We now proceed to private notice questions to the Minister for Education and Science on the industrial action by secondary school teachers. I will call on Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Education and Science.
Private Notice Questions. - Industrial Action by ASTI.
On a point of order, perhaps we should wait for the Minister.
The other fellow is up there.
He is not the Minister, he is the dauphin.
I must call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
There must be a procedure. We cannot have questions without a Minister. The Minister has been unavoidably detained, it is not his normal practice.
I call Deputy Shortall to put her question to the Minister.
asked the Minister for Education and Science what steps the Government plans to take to secure a negotiated settlement to the industrial dispute involving members of the ASTI having regard to the implications for students, especially those facing examinations this year, of a prolonged dispute and if, to improve the atmosphere for negotiations, the Government will now withdraw its threat not to pay teachers for days on which they are available for teaching but not for supervision and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister to take stock of the crisis which has developed in secondary school teaching in recent years where in 1998 only 57% of graduates who obtained higher diplomas in education chose to teach and in the past two years applications for places on the higher diploma course have fallen by 23%; his further views on the request for negotiations by the ASTI to end industrial action and prepare a wide range of measures to enhance the attractions of teaching to high calibre graduates forthwith.
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Education and Science to explain to the Dáil his failure to address adequately the grievances of the secondary teachers in ASTI, thus causing industrial action and the resultant closure of many schools.
asked the Minister for Education and Science the action he took to prevent 16,000 secondary teachers, members of the ASTI, from taking strike action on 14 November 2000; the action he will now propose to take to arrange for negotiations and discussions on the issues involved; if he will define the meaning of the phrase, "interim measures being available pending benchmarking being arrived at", as announced by him on 14 November 2000; if he will confirm his position on a proposal by ASTI members to withdraw voluntary supervision in schools; the actions he will now take to conclude this strike action which is symptomatic of a deep malaise and frustration within the teaching profession in general; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Last March the ASTI lodged a claim for a straight 30% across the board increase in pay. It was not satisfied with the offer made in direct negotiations with my Department and referred its claim to the agreed teachers' arbitration board. The arbitration board rejected the 30% claim and recommended that the pay terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness should be applied to ASTI members in common with other teachers and other public servants. I moved immediately to apply the arbitration board's finding to ASTI members.
The application of the pay terms of the PPF and the associated early settlers agreement to ASTI member means a cumulative pay increase of 19.2% within a two year period, beginning with an 8.5% pay increase effective from 1 October last. Cheques which issued to the ASTI members on 18 October included the 8.5% increase. The PPF also provides for significant tax concessions in the region of 10% which, taken together with the pay increases, amounts to 29.2%. There is also provision for an additional 1,400 teaching posts in second level schools, 1,000 of which are being allocated in the current year. All these posts will be allocated before Christmas. In addition to these guaranteed improvements, teachers will also be able to process their case for a further pay increase through the public service benchmarking body, which is being set up to undertake a fundamental examination of public service pay and jobs vis-à-vis the private sector. This is an innovative and creative development which will address the issues of concern to the ASTI, other unions and the public service in general. This benchmarking body has already completed a great deal of the preparatory work in preparation for its first formal meeting on Monday next. This is a major development within the partnership process which begins on Monday next. This indicates the urgency with which the Government and the social partners are addressing the new benchmarking process. This is why I want all teachers, including ASTI members, to be on board at this critical time. I do not want to see any teacher left outside.
The ASTI members' action in withdrawing from supervision and refusal to substitute for absent colleagues has had the direct result of schools not being able to operate. In these circumstances, I could not justify to the general taxpayers, particularly the parents of the children, the payment of £1.2 million per day to ASTI members while children are not being taught. I do not understand how people who cause schools to be closed to children could expect to be paid. I have already notified the ASTI that payment will not be made for these days.
