We now come to Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Education and Science on the industrial action by secondary school teachers. I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Education and Science 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 his views on the escalation of the dispute with the ASTI to outright confrontation with the Department of Education and Science resulting to date in denial of a proper education to thousands of students and which, if not dealt with immediately, will further result in serious setbacks for students wishing to complete junior and leaving certificate examinations, including aural, oral, practical and written examinations up to June 2001; his further views on the impact on the integrity of the State examination system; and his further views on whether the reputation and standing of the educational, scientific and business competitive edge of our young people will be diminished as a result of this action.
asked the Minister for Education and Science to outline the steps he is taking to secure a solution to the continuing dispute involving members of the ASTI, especially having regard to the decision to escalate industrial action and the threat to examinations; if he has considered the establishment of an independent forum on teaching as part of a package of measures to solve the dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Education and Science if he accepts that the ASTI dispute is as much to do with changing values in Irish society as it is about a pay demand; and if he will instigate a direct dialogue as a matter of urgency with the ASTI and other stakeholders in education generally to achieve an urgent suspension of industrial action and end the uncertainty and losses suffered by students, many of whom face vital examinations early next year.
I propose to take all the questions together.
The ASTI campaign of industrial action in pursuit of its pay claim for an immediate 30% increase in salary has resulted in the majority of second level students losing nine days teaching in the past month. This is a significant portion of the total annual teaching time, the loss of which is adversely affecting all students, particularly those sitting examinations this year.
The ASTI decision to escalate the industrial action to include further strike days and the ban on co-operation with leaving certificate and junior certificate examinations is difficult to understand, particularly when the decision came immediately at the end of a week in which the improved terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, together with the budget tax con cessions, were accepted by the other public service unions, including the other two teacher unions. It is most regrettable that the ASTI has now decided to hold the futures of our children to ransom in pursuit of its pay claim.
I met the ASTI on Monday, 4 December. This was in direct response to numerous public statements from the ASTI seeking to meet me and the clear expression by both the Taoiseach and me of our willingness to listen to its views. The ASTI position is that the industrial action can be suspended only when a special forum is provided to address its claim over and above and ahead of the claims of other public service employees. The ASTI also reiterated that the public service benchmarking body is not an adequate body to address its claim and that it would not participate in that body.
I was most disappointed with the ASTI position which did not acknowledge the truth of the situation in relation to the processing of its claim. Procedures have been established and agreed between the teacher unions and the Department. These include negotiation within the Teachers' Conciliation Council and, ultimately, referral to an independent three person Teachers' Arbitration Board. In this instance, the ASTI asked that its claim be referred to the Teachers' Arbitration Board which, it agreed, was the appropriate body to deal with its claim.
On a point of order, will the Minister answer the questions tabled today instead of giving us a history lesson?
That is not a point of order. The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption. Deputies will have an opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
Could the Minister arrange for his script to be circulated?
That is a matter for the Minister.
It will be Christmas before he is finished.
He will antagonise them again.
The Minister, without interruption.
The Teachers' Arbitration Board rejected the ASTI 30% claim and recommended that the pay terms of the PPF should be applied to ASTI members in common with other teachers and public servants. It also recommended that its further concerns should be addressed through the public service benchmarking body. The board further stated that it did not believe that "it would be appropriate for it to determine the pay for one particular group of workers outside the norms which have been accepted by the majority of workers having regard to all the consequences which could flow from such a course of action".
It is difficult to understand why the ASTI continues to reject the public service benchmarking body as being inadequate to deal with its concerns. This is an independent forum presided over by a High Court judge whose composition, terms of reference and secretariat have been agreed between the social partners. Its terms of reference, including the in-depth and comprehensive research, examination and analysis of pay rates across the public and private sectors as well as particular occupational groups and graduate recruits are tailor made to deal with the issue raised by the ASTI.
The public service benchmarking body is also required in its recommendations to have regard to the need to recruit, retain, motivate and reward staff with the qualifications and skills needed to exercise their different responsibilities and to ensure equity between employees in the public and private sector. As these are the issues of concern to the ASTI, it becomes difficult to understand why it refuses to see the independent benchmarking process as a way forward.
