We now proceed to private notice questions to the Minister for Education and Science. I will call on Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - Industrial Action by ASTI.
asked the Minister for Education and Science the action taken by him to resolve the dispute between his Department and the Associated Secondary Teachers of Ireland; if he has approached the union either directly or indirectly with a view to initiating meaningful discussions to resolve the dispute; if he will indicate his position regarding the loss by this weekend of more than 500,000 teaching hours to secondary pupils; the way in which he proposes that this lost teaching time will be made up; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps the Government will take to secure a negotiated settlement to the industrial dispute involving members of the ASTI, having regard to the fact that by the end of this week seven school days will have been lost and the implications of a prolonged dispute for students, especially those facing exams in 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present stage of the dispute between the secondary teachers and the Minister.
Teaching is a noble and a very skilled profession. In Ireland we have been extraordinarily blessed with the quality and dedication of those to whom we entrust our children to be educated. A teacher's work is valuable, requiring qualifications, expertise, dedication and commitment. Teachers should be paid appropriately. As Minister for Education and Science I strongly support the case for a proper modern system of remuneration for all teachers. It saddens me, however, that ASTI members have decided to step outside the parameters laid down by the social partners, the country's trade unions, businesses, farming organisations and Government.
The action of secondary teachers who are members of the ASTI has continued to directly impact on pupils. The one day strike on 14 November, followed by industrial action on 16, 22 and 23 November and again today, means that pupils have lost valuable school time. ASTI members will be aware that their actions have been felt most acutely by students in leaving and junior certificate examination classes.
It is unfortunate that the ASTI did not respond favourably to requests from the school management bodies to facilitate the teaching of leaving and junior certificate classes. Even more disappointing is the renewal of the threat to the examination process. The threat by the ASTI that it will attempt to disrupt the examination system is almost unthinkable. ASTI teachers, as professionals, know and understand the high level of anxiety already facing examination students and they must appreciate the additional stress placed on students by such threats.
The ASTI is pressing a claim for a 30% increase. Teachers already received a 3% and 5.5% increase on 1 October. They will receive another 5.5% and 4% increase under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. That amounts to a cumulative 19.2% increase before any tax concessions, a minimum of 10% arising from the budget process. This amounts to a minimum of 29.2% extra in teachers' pockets under the PPF.
There is a process for teachers to tackle their concerns. I am available at all times to facilitate that process but I cannot work outside the parameters decided by the country's social partners. The public service benchmarking body, which was established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, met with both the public services section of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Government Employers Committee. Following these meetings it is clear that the ASTI claim can best be progressed through the machinery of the benchmarking body, chaired by Mr. Justice Quirke of the High Court as an independent chairperson.
The public service benchmarking body has been set up to undertake a fundamental examination of public service pay and jobs vis-à-vis the private sector. The benchmarking body in reaching its recommendations 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 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 their colleagues in the other teacher unions and the public service unions generally.
I assure the House that I continue to be available at any time to meet with the president and officials of ASTI to find a way to ensure the education of second level pupils is not further disrupted and that the serious concerns of parents are put to rest as quickly as possible. I welcome the opportunity to outline in some detail the efforts made by me and my Department from the time the ASTI claim was first lodged last March. It will be clear that the claim was processed efficiently and professionally in accordance with the best industrial relations practice and in accordance with procedures agreed with the teacher unions.
The ASTI claim is for an immediate 30% increase in salary allowances. The cost of the claim when applied to all teachers would be in excess of £400 million per annum. The ASTI was not satisfied with the offer to apply the terms of the PPF made in direct negotiations with my Department and referred the claim to the agreed teachers arbitration board. The three person independent arbitration board rejected their claim and recommended 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 immediately applied the arbitration board's finding to ASTI members. As I have already said, the application of the pay terms of the PPF and the associated early settlers agreement to ASTI members means a cumulative pay increase of 19.2% within a two year period, beginning with an 8.5% increase effective from 1 October last. The PPF provides also for significant tax concessions in the region of 10% which, taken together with the pay increases, amount to 29.2%. In addition to these guaranteed improvements, teachers can also process their case for a further pay increase through the public service benchmarking body which is being established to undertake a fundamental examination of public service jobs vis-à-vis the private sector. That body held its first meeting with the public services committee of ICTU and the Government employers' representatives on Monday, 20 November.
