asked the Minister for Education the methods by which he has reduced and intends to reduce State support to students attending teacher training colleges and if he will make a statement on the matter.

State support to students in colleges of education comprises grants for general purposes to the colleges and grants and loans for students. The relevant provisions in my Department's Estimates are contained in subheads A 1 and A 2 of Vote Primary Education. They have been increased from £3,812,500 in 1977 to £4,150,000 in 1978 and £4,698,000 in 1979.

I deeply regret the manner in which the Minister has replied. Is he aware that I asked about the methods by which he has reduced and intends to reduce State support for students attending teacher training colleges? Is he aware of the grave apprehension among such students in respect of their maintenance allowance, for instance? In view of the increase in the population of students, especially in primary schools, which is indicated within the next five or ten years, is the Minister aware that reducing the attractiveness of teacher training colleges is a very negative way of approaching the problem of providing a proper supply of teachers?

I am sure the Deputy will accept that the manner of the contribution made to support the colleges to which he referred can only be shown as reflecting itself in the total provisions made in respect of any one year. If the Deputy wants specific information in the matter of the increase in fees from £260 to £300, he should have put down a different question. The answer I have given refers specifically to the question put down.

Is the Minister aware that the manner in which he answered the question was completely devious and an attempt to avoid answering the question about the plight of students in teacher training colleges? Is he aware that there is a need to encourage participation of students in such colleges in order to have a proper supply of qualified teachers? He is avoiding the issue.

The word "devious" is one which I would apply to anybody with the greatest reluctance. The Deputy looked for information in relation to State support for students attending teacher training colleges. If he cannot see that this is reflected in State support in regard to financial provision for these colleges, then he is not as anxious as I am to look at the true picture.

Is the Minister aware that the Government have announced in the White Paper and in the budget a reduction in the support for students in training colleges?

The Minister is not so aware.

The House is aware. The Minister knows what we are talking about and is fencing and playing with words.

I have answered the question which was specifically tabled.

I asked about the methods by which the Minister has reduced and intends to reduce State support.

By giving them less money.

If the Deputy has in mind an increase in fees, why did he not refer to that specifically?

If the Minister wishes to avoid answering a straight question, it is his business. However, it is a sad reflection on the attitude of the Government to Members of this House.

That is not my wish and I suggest that the Deputy should table a specific question dealing with fees. That question will be answered.

It appears I need to be a Professor of English to put down a question.

I will not reflect on the Deputy's adequacy or inadequacy in the matter of the English language.