The improved pay terms of the PPF and the associated early settlers agreement for ASTI members mean a cumulative pay increase of almost 22% within a two year period, beginning with a 8.5% increase effective from 1 October last and paid to all teachers from that date. The PPF also provides for significant tax concessions in the region of 10%. The budget has already delivered significantly on this commitment. The PPF tax concessions, taken together with the pay increases, amount to a 32% increase in take home pay.
It was 32.6% last week.
I will give the Deputies some examples of the effect of the PPF on teachers' pay. The salary of a teacher recruited in September 2000 will increase from £18,990 to £24,743 over the period of the PPF, while the salary of a principal of a 23-teacher school on the maximum of the scale will increase by £9,950 from £46,037 to £55,987.
That is selective propaganda.
The intermediate salaries will increase on a pro rata basis. These are substantial increases in pay.
The Minister thinks he will bore us into—
That is the Deputy's old line.
We cannot have interruptions. The Deputy may have a chance to ask supplementary questions if he allows the Minister to continue.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Stagg, on a point of order.
I am aware the Ceann Comhairle has no control over the Minister's reply. Is it unprecedented for a Minister to have such a long answer that he must circulate a script to the House?
That is not a point of order, Deputy. Allow the Minister to continue, please.
Another chapter.
I remind Deputies that the more they interrupt, the less time there will be for supplementary questions.
These are substantial increases in pay over a 25-month period.
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 has been established to undertake a fundamental examination of public service jobs vis-à-vis the private sector. The improved terms of the PPF agreed last week now provide that one quarter of any further increase arising from the report of the benchmarking body will be implemented with effect from 1 December next, thus fast tracking payment.
The ASTI objectives can be achieved most effectively and equitably through the processes included in the PPF and agreed through the social partnership process which has delivered our present state of economic wellbeing. There is still time for this dispute to be resolved before the effects of the escalation of industrial action by the ASTI impact fully on the examination system and the students who are currently preparing for their examinations.
I wrote to the ASTI on Tuesday outlining my views and inviting it to meet me so that we can find a way to resolve this dispute in a mutually acceptable and satisfactory way in the interests of pupils and parents. I am pleased to report that the ASTI has accepted my invitation and a meeting is being arranged.
The Minister's reply is more of the Woods waffle. He said last week that he was shocked at the response of the ASTI central executive. The Taoiseach said yesterday that he was at a loss to understand what the strike is about. I am very concerned that students who are now in the most pressurised year of their lives, with their futures depending on their examination results, are being used as pawns in the war between the Department and the ASTI. I am absolutely astounded at the lack of creativity and imagination shown by the Minister in letting the strike escalate to this point. If the Minister and the ASTI want to have talks, will the Minister say if a definite date been arranged for the meeting to which he referred in his letter last Tuesday? When the Minister meets the ASTI, is he prepared to announce an independent commission on teaching to deal with the complexities of the teaching profession across all sectors, which would allow observer status to unions currently within the PPF? Is he prepared to show some imagination in this instance in that most teachers I know now wish to get back to work, and most parents are extremely concerned about a situation which has drifted to a point of outright confrontation, principally because of the Minister's lack of imagination, action and creativity?
The day before last, I invited the ASTI to meet me. It replied that it was prepared to have discussions and a meeting is being arranged. As the Deputy will appreciate, the members are on strike today so a meeting will be held as soon as possible. I certainly hope to have a meeting within days.
On the independent commission, an independent body will look at teachers' positions, as well as the position of others. That body is very capable and is presided over by a totally independent judge. We should be clear about that aspect. I will be happy to make any arrangements in the context of the PPF and the other teacher unions. I am open to discussions on how we might find a solution. An article in one of this morning's newspapers by the general secretary of the ASTI, on its behalf, stated that the ASTI is now looking for a forum, independent of the Government and independent of influences which are compromised by connections with the PPF, to address its claim. The whole country is working on the PPF and an independent body and independent forum is in place. I will be very happy to facilitate any arrangements made within that forum to address the issues. It is neither realistic nor factual to suggest that the bodies involved in the PPF are in any way compromised or that people can be compromised by connection with the PPF. There is an independent forum in place and we will discuss the means by which we might advance the position. However, I must make it clear that the Government and I stand very firmly with the partners and the PPF.