As I have already stated in the House, my Government colleagues and I are firmly of the view that the solution to the present dispute lies within the well established framework of social partnership and within the framework of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness in particular. It is noteworthy that the arbitration board expressed the view that to deal with this claim on its own would bring about uncertainty in the area of public service pay and would no doubt generate a significant number of similar claims. I fully support that view. I am also convinced that the benchmarking process as set out in the PPF provides the best mechanism for a thorough and independent examination of the issues raised by the ASTI in its claim. Indeed I would point out that the majority of the public service unions, including two of the teacher unions, consider that the benchmarking body provides a means by which public service employees can achieve their goals of equal treatment with the private sector and people in comparable employment.
I am most anxious to resolve the present difficulties with the ASTI. When I met the ASTI I indicated that I am available at all times to consider any proposals within the parameters of the agreed social partnership framework, the PPF. I now restate my availability and willingness to seek solutions within such a framework. This is the framework within which other public service unions are operating and which the other teacher unions are using to have their concerns, which are similar to those of the ASTI, addressed. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that normal education resumes for all students as soon as possible. As a parent, I understand fully the anxiety this disruption is causing to students and their parents. I will do everything possible in the context of a settlement to this dispute to ensure the loss to students, particularly examination students, is made good in the most beneficial and practical way. Once more I urge the ASTI to reconsider its action, the effects that action is having on our young people and to rejoin their colleagues in the other teacher unions and in the public service generally in the partnership process.
I doubt if the Minister's plámás to the teaching profession as being noble and skilful will wash in the context of his inactivity. The Minister is the political head of the Department and he now presides over an almighty shambles out of which there is no glory for anyone. In his lengthy reply he indicated on more than one occasion that this should only be settled within the terms of the PPF. He outlined his regard for students in particular.
By this weekend in excess of 500,000 teaching hours will have been lost. In his anxiety to meet the ASTI and his holding out of an olive branch, what arrangements is the Minister putting in place for leaving and junior certificate students to be able to fulfil their educational responsibilities so that they can take their examinations, which is the legal responsibility of the State to conduct?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Second, does the Minister propose that these students should wander around aimlessly while their counterparts in private colleges receive a full education and how is his concern being manifested by way of ministerial action?
Arising from his many references to the PPF, can the Minister tell the House how many groups are adhering to the PPF and what are those groups? Why are concessions being made to other groups, including the Garda, nurses, CIE and Aer Lingus employees, which are outside the terms of the PPF? Why can Deputy Molloy, meet the taxi drivers and the Deputy O'Rourke meet CIE employees? Why has the Minister drawn a line in the sand, over which teachers cannot step?
We are within sight of Christmas and the Minister has done nothing to initiate meaningful discussions and end this dispute. Students, parents and teachers want to see schools resuming. The fact that the finding of the arbitration board was not accepted by the teachers does not preclude a return to arbitration. The arbitration body is chaired by a senior member of the Labour Relations Commission and all teaching unions are represented on it. In the light of new circumstances and evidence, a new finding may be given.
Is the Minister aware of the real concern of teachers to get back to their profession? Is he aware that the matter could be referred to arbitration where the legitimate grievances of teachers could be discussed?
Has the Minister an understanding of what happens in hundreds of classes throughout the country every week where many teachers, under pressure and stress, are barely able to conduct themselves with any degree of decorum? With regard to last Thursday's withdrawal of supervision, it has been brought to my attention that a number of schools conducted scheduled parent teacher meetings, which was the normal activity for that day. Does the Minister intend to pay teachers for conducting normal business in that manner?
I regard teaching as a noble and skilful profession. While Members on the opposite side snigger at that, it is a fundamental issue.
No one sniggered on this side of the House.
The Leader of the Opposition sniggered.
I was laughing at the Minister.