Teachers do very valuable work and should be paid accordingly. That is what I want to achieve and it can be done through the benchmarking process. The Government is of one mind on this issue and it is firmly of the view that the solution to the present dispute lies within the well established framework of social partnership and, in particular, within the framework of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. We cannot and must not break the PPF. Partnership has served our people well and it is the foundation on which the future of our children rests. The ASTI campaign of industrial action is unnecessary. I again call on the ASTI to reconsider its future proposed actions, the effects of this on young people and their parents and to re-enter the partnership process.
The higher diploma in education programme is offered by the four universities of the National University of Ireland at Dublin, Cork, Galway and Maynooth and by Trinity College Dublin. Since 1999, the four universities of the NUI have operated a centralised application system for entry to the higher diploma in education programmes. Applications continue to be made directly to the college in the case of Trinity College Dublin. While there is a decrease in the number of applications for the H.Dip. over the past two years, the position remains that the demand for places far exceeds supply, with more than two applicants for every place in the NUI colleges and almost four applicants for each place offered by Trinity College Dublin. Therefore, the number of applications for the H.Dip. is approximately double the number of places available. The total intake into the H.Dip. has increased by 25% in the past two years from 800 to 1,000 per annum. I am not aware of any major difficulties in recruiting second level teachers generally at present. There are difficulties in some areas such as physics and chemistry. In addition, almost 1,100 new appointments for voluntary secondary schools have been approved since 1 August last in delivering the promises of the PPF.
This morning I listened to the Minister on "Morning Ireland" use a phrase which I would like him to explain. He spoke about the possibility of some interim measures being put in place to deal with this dispute. Will he clarify precisely what he meant by that? Does he accept that the benchmarking process under the PPF at best will deliver in mid-2003 and that this timescale is completely unacceptable to teachers? In that context, does he see any scope for bringing forward that benchmarking process so that something is delivered under it, say, by June 2001? Is this what he was suggesting in his interview this morning, or what did he mean?
The benchmarking body is due to report in June 2002.
Nothing will come until June 2003.
The reporting date has already been brought forward to June 2002 from what is in the PPF.
Nothing will come until June 2003. I would not like the Minister to mislead the House on that point.WP leading adjustment
Should the benchmarking body consider interim measures, such as the question of the timescale raised by Deputies Shortall and Kenny, for implementation across the public service, it would be a matter for the PPF to consider such proposals and give a decision on them. The INTO and TUI within the PPF and the ASTI outside it, have expressed a desire to have such matters advanced. Initially this was regarded as a totally new method and a creative idea. Preparatory work has been done and it will be for the partners in the PPF to decide how early this can be brought forward.
What did the Minister mean this morning?
Is the Government prepared to do anything about bringing it forward?
That is a matter for the partners. The Government will act as one of the partners in that partnership. I ask the ASTI to seek what they are seeking within the partnership. It can be achieved within the benchmarking system.
Not within an acceptable timeframe.
I ask you, Minister, to address your remarks through the Chair and not answer questions put by way of interruption.
The opportunity exists for the ASTI, along with the other unions, to participate in benchmarking, to work with the partners and to consider any or all of these issues. They are matters which will be considered now and that is the proper place to consider them.
The Minister knows the ASTI ruled that out.
The Minister has said teachers do valuable work and should be paid accordingly. Is the Minister aware that a recent OECD report showed a gap of £8,000 between the earnings of a secondary teacher in Ireland after 15 years service and the earnings of other graduate employees after the same length of service? Is he also aware that the Joint Committee on Education and Science has published a number of reports, including one on the shortage of science teachers? Can he say he has examined the problem of teacher shortages in detail, in view of the fact that second level and primary schools are finding it difficult to fill vacancies? The Minister says he has allocated an additional 1,000 places. What can he say to the many schools which will find difficulty in filling those places? Will he use the opportunity of this dispute to make sure teaching is not considered the poor man's profession in future?
There are difficulties in filling positions in every line of work.
Particularly in teaching.
