asked the Minister for Education when he intends to meet a deputation of the returned emigrant teachers' action group.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Emigrant Teacher Deputation.
6.
Mr. R. Burke
I would refer the Deputy to my reply of 21 January, 1975, to a question from him concerning the recognition of teaching service abroad. The aspects of the matter to which I adverted in that reply are still sub judice, and in the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to receive a deputation from the group in question before the judgment of the Supreme Court becomes available.
Is the Minister aware that at the time I pointed out to him that the question sub judice was one of discrimination as between a lay teacher and a teacher in Holy Orders and has nothing to do with this issue at all, and that the group concerned has since then taken senior counsel's advice and that his advice is that this is the case.
Mr. R. Burke
I am aware that the Deputy made that point, but I pointed out to him in reply that to have conceded credit to lay teachers would have placed me as Minister in contempt of court and to have conceded it for lay and religious teachers would have rendered my appeal to the Supreme Court ludicrous.
The Minister knows he is talking nonsense. Is this a manner which the Minister has for delaying recognition of service overseas to teachers whom he specifically invited back to this country, saying in a letter I have here that if he got power, he would immediately give incremental allowances to teachers overseas?
Mr. R. Burke
The Deputy is aware that I did not take the action which led to the Supreme Court action in question, and until the judgment is delivered in this case, I cannot take any effective action.
Does the Minister recognise the style of this statement? "May I assure you that as a former practising teacher, I am very much in favour of the extension of incremental recognition for worthwhile experience gained overseas", sent to some person in Canada——
Quotations are not in order at Question Time.
——and that this person came back thinking that the Minister was a man of his word. I am simply probing—I believe he still may be—to see is the Minister using this court case he need not use to postpone a decision on this matter.
Mr. R. Burke
I have replied to the Deputy on the two points, that to have done one thing would have made me act as if I were in contempt of court, and to have done the other would have made my appeal in the case ludicrous, and I think that is sufficient answer.
Does the Minister agree with the wording of that letter, that all he needed was power to make these teachers——
The Deputy has already made that point.
The Deputy is making a different point, with respect.
I have given Deputies some latitude on this subject.
I am asking the Minister was he advised by his legal advisers that he could not grant recognition for service abroad to any teacher because of this court action. I am asking that straight and blunt.
Mr. R. Burke
I have already answered the Deputy's question on that point twice. I cannot add anything to the answer already given.
Specifically I am asking now has the Minister legal advice that he cannot grant recognition for service abroad to any teacher because of this court case?
Mr. R. Burke
The Minister is aware of the relevance of the sub judice rules in these matters.
Withdraw your appeal and it will not be relevant.