Will the Minister accept that the escalation of this dispute which is now putting examinations in jeopardy could have been avoided if he kept his promise to engage with the ASTI prior to its central executive committee's meeting last Saturday? It was the ASTI's understanding that he would revert to it by last Friday. Will he accept that his failure to do so has resulted in the escalation of the dispute? Rather than availing of the opportunity, the Minister allowed matters to drift. Is it the case that the Minister's inaction, apparent lack of any kind of interest in the dispute and his confrontational approach have greatly exacerbated the dispute? Is it the case that the Minister is part of the problem?
He is very much part of the problem.
What action does the Minister propose to take to unlock the dispute and allow students to resume their education without further disruption?
The Deputy was engaged in this House in discussing the points raised by the ASTI during my last meeting with it. It said the claim is based on payment for productivity, an adjustment to close the gap which has developed between the salaries of teachers and other comparable graduate groups, cost of living increases and on a share in economic prosperity. It made clear from the outset that it did not like two aspects of the benchmarking process. It believes it is not fast enough. It wants an advance payment on it soon and it wanted the increase in inflation to be dealt with in the current year. In addition, it wanted the increase in inflation to be dealt with in the current year.
The Minister never answers the questions he is asked.
Is it not true that the other matter the ASTI wanted dealt with was performance-related pay?
The ASTI referred to pay. It stated that its claim is based on payment for productivity, closing the gap with other sectors, the cost of living and obtaining a share in economic prosperity. Those four points were contained in the document the ASTI presented to me at that stage.
The social partners dealt with those issues last week. On Saturday I was hopeful that the ASTI would recognise that the Government and social partners had met its demands and that the PPF provided, through the benchmarking mechanism, an opportunity to process its further claims. However, the union refused to recognise that. I wrote to it afterwards setting out what were the benefits which emerged from the budget. Everybody in the country recognised those benefits—
The Minister did not offer the ASTI anything new.
—and they were even spelt out in this Chamber by the leaders of the Opposition parties. I invited representatives of the ASTI to attend a meeting to discuss, in the aftermath of the budget and other developments—
Outside the PPF mechanism.
—and without preconditions, how to find a resolution to the problem. The ASTI responded in the affirmative and a meeting is being arranged. I will do my utmost to progress the position when that meeting takes place.
Does the Minister believe his calling members of the executive "liars" helps the situation?
Does the Minister accept that he is a partner in education and that he needs to change people's perception of him as being a boring bully in respect of this dispute and create a new image of himself as a campaigner for the morale and well-being of all stakeholders in education? Does he also accept that the ASTI dispute involves more issues than a mere pay claim? Has any work been carried out in drawing up the possible terms of reference of the teaching commission which, in my opinion, holds the key to resolving this dispute? Is the Minister in a position to inform the House about this little known PR committee comprising officials from the Departments of the Taoiseach, Education and Science and Finance which is responsible for dealing with the media in respect of this dispute? What is that committee's role and will the Minister override it to ensure a resolution is reached?
It has become clear that the benchmarking body can do everything the teachers want it to do. We can discuss that matter in detail.
I did not ask about that.
I agree that initially benchmarking was a new concept which related primarily to pay. The teachers requested a comparison with the private sector because employees in that sector are doing well at present.
With regard to the wider issues, I am extremely interested in developing and supporting the education system and the teaching profession. I am currently working with teachers in that regard. Deputies must remember that there are two teacher unions participating in discussions on those matters and in the PPF. Those unions have expressed satisfaction with what the PPF has delivered to date and are making preparations to put forward a wide-ranging promotion of their position to the benchmarking body.
In relation to the committee to which Deputy Sargent referred, representatives of the Departments of the Taoiseach, Education and Science and Finance are working together to try to find a resolution to this dispute.
Does the Minister accept that the rhythm of the educational semester has been completely disrupted because of the strike? How does he propose to run the State examinations – which is his legal responsibility – in a fair manner?
Nobody is suggesting that the PPF be broken or breached. Does the Minister not accept that the appointment of a commission on teaching would deal with a great number of common prob lems which are of concern to all teacher unions? Does he accept that, because the main benchmarking process is dealing with issues and difficulties affecting 235,000 public servants, the many complex matters that have arisen in the education sector since this strike began would be best dealt with by an independent commission on teaching which would have strong links with the PPF? Does he not see the value in proceeding in that manner?
