asked the Minister for Education why University College, Galway, is not being established as a university in its own right.

2.

asked the Minister for Education why University College, Cork, is not being established as a university in its own right.

3.

asked the Minister for Education when work will start on the building of the new National Institute of Higher Education in Dublin.

4.

asked the Minister for Education why he proposes to abolish the National Council for Educational Awards.

5.

asked the Minister for Education the position of students in colleges of technology who expected to be conferred with degrees or diplomas by the NCEA during 1975.

6.

asked the Minister for Education why representatives of the regional technical colleges will not be represented on the Council for Technological Education.

7.

asked the Minister for Education the range of the consultation which his Department will have with the Council for Technological Education with regard to the funding of the regional colleges of technology.

8.

asked the Minister for Education the body that will validate third level qualifications for higher commercial courses of the National Institute for Higher Education and the regional technical colleges.

9.

asked the Minister for Education if he envisages degree courses to final stage for the regional colleges of technology.

10.

asked the Minister for Education why the majority of the members of the governing bodies of the National Institutes for Higher Education must be nominated by the Government.

11.

asked the Minister for Education the duplication of scarce resources which would ensure from maintaining the binary system of third-level education.

12.

asked the Minister for Education if the Higher Education Authority advised the Government to end the binary system of third-level education.

13.

asked the Minister for Education if he will outline the structures envisaged by him for the joint science faculty of the two universities in Dublin.

14.

asked the Minister for Education the precise meaning of the sentence which states that TCD shall have a faculty of engineering science but without capital investment.

15.

asked the Minister for Education when he will publish the detailed statement on his proposals for higher education as promised on 16th December, 1974.

16.

asked the Minister for Education if he will make a statement on the present arrangements for the training of primary teachers; and if he will indicate how the teachers' colleges will fit into the new third-level education schemes.

17.

asked the Minister for Education if the College of Surgeons will be represented on the conjoint board envisaged in his proposals for third-level education.

Having received your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 17 together——

On a point of order, is the Minister correct in the preface to his omnibus answer to his series of questions, the preface "Having received your permission, a Cheann Comhairle"?

The permission was given yesterday and I would give permission again to-day.

It is proposed to give permission again to-day. In that event, I object on behalf of my party to your giving this permission. I suggest that the very use of the words that "with your permission" the Minister proposes to answer a question in a certain way implies that that permission may be given or withheld. With due respect, I would suggest to you, Sir, that that permission ought to be withheld in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today with a Minister answering a series of some 17 question in one omnibus answer. I accept entirely that the Minister may make a comprehensive written answer to a number of questions that seek to elicit the same information. But I suggest, Sir, that you should not use your discretion to permit the Minister to answer this series of questions in that fashion, many of them seeking specific information, information of a type that, having heard as well as I could what the Minister proposed to say yesterday, is not being given. In these circumstances I suggest that the Minister should be directed to answer these questions separately, or combining a number of them, but certainly not combining every one of them. I formally now put it to you that you ought to withhold your permission to answer the questions collectively, as the Minister has asked.

In reply to Deputy Lynch, may I say that it has been ruled on a number of occasions by my predecessors that the Chair has no control over the number of questions which a Minister takes together? For the purpose of giving a single reply to them, the request of the Minister for permission to reply to two or more questions together is merely a courtesy to the Chair and relates to the fact that the Chair calls only one question at a time. There are many precedents for this. It is a well established practice in this House over a very long period of time. In the circumstances, Deputy Lynch, I would not be justified in departing from that procedure.

I want to make another suggestion to you, Sir, in reply to your statement that the words "with your permission" are used only out of courtesy to the Chair, because normally he is disposed to calling questions individually. In that event, Sir, I think the words "with your permission" should be dispensed with in any case because a Minister is free, therefore, to answer as many questions as he likes in order—as is obvious in this case—to withhold information from the House.

Now, there are two good reasons why these questions should not be permitted to be answered in the form that the Minister proposes. In the first instance, as I have already indicated, there are specific pieces of information sought here which the Minister, as well as I can anticipate, does not propose to give. There is no reason why they should not be given. The subject matter of each one of these questions, in the custom of the House, will be ruled out as the subject matter of questions for a period of six months. In other words, whatever statement the Minister is going to issue at a later date may or may not contain answers to the specific questions now put. As well as that, it will mean that he will be free, without this House having the opportunity to put questions to him, to delay any statement on a matter of such public importance as long as he likes up to the limit of that period of six months before another question on the subject matter can be properly put.

