asked the Minister for Education if in view of the refusal of members of the ASTI to participate in the leaving certificate oral Irish examination and in view of the directive given by the Institute of Professional Civil Servants to the Department of Education inspectors not to participate in the examination, he will state the arrangements being made to have these oral examinations undertaken for the pupils involved.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Private Notice Question. Leaving Certificate Oral Irish Examination.
I have seen this directive only today and this applies also, I understand, to the inspectors concerned. Obviously, I will have to give the matter further consideration in the new situation and I shall make another statement as soon as possible. Of course it is my objective to do everything in my power to ensure that the students are given every opportunity to take the examination.
In view of the advertisement which appears in the national newspapers indicating that these examinations will now commence on 21 March and if the inspectors are not allowed participate in the examinations, is it not obvious that the examinations will not be allowed take place? What plans has the Minister for ensuring that these examinations will take place fairly soon? He should let us have this information so as not to have a situation in which the students concerned will not know where they stand in this regard between now and the summer months.
That question is the same as the original.
It is not the same question.
The original question was to ask the Minister the arrangements being made to have these examinations undertaken. The Deputy is asking that question now again.
I have asked the Minister to take care of the students' position between now and the summer months. That is a valid supplementary and I take exception to your ruling. However, it is only a continuation of the rulings in this House during the past few weeks which have been a disgrace to the Chair.
The Deputy either must withdraw that statement or leave the House.
I will not withdraw the statement but I will leave the House.
Otherwise, I would name the Deputy. I would take this opportunity of pointing out that any laxity in allowing questions that are not relevant leads only to more of that type of question being asked with the result that the Chair is blamed when he calls a halt to irrelevancy.
Is the Minister aware that what is threatened here is not only the oral Irish examination but ultimately the whole marking of the leaving certificate papers? Is he aware of the serious implications of failure to deal with the dispute?
I was asked a private notice question regarding the oral Irish examinations and I answered that question. I am not convinced that any form of aggressive statement will help in the situation. I am still hoping for the co-operation of the teachers. This year, for the first time, I have introduced the payment of substitutes for the teachers concerned in the examination. In addition I have increased all the fees substantially. These include travel, subsistence and the actual examination fees and I have asked the union concerned if they would submit the matter to immediate arbitration, not to any long-finger type arbitration. I have undertaken to accept the findings of the arbitrator beforehand. As the Deputies who have asked the questions are acting in the interest of the students, I think the best course for us to adopt is to be as low-key as possible and to strive for the co-operation of the teachers.
Assuming that the arbitration process is agreed to by all the parties concerned when may we expect the process to be completed and a result to issue?
I should hope that this would be a matter of a couple of weeks.
Was the newspaper advertisement placed following consultation with the Institute for Professional Civil Servants and, if not, why were there not such consultations?
In answering the question I pointed out that the knowledge of the action of the IPCS came to me only today. The advertisement was placed yesterday. I know that the inspectors were not aware until today of this action on the part of the institute.
May we take it, then, that the Minister did not consult with the IPCS before the advertisement was placed?
The Minister did not consult with the institute and sees no reason why he should do so.
In the light of events would the Minister agree that this was an omission on his part?
I would not agree and what I find puzzling is that the members of the institute who are concerned did not know sooner than today of this action.