I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £332,990 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1943, chun Meán-Oideachais, maraon le Deontas Tuarastal na Múinteoirí, Deontas Ceanntsraithe, Breis-Tuarastal do Mhúinteoirí Meán-Scoile, agus Deontas do Chiste Pinsin na Meán—Mhúinteoirí.

That a sum not exceeding £332,990 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Secondary Education, including the Teachers' Salaries Grant, Capitation Grant, Incremental Salary to Secondary School Teachers, and grant to the Secondary Teachers' Pension Fund.

This matter of textbooks edited by inspectors occurs in the secondary branch also, but I understand that there is not the same attempt by the Department at rigid enforcement of the view that the Minister expressed. Will that be more rigidly enforced in future?

Yes.

The Minister will take care, if there are approved lists of textbooks, that textbooks edited by inspectors will be removed as swiftly as possible?

Provided there are alternative textbooks available.

And the judge of the alternative textbooks will not be the inspector concerned?

The judgement of the officials—the Secretary.

Can we take it that there will be no preference given to the inspector, that if anything the preference will be against him?

Yes.

I understand that the Minister has a revised scheme of pensions for secondary teachers which will come before the House. I should like to ask did he consult the Association of Secondary Teachers before considering the scheme?

No.

May I ask why?

It is not usual, I think.

What is the precedent that it is based on? I wonder will the Minister suggest that he will bring in a change in the pensions for national teachers and not consult them beforehand? Is the Minister serious? What precedent has he? I presume he has a precedent if he says it is not usual. Has he given full consideration to the idea that there should be a gratuity given to the teachers on condition that they make a certain contribution? Has he considered that and turned it down? It does not appear on the scheme. It is a matter on which, I imagine, if the teachers had been consulted, they could have put forward their views. Perhaps the Minister might answer these questions?

I think I would have to go into the question of the scheme in some detail to answer that. As regards consultation. I find that although personally I have had no consultation with the secondary teachers' association, there has been correspondence from time to time and various suggestions have been made, but it has not been found possible to incorporate many of these suggestions for financial reasons. The present is not a suitable time to extend this scheme to give increased benefits or place additional costs on the State. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware that, from the actuarial point of view, it would take a very large sum of money to make the fund sound. Alternatively, a large annual subsidy, amounting to £10,000 a year, would have to be paid, even as matters stand, to ensure its solvency.

The present scheme is concerned only with administrative matters as between the Department of Finance and Department of Education. There is only one matter which really affects the teachers; that is, the question of the re-entry of a teacher into the scheme. The period has been increased and the teachers know of that proposal and they have agreed. I think we shall have to leave the question as to how far we can go in regard to the general matter until the scheme comes up for consideration.

The Minister says correspondence has taken place. There are bodies representing the secondary teachers. Were they formally consulted? Did they meet an official of the Department as a body, even if they did not meet the Minister? I gather the Minister first said no, and I gathered from the teachers that there was no such formal consultation.

There was no consultation in connection with the introduction of this particular amending scheme, for the simple reason that, owing to war conditions, we do not believe there is the slightest possibility of getting additional financial benefits for that scheme.

But, when you are changing a scheme, surely even courtesy would require consultation with the teachers?

There is a war on.

The transport difficulties might not enable them to get from Frederick Street to Marlboro' Street—I thought that was what the Minister was going to say.

What has the war got to do with it?

We cannot spend money during the war.

There are so many other directions in which to spend money.

I always understood that for any productive purposes money was available. I have seen large numbers of redundant teachers not kept on, and inadequate school buildings, and I think I would be entitled to use the word productive there, and yet there is no money for it.