asked the Minister for Education if he has the authority to prevent secondary schools from closing.

Secondary schools are recognised in accordance with the Rules for Secondary Schools.

They are private institutions financially aided by the Department of Education by way of payment of grants to the authorities of the schools and payment of incremental salary to a specified quota of eligible teachers on the staffs of the schools.

There is no authority under the relevant official regulations to require the authorities of a school to continue to conduct it when they do not wish to do so.

In the light of recent events, would the Minister not propose to take such a power to himself under the regulations?

I would not so propose. I take the opportunity to repeat what I said. I regret the death of a school. I hope it will not happen in the future. I assure the parents who are concerned that places will be provided in any such instance of the closing of a secondary school.

Is the Minister aware of the financial implications for his Department of a continued series of closures by secondary schools?

I am glad the Deputy raised the matter. I am aware of the financial implications. Over many decades the State has been saved a great deal of money by the existence of these schools. Full financing of capital works, maintenance of schools and so on, constitute a heavy financial load which, if the independent schools opt out, we will have to bear fully.

Does the Minister accept that the heart of this matter is the degree to which the Government are willing to fill the vacuum created by such closures? Despite the fact that the Minister has given us an assurance to the effect that he will build schools wherever they are closed, will he accept that the inherent instability because of closures, which may occur at the drop of a hat without due notice and without advance warning, is the basis of a most unsteady educational policy in the future? Is the Minister not unhappy about that?

The Deputy has made a good point. The implication for the Department and the Government is obvious. No matter how many private schools opt out, it is my intention to have post-primary places available for pupils in the various areas. The drop of a hat has not been so unfortunate because those who have indicated intentions to close already have allowed three years and five years for the dropping of a hat. The people responsible should not give inadequate notice of the closing of a school: there is a serious obligation on such people to inform the planning section of the Department so that we can be ready for any eventuality.

Although I accept a certain degree of phasing, does the Minister not accept that, shall we say, the beginning of a closure takes place immediately when students are refused entry, and therefore it is reasonable to say that the drop of a hat is the only notice he gets?

It takes some hats longer to drop than others. The Deputy has raised an important question and people who are concerned seriously with provision for education should be aware of the problems posed by the closing of schools, and if they have any intention—I hope they have not—of pulling out, the Department of Education should get adequate notice.

We have spent 45 minutes dealing with 17 questions. I have been very liberal in regard to these questions to the Minister for Education, but during the remainder of the time I want Deputies to be brief—and that applies to the Minister.

Does the Minister think the financial implications of closures will be a factor in negotiations between the secondary school authorities and the Department of Education?

We will have to provide very heavy capital if very large schools are closed.