asked the Minister for Education if he will clarify the position in relation to the proposed crash course for untrained national teachers.

25.

asked the Minister for Education if he will make a statement on the postponement of the crash course for untrained teachers which was due to begin on 1st June, 1976.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 25 together.

The position in this matter is that the applicants for this course were notified by my Department on 10th June, 1976, that the course which was intended to be held in Mary Immaculate College of Education, Limerick, from 15th June to 5th August, 1976, would not take place in that college and that they should not go there on Monday, 14th June. They were further notified on 15th June, 1976, that the college authorities had been requested to refund to them at the earliest possible date the payments of £240 which they had made to the college, and that it was not possible in the circumstances to make alternative arrangements for the holding of the course.

How deeply did the Minister's Department and himself consider this course before they decided on it in January, 1976?

It was given the usual consideration which all matters in the Department get.

Did the Minister consult, for example, the relevant teachers' organisations—I know he makes a virtue of consultation—about this course before he decided on it in January, 1976?

The teachers in question were well aware of what was happening.

Is the Minister saying that he consulted the teachers' organisations concerned?

I am saying that the teachers concerned were aware of the circumstances.

How does the Minister know that the teachers were well aware of what was happening if he did not consult them? Did he or did he not officially consult the teachers' organisations concerned when getting this course ready?

The teachers, as I say for the third time, were aware of the circumstances in which this course was mounted.

I know, a Cheann Comhairle, you always say you are not responsible for Ministers' replies and I am very glad for your sake that you are not.

It would place the Chair in an intolerable position if he were to be responsible for such replies.

Utterly intolerable.

Does the Minister consider, seeing that these people paid £240 to the college concerned, that a contract existed between him and those teachers?

No. I am not prepared to give any opinion on the contractual obligations in this situation.

When will the course be held?

I have already written to the people involved to say that it is not possible in the circumstances to make alternative arrangements for the holding of this course.

Would the Minister agree that he and his Department bungled this situation completely?

No.

Did the Minister clearly tell the House about a month ago in reply to questions by Deputies Geoghegan-Quinn, O'Malley and myself, that the course was definitely on?

Yes.

Why has the Minister changed his mind in such a short time about the matter in view of the fact that this was a Ministerial decision in the first instance and also the second instance?

The Deputy, as a member of the INTO, I am sure, is aware of the circumstances.

I resent the Minister's remarks about the INTO. Would he agree that to have this course granted in the first instance was a Ministerial decision knowing the pressures that were there from the INTO? Why, now, having decided not to put on the course, does he throw the thing over into the INTO garden?

The Minister is not throwing it into anybody's garden. He is just stating the facts as he sees them.

There is washing of hands here.

Order. I have allowed a lot of latitude on this question. I will take a final supplementary.

Will the Minister now tell the House what is the position in relation to the untrained teachers who have been informed by the Department that permanent jobs were available for them on the understanding that they were going to attend the crash course? What is the position in relation to these untrained teachers?

I have already given that information to the House in answer to a previous supplementary question. I have written to them in the following terms: "It is not possible in the circumstances to make alternative arrangements."

I am calling Question No. 26. I have allowed the Deputy considerable latitude.

Fair play.

Deputy Wilson had a long series of questions and Deputy Gallagher had other questions——

I agree, but this is very important.

I should like to ask the Minister the position regarding the teachers who were informed by the Department that permanent jobs were being granted to them on the understanding that they attended the course. Will these people get permanent employment?

The Deputy is stating that the Department informed these people that they would get permanent jobs. More than any other Member of the House, the Deputy should know that it is not within the function of the Department to give anyone permanent jobs at this level of teaching.

Will the Minister state if the course will be held and when?

I have answered that question twice already.

Will the course be held?

I have already called Question No. 26.

I have issued a letter which says——

The Minister should answer the question; never mind the letter.

The holding of the course is rendered inoperable.

What does the Minister mean by that?

I have answered the question.

Question No. 26.

I came into the House specifically to ask a question on this matter and I think I am entitled to ask it, particularly as the Minister has stressed that being a member of the INTO——

I have allowed a lot of latitude on this question. If Deputies wish to debate this matter they will have to do so at another time. I have already called the next question. In fact, the time for questions is up now.

I would be grateful if the Chair would allow me a brief question.

The Deputy may put a brief question but he may not impose on the Chair.

In view of the fact that the Minister was in a position to discontinue the course on five days' notice, will he give a guarantee to the House that when he decides to reconvene it he will give longer notice to those people attending the course?

There is an assumption there that it was the Minister who discontinued the course.

Has the Chair permission to take Question No. 26 which is the last remaining question to the Minister?

There is a feeling that more time might be given to those two questions if the Chair is willing.

The Deputy will agree that the Chair was very liberal today in respect of the last question.

There are two questions involved that concern a very difficult and important matter and if there is more time available for questions, I suggest it could, with profit, be devoted to the two questions.

Then, the remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's order paper if it is not the wish of the House to take the last remaining question.

With the permission of the Chair, it is my intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 8 and 9 of 7th April, 1976. This matter relates to the very serious matter of the strike in the Galway Fire Brigade.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.