asked the Minister for Education if he has assigned any of the special trainee teachers to the Church of Ireland College of Education, Rathmines, Dublin.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Special Trainee Teachers.
1.
asked the Minister for Education if his Department asked the special trainee teachers who are currently following the preparatory course to furnish details of their religious affiliation.
3.
asked the Minister for Education the estimated total cost of the course he has arranged to qualify suitably the special trainee teachers for primary schools; if any of the cost is being recouped from the trainee teachers concerned by reduced salary or otherwise; and the consequent net cost of the course to the State.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. As I have already indicated in reply to Question No. 143 on 15 December 1977, none of the applicants requested assignment to the Church of Ireland Training College, Rathmines. My Department did not ask applicants for any details of their religious affiliation. Premises and staff of the Rathmines college are being utilised by all the trainee teachers in colleges associated with the University of Dublin. The estimated total cost of the State by way of financial aid to the training college in respect of the course is £135,000; each trainee is also paying the college fee of £225.
If the students concerned were not requested to indicate which college they wanted to attend, why were none of these student teachers assigned to the Church of Ireland College? Could I further ask the Minister whether discussions took place on the allocation of students between officials of his Department and representatives of the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and whether such discussions were initiated by his Department or by representatives of the Archbishop?
The allocation to colleges was made on various bases. The first was accommodation. Secondly, there was a question of certain strengths and weaknesses in regard to accommodation and otherwise in the colleges and certain strengths and weaknesses also in regard to the intake where we had to provide special courses to strengthen up certain subjects. All these factors were taken into consideration in the allocation of places to the colleges.
In reply to the second part of the supplementary as to whether discussions took place between officials of my Department and the Archbishop of Dublin with regard to this matter, and whether those discussions took place at the initiative of the Archbishop or of my Department, as far as I am aware no such discussions were asked for by the Archbishop or by my Department.
The Minister has said that no discussions on the allocation of students were initiated either by the Archbishop or by his Department. In that case no discussion must have taken place.
I was not asked by the Archbishop to discuss the matter, nor did I ask him to discuss the matter.
The question I asked the Minister was whether any approach was made either by the Archbishop's staff or by the staff of his Department. He told me that he had no knowledge of this. If none of these applicant students was asked to state religious affiliation, why were all the allocations made to colleges run by one religious denomination?
I could not answer that question. I could not tell the Deputy why. The training colleges are denominational. I have not been asked by the Church of Ireland college to drop the denominational aspect, nor have I been asked by any other colleges up to this moment.
Surely the Minister, as the person who assigns the various students to the various colleges, must know why all of them were assigned to colleges of one denomination and why none was assigned to the Church of Ireland Training College.
I certainly do not know that. I do know that the religious affiliation of any student was not asked in my Department. That is genuine. I have checked this out to the utmost. Nor did anybody make any application for the college in Rathmines. Of those two things I am absolutely sure and I assure the Deputy on my word of honour. Apart from that I had no further part to play.
Next question.
A final supplementary. Could I ask the Minister whether, if he becomes aware that he is mistaken about the existence or non-existence of discussions between officials of his Department and representatives of the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin with regard to the allocation of students to colleges, he would inform the House of the correct position in due course?
The correct position, as I know it—based on three facts— is that we did not ask what the religious affiliation of any student was; secondly, no student asked for a place in the Church of Ireland College at Rathmines; thirdly, neither at the instance of my Department nor at the instance of the Archbishop were discussions initiated in this matter. I want to say to the House also that the College of Commerce is playing a very useful role in the training of the trainee graduates, and for this we are very grateful.
Is the Minister aware that many of the trainee teachers are married and have no other income while pursuing this course? In those circumstances, why is the Minister charging such a high fee as £250 to these trainee teachers? It is rather harsh.
First, I should like to correct the Deputy. If he listened to me carefully, he would know the fee is £225. Secondly, I want to point out that these people were unemployed and would have had no prospects at all were it not for the fact that I initiated this scheme. The position of other graduates selected in the normal way for the graduate trainee course was that they had to pay the fee of £225 and did not have any salary. I was providing them with a substantial salary from which £225 had to be paid in fees and food. I think the bargain is what somebody called a damn good bargain.
In view of the fact that they were unemployed, why charge them a fee of £225 which they can surely ill-afford?
I should like to tell the Deputy that, in terms of students, the salary is a substantial salary and I am not admitting——
It is not a substantial salary.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. The deduction of £225 for very substantial benefits is not in any way exorbitant.
The Minister is aware it is not a substantial salary. It is far below what they would get if they were employed.
The Deputy is not permitted to make a statement. If he insists on doing that, it will be contrary to the Chair's ruling.
On a point of order, there is a misprint in this question. The word "examiners" should be "examinees".
I am sorry about that, but I examined the question very carefully and if Deputy Collins cannot distinguish between "examiners" and "examinees", it is not my fault. My answer is based on the exact wording as spelled out in the question. If he wants to put down a question about examinees, I will be only too willing to answer it.