Vol. 526 No. 3
86 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Education and Science if he has reviewed his proposal to stop payment to members of the ASTI on days on which they are working to rule in view of the long-term damage this will do to the voluntary efforts of teachers in organising extra-curricular activities. [26539/00]
88 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Education and Science if supervision in secondary schools of lunch breaks, break time and so on is a voluntary commitment by teachers in schools; if any payment is involved in teachers' pay in recognition of this; the way in which he will introduce a proper system of supervision that will allow for school term to continue where closure might otherwise result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26528/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 86 and 88 together.
The professional role of a teacher encompasses the performance of teaching and non-teaching duties. There is a long tradition of teachers supervising students within the school environs during the normal school day. However, all teachers would not be required to undertake these duties on a daily basis. It is a matter for local management to agree these operational arrangements with their teachers. Teachers are not paid separately in respect of supervision.
Prior to embarking on industrial action, the ASTI balloted its members to approve a range of measures which included the withdrawal of supervision at break time. The ASTI members' action in withdrawing from supervision and refusing to substitute for absent colleagues has had the direct result of schools not being able to operate and the cancellation of classes. In the circumstances I could not justify to taxpayers and particularly the parents of 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 notified the ASTI that payment will not be made for these days.
I am most anxious to resolve the present difficulties with the ASTI. As I have consistently indicated, the solution to the current dispute lies in 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.
A major development in the PPF is the establishment of the public service benchmarking body which has been set up to undertake a fundamental examination of public service pay and jobs vis-à-vis the private sector. In reaching its recommendations, the benchmarking body will have regard to the need to recruit, retain and motivate staff with the qualifications, skills and flexibility required to exercise their different responsibilities and the need to ensure equity between employees in the public service and the private sector. This benchmarking process provides a mechanism through which the ASTI can pursue its aspirations for a fundamental examination of the role of second level teachers and the level of pay it should attract. This is the route being pursued by its colleagues in the other teacher unions and the public service unions generally.
I assure the House that I am available at any time to meet the president and officials of the ASTI to find a way to ensure that the education of second level pupils is not further disrupted and that the serious concerns of parents are laid to rest as quickly as possible.
Does the Minister accept that his threat to withhold payment to teachers who engage in work to rule, as many other workers do, has only served to exacerbate an already very difficult situation? As things stand, it appears the Minister is going to follow through on this threat and the teachers are waiting to see the outcome and what their pay cheques will be on the next pay day.
What consideration has the Minister given to the long-term damage this action is likely to cause to the goodwill which underpins our education system? Does he accept this matter is likely to end up in the courts and that if we reach a situation where what is, and what is not, within the terms of a teacher's contract is set down by the courts, a huge array of activities which enrich our education system, including all the extra curricular activities and the voluntary work teachers do, apart from supervision at break times, such as attending football meetings, taking injured children to hospital and calling to children's homes if they do not show up at school, will not be undertaken because of the damage that will be caused to the goodwill teachers already display through their voluntary efforts in this regard? Has the Minister considered the long-term damage that is likely to result from his action if this matter ends up in the courts, as it undoubtedly will?
I really do not understand how teachers could expect me to pay them when they create a situation in which children are left outside. I do not see, in logical terms, how that could be expected. I have said what my decision, and that of the Government, is.
What is the logical conclusion of that decision?
The Deputy should not intervene from a seated position.
I want to build on the goodwill. I have made it very clear that I have a very high regard for the teachers and the work they do, but there is a system to which the teachers can apply to pursue their immediate interests. I am very concerned that teachers would be paid properly for the work they do but there is a Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and a benchmarking system.
Questions were raised about benchmarking earlier in this dispute and they were to the effect that the benchmarking might not be urgent or immediate and might not deal with the issues involved. It should be very clear from yesterday that the benchmarking system is now very much up and running, is dealing with the issues in which the teachers are interested and is dealing with them as a matter of urgency, and that that can be achieved within the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness in the interests of everybody concerned. I appeal to the teachers to make use of the machinery that is there and to work with their colleagues in the public sector to resolve their dif ferences as well as the differences which affect other workers in the public sector.
In relation to the extra curricular activities such as football, etc., normally they are done by people who have an interest in that area. They are also done in the community, as Deputies will know, and people in the community also do voluntary work of that kind. These are issues which can be discussed. They are part of the whole package teachers wish to discuss at the moment and there is a means there for them to do that.
The Minister is presiding over a situation where the 16,000 members of the ASTI are on strike and more than 20,000 members of the INTO are mandated to go on strike if the results they seek are not evident on 6 December. The Teachers Union of Ireland has sent out ballot papers for industrial action, despite being inside the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, to be returned with a decision on 4 December. If these trends of morale among the teaching sector are converging, the Minister will be presiding over an unholy mess in our education system next spring.
If the Minister values the work of teachers, as he has indicated here, what contact has he had with the ASTI since last Friday? Did he formally invite it to attend the benchmarking process and, if not, why not? His colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, or public chaos, is able to meet both sides in the transport dispute and set up Labour Court facilities for them to deal with their business. Why did the Minister not extend an invitation to the ASTI to attend the benchmarking process?
Did the Minister's Department apply to the Department of Finance for a specific grant to operate supervision, outside the terms of the contract of teachers, by private contact or whatever? If that is the case, as I understand was recommended last July, is that not an inherent recognition that supervision is a voluntary activity by teachers?
Does the Minister have any concept or understanding of just how difficult supervision in some large schools is, where pupils come from broken homes and a drink and drugs culture, where there is intimidation instead of supervision and it is extremely difficult and very intimidatory for many teachers to have to undertake this duty and have it branded as purely voluntary? They do this work because of their professional training and the Minister is not helping them to achieve the standards we all want them to achieve.
I made it quite clear that the teachers were welcome to take part in the benchmarking process. Questions have been raised as to how they can come to the benchmarking process. Within the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, they can work on any of the processes. Within the ICTU, they can work on the processes. There are two aspects, or two levels, in the benchmarking process, one is the Government and the social partners, which are looking at over all inflation and issues such as timing, and the other is the public services committee of the ICTU and the benchmarking body itself. That is what the Deputy saw in operation yesterday where the public services committee of the ICTU was working to resolve these issues. The INTO and the TUI were at that committee. Of course, they are strongly expressing their concerns but they are expressing them within the partnership and the public services committee of ICTU.
The president of the ASTI said that if the Minister enters into meaningful discussions, it will examine this very carefully. How does the Minister propose to do that? We are all realists here. Some 16,000 teachers are on strike, students are up in arms—
We are running out of time. The Minister should be given the opportunity to—
How will the Minister get them into meaningful discussions?
The meaningful discussions began yesterday.
The Minister did not invite the ASTI.
I ask Deputy Kenny not to interrupt.
I did, of course. It is very welcome to come to that forum but it is a matter for the ASTI as to whether it wishes to come forward. I hope it will come to that forum very soon. Reservations have been expressed and I understand them because benchmarking is a new concept. Surely it is clear that the benchmarking body is dealing vigorously, effectively and urgently with the issues the teachers have raised. There can be no doubt about what the benchmarking body is for and what it is doing. It is doing that job within the public services committee of the ICTU and within the partnership.
We have run out of time on these questions and we must proceed to Question No. 87.
Did the Minister's Department apply for a grant?