I want to put another point to you, Sir. You say, probably rightly, that you have not control over the subject matter of the answer to the questions. I accept that entirely. You say also that there is ample precedent for a Minister putting a lot of questions together for the purpose of giving a single answer. I accept that, Sir, but I would suggest to you that this is done only where the type of information sought in each question is similar, almost similar or exactly similar. In these cases, Sir, I think it is perfectly justified that a Minister should seek to answer a number of questions together.

Thirdly, Sir, I want to put this to you, especially in the context of your saying that you have no responsibility for the subject matter of the answers: the Minister is responsible to this House. He was elected by the Members of this House; he was nominated by the Taoiseach, but elected to his office by the Members of this House. The Members of this House were elected to their particular positions on behalf of the people and it is not only their duty, their function, but their right to elicit answers to questions of public importance. The Minister is denying to the elected representatives of the people, in the manner in which he proposes to answer these questions, that information.

Again, I want you to reconsider, in the light of what I have said, the permission you have given to the Minister to answer these questions.

Many of the things to which Deputy Lynch has referred would obviously require some amendment of Standing Orders. I want to allay his anxiety in respect of repeat questions, to which he has adverted. A repeat of an earlier question is disallowed if tabled within six months of the answer to the original question. But this rule does not apply where the circumstances have changed in the meantime. For instance, if the Minister, or a Minister, takes a decision on issues or issues a statement in relation to the matters in the answer to the question or questions, questions are allowable in relation to the decision or the statement. So that if a statement or an action is taken in the interim, within the six months' period, questions would be allowable.

May I again respectfully suggest that that implies a situation in which the Minister will make a public statement on the subject matter of these questions. I put it to you again that the Minister is now free, within the rules of the House, to delay such a public statement for six months and that if he should not make a public statement within that period Deputies are precluded, without any redress, from putting questions of the type put by Deputy Wilson and, I suggest, by Deputy Thornley for that whole period.

That is the position in which the Chair finds itself. That is the usual procedure. I would ask Deputies to abide by the ruling of the Chair on this occasion. Let us hear the reply. Let us have relevant supplementaries and let us deal with Question Time in the normal fashion.

Hear, hear.

I appeal for the co-operation of Deputies. If there is a strong opinion that there should be a change in respect of this whole matter, I suggest that the issue might be raised at Procedure and Privileges where an agreement could be reached as to how these matters should be disposed of in the future. But the Chair is conforming with tradition, practice and precedent and does not consider itself free to deviate from that situation.

I appreciate your position but I suggest that you have discretion in so far as the Minister asks you to exercise discretion. You have exercised that discretion in his favour and against the interests of the Deputies who put down these questions. Yesterday, Sir, you indicated that you would not give any undertaking in advance as to the number of supplementaries that might be asked.

This is a discretion which must be left always to the Chair.

Having regard to the manner in which, normally, you exercise that discretion, we envisage that, if the Minister answers the questions in the manner he proposes to answer them, after five or six supplementaries you would proceed with the other questions and that, therefore, adequate supplementary questioning would be ruled out.

As there are 17 questions involved the Chair proposes to deal generously with the supplementaries.

I have taken issue with you, Sir, but yesterday a reasonable suggestion was made to the Minister by a Member from this side of the House. Having regard to what happened yesterday I suggest that the Minister rewrite his answers individually or, perhaps, collectively, in a more modified way. I appeal formally to the Minister to do that and to avoid further recrimination in this House.

I have accepted your discretion, a Cheann Comhairle, and I intend to proceed with my reply.

Therefore, as my protest individually to your refusal to exercise a discretion that I suggest you have, but particularly because of the manner in which the Minister proposes to answer these questions, I propose to withdraw from the House for the duration of the Minister's answer.

Before the Deputy leaves I would reiterate that the Chair has no discretion in respect of Ministers' replies; that the Chair never had such discretion and that it would place the Chair in an intolerable position to be made responsible for Ministers' replies or for the manner in which they are dealt with. I assure the Deputy that I am anxious to deal fairly and impartially in this whole matter but if I am prescribed by Standing Orders and precedents, Members should appreciate that situation.

In deference to you, Sir, I limit my purpose of withdrawal to a mark of my disapproval of the manner in which the Minister proposes to answer these questions. In withdrawing I am leaving strict instructions with the members of my party that they are to continue with supplementary questions, if necessary, on this matter but to do so in an orderly manner, as I know will be the case. In the meantime I shall allow the Minister have his way, if that is what he wants.

