asked the Minister for Education why he did not consult with the Irish National Teachers' Organisation or the management authorities before he raised the age of admission to national schools.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - School Entry Age.
5.
By letter of 16 November 1981 I was officially informed by the INTO that at its special congress in Limerick on Saturday, 14 November 1981 the following resolution was adopted:
Congress declares that the Organisation shall seek a Declaration in the Courts that the Minister for Education is in breach of contract or has induced a breach of contract of teachers in National Schools.
I have not yet been informed of the nature of the pleadings which the INTO will advance in court in support of their case. I consider that it is reasonable and prudent that I should not at this stage be induced to make statements in relation to the general issue which might subsequently come to be regarded as prejudicial to the defence which the State would put forward in the case. In the circumstances I am satisfied that I should not answer these questions at the present time.
Will the Minister state if he consulted the Attorney General and if the view of the Attorney General was that he should not answer the question?
I think the best thing I should do is to follow the precedents that have been set.
Does the Minister not regard the right of a Member of this House to put down a parliamentary question to elicit information for the benefit of the House and the country as being a sacred right and one that should not be interfered with just because the Minister wants to get out of answering a question?
One of the important rights a Deputy has in this House is the right to table a question at Question Time and it is a right I would always defend. However, the Deputy and the House will appreciate that precedents grow up during the years in relation to answering certain types of question and it is normal to follow such precedents. For instance, on Tuesday, 20 November 1979 the then Deputy John Horgan asked the then Minister for Education the following question:
If he will hold an inquiry into the dismissal of a teacher (details supplied); if he has satisfied himself that the dismissal was carried out in accordance with the rules of his Department; if he will quote the rule concerned; if an officer of the Department when contacted by telephone by the teacher concerned, instructed her to return to work until the postal strike was over; if the Department furnished an oral ruling to the INTO in this particular case; the date and contents of any such ruling; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Minister for Education (Mr. Wilson): The person in question acted as a substitute teacher for a period on the staff of a national school and, accordingly, was not employed by the Department of Education.
It has been indicated that she intends to institute legal proceedings in relation to a matter connected with her employment as substitute teacher. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to make further comment at this stage.
Will the Minister not accept that the case in question was one of a contract between a teacher and a board of management rather than a matter directly affecting his Department? Further, will he not admit that this is a question related to the whole country? Is it not the practice for the Questions Office to reject anything that is sub judice? Is he contending that this matter is sub judice?
As I said last week, I think there is some confusion between matters that are sub judice and in which notice of intention to take legal proceedings has been given. For instance, in the question on Tuesday, 20 November 1979 the question of a contract which the teacher had or did not have in that case was the subject matter of that question. Because notice of intention to take legal proceedings had been given, the Minister of the day felt constrained to answer in the way he did and the Questions Office allowed the question to be tabled and answered. The similarity between that case and the one here is striking. There are other precedents as well.
A final supplementary.
This is a very serious matter of principle involving the rights of Members of the House.
Deputy Wilson, you may remember quoting to me a precedent which I had occasion to look up after Question Time and the information you gave me was not quite correct. It was about a number of questions being answered together. They were not answered individually on the occasion to which you referred me, they were answered together.
On a point of explanation, to support a suggestion made by another Member of the House, I indicated that we should take time off to have some consultation on the matter that the 17 questions at that time put down by me to the then Minister for Education be taken on the following day. Does the Minister, as a third party commenting from the outside, tell the House that the question of the Department of Education refusing to comment on contract between two contracting parties is parallel to this question before the House now on a matter of interest to the whole country, not as an individual case?
I have given the House one of the numbers of precedents that exist in relation to matters such as this. I do not want to delay the House in quoting the other precedents involved in the recent past except to say that I have done nothing out of the ordinary and have merely continued the practice which was engaged in by my predecessor in replying to questions of this nature.
The Minister surely will realise the big difference between giving notice of intent and the actual serving of the writ which would make the matter sub judice. How long can the Department and he shelter behind a notice of intent and how long will that last?
I am afraid that I am not the author of the letter that has brought about this situation. As I said last week, I regret this situation at least as much as if not more than the Deputy who tabled the question. I would far prefer to be in a position to explain to the House the answers to the questions concerned and the matters involved. I would much prefer to be free to do that. The question which I quoted previously which was answered in November 1979 related to an individual case. There are other precedents in relation to the general cases also.
