Vol. 452 No. 3
10 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Education the agreement, if any, which has been reached in relation to early retirement; if meetings have been held between the parties involved; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7929/95]
12 Miss Coughlan asked the Minister for Education if she will reassure parents of all schoolgoers sitting State examinations or otherwise that she will intervene to ensure an acceptable offer is made to teachers on the issue of early retirement and therefore guarantee there will be no industrial action this summer. [7923/95]
120 Mr. T. Kitt asked the Minister for Education her response to the motions passed at the three teachers' unions conferences regarding the issue of early retirement. [7984/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 12, 120 together.
This is a vitally important issue and I would like to give a comprehensive reply.
I welcome assurances given by the teacher unions that the State examinations will not be the subject of any industrial action being balloted on as a result of motions passed at the recent teacher union congress.
It is important that I should put on the record of this House that a very comprehensive and balanced set of proposals was offered to the teacher unions before the talks broke down.
The offer comprised a general provision of retirement at age 55 with 35 years service for post-primary teachers to bring them into line with primary teachers; early retirement with added years for teachers who cannot function at acceptable levels of professional performance because of stress or for other reasons; early retirement, with added years for surplus teachers; reduction of the common basic scale for teachers from a 26 to a 24 point scale; phased payment of the pass degree allowance to teachers without a degree; payment of the H. Dip. allowance as well as a degree allowance to teachers holding four-year concurrent degrees; increases of up to £2,500 and £1,700 respectively in allowances for principals and vice-principals of larger schools; payment of a once-off lump-sum to all current post holders, and full recognition for pension purposes, for existing teachers, of capitation and supernumerary service in convent and monastery schools.
I regret that negotiations on a wide range of issues broke down on the single issue of the claim made by the teacher union for an entitlement for all teachers of extra years of pensionable service over and above the years worked.
The teacher unions are demanding: a reduction in the service requirement for early retirement from 35 to 33 years, and maximum superannuation benefits on attainment of 38 years service rather than 40 years as at present.
Disagreement arose between the sides on the cost and funding of this proposal. In response to a request I made during the recent teacher unions' congress. I received information on the costings of their proposal. This is currently being examined in my Department and the Department of Finance.
Why has it taken the Minister so long to ascertain information crucial to the negotiations? Why had she to wait so long before requesting this information from the Department of Finance? Why does this unnecessary uncertainty continue on the overall issue? Would she agree that industrial action by teachers would not have been contemplated had she taken these steps months beforehand?
I have detailed to the House the good offer made to the teachers unions. The negotiations broke down when the teachers pursued a claim which emerged from the talks that began in February last on 33 years' service, seeking the attainment of 38 years rather than 40 years service overall. My Department was informed of the figures calculated and well publicised by the teachers unions, but there is a difference of interpretation with regard to them. During the teachers' unions conferences I asked the unions to make the details of their advice available to my Department. The details furnished in the days following the teachers' unions meetings are now being examined. This is not an easily settled dispute. I must be careful because it would not be prudent, practical or in the best interests of good industrial relations to go into too much detail in this House about those differences of opinion. I am glad I have had an opportunity of spelling out for Members and the public generally what was on offer to the teachers' unions. Following my request to them figures have been made available to the official side, and are being examined by both Departments.
Why did the Minister give a commitment on which she cannot deliver two years ago to the teachers' unions conferences? She must address the reason she has not been able to persuade her colleague, the Minister for Finance, to provide the necessary funding. It is ludicrous to be told after so many years a solution cannot be found.
A solution can be found and it is preposterous that there has been no movement with regard to primary teachers and only an unrealistic proposal with regard to post-primary teachers, the majority of whom do not get a permanent post until age 27 which means they are at least 62 before attaining 35 years' service. Can the Minister give all pupils and parents an assurance that she will be able to deliver on early retirement, thus preventing unnecessary industrial action?
