period the recommendation would cost £110 million. There is no prospect of finding such extra money. I have said already that if such an amount were available in the Department much valuable and necessary work could be undertaken in the area of school buildings. That is not strictly relevant to the award by the arbitrator but it is an important consideration in allowing teachers to do the valuable job for which they have been trained and to fulfil their vocation properly. I have not heard any suggestion from the people opposite as to where such money could be found. Deputy O'Rourke referred to the ICI and various other matters but she did not refer to the commitment given in the House some time ago by one of her own spokespersons in regard to Irish Shipping.
The framing of the 1986 budget involved the Government in determining that it was absolutely necessary to give every penny possible to the two important areas of tax relief for the complete workforce and protection for those who depend on social welfare payments. In arriving at the figures for public service pay this year and anticipating the knock-on effects in subsequent years of those increases, the Government designed a package in line with the upper limit possible in this respect while allowing some leeway in the matter of easing the burden of the taxpayer. All of us would like to be able to come here and offer greater tax concessions but in all the circumstances the Government considered they had gone as far as possible in this year.
In addition to the £70 million extra needed to meet the terms of the package for 1986, about £150 million will be needed in 1987. To increase that figure by £110 million in that period would restrict severely any further help that might be given to the taxpayer and would damage the economy and the prospects of reducing unemployment, a factor that is central to the development of the nation. The amount needed to pay full retrospection to the teachers is almost exactly the same as the amount granted by way of tax reliefs in the 1986 budget. Alternatively, the amount needed to meet the full cost of retrospection would be equivalent to postponing the abolition for about 18 months of the 1 per cent income levy for all taxpayers. We are all aware of the necessity to reduce the burden of taxation. Experts, individuals and various groups have commented on this need down through the years but the more money given by way of pay increases in the public sector, the less there will be available to reduce the tax burden.
The Government having determined the upper limit in the case in question brought the modification proposals before the House. Such action is an integral part of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Payment in full of the money recommended could involve, for instance, an adjustment in social welfare expenditure. It could be necessary to postpone for a year or more the increases proposed in this year's budget for pensioners, the unemployed and all other social welfare recipients. That would involve another hue and cry. If the £110 million were not to be raised by way of increased taxes, it would have to be found by cutting expenditure or by increasing borrowing. In reality, cutting expenditure means taking very difficult decisions. It could involve reducing social welfare allowances, cutting back on social services in the areas of health, education or the environment. It could involve the employment of fewer teachers, gardaí and nurses. We have enough teachers and nurses walking around the streets, people who are highly trained and well motivated but who are not in full time employment. Nobody would be in favour of cutting back on unemployment benefit or assistance. Expenditure on social services includes the transfer of resources to those in greatest need and obviously these include the elderly, the sick and the disabled. It would not be desirable to cut back in the areas of education, health or security.
The offer made to teachers right across the country has been referred to on many occasions. The public perception of teachers is again somewhat confused. The total increases payable up to mid-1988 under the terms of the draft proposals for the pay agreement would amount to 17.9 per cent. That takes into account the 7.5 per cent and the 10 per cent already referred to in respect of the arbitration scheme. This is a substantial offer by any standards. In the present circumstances with falling inflation rates it would have to be regarded as being generous.
To give some examples of what this would mean, the starting pay of a teacher with a three year training course and a pass primary degree would range from £8,940 to £10,539, an increase of £1,599 over the three years. A teacher on the maximum of the scale with a pass primary degree without a post of responsibility would range from £15,913 to £18,758, an increase of £2,845. These figures would of course be further increased by any general increases which might be negotiated following the expiry of the proposed pay agreement. I would like to stress that teachers are not being discriminated against vis-à-vis other public service unions. A similar offer as that made to teachers has been made to unions representing other public servants. Some of these groups have arbitration findings which would be treated in exactly the same way as the teachers arbitration finding. We are all aware that one of the Civil Service unions has already voted to accept the pay proposals and two other such unions are ballotting their members at present. I expect and hope that the other public service unions will shortly ballot their members on these proposals also.
With regard to the intermediate and leaving certificate examinations, I was disappointed and surprised that the leadership of the teachers unions should attempt to use the examinations as a weapon in their dispute with the Government. The public statements made by way of the teacher bodies differ somewhat from their private comments. It is fair to say that everybody would like to see this dispute ended. The seriousness of the holding of the examinations is evident on the faces of the students of the nation. These young boys and girls, who have been taught by the teachers presently in dispute with the authority of this House, have a high degree of motivation with regard to the taking of their examinations and feel in all justice that they are entitled to sit these examinations.