The Minister mentioned that he has notice of intent from the INTO, which is a lot more than the Minister gave to the INTO or to the management authorities or parents when he announced this circular. Why did he announce this directive on 12 August when probably he knew full well that the INTO offices were closed, as they always are between 4 and 14 August.
Because it was the appropriate time.
Is it a fact that the Minister did not consult and does not want to admit now that he did not consult anybody, either the managerial association or the relevant trade union with regard to this? Is that not the plain, unadorned fact?
I have already replied to the question.
In this matter I would be very concerned with the rights of Deputies to put down and receive answers to questions. We are having a surfeit of attempts to override the traditions and procedures in this House without having it extended into this area also. In pursuance of that anxiety of mine I want to ask this question. Am I right in thinking from the Minister's reply that he is refusing to answer these questions because he has received a letter from the Irish National Teachers Organisation? Does he realise that the question also deals with consultation with the management authorities? Is he suggesting that because he received a letter from the INTO, that prohibits him from dealing with a question about another body entirely, namely the management authorities?
I am not refusing to answer any question. I have already answered the question as best I am able in the circumstances. As I pointed out to the House in the course of that answer, I consider that at this stage I should not be induced to make statements in relation to a general issue which subsequently might come to be regarded as prejudical to the defence which the State might put forward in the case. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that that is the difficulty which I face in relation to making any comment at this stage.
Again I am asking the Minister if he understands that the question is in two parts. It refers on the one hand to consultation with the INTO and on the other hand to consultation with the management authorities. Whatever may be the rights of his refusing to answer a simple question about consultation with the INTO because he has received a letter from the INTO, is he seriously and honestly contending that, because he received a letter from the INTO, that prevents him also from giving us a simple answer as to whether he consulted with the management authorities who are a totally separate and distinct organisation?
The answer to that question is yes.
One final supplementary. Could the Minister tell the House if he was advised not to answer the question, and, if so, by whom?
The answer to the first part of the question is yes. I think it would be inappropriate to answer the second part.
Was the adviser legally qualified?
I was advised by the same source as advised my predecessor when he formulated the reply to the question of Tuesday, 20 November 1979.
Would the Minister agree that he has now set a precedent in terms of industrial relations between the Department and the INTO? Is he taking constructive account of the move within that organisation at the moment arising out of that precedent?
I would be very concerned that a constructive attitude would be taken on all sides in this matter.
Deputy Wilson, a final supplementary.
Has the Minister any information that a legal case is going ahead? Has he consulted, as I have, with the office of the INTO on this?
Yes. I have already informed the House that I have information that the legal case is going ahead. The information is by letter of 16 November last from the INTO, the relevant passage from which I have already quoted to the House.
Has the Minister consulted with the INTO since then?
In relation to a legal case?
In relation to Circular 24/81 in any way.
I am not particularly familiar with this process but I would imagine that when one gets notice of intention to take legal proceedings against one, one does not ring up to know when one might get it.
Would the Minister indicate whether he has received any information, good, bad or indifferent, from the management authorities that they intend to take legal proceedings against him?
No, a Cheann Comhairle.
Therefore, does that not, in the normal precedent and tradition of this House, indicate that the Minister should answer fully that section of the question, as there is no threat of any legal action from the management authorities? How then can the Minister refuse to answer the question in so far as it relates to those management authorities?
It is less than realistic to suggest that these organisations are mutually excluded in this or other matters relating to primary school management or procedures. That would be as ludicrous as to suggest that Deputy Haughey's constituency and the officers and elected personnel in it hold completely different views from those held in, for instance, Deputy Colley's constituency. Constituencies do not operate on a mutually exclusive basis — neither do these two organisations in relation to the management of national schools.
I would like to ask the Minister——
I have allowed the Deputy a lot of latitude on this question.
Would the Minister not agree——
Can we be assured that this is Deputy Wilson's final supplementary?
Would the Minister agree that he did not consult the management authorities and that he has got a communication from them that they do not agree with this decision and are anxious that Circular 24 of 1981 be withdrawn? Would he further agree that this baby doll approach to this question is not impressive and will not benefit our educational system?
Hear, hear.
Ceist 6.
My supplementary was not answered.
I am not responsible for that.
Would the Minister say if he had a communication from the management authorities stating that they disagreed with Circular 24 of 1981?
The management authorities and I are on the best of terms.
Did the Minister receive a communication from them disagreeing with Circular 24 of 1981 and asking that it be withdrawn?
Ceist 6.
6.
asked the Minister for Education if, in view of the objection of the entire INTO profession to the new school commencement age, he will be prepared to reconsider the Government's position with a view to withdrawing the new regulation.