As stated earlier, the general secretary of the ASTI stated this morning that it would have some difficulties in that regard.
Does the Minister accept my point?
I am anxious to find a means to resolve that situation but the Deputy must realise that, as matters stand, the executive of the ASTI, and no one else, decided to increase the pressure by launching an attack on the examinations process. It is obvious that there will be difficulties in running the examinations but we will have to deal with that issue, if it arises, after Christmas. I stated at the time that I was shocked because I did not believe that teachers or the leaders of the ASTI would be prepared to damage children's future lives in that way.
Unfair comment.
There are means of resolving the problems they wish to discuss and have us consider. Some of those which they put to me initially have already been resolved and there are further issues concerning the teaching profession which could also be resolved. However, we must wait to see what the ASTI and other teacher unions wish to do in that regard. I am anxious to press forward to resolve matters within the context of the PPF.
Does the Minister accept that he has been partially or almost totally responsible for the escalation of the ASTI's action? As a member of the ASTI, I wish to outline the reasons I believe the Minister is to blame.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Will the Minister withdraw his statement that the voluntary work teachers carry out in schools is part of their contracts? That infuriated even the most reasonable and passive teachers. Will he also withdraw his comments that the teachers will be deducted pay for the days on which they withdrew their services, thus preventing children from attending school?
I do not want to pre-empt the discussions we might have with the ASTI and the other unions. However, I was obliged to make it clear at an early stage that I did not believe teachers could expect to be paid for days on which children were not able to attend school. The Government took a decision on that matter and there is no question of changing it.
The Minister is not going back.
The second question related to deductions. There have been nine days of dispute, including today. The Government has decided there will be deductions.
Does the Minister accept that the ASTI, like any group of workers which is not party to a national agreement, has a legitimate legal and civil right to pursue a pay claim? If the Minister accepts this, is it not incumbent upon him to provide a forum to pursue that claim?
What consideration has the Minister given to the long-term impact of this dispute? The dispute will be resolved eventually, but what consideration has the Minister given to the negative impact the dispute, and particularly his confrontational approach, will have on the morale and general good standing of the education system and on the integrity of the teaching profession? Will the Minister reconsider his decision to deduct teachers' pay for the days of work to rule? The Minister might win the war but be left with a totally demoralised education system and teaching body.
At the moment, the only thing I know is that the teachers have said they will interrupt examinations. They are on strike today and are planning to carry on further.
The Minister could stop it.
The Minister could stop this by providing a forum.
I have arranged meetings with the ASTI to try to resolve that situation.
Will the Minister engage with the teachers? There is not any point in lecturing.
The dispute will not be resolved here. I am not lecturing anyone.
The Deputy raised the question of providing an independent arbitrator. The ASTI had an independent arbitration board. The machinery has been provided.
What did the arbitration board say?
I have told the Deputy what the board said. The board rejected the claim for a 30% increase and said the ASTI should pursue its claim within the PPF and the benchmarking system.
The ASTI is outside the PPF. The Minister has not recognised that.
The arbitration board is independent. I was asked if a board would be provided. There is machinery. The ASTI went to conciliation and then to the independent board.
Has the ASTI not the right to pursue its claim outside the PPF?
It did pursue it.
Acting Chairman
I call Deputy Boylan.
The Minister has not answered my question regarding the long-term effect of the dispute.
Acting Chairman
The Chair has no control over what the Minister answers.
Let the Minister reply. This is a very important matter.
If we can get a resolution soon I do not think there will be long-term damage. I agree with Deputy Sargent when he says changes are occurring in education, particularly in second level, and there will be many changes in the future. I would like to see the implications of these examined within the context of social partnership and the PPF.
Does the Minister not accept that the teaching profession is a conscientious and dedicated profession, second to none? As a gesture of goodwill, will the Minister immediately announce the full restoration of pay to teachers? What plans does the Minister have to ensure a level playing field and a fair assessment for all children who take the leaving and junior certificate examinations?
The Deputy can be assured that my Department and I will do everything in our power to provide a fair and equitable examination system in the current circumstances, should that be required. Nevertheless, I do not wish to under estimate the size of the problem in that regard. I hope the ASTI will be able to resolve its position, particularly given the steps taken by the social partners and the Government last week, and delivered in the budget.