It is important to remember that work in connection with examinations does not fall within the terms of the contract of teachers. This work is done purely on a voluntary basis. It is carried out by a minority of teachers each year. There are criteria laid down for the selection of teachers who participate in this important work. It is fair to say that teachers value their remuneration from correction and from the supervision of the examinations. Over the years, it has been an accepted fact that teachers who participate in the examination process can do so to ensure the smooth running and the proper correction of the examinations from year to year.
It cannot be done without.
It is not compulsory, nor is it part of their contract.
I was disappointed by the vehemence of the teachers' unions with regard to the holding of examinations. It is absolutely essential that the examinations go ahead. In the light of the Minister not being clear as to where the unions stood in this regard, contingency plans for the holding of examinations had to take place. I would appeal at this stage, as Deputy O'Rourke has appealed in another sense, that commonsense would now prevail in this debate and that the teacher executive unions would take up the call issued by the Minister and reiterated by him last week to come and talk about this important and fundamental matter. I had hoped that the examination would take place free of dispute and I have appealed for this on several occasions. The Minister referred to the analogy of power strikes where essential services are always allowed to go ahead. In that context I know that many teachers view the examinations as being of paramount importance to the development of the students. They feel, while they have an allegience to the unions, that the examinations should go ahead.
Dublin North West): I wish to remind the Minister that he has three minutes left.
The possibility of the examination boycott has been evident for some time and that is why the contingency plans have taken place. The teacher unions have issued a statement this evening which alludes to the cessation of industrial action for the first time in this dispute. I have no doubt that this would be given very careful consideration by the Government. It is important to remember that the public perception of this dispute is that the Government have taken up a solid position. Everybody knows where they stand. They are clear in their position, unlike the Opposition who have made very general statements about it. We also know what the bottom line with regard to the teachers unions' comments are. In the interest of everybody concerned and of the country as a whole the Minister has opened the door by way of his invitation at all times to the bodies to come along and talk to him about it. If the ballots are to go ahead with regard to strike action by the teachers it might be important that they would first of all answer the Minister's call to come along and talk about it. If they were to do that the results of the ballots might be frozen and held unopened by somebody such as the Electoral Reform Society. The teachers' unions could accept that the process of the last arbitration claim has been completed. It would be possible in these talks to get the immediate 7.5 per cent under the 25th pay agreement through. They could accept that the announced time scale for the payment of the rest of the last arbitration award is as expressed by the Government in the vote in this House. They could renew expressions of support for initiatives taken by the Minister in very fundamental areas of education. It is not for me to in any way prejudice the decisions to be taken by the Cabinet although I am sure they will give very serious consideration to the statement issued by the teachers' unions this evening.
Acting Chairman
I will have to ask the Minister to conclude. His time is up.
The Minister has agreed to the appointment of the chairman of the arbitration board. There are areas which could be looked at under a teaching review committee such as primary and post primary schools, the code of professional ethics of teachers and the accountability for first and second level schools. We all know of teachers who are very frustrated in their positions. This is a contributory cause of the dispute.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate our call to the teacher unions that they would accept the Minister's invitation to come and talk about the dispute and to have a commonsense approach to it. In the interest of the students I would ask the teachers to allow the examinations to go ahead without a mediator because the positions are quite clear on either side.
On a point of order, may I ask the Chair to facilitate this party and allow us to contribute to this debate?
Acting Chairman
I am guided by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who has told me that the next speaker to call is Deputy Jim Tunney. He will go on until 8.30 p.m.
What will the position be tomorrow evening?
Acting Chairman
The Deputy will have to take that up with the Ceann Comhairle tomorrow.
The Ceann Comhairle will not be here and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
Acting Chairman
I am calling Deputy Jim Tunney.
Ní raibh mé ag caint anseo ó ceapadh mé im' Ardmhéara ar an gcathair seo. Cé go raibh roinnt mhaith ábhar á bplé a bhí thar a bheith tábhachtach, ghlac mé nach mbeadh sé oiriúnach, b'fhéidir, agus mé im' Ardmhéara ar an gcathair go mbeinn ag tabhairt faoin Rialtas agus nach nglacfaí liom mar dhuine a bheadh sásta cothrom na féinne a thabhairt do chuile dhuine sa chathair.