Unemployment has been reduced to less than 3.7%. There is a great opportunity to pick and choose. The Government and the other PPF partners have created a difficulty by adding 2,500 places at the request of the teachers. Of these extra places, 1,400 are at second level and 1,100 are at primary level. The purpose of the extra second level places was to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio to 18:1, which is the current ratio.
The Minister gave a commitment of 15:1.
That is a major reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. Since August last, 1,100 extra teachers have been recruited. There are shortages in particular areas such as physics and chemistry. The shortage of teachers of physics and chemistry, which we are addressing, is a problem found in every country in Europe except Greece, where the situation is very different. The numbers in colleges of education and in higher diploma in education courses are being increased to meet these requirements and newly qualified teachers are now taking up jobs.
Deputy Sargent also asked about the OECD report. The table to which the Deputy refers does not take into consideration the awards for a degree, an honours degree and a higher diploma in education which are standard in Ireland. These must be considered if accurate comparisons are to be made.
Teachers do an excellent job and are very important to us. That is why they will receive an increase of 19.2% under the PPF. With everyone else they will receive a 10% reduction in tax. This tax reduction is important because the money in our pockets is affected by the level of tax we pay. This amounts to a 29.2% increase over a two year period. Questions have been raised about the level of inflation this year. The partners are examining this problem urgently in an effort to deal with it.
There is concern about benchmarking. This is a new approach taken by the partners.
Is the Minister answering questions or making a Second Stage speech?
I have merely taken note of the questions asked and I am answering them in turn. Much can be achieved in the public service through benchmarking.
(Dublin West): In view of the fact that the Minister has agreed that the secondary school teachers' demand of 30% over three years includes 19% already agreed in the partnership agreement, does the Minister agree that the real claim is for 11% over three years? Does the Minister agree that the 19% has been wiped out by inflation before it arrives in the pockets of teachers and other workers? At the end of the three year deal, teachers and others are facing a fall in their real living standards. Therefore, the demand for extra money is justified.
A question please, Deputy.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister for Education and Science agree that so-called partnership is a sham under which professions in the public sector, such as teaching, have been hammered in terms of wage increases while the Government allowed speculators to profiteer outrageously, for example, doubling and trebling the price of a home? Does the Minister believe that young teachers should have the right to purchase a home? If so, how does he expect them to do so when they cannot afford a house on their current wages and he is not prepared to concede a realistic increase?
Does the Minister agree that the latest buzzword, "benchmarking", is a crude attempt to force the often brutal methods of the market into the public sector? It is totally inappropriate, particularly in relation to teaching and education. How does one compare the value of a teacher, trying to give a difficult, semi-literate 13 year old child full literacy and ensure he or she plays a useful and positive role in society, to a whiz-kid sitting at a desk in the Financial Services Centre, speculating on the future markets in the stock exchanges of the world? Is there any possibility of comparing them? If one compared teachers and speculators—
A final question please, Deputy.
The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech.
(Dublin West):—the conclusion would be that teachers play a much more socially positive role than speculators, but they are paid a fraction of speculators' salaries. Therefore, benchmarking should arrive at the conclusion that the Minister should grant the teachers the increase for the socially useful role they play in education.
The Deputy will be back in the morning.
The 19.2% and the 10% reduction in tax which are part of the package will not be wiped out. The difficulty was unanticipated in terms of the number of developments that took place in the year. However, this is being addressed. The programme was based on an inflation rate of approximately 3.5% but the final figure, which will be available soon, probably will be between 5.5 % and 5.7%.
It probably will be 7%.
The Taoiseach should not put the Minister in the Department of Finance.
The Minister for Finance said it would be 3%.
In any event, this is the gap that must be considered and it is being examined by the social partners. There is no question of it being overlooked.
Deputy Higgins said partnership was a sham. I have been around for each of the partnership agreements and I remember when the streets were crowded with unemployed people, individuals did not have any money and the tax rate was 65%. We know who introduced the 65% rate and it was not this side.
That was the reason we were there. That side nearly bankrupt the country.