As I have already stated in reply to Question No. 5, I have been informed by the INTO that congress of the INTO at its special congress on 14 November 1981 adopted a resolution that the organisation "shall seek a Declaration in the Courts that the Minister for Education is in breach of contract or has induced a breach of contract of teachers in National Schools".
In the circumstances I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to answer this question at the present time.
Could I ask not a final, but one supplementary question? Would the Minister direct his reply to the contents of my question? Is he prepared to reconsider the Government's point of view? When replying, would he advise the House whether he has had any assessment carried out, taken that the outcome of the legal proceedings would be favourable to the abolition of the circular, in relation to those teachers who would have had to be placed on a panel from superannuation and other points of view?
The general tenor of the Deputy's supplementary question gives proof to the correctness of my original reply. I have been asked now to comment on the likely outcomes and results of possible court cases.
That is not what the Deputy said.
7.
asked the Minister for Education whether he has considered the consequences his decision to raise the age of admission of pupils to national schools to five years will have on small rural schools which may be forced to close or reduce the number of teachers with resultant hardship to families in rural communities; and whether the Government has any plans to provide an alternative system of pre-national school education.
I would refer the Deputy to my replies to Questions Nos. 5 and 6.
The same considerations as I have already indicated preclude me from making any further observation in relation to the subject matter of the Deputy's question, other than to refer him to my general observations during the course of the debate in Private Members' Time on 4 November 1981 (Volume 330 No. 7) during which, inter alia, I stated that no two-teacher school would become a one-teacher school as a result of this change and also outlined the Government's commitment in the matter of pre-schooling.
This is a recording.
I barely caught the last phrase about pre-schooling. Would the Minister repeat the last few words of his reply, please? His voice dropped.
In the matter of pre-schooling.
Would the Minister agree that the Kemmy-Fine Gael £1 million which has been mentioned in relation to the pre-school provision is not at all adequate to make up for the services which he is withdrawing from the community?
Would he tell the House whether the £4.5 million, which have been estimated as being necessary to make up for what has happened, will be available immediately from the Government?
I did not quite hear the first part of the Deputy's question.
The first part of my question was, would the Minister agree that the Kemmy-Fine Gael £1 million publicised in the newspapers will be totally inadequate to make provision for what has been taken away from the community by circular No. 24 of 1981? Can he tell the House whether the £4.5 million, which has been estimated as necessary to adequately compensate for what he is withdrawing by circular No. 24 of 1981, will be immediately available from the Government?
I would not agree with the first part of the Deputy's question and would disagree with the financial estimate contained in the second part.
8.
asked the Minister for Education the estimated annual saving in expenditure, under each heading, arising from his decision to increase the entry age to national schools to four-and-a-half years.
I would refer the Deputy to the replies already given by me to similar questions.
I trust the Deputy will appreciate, accordingly, why I am not in a position to reply to this question at the present time.
Are we to take it that, in his view, because the Minister received a letter to which he referred earlier, dated mid-November, and received no further communications, as I understand it, from the INTO, all questions bearing in any way on this matter, or, apparently, all consultations with the INTO, or any other organisation, must cease until the proceedings referred to take place, or he is formally notified that they will not take place? Is that the Minister's contention? If he never received such notification would he never again reply to a question on this matter? Is that his position?
I am advised, as I have already pointed out to the Deputy in reply to supplementary questions on Question No. 5, that that is the normal procedure followed within the Department of Education in handling Parliamentary Questions in which matters of this type might arise. I have already given an example from November 1979. I have a further example. On Tuesday, 30 May 1980, the then Deputy, Dan Spring, asked the then Minister for Education the reasons why he had not sanctioned the appointment of a principal at the School of Engineering in the Regional Technical College in Tralee, County Kerry. The then Minister for Education answered:
"Legal proceedings were threatened in this case in relation to the procedure for the filling of the vacancy by the vocational education committee. I considered it necessary in the circumstances to seek legal advice.
I do not consider that I should make further observations in regard to the matter at this stage other than to say that a decision will be expedited as much as possible."
Would the Minister now answer the question put to him? Is it his contention that if he does not receive notification of completion of proceedings, or withdrawal of the threat of proceedings, he will never again in this House answer a question on this topic?
I am following the precedent set by my predecessor.
The question is different from whether the Minister is following a precedent. The Minister heard the question. Would he answer it, please?