No one on this side of the House sniggered.
It is fundamentally important that I regard teaching in that way and make it clear that this is my position. I am disappointed that the ASTI has broken from the national partnership which has contributed to the country's success. Deputies on the opposite side seem to wish to break the partnership but that is not what I would choose.
The Minister should answer the question.
The real issue is whether Opposition Deputies support the national partnership. If they do they will work with it.
Who does the Minister think he is fooling?
This is a disgraceful performance.
Why did Deputy Cowen meet the nurses and Deputy O'Rourke meet CIE workers?
I ask Deputies not to interrupt the Minister. A number of Deputies wish to ask supplementary questions and there will not be time for that if we spend time on interruptions.
Deputy Kenny asked how many groups are part of the PPF and appeared to suggest that not many were. Most groups are in the PPF. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the other two teacher unions are parties to PPF and it is through the partnership that the matter can be resolved. At the outset, it was suggested by the ASTI that the benchmarking process was not capable of resolving the problems teachers face, while I believed it was. The body has held its first meeting, having done much preliminary work, and has shown its willingness to deal with the issues raised by the ASTI. The other unions can see this is the case. The process is there and the negotiating table is available. If the ASTI members wish to go to the table, debate their position and find a resolution the table is available for them. If they believe I can be of any assistance in facilitating them in working with the rest of the public sector and the other unions, I will do all in my power to facilitate that. I am prepared to facilitate negotiations but I am not prepared to break the PPF. As a member of the Government, I am committed to it.
The means of resolution is there, if the ASTI wishes to participate in the PPF and in the benchmarking body. The Deputy suggested that the ASTI might wish to go back to the arbitration board. I would have no objection to that if it is possible. The matter had already been to arbitration when an independent chairman decided the ASTI should operate within the PPF and that all the means necessary were available within the partnership, including the benchmarking body. We have been through the arbitration process but if it is possible to go through it again I will not object. My only interest is in ensuring a satisfactory resolution of the dispute and that the children go back to school.
This is the second successive week that the Minister has been called into the House to answer questions on his role in resolving this dispute. His long-winded and rambling reply only tells us he has done nothing in the past week to move the dispute on. The situation is seriously deadlocked. Does the Minister accept that he has a political responsibility to the secondary school students who, by the end of this week, will have lost seven days in school? Does he accept that he has a political responsibility to resolve this issue as a matter of urgency?
What mechanism does the Minister propose for the resolution of this dispute? Last week he gave us no indication of this. After questions last week, his staff indicated to the media a possibility of bringing forward the benchmarking process. Can the Minister tell the House what can be done to bring forward the benchmarking process? If the Minister gives a clear signal that, within the benchmarking process, a down payment will be given by next June, there will be movement on the part of the ASTI. It is up to the Minister.
Work has been done in the past week. Of course, work is done every day to try to progress this matter.
What is the Minister offering?
On the question asked by Deputy Shortall, the very issues she raised are being considered by the partners.
What is the Minister offering?
This is not a unilateral matter and I think the Deputy knows that. This is a matter for the social partners in conjunction with the unions involved.
It is the Minister's responsibility.
Deputy Shortall, allow the Minister to respond without interruption.
The partners are currently considering those very issues as a matter of urgency. I hope something positive will come out of that which will be helpful.
Deputy Joe Higgins.
Has the Minister taken any steps—
Deputy Shortall, I have called Deputy Joe Higgins. The Minister is not to answer questions asked by way of interruption. I call Deputy Joe Higgins. We must have order at Question Time.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister agree that it ill behoves him to come into the Dáil blaming the teachers for the mess the Government has allowed to develop over a considerable period in the secondary education sector? Is it not the case that the Government is now reaping the reward for having taken advantage of the willingness of many teachers over many years to give an enormous amount of time and effort to their students, completely outside the call of duty, in the same way as this, and previous Governments, allowed low paid bus drivers to subsidise public transport in Dublin? Now when the workers are standing up and demanding in present circumstances—
A question please.
(Dublin West):—that they are remunerated properly, we find the Government is totally at sea.
