Why is the ASTI strike continuing? Why is this strike happening? Why are our children suffering severe disruption to their studies? Why are the public examinations, especially the Leaving Cert, which is critical to the future of young people, being targeted?
These are the questions which parents, students and the public are asking, and rightly so. It is not as if, for example, teachers' salaries were not being increased to protect and improve living standards. Last year salaries went up by 8 per cent under the PPF. This year, they will increase by a further 7 per cent.
As a result, a newly-recruited teacher with an honours degree and an honours HDip is now on a salary of £20,636, and this will increase to £23,095 by October 2002.
Likewise, teachers with an honours degree and an honours HDip with 15 years' service are now on salaries of £31,107, which will increase to £34,813 by October 2002.
A principal of a 23-teacher school with similar qualifications on the maximum of the teachers' scale now has a salary of £50,026, which will increase to £55,987 in October 2002.
Teachers will also benefit from significant improvements in takehome pay arising from income-tax concessions implemented as part of the PPF. Typically, the tax concessions in the last Budget will improve take-home pay of secondary school teachers by about 4 per cent to 9 per cent, depending on their circumstances.
Is the strike about pay lost for days of "work-to-rule"?
Most people would regard it as fair that industrial action which inevitably results in the cancellation of classes, such that children could not go to school, should result in a sanction. It is not reasonable to expect that people should be paid as normal by the taxpayer when, in effect, they are failing to deliver any service.
However, the payment for the days in question is on offer to the teachers. As a result of the proposals put by the independent mediator, Mr Tom Pomphrett, the payment in question will be refunded without prejudice to the position of either side. All that is required is that the ASTI engage in the talks process to which it has already agreed.
The ASTI has refused to accept the outcome of the agreed independent arbitration process for teachers. It has rejected the benchmarking process and it is now refusing to engage in discussions aimed at resolving this dispute.
For its part, the Government has, at all times, utilised the agreed conciliation and arbitration machinery for teachers and implemented the findings of the arbitration board.
Furthermore, when difficulties arose, the Government again agreed to discussions under an independent chairman.
So let us be clear. There is no need for teachers to be on strike in order to get a refund of the pay deducted for the days of action.
So, is the strike about a pay claim for teachers over and above the terms of the PPF?
The ASTI has argued that its pay has fallen behind that of equivalent personnel in both the public and the private sectors. It has been stated that teachers' contribution to the wider economy and society has not been appropriately recognised or rewarded. The ASTI claims that recruitment to the profession and its effectiveness in the future will be damaged unless a fair reward is paid. It wants its case independently assessed and dealt with.
The Government agrees that this should be done, and done in a way which takes full account of all of the factors which the ASTI has raised. It must look at the range of salaries paid to teachers and to other graduates, in both the public and the private sectors.
It must take account of the nature of the job, the qualifications required and the retention and progression aspects of the job. It must also take account of the implications for other public service employees of any change in the pay and conditions of teachers.
If it fails to do so, it is neither credible nor sustainable. In particular, it can provide no lasting solution to the question of the relative standing of teachers and their pay.
It was precisely to achieve these objectives that the Government agreed with the public service unions to establish a benchmarking body. Its brief is to look comprehensively and objectively at the pay of public servants right across the spectrum. It is designed to ensure that people are rewarded appropriately in the context of pay levels obtaining in the private sector.
This is the only fair way to do it. It is the only process which can deliver an objective assessment. It is designed to deal with precisely the issues and concerns which teachers, like others, have about the fairness of their position.
This mechanism is available to teachers. It has been accepted by all of the other public service unions, including the other teacher unions. It is a mechanism which, within a defined time, will give a comprehensive and objective response to the ASTI claims.
So, the strike is not about lack of access to an objective examination of its pay claim. That is on offer.
So what is the strike about? We have been told that it is a "crusade". Against whom is this crusade being conducted? It seems it is partly about a power struggle within the ASTI, with the crusade designed to achieve dominance for particular groups.
It seems partly to be a crusade against the rest of the public service and the whole social partnership process. Can it be wrong to engage in a fair and objective benchmarking process which enables all of the arguments to be made and examined and assessed? Can it be wrong to agree to have one's case considered alongside the case of those who will be affected by any pay outcome in the context of an examination of pay levels in the economy as a whole? Most fair-minded people will conclude - as the whole of the rest of the public service concluded - that the benchmarking process is the way to go.
Ultimately, perhaps, this is a crusade against the Government. If it is, it is certainly not because of any lack of willingness on the part of Government to support education and the role of teachers. Our record on investment in education is eloquent testimony to that.
In addition to pay increases provided for in the PPF, the Government has also committed itself to increased investment in the education sector over the period of the programme. A further 1,500 teaching posts will be provided, 600 of which will be for post-primary schools. Increased resources will be provided for areas such as special-needs education, early childhood education, lifelong learning and educational disadvantage.
Equally, we were very happy to agree with the public services unions to establish a benchmarking body which would produce a fair outcome on the pay of all public servants, including teachers.
We were also happy to respond to the other public service unions and advance the completion date of the benchmarking report and, much more significantly, to bring forward one-quarter of any increases recommended by it to December this year.
So, I repeat the question: why is this strike happening? What is certain is that children around the country are suffering unnecessarily. In particular, Leaving Cert students are being subjected to a grossly unfair pressure from those to whom they rightly look for guidance and example, as well as instruction.
They see the action being taken as totally disproportionate to the facts of the situation. Their parents know that it is unnecessary and unreasonable. It is damaging the educational system. It is reflecting poorly on teachers. It is a self-defeating campaign.
I know that the fate of the Leaving and Junior Cert examinations is of particular concern to parents and students alike. Let me say first of all that the Government is determined to ensure that the examinations will go ahead.
In many other dispute situations, emergency cover is provided. However, the ASTI is apparently not only withdrawing its own co-operation with the exams but is seeking to prevent the exams from going ahead. I would find it difficult to accept that the generality of ASTI members are happy with this.
It is time for all of us to begin asking the question: why is this strike happening?