The answer is that I would intend to follow the precedent set by my predecessor.
It is becoming clearer by the minute.
Arising from the Minister's non-reply, would he tell the House if, in fact, Deputy Bruton, the Minister for Finance, has asked him to save £19 million at the expense of our primary school children?
No. The only source for this figure that I have is from a confidential memorandum produced by the Minister for Finance suggesting that savings of £19 million might be brought about if the age of entry for primary school children was raised to six years, which was submitted to the Cabinet and to the Minister for Education. My only source of knowledge of that circular is from the fact that Deputy Wilson quoted from that internal memorandum produced by the Minister for Finance and submitted to the Cabinet. He said that the date of the circular was October, 1980, when Deputy Fitzgerald was Minister for Finance and Deputy Wilson Minister for Education.
Would the Minister tell the House that he has yielded on that demand to the extent of the saving that will be made as a result of the issue of circular No. 24 of 1981?
No. I have never seen the suggestion made, according to Deputy Wilson, in the House. I have never seen the confidential memorandum produced by Deputy Fitzgerald in which he suggested that £19 million should be saved from primary education. I have never seen that other than hearing it quoted in the House by Deputy Wilson.
Now that we are on this topic——
There is another question on which the Deputy can raise this matter.
Can the Minister state how much he is saving out of the primary school vote as a result of circular 24/1981?
There is no effect on the primary schools subhead for this year. I tried to explain that to Deputy Wilson in the House during the Supplementary Estimate.
I am talking about 1982. The Minister knows perfectly well what I am asking. Would the Minister make even an attempt to assess how much money he will be taking out of the primary system as a result of circular 24/1981?
I am not in a position to do such.
(Interruptions).
9.
asked the Minister for Education if he took full account, prior to the introduction of circular 24/81, of the serious consequences for the education of children in the city centre and other disadvantaged areas in the greater Dublin region by raising the age of entry to national schools; and if he will now withdraw that circular.
I do not consider that it would be open to me to reply to this question at the present time in view of the terms of the resolution adopted at the special congress of the INTO on 14 November 1981 that:
Congress declares that the Organisation shall seek a Declaration in the Courts that the Minister for Education is in breach of contract or has induced a breach of contract of teachers in National Schools.
I cannot accept the Minister's use of the same reply to this question as he used to former questions. Is the Minister admitting that he has not taken full account of the serious consequences? Did he consult experts within his own Department in regard to the very special case that pertains to this type of area to determine the complete and total lack of any form of alternative for those very serious, significant, formative months in a child's development? Has the Minister taken full account of this and consulted with experts in his own Department about the significance in educational terms of these early months?
Naturally I have daily and frequent consultations with officers in my Department and in particular in relation to the adequate provision in areas of disadvantage. I have consistently expressed the Government's concern that areas of disadvantage and deprivation should receive priority in times of scarce resources.
In regard to the serious consequences for the education of children, has the Minister studied the first two-year module of the eight-year course as outlined by the new curriculum for primary schools? If so, would he not agree that it is the best possible course that could be designed educationally and psychologically?
I have taken all factors into account.
If the Minister so agrees — and I take it from his answer that he does — would he also agree that the teachers who are being trained are being trained in the light of that two-year module and that they are the best people to teach the four to six-year-olds rather than the ad hoc operators for pre-schools that he is talking about?
The Deputy would be wrong to assume that I agreed with the general tenor of his earlier supplementary. In relation to the rest of this question I regret that I can do no more than once again point out that it would be wrong for me to be induced to make statements in relation to this general issue which might be regarded as prejudicial to the defence which the State might put forward in any legal case it might be taking in relation to this matter.
Would the Minister not agree on this particular case since it is on education and not on legal issues? It is purely on education and the curriculum?
I am sorry, Deputy. I have tried to allow a few supplementaries on every question which pertained to the one subject. The Deputy can ask a question on the next question, but we must make some progress.
This is the first time that education, as such, was mentioned. I accept the Chair's ruling.
(Interruptions.)
10.
asked the Minister for Education the number of teaching posts that will be lost in the 1982-1983 school year arising out of circular 24/81 in the following areas: (a) Dublin north city, (b) Dublin north county, (c) Dublin south city and (d) Dublin south county.
The terms of the resolution adopted at the special congress of the INTO on 14 November 1981 were as follows:
Congress declares that the Organisation shall seek a Declaration in the Courts that the Minister for Education is in breach of contract or has induced a breach of contract of teachers in National Schools.