I have come here this evening, as it were, out of retirement since I had the honour of being elected Lord Mayor of this city. I have noted from details given in some paper that I was in the top six of those who spoke here. Nobody said whether there was any special merit in what we said, but at least we were credited with having spoken. I avoided coming here because I interpreted the office of Lord Mayor as one where I could find myself in contention with Ministers of the Government in a fashion that would be unfair to the people of the city. That might seem a rather strange approach to my position as a Member of this House, but that was the decision I made. I avoided coming here to speak on matters connected with Dublin Gas, Irish Shipping or other matters which affected very much the people of this city.
I come here tonight because I know I am speaking on behalf of all the city and that includes all the public representatives whether they be from the Labour Party, The Workers' Party or Fine Gael, because I know they have already expressed their concern for the fact that now coming to the eve of the traditional examinations — group certificate, inter certificate and leaving certificate — there is such a state of chaos that it brings into every home a height of anxiety and concern which cannot be allowed to continue. I will avoid commenting on the contribution of the last speaker, the Minister of State. I will say in passing that I am happy to congratulate him on his appointment. I noted immediately that his characteristic and traditional freedoms would appear to have given way entirely to the requirement of the bureaucracy he now serves.
I am appalled to think that we here should be avoiding the situation. The Minister of State made a case on what the economists would call opportunity costs. We had all that debate before. What we are concerned with tonight is——
It is your motion.
——that we give the opportunity to the students in the traditional form to take part and compete in the examinations. The Minister of State knows as well as I do, and every other Minister knows, that over the years there has grown up a tradition, respect, and prestige in regard to education second to none in the world. We all accept that with equity and justice obtaining the system brings to the top those who deserve it.
I speak on behalf of all the people of Dublin. They will be very disappointed if we cannot discover a formula as a result of which the examinations can take place. The Minister of State kept referring back to the debate which took place last week. The debate tonight is about discovering a mechanism by which the examinations can take place in that traditional fashion. Thankfully in respect of Ireland there is an interest in education which is unparalleled. Our own parents were prepared to make sacrifices for us so that we could enjoy the benefits of education. I am not saying that it was education in the old traditional style of education for its own sake but they saw in it the means by which we could engage in employment in accordance with our own intelligence and application. In every house there is concern, a rather infectious concern that comes from the candidate, that on the eve of the examinations the candidate should have fair play.
Education is about students. It is not about the Minister, the Minister of State, or the Government. If we are sincere in our expressions of concern we must be concerned about the student. Is the Minister of State telling me from his experience that he is happy to leave the fortunes of our students in respect of the examinations in the hands of quacks, quack superintendents and quack examiners? In what other discipline would it be tolerated? That is what he is advocating tonight, albeit, he is giving a presentation of matters which are extraneous to it to try to deflect interest. He knows the checks and balances that obtain, I from one school supervise at another centre and he from another school does the same. Because of the experience we have with our students we can develop this eye in the back of our heads to detect the student who might be given to getting results not appropriate to his ability. That can be checked and we have the interest. The Minister of State is now proposing to take anybody and everybody in from the street whose only concern, as I would see it would be to get the 30 pieces of silver that that Department will give him for sitting in a certain place for a certain number of hours. Apart from the injustice that will be done to the student, he is going to injure the structure of education in a fashion that never has happened before.
(Interruptions.)
Could I have a little attention?
Acting Chairman
Deputy O'Malley please.
That is not progressive democracy at all.
How can we expect children who are pursuing education the real purpose of which is to help them to solve problems, to have any respect for us in the matter if we here tonight as legislators cannot solve the problem that stands between them and their engaging in examinations? The problem is not of the kind that has been articulated by the Minister of State. It is rather one of the Minister moving away from his stance of late. I notice the Minister of State mentioned it. The Minister is prepared to talk about "it". What is "it"?
Disputes.
The Minister is prepared to talk about "that" and to talk about "this". In no case did the Minister of State say that the Minister was concerned to talk with the representatives of the teaching organisations so that the examinations which are now imminent could be proceeded with in a fashion that will do justice to the candidate, the Department, the Minister and to all. I do not pretend that I have the monopoly of what happens in the area of examinations, but I can say that, as a teacher and headmaster, I am aware of the provisions the Department make to ensure everything is as near to perfection as it can be.