Perhaps this is a hypothetical question but if, say, there were 243 questions on the Order Paper and if a Minister proposed to answer the entire lot by way of one reply, could the Chair prevent him from so doing?

Surely there would be different Ministers involved.

The Chair would prefer not to answer hypothetical questions.

I understand and appreciate the procedural difficulty in so far as the Chair is concerned and I have sympathy for him in that regard. However, I tabled a set of questions which were prompted by what happened on 16th December. That was the date on which this document was issued to the Press with a great flourish of trumpets. Why, for example, is Question No. 12 included in the lumping answer while Question No. 18 is not included although the latter is on precisely the same subject?

The Chair would prefer that Deputy Wilson would not engage——

I am not to have a sense of grievance but can I have an explanation as to why Question No. 12 is to be included in the lumping answer while Question No. 18 which deals with the same subject is to be excluded?

The Deputy will appreciate that the Chair cannot answer these questions. They are questions, primarily, for the Minister.

I know that the Chair appreciates the importance of the subject matter of these questions because you admitted so yesterday. It is not my wish to incur the displeasure either of the Chair or of the House but I am in pursuit of knowledge regarding a very important issue and a short lumping answer to these questions which were framed after careful reading of the proposals will not satisfy the House nor the country. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, through you, to give a full and adequate answer to each question individually.

The Deputy will recall that when financing the Government's decision on higher education I said that my immediate——

Is this the answer to Question No. 1?

The Chair has ruled that the Minister may reply to the questions he has outlined in a single reply. The Chair's decision in that regard must be accepted. Therefore, I ask the House to hear the reply. Then, let us have the supplementary questions when the Chair will facilitate Deputies in eliciting as much information as possible on these questions. As usual, supplementaries must be relevant, must contain no argument and must not tend to speech-making, but let us hear the reply and deal with the matter in a responsible way.

On a point of order, neither I nor anybody on this side of the House wishes to come into conflict with the Chair. We wish to make it clear that we are not in any conflict with the Chair but we are in conflict with the Minister for Education.

Might the Chair be obeyed, then?

As a Minister who is answerable to this House, he refuses to reply to the legitimate query of the elected representatives of the people in this Parliament. The sooner we realise that the better. The fact that the Minister refuses to stand over his proposals, refuses to answer in relation to them to the elected representatives of the people, is the greatest possible indictment of him and is a far greater indictment than if he were to attempt to answer and answer badly. Through you, Sir, we must assert our rights as representatives of the people to question a member of the Executive of the country.

Hear, Hear.

This is the only place in which we can do this lawfully. According to the Constitution we have these rights and we must insist on being allowed to exercise them.

The Deputy knows that speech-making is totally out of order at Question Time.

Your duty is to ensure that we, as Members of this Parliament, are given the rights which the Constitution of Ireland and the votes of the people have given us. It is your duty to ensure that we have the opportunity to exercise that right and to exercise it in a dignified and a quite fashion at Question Time. We have no wish to see this Parliament reduced to a rabble but, unfortunately, if we are not allowed to exercise our rights the Chair must accept some part of the responsibility for any disorder that may occur.

The Chair cannot allow any further speeches to be made.

Would the Chair not agree that the Leader of this party made a reasonable appeal to the Minister but that that appeal was turned down with an arrogant nod?

Could we hear the Minister's reply?

The Minister is not going to reply.

On a point of order——

Is this a spurious point of order, as we have been having up to now?

Is the Ceann Comhairle prejudiced against this side of the House?

Yesterday I requested the Minister to withdraw the answer in its present form and to come back in here today or tomorrow with answer to the individual questions. Again I urge him to do this. I served in that Department for three-and-a-half years and——

That is hardly a point of order. The Chair is not being treated fairly.

——I found that courtesy to the Opposition helped myself and the cause of education. I suggest that being courteous to the Opposition would not only help the Minister personally but would also help the cause of education. Again I appeal to him to withdraw the answer as it is at present and reply to each question individually.

We are now 20 minutes into Question Time. I appeal to the House to utilise the time for questions more effectively.

Let us hear the Minister's reply.

On a point of order, it has been pointed out from this side of the House that what the Minister indicated he intends doing is a gross dereliction of duty on his part and breach of responsibility to the House.

On a point of order, Sir, I have not had the opportunity of pointing anything out to the House yet.

Am I right in saying that the Minister has already indicated to the House today that he proposes to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 17 together? Is it not a fact——

That is hardly a point of order.

——that Question No. 2 requires a "Yes" or "No" answer and cannot in any reasonable sense be lumped in with the other matters? What is involved here is a serious principle.