I trust that the Deputy will appreciate that in these circumstances I am not in a position to reply to this question at the present time. I consider that it is reasonable and prudent that I should avoid making any statement which might subsequently come to be regarded as prejudicial to the defence which the State would put forward in the case.
Does the Minister not accept that his silence on this matter, just as in other areas, will only build up fears rather than alleviate them in this case?
I am not in a position to comment on what effect that might have on the fears of individuals. I regret that I cannot reply to these questions as fully as I would otherwise like.
The Minister will remember that when this very matter was being discussed here on Private Members' Business, he was in a position to refute figures quoted by me and to quote figures of his own. In regard to the areas mentioned here, are we to assume that his silence now is an indication that he feels the figures he was so sure of that night are not now true?
We are not in such a position. We are still in the position of realising that the statistics which I quoted on the occasion of that debate were accurate and the figures the Deputy quoted were fallacious.
Since the Minister has now accused us again of giving fallacious figures, would he again give the House the benefit of the figures he quoted on that occasion?
I did not quote any figures in relation to any of the areas mentioned in the question before the House.
I may be corrected on this but, as far as I can recollect, the Minister mentioned the greater Dublin area and produced figures which he said were statistical facts. How did the Minister compile those statistics and whom did he consult to draw up those projections?
Statistical facts are normally compiled within my Department on the basis of statistics and facts and they are drawn from the returns to the Department made by the principal teachers in the national schools through their management boards.
I would refer the Minister to section (b) of Question No. 10. Will the loss of jobs affect the position of schools in the area? Will the school at Hedgestown continue in operation despite circular 24/1981?
I have already explained, in reply to Question No. 7 by Deputy Blaney, that no two-teacher school will become a one-teacher school as a result of this change. As the Deputy knows, the school at Hedgestown had, for one-quarter, fallen below the retention figure necessary to retain two teachers prior to the change in the age of entry requirement. Consequently, any difficulty which is or may be experienced in that school was not occasioned in any way by the change in the age of entry requirement but by other factors stretching back over the past 12 months. I understand however that arrangements are being made, which I am endeavouring to encourage, to see that the enrolment at the school at Hedgestown will continue and that the Hedgestown school, which is a school with an honourable tradition, will continue to be a two-teacher school.
Will the Minister agree that the problem will be a major one for three-teacher schools as well as for two-teacher schools? Will the Minister agree further that every drop of 28 will mean the loss of a teacher?
I would suggest that the Deputy examine the enrolment and retention figures which are necessary for third, fourth, fifth, sixth and subsequent assistants. The figure would be greater than 28 in relation to retention.
I am talking about the national average pupil-teacher ratio and using it as a rough figure. Each drop of 28 all over the country will mean a loss of a teacher.
The latest figures I have here for a national average were between 29 and 30 to one. I appreciate that since the Government's decision to employ 300 extra teachers last September——
Our Government's decision, this year and the year before and the year before and the year before that.
——the national pupil-teacher ratio figure is now at a lower level than ever before in the history of the State. I am not in a position to agree with the Deputy that it has now reached a level of 28 to one, but if it has, I am very pleased.
Is the Minister reducing the ratio by expelling children from the schools?
When replying to Question No. 7, the Minister gave certain information, but why did he give information to Deputy Burke in reply to a supplementary question and yet refuse to give information in respect of the other questions?
In my reply to Question No. 7, I referred the House to the general comments I made during the course of the debate on a Private Members' Motion some weeks ago. In relation to the question posed by Deputy Burke, because the problems in that school are extraneous and quite separate from anything relating to the question of the age of entry, I felt it was appropriate to deal with it in case people in that area might be misled by the Deputy's question.
Did not the question, and the supplementary by Deputy Burke, suit the Minister, but it did not suit him to answer the other questions? Is that not the reason why he gave that information on Question No. 7 but did not reply to the other questions put to him?
That is not correct. I have already indicated to the House that I would far prefer to be able to answer each of these questions fully and, I believe, to the satisfaction of the House——
The baby doll.
That is a far cry from what I was called last week. I have indicated that I believe very much in the rights of Deputies to table questions, that it is one of the most important aspects of the operations of this House. I feel disappointed that I am being precluded from answering these questions in the way in which I should like.
11.
asked the Minister for Education the names of each branch of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation who have asked him to withdraw circular 24/81; and the action he proposes to take in the matter.