Does the Minister agree that appeal to the partnership deal is useless in the present instance? For example, what does the Minister say to the fact that the first 5.5% increase, which he outlined in his reply, is wiped out already by inflation? What does he say to the fact that the rest of the 19%, which he says teachers will get over three years, will probably also be wiped out by inflation?
Does the Minister agree that young teachers in their twenties and thirties should have the ability and the right to buy a home? Why should the Minister come in and condemn teachers because they want their wages to go up so they can buy a home when the same Minister's Government allowed the speculators in the housing market to put a home out of their reach in four short years? Does he not agree that his case is completely shot by virtue of the failure of this Government to sort out the problems that are making life increasingly difficult for working people, including teachers, who are trying to survive despite massive inflation, increasing house prices and so on?
I am sure Deputy Higgins is aware of the representations made by the teacher unions within the PPF. One of the representations is that there should be a mechanism in regard to this year relating to inflation – the exceptional circumstances which occurred during the course of this year. That matter is currently under consideration. Again, I am not in a position to say anything further about that because it is being discussed with the partners currently. It is part of that same discussion.
The Minister is not in a position to do or say anything.
I would like to make it clear to Deputies that the benchmarking system covers 235,000 public servants. They are being provided for within the benchmarking system. Some 16,000 ASTI members have stepped outside that system. The system is very important to 235,000 public servants and I am not going to, nor can I, break that. The PPF is crucial for those very children who are in school and for the country as a whole, as I think everybody knows. It is what has made this country – partnership through successive Governments. I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bruton, the Taoiseach and Deputy Quinn for assisting and promoting that system through the years. That is what has built this country.
Some answers please.
We are currently trying to find solutions within that process. We have reached a stage which requires a great deal of new consideration because we are facing challenges that were not there before, partly due to the developments which have come from the process itself.
Does the Minister agree that the fairness and objectivity of the leaving certificate is one of the great strengths of the Irish education system? Will he say what proportion of students likely to sit the leaving certificate this June are affected by the strike, that is, those in secondary schools, and what proportion are unaffected, that is, those studying in private colleges, community colleges or other unaffected colleges? Arising from his answers to those questions, what steps will he take to ensure fairness in the examination of students who have been strike-bound – locked out of their schools effectively – and students who have had the advantage of a continuing education in order to guarantee that this year our leaving certificate is seen to be fair to all students and is judged solely on things within their control and not events outside their control, as this strike is?
Hear, hear. Cherish them all equally.
As the Deputy will be aware, the ASTI has escalated its dispute to take in most of the community schools and any school in which there are ASTI members. Before this weekend, it was working on the basis that any school with fewer than ten ASTI members would be outside the net, if you like. Apparently, they are now being included so that extends it fairly generally. I appreciate the point made by Deputy Bruton and the earlier point made by Deputy Kenny on those private schools where managements have maintained the service to the young people. If this dispute can hopefully be resolved quickly, then I would be happy to do what I can to maintain that balance.
Do students in the leaving certificate classes who are being educated not have an unfair advantage over those who are not? Is it not the case that the Minister is ultimately the guarantor of fairness in education and that he has a responsibility to ensure fair treatment of all students? It is not fair that some will have to sit an exam having lost many school days and compete with young people who have had no loss of school days; that undermines the fairness of the leaving certificate. The Minister has to do something about that.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Minister explain what appears to be a modern day paradox? Teachers have withdrawn their services, which are voluntary at lunch time, and the Minister has decided they are mandatory duties because he has docked their pay. If he had been watering the flowers in his office for the last three years and he decided he was not going to do that anymore, would he accept a cut in his salary because he stopped doing what was voluntary work? Does the Minister think he will get away with this cut in salary?
I think the Deputy should get together with his leader because he is more concerned about the children and the examinations—
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Minister just answer my question?
—and do some work with him.
Will the Minister answer Deputy Browne's question?
Maybe the Minister should go away and water the flowers.
The Deputy meant tomatoes.