The Deputy is making a long speech.

This is more serious than a breach of Standing Orders. It is a breach of the democratic rights of the elected representatives of our people. We do not intend to allow the Minister for Education, aided and abetted by his colleagues or anybody else, to get away with this.

Members must desist from speech making. Points of order have been raised which clearly were not points of order. The Chair has ruled that the Minister is entitled to take the questions in the manner outlined and I am asking that we now hear the reply.

A Cheann Comhairle——

Deputy Wilson must allow Question Time to proceed in an orderly fashion

The Deputy will recall that when announcing the Government's decisions on higher education——

Would the Ceann Comhairle agree that proposals which are supposed to be final and not subject to debate should be clear in the Minister's mind? If, as he said originally at the Press conference, he was not in a position to debate these proposals, would the Chair not agree that specific answers should be available to specific questions?

We have been over that ground yesterday and today we must have the reply.

I have made it clear that what is involved here is far more serious than a breach of the Standing Orders. We do not intend to aid and abet the Minister in the gross breach of the democratic rights——

Deputy, please.

No, Sir, as far as I am concerned the Minister will not get any assistance from this side of the House——

We never needed it.

——in the breach of democratic principles he is trying to perpetrate in this House.

I said that my immediate concern was to inform the public of these decisions and that I plan to issue a more detailed statement later.

We do not intend to assist the Minister in his breach of the rights of Deputies.

I ask Deputy Colley to desist from interrupting, please.

As long as the Minister persists in what he is trying to do I will not help him.

According to the reasonable suggestion made by Deputy Faulkner, why could the Minister not postpone these questions until he could give full answers and thereby give satisfaction to the House and the country? This would be a very simple thing to do.

This has been gone over before. I am afraid we cannot resolve this matter today.

The Minister has taken the attitude that he will treat with contempt any questions on his proposal. Monosyllabic mutterings were the only response to Deputy Lynch's appeal.

I appeal to Deputy Wilson to let us hear the Minister's reply. He is in order in replying to the question.

On what I hope you will accept as a reasonable point of order, Sir, you indicated that you intended to allow Members on this side of the House the opportunity of asking supplementary questions. What guarantee can you give to the Members that these supplementary questions will be answered?

I can give that guarantee.

If so, why not give the answers separately?

That is a matter over which the Chair has no control.

The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to give answers to supplementary questions.

Am I to take it that Question Time today will be obstructed?

Put the blame where it lies.

The function of the Chair is to vindicate the right of all Deputies and not just to vindicate the Minister in his undemocratic action.

I am asking——

That is what Question Time is all about.

Is the Minister being allowed reply?

One question at a time.

The Minister indicated that he is prepared to answer supplementary questions. Why does he not do the correct thing and answer the questions separately? We have spent 30 minutes on this.

The Deputy will recall that when announcing the Government's decisions on higher education——

Let us hear the reply.

——I said that my immediate concern was to inform the public of these decisions and that I plan to issue a more detailed statement later. I propose to incorporate in that statement, which is in course of preparation, clarification in relation to the decisions already announced and the points raised by the Deputy.

No matter how loudly the Minister may speak or how much the Chair helps him to conduct himself in an undemocratic fashion, we will not allow him to hide behind the Chair. You, Sir, are a party to the arrogant display by the Minister. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to sit there and be guided by him?

The Deputy is attacking the Chair. I have explained the Chair's position in this matter which was accepted by the leader of your Party. The Deputy should not attack the Chair in this disgraceful fashion.

May I ask the Minister a question? I gather that the Minister purported to give the complete answers to these questions. If the Chair thinks this is discharging responsibilities of this House, that an answer of that length which he seems to have attempted to give is adequate to reply to 17 questions, then the Chair must consider its responsibility to the democratic institutions of this State.

The Minister has not replied yet.

I am prepared to answer supplementary questions when I have finished my answer.

If the Minister is prepared to answer supplementary questions why does he not answer the questions of which he has had notice?

Because I have got the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to take them together.

Each question is different and should be answered separately. They cannot be lumped together because they are unrelated.

May I appeal again for Question Time to be allowed to be proceeded with?

Would the Chair take what I am asking into consideration?

The Chair is taking every aspect of this into consideration.

Does the Chair not agree that the attitude of the Minister is totally unreasonable if he is prepared to answer supplementary questions of which he has no notice but is not prepared to answer written questions of which he has a week's notice?

At this stage the Minister is quite in order to give his reply.