The Fianna Fáil Party reduced it in conjunction with its partners, the Progressive Democrats.
I welcome the Minister to the new millennium. He should cop himself on.
The Minister is running off the ball.
The Minister is running out of script.
That was done through the partnership approach. The partners consider all aspects of society and the different groups of people, including old age pensioners and others. This is the approach I prefer. It is not a sham. Partnership is the main foundation of the position today and I hope it continues.
The Minister is going on too long.
He will deal with housing next.
I am dealing with the questions Members asked. There were too many questions.
No wonder there is a strike. They could not negotiate with the Minister.
I disagree with the suggestion that benchmarking is crude. It will be a sophisticated exercise and will apply across the public sector. It is innovative and creative and it can deliver the extra pay that people want. That is possible and this has been recognised. The ASTI told me that it would like productivity included and that can be included in the benchmarking system. The partners should be given the opportunity to get on with that work.
Regarding the value of teachers, I have made it clear that I hold teachers in high regard. I value them greatly.
Why will the Minister not pay them?
In that case, why will the Minister not meet them?
Please allow the Minister to conclude without interruption.
I am available to them at any time they wish to meet, but this must be within the terms of the PPF.
Regarding wages in industry, a relatively small number of people are getting high wages. However, the average industrial wage is £351 a week. This is not the average wage overall.
Is the Minister making a comparison with teachers?
No.
Time is moving on and a number of Deputies are offering. I ask the Minister to address his remarks to the Chair and to cease answering questions that come by way of interruption.
The partners value teachers and I am satisfied that they will continue to do so.
The strike is an outstanding example of shameful neglect by the Minister.
A question, Deputy.
It shows no regard for or interest in pupils, teachers or parents. Arising from the Minister's long reply, I wish to ask a number of questions. The Minister said he is available to meet teachers, but only within the terms of the PPF. How many times has the Minister met the ASTI since last March? Were those meetings inside the PPF?
The Minister gave the distinct impression in a nervous interview this morning that interim measures could be brought forward next year outside the benchmarking process because nobody knows what that will involve at this stage. Will the Minister clarify and put flesh on the bones of his interim measures?
What arrangements are being made so that courses which are long, detailed and regimental can be concluded in secondary schools? The action today and on future days will mean that courses cannot be concluded and students are tearing out their hair as a result.
The Minister has briefed the Government on this matter. Has he proposed to the Government the bringing forward of the benchmarking dates and, more importantly, the payment dates allowed under the clause in the PPF? The Minister mentioned productivity. Has the Minister briefed the Government on the issues involved in productivity in this area and that teachers who attain recognised and independent standards of excellence should be rewarded as a result? What are his views in that regard?
Given that the Cromien report is a scathing indictment of the Department over which the Minister presides and that there are deep structural frustrations within the teaching profession in general, does the Minister intend to use this opportunity to sort out this matter once and for all in everybody's interest?
The Deputy asked six questions.
Six markers.
The Minister needs to give six answers.
It could be a case of six of the best.
The Minister should be sure not to flunk them.
I made it clear that I was available to meet the ASTI at any time. It knows that and I met representatives at any time they requested a meeting.
Not to negotiate.
They were the only requests to meet. In those situations, a great deal of the work is interim. At a certain stage, they wanted to meet the Minister for discussions and I met them on those occasions.
How many times did the Minister meet them? That is the question.
Twice.
They were the only occasions on which they wanted to meet me. I also made it clear that if they want to meet at any time now, that is possible. I am available to meet them and to discuss any aspects relating to the dispute or any of the problems they have. However, I must make it clear, and be honest, forthright and straightforward, that the Government is committed to the PPF. There are ways within the PPF in which issues can be resolved.
The Deputy mentioned outside benchmarking. I did not refer to that. I was aware that both the INTO and the TUI had made proposals about advancing benchmarking just as they had made proposals about inflation this year. These are being urgently considered by the partners. All those matters are open to consideration at this time.