I do not believe that where teachers are in a school and by their actions the children are kept outside, that I should be paying for that period, but that matter will be settled in another forum. In relation to Deputy Bruton's question—
(Carlow-Kilkenny): What about my question?
—that would better be addressed to the ASTI. I will do my best to unravel—
The ASTI does not run the leaving certificate; the Minister does.
I will do my best to ensure equal treatment.
The Minister's best is not good enough.
What about Deputy Browne's question?
We must try to conclude the question. I ask Members to allow Deputy Shortall to contribute.
I ask the Minister to concentrate his mind on trying to find a solution to the dis pute. Does he accept that the ASTI has rejected the benchmarking process on the basis that it will not deliver anything until June 2003? If so, does he accept that there is an onus on him to bring forward an initiative to provide a mechanism in which the ASTI can get involved? Will the Minister make a clear statement on any improved situation he might be able to offer the ASTI now to encourage its members to join the benchmarking process and to enable an early resolution of the dispute to be reached?
The ASTI is well aware that the partners are considering this matter.
The Minister should stop repeating the mantras. Will he make a clear statement?
The Minister without interruption.
Please allow me to answer.
The Minister is not answering the questions.
The ASTI is aware that the partners are currently considering it as a matter of urgency. I hope that consideration will be finalised soon.
No answers.
I wish to repeat Deputy Browne's question, to which there is a simple answer. Is supervision part of the teaching contract? Is it mandatory for teachers to carry it out? The answer is either "yes" or "no" and it will allow the Minister to tell the House whether he is entitled to withhold teachers' pay.
Is the Minister aware that the Constitution states that the children of the nation should be treated equally? What arrangements is the Minister putting in place to ensure that this is fulfilled, given that some second level students are able to go to school and get an education while others are not? Does the Minister accept that in the seven working days lost to students, they might have foregone the study of seven potential questions in their examinations next summer? They may not be able to pick up that work because the teaching days are lost. What, if anything, is the Minister doing to ensure that students will not be discriminated against in next year's examinations?
The Minister is in big trouble.
Supervision in schools has been the normal practice. It is part of the custom and practice in schools.
Is it mandatory?
The matter is disputed by some teachers.
The Minister is making the matter worse.
I am not prepared to have a situation where teachers sit inside schools while pupils are outside.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): They are doing their duty. They are teaching.
It is not a situation over which I could stand.
I would prefer if the Minister did not answer questions that arise by way of interruption. It is not an orderly question.
It is not a situation over which I could stand.
The Minister should clarify the matter.
If the Deputies opposite considered the position, they would agree.
The Minister is being inflammatory.
What about my other question about the time students have lost?
The Minister is in big trouble.
Does the Minister agree that his refusal to have any open discussions to date is, by implication, a criticism of his colleagues in Government, the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, and the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, who have had the common sense to hear the grievances of those involved in disputes?
Is the Minister aware that there is a flight of pupils, whose parents can afford to send them, to private colleges and various grind schools during the dispute? Is he aware that many pupils are losing interest in school in the face of the deadlock? The Minister has it in his gift to unlock the situation. Will he accept the precedent of his colleagues' actions by at least meeting the ASTI without conditions so that he can hear face to face and in a civil manner their grievances rather than engaging in megaphone diplomacy that is getting us nowhere?
I have no problem meeting the ASTI.
Without conditions?
Without conditions. It knows that I as Minister am bound by the PPF and I must work within it.
That is a condition.
That is a condition for the whole country. Is the Deputy suggesting we throw aside the PPF and the partnership process? In terms of hearing the grievances of the ASTI, I have met its representatives and listened to their grievances. Ultimately, they said they want 30% and they will not talk until they get it. They will not talk within the PPF. If they are not prepared to talk within the PPF, I cannot make progress.
What does "within the PPF" mean?
The Minister will not meet them.
The benchmarking process is there for them.
Surely the matter can be resolved with more finesse.
The Deputy often decried social partnership. He has been very opposed to it.