I have pointed out to the Chair before and I have to do it again, in fairness to this institution, that your duty, as Chairman of this House, is to vindicate the rights of Members of this House.

I will not be lectured by the Deputy. The Chair has explained his position and will not be threatened or intimidated by either side of this House.

I propose to incorporate in that statement, which is in course of preparation, clarification in relation to the decisions already announced and the points raised by the Deputy.

There is much talk nowadays about the irrelevance of Parliament. Surely, a Cheann Comhairle, this is an example of Parliament being deliberately made irrelevant and you are responsible if you are allowing it to happen.

Arrangements for the publication of the statement are well in hand, but it is not possible at this stage to indicate the precise date of publication.

Fruitful discussions have already taken place, and I have already met a deputation from the NCEA, and have had further discussions with its executive council. The NCEA is not being abolished, but will be reconstituted with functions in planning and co-ordination in the integrated sector, as well as validation of certificates and diplomas in that sector. I am maintaining close contact with the NCEA in relation to commitments entered into by it.

The universities will be the only degree-awarding bodies. Certificates and diplomas in the higher commercial area will be awarded mainly by the Council for Technological Education.

It can be envisaged that a regional technical college might, through the co-ordinating Council for Technological Education, make appropriate arrangements with other institutions for the development and validation of courses suitable for the award of a degree. The decision that a majority of the members of the governing bodies of the National Institutes for Higher Education will be nominated by the Government, on the recommendation of the Minister for Education, will ensure that the priorities established for the development of technological education will be maintained, and that regional technical college interests will be represented on the Council for Technological Education. The range of consultation which my Department will have with the council will be clarified in the detailed statement which I plan to publish.

Farce, farce.

This is complete nonsense.

Arrangements to proceed with the building of the National Institute of Higher Education, Dublin, have already been set in train.

The Government, having considered all the advice available to them, decided to initiate the establishment of the structures necessary to secure the provision of a greater degree of comprehensive education at third level.

The Higher Education Authority did not specifically advert to the matter of a binary system at all. The continuance of a valid binary component in third level education postulates duplication of structures, facilities and personnel. The Higher Education Authority advised, and I quote, "The provision of basic teaching places and laboratory facilities for a course in engineering science at Trinity College must be conditional on that college making appropriate contractual arrangements with University College and the colleges of technology whereby unnecessary duplication of expenditure on staff and expensive facilities will be avoided."

On a point of order, surely this is not the correct way to answer 17 questions put down in a reasonable manner?

Let us hear the reply.

The authority further advised as follows: "The entire field of engineering education must be seen as an integer. In that regard we would propose to keep under constant review the validity of retaining separate university engineering schools in Dublin." Since the authority's recommendation involved the building of three engineering schools, the Government failed to see how the recommendation could have any effect on the schools once the schools are built.

You may as well adjourn the House until 4 o'clock. Question Time in this House has become a total farce. Adjourn the House until 4 o'clock and we will do without Question Time.

The Government have decided, therefore, that pending clarification of the extent of the overall requirements for engineering education there should be a moratorium on capital investment in the engineering school in Trinity College.

Because the Government was unable to accept that the proposal that the main centre for the physical sciences be in University College, and the main centre for the biological sciences in Trinity College, was educationally defensible, and taking into consideration the extensive capital investment that science demands, they have decided that co-ordination of the facilities for science is necessary. Details of the structures necessary to achieve this co-ordination of facilities, a joint science faculty, will be included in my comprehensive statement.

This comprehensive statement will also deal with the composition, functions, power and relationships of the conjoint board, including such relationships as may be appropriate with the Royal College of Surgeons.

Resign, resign, resign.

It will set out the reasons why the Government decided that University College, Cork, and University College, Galway, should be constituent colleges of a re-constituted National University of Ireland.

Following my policy decision announced at the INTO congress in Wexford, I initiated discussion between the colleges of education and the universities with a view to ensuring that primary teachers who had successfully completed a three year course would be awarded a university degree. Negotiations towards the achievement of this aim have reached an advanced stage. The colleges of education will become recognised colleges of the universities awarding their degrees, and will be designated institutions for purposes of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971.

A Cheann Comhairle, if the Minister has disgraced himself, you have equally disgraced yourself. You have become a puppet of the Minister and you have made this Parliament irrelevant by your conduct here today.

Will the Minister repeat the answer please?

On a point of information, a Cheann Comhairle, do you really feel that that was an imparting by the Minister for Education of information to this House?

That was a message from the Labour Party office.

A Cheann Comhairle, I did not hear the Minister's reply. Would you please ask him to repeat it?

