Vol. 372 No. 5
asked the Minister for Education if Carysfort College, Blackrock, County Dublin will be retained as a teacher training facility; when a decision will be made on the matter; if not, if the facilities at Carysfort will be put to an alternative use; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
21.
asked the Minister for Education if she will give a full report on the future of Carysfort Convent, Blackrock, County Dublin; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
37.
asked the Minister for Education if she intends to implement the proposals of the working party on the future of Carysfort College, Blackrock, County Dublin; if so, when she will take the necessary steps; if not, if she will announce alternative proposals; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
87.
asked the Minister for Education if the religious managers of Carysfort College, Dublin, have accepted the conclusions of the working party set up by her Department following the decision to phase out primary teacher training at the college; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
88.
asked the Minister for Education the plans, if any, she has for Carysfort College, Blackrock, County Dublin, in 1987; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
89.
asked the Minister for Education is she intends to reopen Carysfort College, Blackrock, County Dublin, as a primary teacher training college; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
90.
asked the Minister for Education the recommendations regarding the future of Carysfort College, Blackrock, County Dublin made by the working party set up following the Government decision to phase out primary teachers training.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 21, 37, 87, 88, 89 and 90 together.
As the Deputies are aware, the previous Minister, Deputy Cooney, established a working party to consider the future role for Carysfort College as a third level institution and received a report and recommendation.
Since I came into office I have met and had some discussions with the authorities of Carysfort College. I would hope to have further discussions with them in the very near future. Pending completion of these discussions, it would be inappropriate for me to go into further detail on the matter.
I will forward a copy of the recommendations of the working party to the Deputies concerned in the questions.
I might put it to the Minister that while she is correct in saying I received a report from the working party, that is an incomplete answer because I also indicated my acceptance of the report of the working party. Do I now take it from the Minister's answer that she is not accepting the recommendations of the working party?
Deputy Cooney set up the working party and, in turn, accepted their recommendations. It is up to a new Minister in a Department to accept, reject, modify or amend any decision taken by a previous Government which has not been enacted by legislation or has not received full consideration. As the Deputy will be aware, his reception of the report of the working party and his comments on it came in the dying days of the former Coalition Government. Within two days of assuming office I met in the Department of Education with the Sisters and their legal advisers when we had a very full discussion on the matter. At that meeting I gave an undertaking to meet them again, which I intend to do within the next ten days or two weeks. Therefore, it would be entirely wrong for me to pre-empt the further discussions I will be having with the Sisters and their legal advisers. I do not intend to act insensitively or incorrectly in this matter.
Is the Minister rejecting the recommendations of the working party?
I am not accepting, rejecting, amending or modifying until I have had the further full discussions I promised the Sisters and their legal advisers at my first meeting with them. I repeat that I do not think it would be appropriate for me until I have paid them the courtesy of having further discussions with them to make my announcement on the matter.
Are the discussions the Minister is now having with the Sisters a repetition of the exhaustive discussions which the working party had with the same Sisters?
I was not party to those other discussions. I intend, in my brief, to be responsible, as was Deputy Cooney and previous Ministers, for decisions taken. To do that I will acquaint myself in the fullest way with the issues. I have made a commitment to the Sisters that I will go back to them and discuss the matter. I have already asked my Department to make the appropriate second appointment with them and following that the results of my decisions will be made available to everybody.
I welcome the Minister's approach. She is approaching this matter in a gradualist fashion. So far as the Sisters are concerned, they welcome her attitude and her concern as distinct from the sudden decision that was made to close the convent during the previous Government's period in office.
That was not a question, it was a statement.
It is good support from a backbencher.
Can I ask the Minister if, arising from her discussions with the Sisters, she has now learned that they are opposed to the recommendations of the working party and can she say if alternative proposals are now being put on the table?
What Deputy Cooney seeks for me to reveal publicly in the House is the contents of the first discussion I have had with the Sisters but I do not intend to do so. That discussion was the first of at least two if not three discussions which I proposed on the agenda when I met the Sisters. It would be entirely inappropriate and insensitive for me to come into this House and to disclose the focus of ongoing discussions. As I said, I have asked my Department officials to arrange within the next week to ten days the follow-on to the earlier discussion I had with the Sisters. Perhaps within a very short period after that my views will be made known.
Arising from——
I want to make progress on other questions, Deputy Barrett, if I can. You may ask a brief question.
The Minister said she was briefing herself in relation to Carysfort convent but is it not fair to ask whether she briefed herself prior to tabling a Private Members motion in the Dáil when she was Opposition spokesperson on Education? If she did so brief herself, is she now saying to those who briefed her that she is going back on the commitment she gave when she said that when she got into Government she would reverse any decision not to have Carysfort College as a training college? Perhaps the Minister might now confirm that the briefing she is having is a different briefing from the one she got when she was in Opposition?
I always brief myself very fully.
You briefed yourself——
May I finish, please? You had great mileage and nobody interrupted you.
The Minister——
I am delighted the Deputy recognises me: now, bold boy, sit down. I intend to continue briefing myself fully and when I have fully decided on the matter I shall then let the gentleman opposite know my decision.
Arising from what the Minister has said——
Is it not fair to say that if the Minister as Opposition spokesperson, had not put down the Private Members' motion Carysfort college would now be closed?
The Minister is reneging on the promise she gave in the House during Private Members' time. She put down a Private Members' motion on Carysfort College——
If the Minister, who was then Opposition spokesperson for Education, had not put down the Private Members' motion, Carysfort convent would now be closed.
What about the £75 million——
Deputy Harte, please, allow Question Time to continue.
Please allow Question time to continue. I shall have to ask certain Deputies to leave the House if they continue to interrupt.