I wish to repeat the question put by my colleague, Deputy Shortall. In the interests of trying to find some way to resolve what is a difficult dispute, notwithstanding the fact that it is circumscribed by other factors, including partnership arrangements, will the Minister indicate that he is prepared to explore the possibility of bringing forward benchmarking to June next year to open up a framework within which serious dialogue could commence? If the Minister could say "yes" to that question, there might be some room for manoeuvre.
I met the unions and I told them that I would pursue that issue. The matter is being considered by the partners and I hope we may have an outcome in a relatively short time. However, there are two teacher unions at the table. They represent many teachers. The public service is also represented at the table. Those people represent 235,000 individuals in the public service and they are trying to resolve the matter. I will not break up what they are doing. I want answers and the results. I see possibilities along the lines suggested by the Deputy, but that is now a matter for the partners.
So the Minister will do it. I thank him.
Meanwhile students are at home.
The Minister is a dismal failure in this regard. Some 300,000 secondary school pupils are currently at home or running around the streets.
Some of them are in the Visitors Gallery listening to the debate.
Their parents are distraught at the lack of action on the Minister's part as the political head of the Department—
A question please, Deputy.
—to bring about a situation where students can get back to school with specyific reference to those who have a legal responsibility under the Minister's Department to do the leaving and junior certificate examinations. Will the Minister tell the House once and for all what he intends to do about that matter?
What organisations received settlements recently in terms of pay concessions outside the PPF? The Minister knows them. If he contacted any of the Labour Relations Commission's officers, they would tell him that many interest groups—
A question please, Deputy.
—have received settlements outside the PPF. The Minister presides over the noble and skilful profession of teaching. A Minister in that position requires care and consideration. What is preventing the Minister from asking representatives of the ASTI to come to Marlborough Street tomorrow for a private meeting in his office? They want to get off the hook, but the Minister appears hell bent on complete humiliation in a situation where nobody wants to lose face.
A question please, Deputy Kenny.
It is the Minister's responsibility and the matter will get worse over the Christmas and spring periods if he does not sort it out.
The Minister indicated four times that he was prepared to do whatever he could to settle the dispute. He indicated several times during his long responses to various questions that he was prepared to settle. Will the Minister contact the president of the ASTI, Mr. McCluskey, and invite him to meetings in the Department in the interests of the children, their parents and the teachers in an effort to resolve the dispute? Will the Minister take the initiative, invite in the ASTI and try to find a solution?
Is the Minister's position one of indifference to the inequality being visited on leaving certificate students, some of whom are not receiving tuition because of the schools they attend? Is his approach to the ASTI now one of simply grinding it into submission?
The Minister performed well in his former position as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. Why will he not use the same tactics in regard to the teachers?
He is on dry land now.
He has run aground.
Why does the Minister not engage in dialogue with the teachers, in the way he did with the fishermen in Killybegs, Castletownbere, Howth and elsewhere? I have great faith in the Minister. If he had proper dialogue with the teachers he could settle the matter overnight.
The Minister is at sea.
It is all a cod.
He is looking for a life-belt.
I would be very happy to meet with the ASTI as soon as—
The Minister should ring it up and tell it that.
—it is ready to meet with me.
The Minister should ring them – the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, is meeting the taximen.
It is not quite that simple. I have been in contact with the ASTI and I will maintain that contact. I am very—
The Minister has met it twice since March.
No, I am very happy to be in contact with it and to maintain that communication. As soon as—
Long distance.
The Minister, without interruption.
The Minister is the only person in the country who is happy.
As Deputies know, the ASTI executive spent most of the weekend discussing these issues. I made it very clear that I am prepared—
The Minister should not just sit there – he should do something.
—in this, the most open forum in the country, which is reported on television, radio and elsewhere—
The Minister does not have to tell us that.
I conveyed very clearly to it that I am very happy to meet with it to try to find a way to resolve this dispute and, if that is not directly possible, to try to facilitate its involvement with the benchmarking body.
The Minister should take the initiative.
I have no problem with taking initiatives but—
Would the Minister recognise its president?
The Minister, without interruption.
—there must be someone who wants to respond to that. As soon as that is there, I will be very quick to do it.
The Minister has failed.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.