I would isolate one area and ask how the Minister proposes to overcome the problems that will inevitably arise. In respect of the group certificate, inter certificate and leaving certificate the Minister has practical subjects, and we all desire this. The regulation obtaining to date would not permit me, as headmaster of a school, to allow a practical examination to proceed unless the teacher of that subject was present in case a candidate might have some difficulty with a lathe, a steel saw, a milling machine, chisel or a hammer, all highly dangerous. The Minister has adopted a "we will not move an inch" stance. How does he propose providing for a situation which heretofore would not be tolerated under any circumstances in respect of the practical examinations? It cannot be done. I am sure that many parents will be reluctant to allow their children to take part in practical examinations in these circumstances because there will be a risk to them if an expert in the machinery is not available in the school to act as a guardian to the students while they are at work.
The investment that parents have made in education is incalculable. When I was on the other side of the House I was always happy to say here that there was no such thing as free education. Parents pay dearly in indirect and direct taxation for it. They might prefer some other system to obtain but it is acceptable to them and to everybody else. Parents have been happy to forego many necessities so that their offspring would have this opportunity. Generally speaking, apart from the occasional parent who may think his Seán, or Paddy or Doreen or Denise is the best and should get better, parents have absolute confidence in the system as it is. Now the Departments are saying "no, we must have our way. We are not prepared to talk". One would have expected the Minister of State to bring balance in this type of discussion. He never mentioned that the teachers' organisations this afternoon indicated their preparedness to talk.
Mr. Kenney
I did.
What is the gap to be filled? There is only a need to bring in some middle man or woman to bring the two together.
The tangler.
It is not a very educated word. There is a proverb in the Gaeilge —"Is fánach an áit in a bhfaightear an " I would be happy and indeed honoured if the Minister and the leaders of the organisations were to have a preparatory chat in the Mansion House. I take the Minister of State at his word. The Minister wants to have discussions. I take the teaching organisations at their word. They want to have meaningful discussions in respect of what puts the examinations in jeopardy. One might say that the Lord Mayor is prejudiced because he is "one of them". I hold teachers in the same respect as I do other professions. I was happy to belong to the teaching profession. I am not saying that they have the monopoly of everything that is best. In the teaching profession, as in all others, there are manifestations of virtues and all the other things that one gets elsewhere. I do not think the teachers have presented themselves in that fashion. But even though there might be sad exceptions, the vast body of teachers still retain the old idealism in respect of their profession which is not evident in other professions. They are concerned for the students. Any teacher worth his salt would not be in the profession if he was not concerned. Naturally they are aware of the appalling uncertainty that exists. They are also aware that that gap is not as wide as has been represented by the Minister and his Department. As a neutral observer I would say that they have shown a greater degree of magnanimity and preparedness to move than has the Minister who has indulged in bland statements. He has said in effect "I will talk about it any time but do not ask me to move beyond the stance already taken". There is an opportunity for the Minister to have a second look at it, especially in view of the much paraded new affluence that has come to the country in the last few months.
Ministers are telling us that we have rounded the bend and turned the corner and that there is plenty of light in the tunnel now. The Minister of State tonight preached the old story of penury in a fashion that is not being copied by more senior Ministers. Maybe changes have occurred that would permit the Minister to make adjustments while still retaining his overall position.
Moves will have to take place to do justice to our students who are so deserving of it. If we do not do that we cannot complain too much if, in return, they end up with an attitude which we will have cultivated in them. Let us have these preliminary discussions leading to more structured discussions and let us start tomorrow so that the thousands of students submitting themselves as candidates for the group, intermediate and leaving certificates will get the same crack of the whip as their forebears. Let us not deny them their entitlements on the grounds that this Minister does not want to lose face or some other Minister is insisting that if it happens he or she will do something else. The matter is far too serious for personal feelings or reactions. It is one which affects the great educational structures that we have been building up over the years. It affects the right of our students. Let us not fail them, mar má tharlaíonn sé sin is orainnse a bhéas an locht. Tá seans againn anocht cur suas nó cur síos leis an ábhar seo atá os ár gcomhair. Má theipeann orainn, teipfidh agus ní bheimíd in ann glaoch ar ais ar an saibhreas atá ann cheana féin.
Debate adjourned.