May I ask the Minister if the reply which he gave to this question today is different from the reply which he gave yesterday——

Of course, it is.

——and if it is why is it considering they are the same questions?

The information available today could have been available yesterday if the Deputies had allowed Question Time to proceed in an orderly fashion.

The question I asked was whether the Minister's reply to-day was different from that given yesterday. Would the Minister answer that question?

It was a more elaborate statement than that available yesterday.

So it was different. May I ask again why was it that the reply today was different from the reply yesterday when the questions were precisely the same?

Out of courtesy to the House, which was in such an uproar yesterday, I thought it better, as a matter of courtesy, to try to expand in those areas where it was possible for me to expand. We have been given in this House over the last 40 minutes or so lessons on responsibility. I want to point out to the House that in respect of certain matters which were the subject of the questions it is not open——

Do we have to take lectures on responsibility——

The Minister is replying to a question.

——to me to answer because, as the Deputies who have been in Cabinet will know, when White Papers are produced they must be submitted to Cabinet for their approval. Therefore, for me to answer some of those questions would have been to pre-empt the rights of my colleagues to pronounce judgment in certain aspects of the matter. In so far as I have been able to answer the questions I have done so. In so far as I have not been able to answer I have said so in the answer.

Would the Minister explain to the House what has the question of pre-empting the rights of his colleagues in Government got to do with the question I asked him and to which he purported to reply unless there has been a decision by the Government changing decision previously made and announced by the Minister between Question Time yesterday and Question Time today? Is that what the Minister is saying?

If the Deputy had listened to my answer he would have found out the aspects on which it was not possible to give details.

The Deputy was listening to the Minister's reply just now which purported to be a reply to a question as to why the answer was different today from yesterday. The Minister gave one explanation and then went on to talk about pre-empting the rights of his colleagues which can only make any sense if there has been a change by the Government in their decisions, a thing of which I am not aware and which I do not believe has happened in that short space of time. Would the Minister now explain to the House why he decided, he said as a matter of courtesy to the House, to give a different answer today to the same questions that he had yesterday? Are we to take it from that that the Minister intended yesterday to be discourteous and today to be courteous?

It is not a different answer, it is a more elaborate answer. I have already explained to the Deputy the respects in which it is not open to me to give answers to the House because of Cabinet responsibility.

I do not want to intervene in this rather unseemly squabble. I have not heard the Minister's reply because it was totally inaudible to everyone in the House. I must ask the Chair to press Deputy Colley's question to the Minister. How was it possible to give an infinitely more lengthy reply today to questions that got only a one-sentence reply yesterday?

The answer is simple. If the matters which are the subject of these questions will be the subject of a memorandum to be prepared and put before the Government for further elucidation, I cannot pre-empt what the decision of the Government may be with regard to some aspects that have not yet been announced. Therefore, in respect of some of the answers I am not at liberty to reply.

In the Minister's original statement in relation to the new structures for third-level education he stated the decisions were final decisions of the Government. Is he now saying that these decisions were not final and that they will have to be re-examined?

I am saying that the Government decided in the matters which I published. There are other matters that are the subject of questions here which were not published and where decisions may yet have to be reached.

Will the Minister pinpoint the questions which refer to matters not yet decided by the Government?

I have already done so in the answer I have given to the House.

Just by numbers.

Will the Minister state why UCG is not being established as a university in its own right?

I have already answered that question in the basis of my reply. I can repeat the answer I have given for the Deputy. In the comprehensive statement the reasons will be set out why the Government decided that University College, Cork, and University College, Galway, should be constituent colleges of a reconstituted National University of Ireland.

That is no answer.

May I ask the Minister if it was due to academic reasons? Was he not satisfied with the academic standards? Was it because of lack of numbers? Was he not satisfied with the number of people in the college when he put the proposals and had them accepted by the Government that UCG would not be constituted a university in its own right?

In reply to Deputy Haughey's question, I have said the comprehensive statement I am preparing and submitting to the Government will set out the reasons. In advance of the publication of the White Paper I am not prepared to say.

Why not give the reasons now?

If the Minister had sufficient reason to recommend a certain course of action to the Government upon which the Government had acted, and if they came to decisions that will not be changed according to the Minister, why can he not briefly tell us now the reasons?

I have said the reasons why the Government decided to reconstitute the National University of Ireland will be set out. When the comprehensive statement is published these matters will become clear.