The fourth question was about the courses being too long. The NCCA assesses the courses. I am concerned about some of the courses and I will consider that.
As regards the proposal on benchmarking, I assure the House the Government is at one on this issue. I have kept the Government fully informed of the current situation and of any suggestions or proposals I might have. The Government and the Taoiseach in particular are aware of what is happening among the partners.
As regards the Cromien report, when I came into the Department I asked Mr. Seán Cromien, a former Secretary General of the Department of Finance, to look at the organisation so that I could determine how best to improve it in the current circumstances.
He is clearing up the mess.
He must have found it in a mess.
There have been many recent developments. There is also huge pressure on the building unit because of what the Government is doing in terms of additional building. We are spending 40% more than was spent by the previous Government. I am sure Deputies understand the pressures this naturally creates. I realised that too much of the decision-making was falling to the centre.
There is no better man to make decisions. He is like Stonewall Jackson.
We did not want to adopt the wasteful approach taken by the previous Government where it would cost up to £35 million for another layer of bureaucracy.
That is the reason everything is going so well.
We decided how to strengthen management.
Does the Minister accept that his threat to withdraw payment to teachers who engage in six days of work to rule has added considerable fuel to the fire in this dispute? What consideration, if any, has he given to the long-term implications of this hard-line stance in terms of the vast amount of voluntary work teachers undertake at present? Does he accept that one of the strong points of our education system is that a large number of teachers contribute generously to activities, such as sports, musical productions, debating and school tours, outside school hours and that the goodwill which underlies such an important activity is likely to be irreparably damaged by his threat? Will he consider, in the context of creating a better atmosphere and a better prospect of reaching a negotiated settlement in this dispute, withdrawing that threat forthwith?
I do not believe that people who withdraw their supervisory services, which are traditional within the hours of the school—
They are unpaid.
The Minister, without interruption.
That supervision is also part of the relationship between the teachers and the pupils.
School tours.
I accept that matter is in dispute with the ASTI. I do not understand how teachers could expect to be paid when they leave the children outside the door.
They are not leaving them outside the door. I am asking about out of school activities.
I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.
Some school management boards told me that some teachers did not regard it as their work.
I am asking about out of school activities, such as football matches etc.
I ask the Deputy to resume her seat. If she does not resume her seat, I will move on to the Order of Business.
That was the Deputy's second question. Some schools wanted to know what would happen if insurance cover was not provided. I told them that if teachers felt it was not their work and they were not responsible, the schools should make other arrangements for insurance cover. We will not be found wanting in that we will cover the insurance side. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
I am talking about extra-curricular activities.
I cannot praise too highly those who do voluntary work in the community.
The Minister has a nice way of showing it.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): We ignored the nursing profession to our cost. We have a crisis in nursing because we took it for granted that nurses had a vocation and they would continue to carry it out. The Minister mentioned tradition.
The Deputy should ask a question.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the Minister accept he is crazy to talk about a tradition in the teaching profession when teachers get ulcers during lunchtime trying to gulp down their lunch because they voluntarily supervise children? The Minister did not pay tribute to the amount of work they do. One person in RTE earns so much that their salary cannot be disclosed.
The Deputy should ask a question.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Teachers are paid for only 22 hours and no more. I ask the Minister to pay tribute to the teachers for the work they do, for which they are not paid.
I am not sure if the Deputy was here when I answered the question the first time but I specifically paid tribute to the work teachers do.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister did not pay tribute to them for working extra hours.
Like the Deputy, I was a teacher and I know the work done by teachers.
The Minister should not tell us about the tomatoes.
Please allow the Minister to answer the question.
As regards the teaching profession, I am trying to get the teaching profession Bill, which would strengthen the profession, back into the House and I would be delighted if the House discussed it. There is no doubt the problems can be resolved within the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. Teachers have taken up a substantial offer from October and there is more to come, including the tax package. Further benchmarking will start next Monday. It is better to participate in the benchmarking system and to influence it from the inside.