The teaching profession is a very conscientious one. Two teacher unions are continuing to teach and accepting the saving—
But the Minister wants to humiliate the third.
—and I would like to see the third one doing the same.
Will the Minister make a gesture regarding pay? The Minister will not answer.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Given that the ASTI opted out of the PPF, is it fair to ask the union to surrender? Teachers are on strike. The Minister is asking them to come back with their hands up and return to the PPF.
On their knees.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is indefensible to punish teachers for not doing voluntary work. The Minister said teachers kept children out of school. They did not. Teachers were prepared to teach but not to do voluntary work. The Government's decision is absurd and would be dismissed by any court. Will the Minister withdraw the threat to withhold pay? I spoke to a teacher today who said she would never again do an hour of voluntary work. I spent years teaching and doing voluntary work. I would not have accepted the right of anyone to cut my salary because I decided to stop doing voluntary work.
Does the Minister accept that he would be better advised to spend 25 hours a day to resolve this dispute rather than be forced to do so after Christmas when the situation has descended into chaos? Now is the time to settle this dispute.
There is no question of anyone being asked to surrender. The questions asked by the leaders of the ASTI were, to a large extent, answered in the latter part of last week. The other teacher unions can claim credit for pressing the case of teachers. I certainly pressed it on their behalf. The social partners listened and took heed of what I was saying.
I do not wish to punish teachers but I do not wish to see children punished and I want to see this issue brought to a conclusion before the children suffer seriously.
They have suffered.
I am quite certain Deputy Browne never sat inside his school and left children outside the door.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): My board of management could have closed the school at any time.
Acting Chairman
We have spent 40 minutes on this matter. It must conclude shortly. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
I have been indicating my intention to ask a question for some time. You would not have liked to be muzzled in this way last night, Sir.
This dispute is at an impasse. Is the Minister saying the dispute will only be resolved if the teachers are prepared to refer their case to the benchmarking body? What elements of productivity does the Minister wish to see the ASTI put on the negotiating table?
The question of productivity is one raised by the ASTI, not by me. If the union wishes to bring forward proposals on productivity I am prepared to discuss them
Does the Minister not have a strategy? Has the ASTI to negotiate for both sides of the table?
I am prepared to negotiate any of those issues.
What issues?
I can see areas where there could be productivity. There could be discussions about productivity in areas of development within schools. I would like to see that done for the future. That can be done within the PPF and I would like to see it happening.
Deputy Rabbitte referred to an impasse. The major step which was necessary was the one taken by the social partners and the Government last week. That was conveyed in the budget. Following that I asked the ASTI executive to meet me to discuss the implications and clarify the position to see how we can further develop the matter.
The Minister has no strategy.
Does the Minister have any idea of how to settle the dispute?
I have various ideas but I am not going to debate them in the House.
Acting Chairman
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Ring.
I have a straight question and all I am asking for is a straight answer. In whatever agreement is reached with the unions, will the State examinations be postponed next June so that whatever time has been lost by the children, and they are the people who have suffered, will be made up?
I appreciate the sincerity of the Deputy's proposal but the situation is more serious than that. Some children at junior certificate level will not be continuing in school and their position would be endangered. I am very conscious of that and am anxious to look after those children.
Is that because of a lack of confidence in the system?
If the Deputy wants to listen to me he should do so. If he wants to keep shouting across the House I will sit down and he can shout away.
We want the problem solved.
I appreciate Deputy Ring's point but I do not believe the ASTI would do that to the children and their futures.
The Minister should not blame the union.
I will do what I can to find a solution.
The Minister has been provocative all day.
Acting Chairman
That is the end of Private Notice Questions time.
On a point of order, Acting Chairman, the Minister took almost 20 minutes for his first reply and left very little time for questions.
I did not take anything like 20 minutes.
Will you, Acting Chairman, give another five or ten minutes to the remaining Deputies who wish to ask questions?
Acting Chairman
I have no control over the length of the Minister's reply. Ten or eleven supplementary questions were allowed from a large number of Deputies.
You have control over the length of time allowed, Acting Chairman.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.