I can deliver my commitment only if all sides agree, first, in identifying the problem and second, on reaching a solution. I attended the teachers unions' conferences in April 1993 at which the huge issue was the "stressed-out teacher", the teacher who could no longer perform, the teacher who is a danger not only to himself or herself but to the children in the class-room. I do not want to read out the full list of proposals on the table following the talks that took place since April 1993. Very high on that list is early retirement with added years, for teachers who cannot function at acceptable levels of professional performance for stress or other reasons.
That is not the issue.
It is the reason. My commitment to the teacher union conferences in April 1993 was that I would examine that issue. There is also early retirement with added years, for surplus teachers. There is the general objective to level the playing pitch vis-à-vis second-level and primary school teachers, the latter always having had the right to retire at age 55 without full pension. The House will see that there is a general early retirement provision on offer which will improve the overall position of the second-level teacher but difficulties arise when the teachers unions' ask that we examine their demand for maximum superannuation benefits on the attainment of 38 rather than 40 years service — an expensive demand. There are differences of opinion on its annual cost and on how those figures have been calculated. Because there is that difference of opinion between both sides, I suggested — at the teacher union conferences — it would be helpful if their detailed calculations were made available to me. They are now being examined by both Departments. The House will realise there is much on offer to the teachers from the official side but the matter of the 38 rather than 40 years service presented considerable difficulty. In that regard there is either a very big cost down the road to the State or there is another interpretation of it. It is crucial to examine the figures and any commitment we might give. Of course, had we unlimited resources to fund pension schemes — and this would apply to all of the public sector — no difficulty or industrial action would arise.
Will the Minister agree she is the author of her problems because of the assurances she gave at those teachers unions' conferences? If that is not her understanding, I am afraid that is the teachers' understanding of the matter. Is it not extraordinary the Minister took no initiative to examine the costs of the teachers' proposals until such a late date? If the Minister is endeavouring to inculcate enterprise and initiative among the pupils of this State I suggest that she begin within her Department where such basic questions should have been asked and which, if not asked by her, should have been posed by her officials.
I note those comments.
Is the Minister of the opinion that teachers should have parity of service for retirement purposes with other professionals in the public service? Why had the Minister not done her homework with the Department of Finance before entering those negotiations? It is unbelievable that a large Department like hers would not have had its homework done before entering negotiations, would not have a fall-back position to resolve the problem. Will the Minister please inform the House when she will be in a position to go back to the teachers' unions on this.
This argument visà-vis parity of service does not hold water. The compulsory early retirement arrangements for the Garda, prison officers and psychiatric nurses are much lower than the public service norm, reflecting on and recognising the physical demands of the tasks involved. I should remind the House that very stringent conditions are laid down with regard to added years in respect of a number of professionals within the public service who can retire early. These professionals representing a very small proportion of professional public servants who qualify for added years, under which arrangement, added years are reduced, year for year, whenever a person retires before age 65.
It is important that we put the facts on record. Statements which claim that other public sector groups are benefiting from such arrangements do not hold water. It must be recognised that the position vis-à-vis the Garda, prison officers and psychiatric nurses is different. In the last round of talks — if they can be described as such — the teacher unions sought maximum superannuation benefits on the attainment of 38 rather than 40 years of service and put a price on that. We were negotiating under the 3 per cent clause in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. The costing the teacher unions put on what they sought suggested it could be easily met, but when the figures were rejected by the official side additional information was sought. Information is forthcoming and detailed examination in respect of those figures is taking place.
The Minister did not say when she will complete the deliberations. I am sure many actuaries in the Department of Finance would be able to deal with the matter.
Many people, including myself, would like this matter dealt with, but we need to give consideration to very detailed figures which relate not only to this year's pension bill, but to the difficulties that will arise in 15 or 20 years time in this regard. We owe it to the taxpayers and to ourselves to ensure that the figures on which we agree have been properly examined. I thank the unions for giving me the details of their figures and I am sure they will bear with us while we carry out a detailed examination of them.
I thought the Minister had the figures.
New figures were made available to us.
Do the officials in the Departments of Finance and Education not correspond with each other?
As the time for dealing with priority questions is exhausted we will deal with Question No. 11 in the category of other questions. We will take Questions Nos. 11 and 24 together.
Are Questions Nos. 121 and 122 not being taken with No. 11?