If that answer was corrected in the leaving certificate, it would not get a high benchmark. The Minister is the political head of a Department and a profession which is deeply demoralised, frustrated and unattractive. How does he propose to make up the time on courses which cannot and will not be followed when this dispute runs its course? The curriculum examinations board will not have an answer. What proposals does the Minister have to make up the time, particularly for examination students who will lose out? Given that this is the first shot in what could become a nasty series of disputes and that the State is obliged by law to organise examinations, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place to ensure that becomes a reality?
I have visited many schools and I do not find teachers demoralised. They are doing an excellent job. About 40,000 have enrolled on IT courses involving new computer technology. That hardly represents a demoralisation – indeed, teachers are very enthusiastic about these courses and are doing an excellent job with them.
The real question is what should be the position of teachers in the public service. To address that the benchmarking process is available and is commencing next Monday.
I am concerned about the examinations and I believe teachers are also concerned about students preparing for them. That matter can be best resolved by reaching a settlement agreement with the social partners at the earliest possible time.
We will have to consider what action to take if the dispute becomes prolonged. I hope the teachers will not put school children in that position, but that remains to be seen. It will be clear to the teachers that the partners have made very substantial proposals and that the benchmarking process is a genuine system for workers and professionals within the public service. In that context I am hopeful that the issue can be resolved.
I call Deputies Sargent, Belton and Seán Ryan before proceeding to the Order of Business.
Will the Minister indicate if the voluntary work undertaken by teachers, including looking after the class of a sick colleague, yard duty, football training and accompanying students on school trips, perhaps over a number of days, is in future to be seen as traditional and, thereby, an integral part of their work and, accordingly, to be expected of them without pay? Alternatively, will he indicate if he is offering something by way of an olive branch in that regard? Does he accept that no other public sector professional group has a salary scale as long as teachers, with a starting point of £14,809 before reaching a maximum of £28,784 after 23 years of service? Will he be in a position to tell teachers that this will change in an effort to bring the dispute to a conclusion by getting people around the negotiating table? Can he offer teachers anything at this point or is he simply going to play hardball and wait for the education system to crumble, to the consternation of pupils and parents as well as teachers?
My first question requires a yes or no answer, which will be awkward for the Minister. Will he meet the ASTI within the next 24 hours? If he does not will the Taoiseach do so?
Having this morning spoken to picketers outside seven schools in my constituency I assure the Minister that his jackboot tactics regarding the voluntary work undertaken by teachers has exacerbated matters. The Minister has a unique opportunity to attempt to defuse the situation. Will he withdraw the threat not to pay teachers when they turn up for work with the intention of working to rule, like many other professionals? This would make the possibility of securing a resolution easier.
With regard to Deputy Sargent's question on voluntary work and cover for sick colleagues, the system in operation is that for the first two days of sick leave the teachers cover for one another, following which a certificate is required. Any change in that would be a matter for discussion and debate.
They continue to cover.
It may form part of a resolution to the dispute. Deputy Sargent raised the question of a lengthy salary scale and he referred to a starting point of approximately £14,000 per annum. Permanent teachers start on an annual salary of £16,000 plus. In addition, they receive an allowance for their degree and an allowance for the higher diploma, which brings the starting salary to over £20,000.
Not all are covered by that.
It covers permanent teachers who have their degrees and qualifications. I am informed that in recent times virtually all teachers have a degree and a higher diploma.
Deputy Belton asked if I would meet the ASTI. I have made it clear I will meet the ASTI any time, including within the next 24 hours provided it is understood that I am meeting it in the context of the PPF.
That is why teachers are on strike.
The PPF is very important to all the people and especially to the public sector, to which it has delivered. With regard to the points raised by Deputy Seán Ryan, I have been as helpful and considerate as I can in this situation and I will continue to be. It would be unreasonable to pay teachers who, through their actions, exclude children from the classroom.