According to the Minister's statement we understand the Government have already decided that UCG will not be a university in its own right. One assumes from that that the Government on that basis discussed the considerations in this matter. Is the Minister telling us that he will go back to the Government now and advise them of the reasons that, in fact, have already been considered by the Government in coming to their decision?

I have already said that the reasons will be set out when the White Paper is published in the near future.

The Minister has told us that this is a Government decision already.

It is a Government decision. I have said so on a few occasions.

Now the Minister is saying he will submit the reasons to the Government for decision.

Is the Minister at this point aware of the reasons why UCG is not being established as a university in its own right?

Will the Deputy refer to particular reasons of which I am supposed to be aware? There are a number of reasons.

That is what we are asking.

The Minister for Education has indicated that the reasons UCG is not being established as a university in its own right will be published in a comprehensive statement? Is that correct?

That is correct. I will publish a statement as soon as possible but until then Deputies will have to be patient.

Is the Minister at this point aware of the reasons which will be published in this comprehensive statement?

I am aware of a number of reasons. Other members of the Government are aware of other reasons. All of them will be published——

I would ask Deputies to deal with this matter in an orderly fashion.

The important thing is that a decision has been taken. The reasons for the decision are not as important as the fact that the decision has been taken. It might be useful to the House if we could know from the Opposition if the decision, for example, in relation to the Dental Hospital in Cork which under their Government was not proceeded with would have been proceeded with had they remained in office.

The Minister has indicated that he is aware of the reasons why UCG is not being established as a university in its own right. Will the Chair please ask the Minister to tell me those reasons of which he is aware?

The Government will publish the reasons in a paper that will be published at a later stage.

Why not tell the House now?

The Minister has taken a certain course of action. He is aware of the reasons why that course of action was taken. I submit he has no alternative but to give me those reasons now.

Can I dissuade Deputies from repeating supplementary questions? Repetition is not in order.

There is nothing repetitive about this. The Minister has indicated there are reasons. He is aware of those reasons and I am asking him what they are. I am asking him to disclose them to me now in the Dáil.

I have said on a number of occasions that the reasons will be published when I have had an opportunity of putting the White Paper to the Government and then publishing it.

Why not now?

The Minister is saying he will answer when he feels like it.

Will the Minister state at what stage any suggestions arose that the colleges in Cork and Galway would form one university rather than separate universities? Will he state from whom the proposals came?

I do not feel obliged to tell the Deputy from whom the suggestion came.

Would the Taoiseach give some indication of the reasons——

That is not in order.

Will the Minister say if the reason UCG is not being established as a university in its own right is the same reason why UCC is not being established as a university in its own right? Will the Minister not agree that there is a certain element of metropolitan thinking in the whole treatment of UCG and UCC?

If Deputies will await publication of the reasons they will see if there is or if there is not.

Will the Minister state if the Government have taken decisions among which was the decision not to have a single university in Galway? According to the Minister's statement——

The Government decided there should be a National University of Ireland of which UCG and UCC would be constituent colleges.

The Government have taken a decision whereby there will not be a single university in Galway. Is the Minister now telling us that he is about to inform the Government of the reasons for the decision they have already taken, according to the Minister's statement some weeks ago?

The members of the Cabinet would be aware of the reasons which led them to make a decision.

But the Minister is telling the House that he has to inform the Government first. This is farcical.

Is the Minister aware that the staffs in UCG and UCC find the "snail" procedure attaching to the National University of Ireland idea very frustrating when they want to set up a new structure? Was this taken into consideration when the Minister and the Government were coming to this conclusion about the establishment of another national university?

The Government are aware of the necessity of a new National University of Ireland. The Deputies should not draw the conclusion that it will be in all respects an exact replica of the existing one.

That is not an answer to my question.

Would the Minister state if he had consultations with the Higher Education Authority, Cork University and Galway University before coming to a decision to form one university of the two colleges?

That is the subject matter of a further question on the Order Paper. Perhaps we could pursue that one at that stage.

Could I ask the Minister whether or not I detect in his statement an effort by him to disassociate from what he has said is a Government decision and that he, if he were handling it on his own, would have made different decisions?

The Deputy should be wiser than to ask me questions of that nature. Obviously I am a member of a Cabinet and I accept the principle of Cabinet responsibility.

Order.

On the general question it might be helpful to the Members opposite when I refer to such things as the reasons why the Government decide in a certain fashion, if they realise that the White Paper which the Government will publish will be brought before the Dáil for its consideration at that stage. They will not alone have an opportunity of seeing what is in it but of debating its contents in this House, if they would only let me get on with the job of dealing with it.

