I am merely indicating a particular social development which is interesting to note and indicative of the fact that teachers' pay has not been as high as I would like to have seen it.
The interim report was recommended on 22 September 1980. It proposed certain salary increases and so on. These salary increases were strongly rejected by the teachers' unions and, as a result of the conciliation and arbitration scheme, substantial amendments were made to the recommendations in the interim report. The main changes were in regard to the amount of the increase in teachers' pay, an agreement on the shortening of the time spread over which a teacher would reach the maximum on the scale and the retention of B posts of responsibility. I agree with what the Minister did in relation to the salary increases, the retention of the B posts and the shortening of the length of time it took a teacher to reach the maximum on the scale. There were several improvements which the Minister correctly made. The Minister, on other issues, totally ignored the recommendations of the review body. I will quote from paragraph 2.6:
The salary we recommend will, we believe, correct those inadequacies but we would emphasise that the salary so recommended is justifiable only if it is overtly recognised that supervision, substitution, parent contact and pastoral care are integral parts of the teaching function and essential to the proper running of a school. The response we would wish to see generated from the teachers is that these requirements will be met by them generously in the part they play in the moulding and development of their pupils.
The ignoring by the Minister of that central recommendation is the reason why the review body submitted their resignation to the Minister on 30 October 1980. Why has the Minister not initiated negotiations with the reachers' unions on these vital matters which affect parents, teachers and children? From the point of view of improving our system of education, it was essential that the Minister should at least initiate negotiations on these matters of supervision, substitution, parent contact and pastoral care. There are many parents who would like to have seen some move forward on these fronts. It is obvious that the Minister has not made any attempt to open negotiations on these matters.
There is another matter stated in paragraph 2.6:
From the evidence presented to us we are concerned that the quality of school service is not being fully maintained at present.
If that is not a serious indictment of the Minister for Education then I am a Dutchman. For an impartial review body, chaired by a judge of the Circuit Court, to indict the Minister for failing to ensure that the quality of our school services is maintained, is one of the most serious indictments I have heard from an independent authority since I was elected. Would the Minister make some statement on that aspect of the interim report? They stated again, quite clearly in paragraph 2.6:
We believe that our salary proposals recognise the value and inherent worth of the profession and we feel it our duty to state that the prerequisite of any such contracts should be the meeting in full of school requirements of teaching, caring and management.
The review body submitted their resignation on 30 October 1980 setting out their reasons for that action. I do not agree with them on one or two points but the fact that they decided to resign is a serious matter. It is the first time since I became a Member of this House that an independent investigating body resigned because their recommendations were ignored. It is sad to think that when the Minister received that letter of resignation he did not do anything about it.
In the course of their statement on 8 January the review body stated that at the time of their letter of resignation of 30 October the ballot on the Minister's proposals had not been completed and for that reason, in deference to the Minister's wishes, they delayed making public their decision. It appears from that statement that the Minister made some request to the review body not to resign but I do not think he made any effort to meet the recommendations of the review body because on 11 December they wrote to the Minister, since no communication had been received from him in the interim, indicating their intention to issue a press release on 2 January 1981. Apparently, the Minister's private secretary asked for a delay in the publishing of the resignation and in the first week of 1981 the Minister, in the course of a letter to the review body, expressed his gratitude to them for accepting the onerous duty and so on.
The point I am making — I want this clearly taken and not misinterpreted — is that it is very difficult for one man to put a value on another man's labour. In a society which has been suffering from serious inflation for the past ten years I have seen the revaluing of peoples' incomes in different sectors of the economy changing drastically. It was because of the ravages of inflation that the tremendous pressure built up within the teachers' unions for very high increases. The Irish Times of 9 April 1980 reported that vocational teachers were to push for a 50 per cent pay claim. They were the type of figures spoken of early that year. It was because of many years of neglect that the teachers rightly sought radical increases in their pay. The recommendation was not acceptable to them and it subsequently went, on the Minister's initiative, to conciliation and arbitration where a higher figure was agreed on. I welcome the agreement reached at that time. Some aspects of the recommendations were not to my liking such as the length of time it took teachers to reach the maximum, the retention of the B posts and the overall increases suggested. I felt those increases could be improved on. The figures agreed by the Minister and the teachers' unions were to my satisfaction and I stated publicly that I welcomed the agreement.
However, I was disappointed that in other vital areas the Minister was extremely neglectful in that he chose to ignore what must be considered to be important aspects of the teaching profession. I look forward to the time when such matters as supervision, substitution, parent contact and pastoral care would be integral parts of the school system. I look forward to the time when the income of teachers will be such as to include all those aspects of professional status. If that happens we will not have the annual wrangle about fees to be paid for supervision of examinations or the correcting of examination papers. We should have an automatic way forward.
The Minister has missed an ideal opportunity to deal with such matters by not taking up the recommendations of the review body. By ignoring what can only be considered as the pleadings of the review body on 30 October and 11 December the Minister has deprived the teaching profession of further increases in salary. He has deprived them of a final report which would have dealt in a comprehensive way with the professional status, with their place in the examination system and with other matters the review body cared to address themselves to. By his own negligence and omission the Minister has denied teachers a further increase in salary and has denied children and parents a clear recommendation on the path our educational system should take in the eighties in such vital areas as pastoral care, supervision and so on. As a result we are left in a vacuum. We are missing something and teachers are missing out on a further increase in salary.
I looked forward, as Opposition spokesman on Education, and as a parent, to the final report of the review body. However, because of the Minister's incompetence, neglect and omission in dealing with the recommendations in the interim report a serious disservice has been done to Irish education. A wider implication is that in future it may be difficult to get independent people of standing to serve on Government committees or Government-sponsored review bodies. Why should they if their major recommendations are to be ignored? Even when they take the trouble to communicate with the Minister and point out certain matters which are not to their liking their serious submissions are ignored. The final report of the review body could have played a vital role in improving the relations between the teachers' unions, parents and the Department of Education. It could have helped in some way to improve our school system, something which would be to the benefit of all children.