I received representations from a large number of branches of the INTO and I replied to them individually. I do not consider that compiling a register of the names of the correspondents would serve any useful purpose or that the expenditure of official time involved in such an exercise would be warranted. In so far as the other aspects of the question are concerned I would draw the attention of the Deputy to the following resolution adopted at a special congress of the INTO on 14 November 1981:
Congress declares that the Organisation shall seek a Declaration in the Courts that the Minister for Education is in breach of contract or has induced a breach of contract of teachers in National Schools.
Pieces of eight.
The Minister has not answered my question about consultations. He answered Deputy Power's question about the figures. These are factual questions which we have put to the Minister.
12.
asked the Minister for Education if he has received a request from the Clifden Branch of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation for the withdrawal of circular 24/81; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I have received such correspondence from the Clifden branch of the INTO. I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Question No. 11 and, consequently, I have nothing further to add in the matter.
13.
asked the Minister for Education if he will give an estimate of the effect of the introduction of the new arrangements for school enrolments in 1980-81 and 1981-82.
The annual statistical return of the number of pupils enrolled in national schools is related to 30 September of the school year in question. The amendments to the regulations with regard to the arrangements for the enrolment of pupils were introduced with effect from 1 October 1981. Accordingly, the statistical returns for 1980-81 or 1981-82 are not affected by such amendments. In view of the terms of the resolution adopted at the special congress of the INTO on 14 November 1981, to which I already referred in reply to previous questions, I am not in a position to offer further observations in the matter.
14.
asked the Minister for Education if he is aware of the consequences for the school transport service in rural and disadvantaged areas of his decision to raise the age of admission to national schools.
15.
asked the Minister for Education if, in view of the decision to raise the admission age for pupils attending primary schools, he will state whether any changes will be made in the rules and regulations governing the school transport service in rural areas.
16.
asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that many children of approximately five years will lose their right to transport to national schools as a result of the admission age to national schools being raised and that their areas will not have the required number to qualify for transport; and if, in view of the fact that some of these children will have to walk from two to three-and-a-half miles, he will now lower the qualifying number for a transport service.
17.
asked the Minister for Education the number of children who will be deprived of school transport as a result of raising the age of admission to national schools; and if his Department have carried out a survey on the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, together.
I do not anticipate that the decision to raise the age of admission to primary schools will affect school transport services in a way which would be educationally disadvantageous or necessitate major adjustments in relation to its administration. In view of the resolutions adopted at the special congress of the INTO on 14 November 1981 that congress declares that the organisation shall seek a declaration in the courts in relation to the amendment of the regulation govering the enrolment of pupils in national schools, I am afraid that it is not open to me to make further observations on the subject matter of these questions from the Deputies.
Will the Minister review the qualifying number of ten children to establish a school transport service? At the moment we have a ridiculous situation because a child of four years can be carried to the school but would not be admitted until he is four-and-a-half years of age.
I explained in the latter part of my reply that because I have been given notice of an intention to seek a declaration in the courts I do not think I should be induced to make statements in relation to the matter which might come to be regarded as prejudical to the defence which the State might put forward to any case which might be taken.
In view of the Minister's public statements that he is about to introduce pre-school facilities, will he state if he has chosen rural centres for pre-schools and if free transport will be available to those rural pre-school centres?
I hope the Government will be in a position shortly to make their specific intentions known in relation to pre-school activities.
Will the Minister say whether free transport will be available to rural children attending pre-school centres? Otherwise the centres will not be of any use.
I am not in a position to give specific details in relation to the package of intentions which the Government will put before the public shortly.
In the first part of his reply the Minister said that as a result of circular 24/81 he did not think it would make any difference to school transport and that he did not anticipate that any child would be educationally disadvantaged. Is that the substance of the first part of his reply?
I will repeat it. I said:
I do not anticipate that the decision to raise the age of admission to primary schools will affect school transport services in a way which would be educationally disadvantageous or necessitate major adjustments in relation to its administration.
If there is not to be educational disadvantage, is it not true that the Minister will have to provide transport to rural pre-schools?
As I have said, I am not in a position to give any indication prior to the Government announcement of their specific intentions in the matter of pre-schooling activities. My responsibility is in relation to education.
If there is to be no educational disadvantage, and the Minister says there will not be, is it not implied that pre-schools will be available in rural Ireland and that the children will be transported free to them? In other words, will there be pre-school centres and will there be free transport to them? Otherwise there will be educational disadvantage.
I have already replied to that question.
Ceist 18.
Could I ask the Minister——
We are getting to Deputy Kitt's question now. We have gone on to the next question.