Would the Minister accept that in his statement he referred to what was the finalised decision of the Government on this matter?

I said that these were not proposals for further discussion, that they were decisions and that, in so far as Government decisions are final, these were final. I also pointed out in numerous interviews that if, when the Bill is brought into this House, consequent on the publication of the White Paper the Opposition, or indeed the Government, wish to put down amendments in the light of proposals then obtaining, they could do so. Only to that extent are they final. I want to clear away any impression that might be held by the public that these were a further set of proposals for a further set of merry-go-round discussions— that in fact the Government had decided. May I point out that this matter has been the subject of discussion for upwards of 15 or 16 years and that I have only been in office about 18 months. In 18 months we have got out decisions. In the 16 years of the previous Government's tenure of office they did not get out decisions.

Hear, hear.

Does the Minister now propose withdrawing the word "final"? Would he indicate if any firm decisions at all have been made?

I have already explained that to the Deputy and there is no need to go back over it.

The Minister has not. Could I ask him whether or not, in respect of the statement which he made on 16th December, any decision conveyed to the public there is final?

In so far as the Government have decided in the matters, in so far as these will form the basis of a White Paper and in so far as the White Paper will form the basis of a Bill to be brought before the Dáil, they are final. That does not mean that the legislative processes of this State cannot amend them, as I have said on quite a number of occasions over the last month.

Could the Minister tell us how much the Government have decided? The Minister is engaging in gobbledegook in so far as the Government have decided. Can the Taoiseach, as Head of the Government, tell us exactly what has been decided, if anything has been decided, because that is what is very doubtful?

Let us deal with the Minister now.

It is known what has been decided. I have already published the decisions of the Government and they are there for everybody to see.

Order.

Does the Minister not agree that to state that a decision so fundamental as the decision that University College, Galway, and University College, Cork, will not be made separate universities, that there can be no negotiation on that and then thereafter to suggest that it is subject to amendment on the Committee Stage of a Bill in the House is slightly contradictory?

Not necessarily so. The Deputy will be aware that, as I said in my reply, I am in contact with quite a number of interests, such as the NCEA, the board of Trinity College, the heads of the Irish universities, next Monday the Dublin Vocational Education Committee and others who are coming to see me. From these various people we will get an input of ideas and I will take cognisance of these, but the board parameters of the decisions are already visible and they will remain so.

How are decisions not negotiable but at the same time one takes cognisance of representations which may be contrary to the decisions which were not negotiable? I am a very ignorant man. I do not want to sound illogical but I do not understand the logic of that.

What Deputy Thornley should realise is that the decision to constitute a new National University of Ireland has been taken. The exact form of the charter, the number of members on particular bodies, what will be the recognised colleges or constituent colleges, all these matters are the subject of continuing discussions, not in fact the question of which will be the constituent colleges because one college has an option as to whether it will go into the new National University of Ireland or go in another direction towards one of the Dublin colleges. These are all matters to which I am giving urgent attention; but the broad decision, I repeat, has been taken to constitute a new National University of Ireland.

If, as the Minister has stated, he knows some of the reasons the Government made a final decision not to establish UCG as a university in its own right and refuses to give reasons to the House, can I ask him why he refused to give those reasons to the House?

Not alone do I know some of them, but I know all of them.

The Minister is learning. Ten minutes ago he knew only some of them; now he knows all of them.

Other Ministers put their input into the discussions and I put mine into the discussions. In so far as I was responsible for some of them and not for others, I am aware of all of them.

In so far as the Minister is now aware either of some or of all of the reasons for not establishing University College, Galway, as a university in its own right, will he tell us why he will not tell us some, or all, of the reasons? Will he give us three of the reasons, assuming there are six?

I hope to publish a White Paper very shortly and these reasons will be set out, as I have already said.

Will the Minister tell us why he will not give us the reasons now? Why have we to wait six months, 12 months, or whatever it is, for a White Paper?

Again, I advise that repetition is not in order.

Why?

I have already answered that question on a number of occasions.

I am asking a question in one word. Why? Why are the reasons not being given?

Because they are being set out in a White Paper.

That is not a reason.

After all, those Members who were in the Cabinet previously should realise the question of Cabinet responsibility.

As we are still on Questions Nos. 1 and 2, would the Minister say if the different social and industrial backgrounds in Cork and Galway were taken into consideration in reaching this decision? Why was it the exact same decision about the two colleges?

When this Government make decisions about any matter all the factors are taken into consideration.

Would the Minister now say what in fact were the factors?

I have already answered that question.