asked the Minister for Education if the boards of national schools are empowered to interpret section 9 (3) of the Rules for National Schools to permit public representatives to utilise school premises for the purpose of holding public advice bureaux where no alternative accommodation is available.

I consider that the rule in question is quite clear and does not require any interpretation.

Could the Minister tell us if it is permissible for public representatives to set up advice bureaux in these schools?

Would the Deputy read the regulation?

I have read it.

No political meeting may be held nor may any political business be transacted in schools whether vested or non-vested except as provided in sections 1 and 2 of this rule and no meeting in connection with a local election may be held therein. The Deputy will agree with me there is an ambiguity about that regulation. It is sensitive to only one interpretation and that is that it is not permitted.

With the changes which have taken place, and the Minister must be aware of them, involving an increasing use of schools at night— a most welcome development—surely this would be one of the most obvious developments where this kind of advice bureaux aimed at helping people should be a simple and logical extension of a change of use in relation to schools.

That is a statement.

Would the Minister not agree with that?

That is a separate question. The question put asked me to interpret the existing regulation and that I have done.

Arising further out of the Minister of State's reply, would he give us his interpretation of whether or not the simple presence in a school at a certain time of a public representative to give factual information to members of the public is political business or is not political business within the terms of the regulation?

That is a separate question.

The simple presence of a politician in a school is an exercise in which I myself have indulged but the simple presence of a Fianna Fáil Cumann in a school would not be in accordance with the regulation.

Does the Minister not realise that the managers of these schools are as much in the dark following his reply as they were before and what he says does not tell us clearly whether or not they are within their rights in making available the kind of facilities Deputy Browne, Deputy Horgan and I myself need from time to time.

Any manager in the dark must not be able to read English. The regulation is quite clear.

That is arguable. Would the Minister agree that the holding of what we call a clinic or an advice bureau to advise constituents is not political business in the ordinary meaning of the term and, still less, a political meeting? I get even Fianna Fáil people coming to my clinics and I do not do political business with them.

There is one born every minute.

We have had two different interpretations. One is that it is permissible and the other is that it is not permissible. Which is the correct interpretation?

My interpretation is that it is not permissible having regard to the present regulation and anyone who cannot read that from the regulation is not deciphering the English language as he should.

Would the Minister amend the regulation?

The people who come to clinics seeking advice are quite capable of being with one for 20 minutes without ever mentioning a political topic.

That is a statement. I am calling the next question. I will allow Deputy Keating one final supplementary.

The Minister's interpretation of this particular regulation implies that political activity per se is somehow different from, inferior to, or less worthy than activities like bingo, card drives, and so on.

That is a statement.

Would the Minister consider changing the regulation?

Amendment of the regulation may be desirable but the question refers to the regulation as it stands and to that question I have replied.

I suggest the Minister might respond honestly to an honest question.

It is a silly interpretation of a silly rule.

By silly men.

Hear, hear.