Brian Hayes
Ceist:3 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her recent attendance at the INTO and TUI annual conferences. [18573/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraThursday, 6 May 2010
Ceisteanna (4)
Freagraí ó Béal (19 píosaí cainte)
I believe that a high level of mathematical achievement is vital for Ireland and that we need to improve attainment levels in maths.
That is the wrong answer.
No, this is about mathematics.
Ceist a trí.
Sorry, the Deputy is right. I should be telling him about the great time I had at the INTO conference.
That is the question.
Sorry, question No. 8 has been put in front of me. I could nearly tell the House of the top of my head about the great time I had at the conferences.
I used the invitation to speak at the Easter conferences of INTO and TUI as an opportunity to set the financial and economic context governing the provision of resources to schools and colleges as well as looking at a number of challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. I covered a number of common issues that were relevant to both unions and issues of specific relevance in the sectors in which each union has members.
I acknowledged that some of the decisions the Government had to make created anxiety and difficulties for their members and that teachers, through their frontline interaction with the community in which they work, gain a very real understanding of the pressure that parents and families are experiencing at this time and the impact of unemployment.
I explained that in Government we are undertaking a hugely challenging task in righting Ireland's course to ultimately provide jobs, opportunity and a future for the pupils in their classrooms. In the process, however, we have had to take some difficult and unpopular decisions to deal with the fall in tax revenue and to stabilise the public finances. In that context I explained the need to make a further €3 billion of adjustments in the next budget including a further reduction in current expenditure on public services. Despite all the hard choices of the past year we would still have to go further in laying the path to recovery and this means there will be less money available to public services in the medium term. The challenge in delivering public services is how to achieve more with less and deliver a quality and responsive education system to meet our economic and social objectives in these difficult times.
I acknowledged at both conferences the difficult period we are going through in terms of industrial relations and that the measures taken by the Government had impacted on the living standards of their members and other public servants. I stated that I wished it were otherwise and that no Government would want to take the measures we have had to take if they could be avoided.
I welcomed the agreement framed following discussions under the auspices of the LRC and made clear the Government's view that it represented a reasonable basis to move forward and accepted that the unions must conduct and conclude their own internal processes on the agreement.
Why was it the case that her Department took four full weeks to clarify key questions the teaching unions had on aspects of the Croke Park deal, particularly in respect of teacher holidays and the length of the school day? When clarification was sought a month ago, why did she not choose to directly address teachers about their concerns at the two teacher conferences she attended? Given that many teachers are currently voting on the Croke Park deal in the various ballots now taking place, can she confirm that it was only yesterday that her Department finally gave the written clarification the unions sought?
During those conferences it was not appropriate to persuade the members of the union to vote one way or the other. I put forward the case that, in my view, what was an option arising from Croke Park was the issue which, without a doubt, was accepted by the Government, negotiated between both sides under the auspices of the LRC and that my view at that time was that it was the best option available from the Government but I asked each individual to consider it. If I were to dictate to members of any union what shouldhappen, it would be completely inappropriate during a time of consultation and thought processes.
I agreed to clarification because I wanted to ensure a number of things. If I was to give clarity in one way or another, my grave concern was that I would be seen to try to influence a particular union or members of a union when those people wished to have their own evaluation of what was happening. At present, voting is taking place for a number of unions and clarity was sought. I indicated to a number of teachers who had concerns that those concerns were unfounded but following discussions in the Department, my representative at those discussions and the leaders of the unions asked for a letter to clarify the situation. The way in which it has been worded gives clarity about the time teachers are expected within tuition.
Concerning management of an issue, is this not a terrible way to do business? The teachers did not want to be persuaded by the Tánaiste or anybody else. They wanted facts. I attended those conferences as did Deputy Quinn. All the questions teachers raised with me in the course of discussions were simple and the Tánaiste could have clarified matters in the address she was asked to make at two of the teachers' conferences. They did not want her or anybody else to persuade them but simply wanted facts.
The Tánaiste has now provided the facts, at one minute to midnight, as it were, when the teachers are voting on this deal. Is this not an extraordinary act of incompetence on her part and that of her Department? She provided the information that was sought a month after the first request for it and at a time when the ballot is taking place.
I was not negotiating. People must agree the format first and then there is negotiation. I was not going to be in a position to stand up at a forum of an INTO or TUI conference and negotiate with the body of the house. That is not what I was doing.
The Tánaiste is their employer.
Teachers spoke about their concerns and about whether the contract would impact on the number of days of tuition expected by the State. I gave clarification that it would not. That is the situation.
I have one final question.
The Deputy will be very brief.
As the Deputy knows, what was written in the agreement referred to the hour that had to be worked by the respective teachers.
I have one other question. In the course of her speeches to both the INTO and TUI conferences, the Tánaiste alluded to further cutbacks in the education sector, to come possibly next year. Can she give further information to the House at this stage, given there will be more people in our education system next September than at any time in the past 100 years?
That is a separate question, unless the Tánaiste wishes to say something on it, briefly.
As the Deputy knows, we had a discussion yesterday at the joint committee meeting. We are not in a position to discuss what reductions will take place in the overall budget because we are not yet at that stage.
Question No. 4 answered with Question No. 2.