asked the Minister for Education why he did not consult with the Irish National Teachers' Organisation or the management authorities before he raised the age of admission to national schools.

By letter of 16 November 1981 I was officially informed by the INTO that at its special congress in Limerick on Saturday, 14 November 1981 the following resolution was adopted:

Congress declares that the Organisation shall seek a Declaration in the Courts that the Minister for Education is in breach of contract or has induced a breach of contract of teachers in National Schools.

I have not yet been informed of the nature of the pleadings which the INTO will advance in court in support of their case. I consider that it is reasonable and prudent that I should not at this stage be induced to make statements in relation to the general issue which might subsequently come to be regarded as prejudicial to the defence which the State would put forward in the case. In the circumstances I am satisfied that I should not answer these questions at the present time.

Will the Minister state if he consulted the Attorney General and if the view of the Attorney General was that he should not answer the question?

I think the best thing I should do is to follow the precedents that have been set.

Does the Minister not regard the right of a Member of this House to put down a parliamentary question to elicit information for the benefit of the House and the country as being a sacred right and one that should not be interfered with just because the Minister wants to get out of answering a question?

One of the important rights a Deputy has in this House is the right to table a question at Question Time and it is a right I would always defend. However, the Deputy and the House will appreciate that precedents grow up during the years in relation to answering certain types of question and it is normal to follow such precedents. For instance, on Tuesday, 20 November 1979 the then Deputy John Horgan asked the then Minister for Education the following question:

If he will hold an inquiry into the dismissal of a teacher (details supplied); if he has satisfied himself that the dismissal was carried out in accordance with the rules of his Department; if he will quote the rule concerned; if an officer of the Department when contacted by telephone by the teacher concerned, instructed her to return to work until the postal strike was over; if the Department furnished an oral ruling to the INTO in this particular case; the date and contents of any such ruling; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Education (Mr. Wilson): The person in question acted as a substitute teacher for a period on the staff of a national school and, accordingly, was not employed by the Department of Education.

It has been indicated that she intends to institute legal proceedings in relation to a matter connected with her employment as substitute teacher. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to make further comment at this stage.

Will the Minister not accept that the case in question was one of a contract between a teacher and a board of management rather than a matter directly affecting his Department? Further, will he not admit that this is a question related to the whole country? Is it not the practice for the Questions Office to reject anything that is sub judice? Is he contending that this matter is sub judice?

As I said last week, I think there is some confusion between matters that are sub judice and in which notice of intention to take legal proceedings has been given. For instance, in the question on Tuesday, 20 November 1979 the question of a contract which the teacher had or did not have in that case was the subject matter of that question. Because notice of intention to take legal proceedings had been given, the Minister of the day felt constrained to answer in the way he did and the Questions Office allowed the question to be tabled and answered. The similarity between that case and the one here is striking. There are other precedents as well.

A final supplementary.

This is a very serious matter of principle involving the rights of Members of the House.

Deputy Wilson, you may remember quoting to me a precedent which I had occasion to look up after Question Time and the information you gave me was not quite correct. It was about a number of questions being answered together. They were not answered individually on the occasion to which you referred me, they were answered together.

On a point of explanation, to support a suggestion made by another Member of the House, I indicated that we should take time off to have some consultation on the matter that the 17 questions at that time put down by me to the then Minister for Education be taken on the following day. Does the Minister, as a third party commenting from the outside, tell the House that the question of the Department of Education refusing to comment on contract between two contracting parties is parallel to this question before the House now on a matter of interest to the whole country, not as an individual case?

I have given the House one of the numbers of precedents that exist in relation to matters such as this. I do not want to delay the House in quoting the other precedents involved in the recent past except to say that I have done nothing out of the ordinary and have merely continued the practice which was engaged in by my predecessor in replying to questions of this nature.

The Minister surely will realise the big difference between giving notice of intent and the actual serving of the writ which would make the matter sub judice. How long can the Department and he shelter behind a notice of intent and how long will that last?

I am afraid that I am not the author of the letter that has brought about this situation. As I said last week, I regret this situation at least as much as if not more than the Deputy who tabled the question. I would far prefer to be in a position to explain to the House the answers to the questions concerned and the matters involved. I would much prefer to be free to do that. The question which I quoted previously which was answered in November 1979 related to an individual case. There are other precedents in relation to the general cases also.

The Minister mentioned that he has notice of intent from the INTO, which is a lot more than the Minister gave to the INTO or to the management authorities or parents when he announced this circular. Why did he announce this directive on 12 August when probably he knew full well that the INTO offices were closed, as they always are between 4 and 14 August.

Because it was the appropriate time.

Is it a fact that the Minister did not consult and does not want to admit now that he did not consult anybody, either the managerial association or the relevant trade union with regard to this? Is that not the plain, unadorned fact?

I have already replied to the question.

In this matter I would be very concerned with the rights of Deputies to put down and receive answers to questions. We are having a surfeit of attempts to override the traditions and procedures in this House without having it extended into this area also. In pursuance of that anxiety of mine I want to ask this question. Am I right in thinking from the Minister's reply that he is refusing to answer these questions because he has received a letter from the Irish National Teachers Organisation? Does he realise that the question also deals with consultation with the management authorities? Is he suggesting that because he received a letter from the INTO, that prohibits him from dealing with a question about another body entirely, namely the management authorities?

I am not refusing to answer any question. I have already answered the question as best I am able in the circumstances. As I pointed out to the House in the course of that answer, I consider that at this stage I should not be induced to make statements in relation to a general issue which subsequently might come to be regarded as prejudical to the defence which the State might put forward in the case. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that that is the difficulty which I face in relation to making any comment at this stage.

Again I am asking the Minister if he understands that the question is in two parts. It refers on the one hand to consultation with the INTO and on the other hand to consultation with the management authorities. Whatever may be the rights of his refusing to answer a simple question about consultation with the INTO because he has received a letter from the INTO, is he seriously and honestly contending that, because he received a letter from the INTO, that prevents him also from giving us a simple answer as to whether he consulted with the management authorities who are a totally separate and distinct organisation?

The answer to that question is yes.

One final supplementary. Could the Minister tell the House if he was advised not to answer the question, and, if so, by whom?

The answer to the first part of the question is yes. I think it would be inappropriate to answer the second part.

Was the adviser legally qualified?

I was advised by the same source as advised my predecessor when he formulated the reply to the question of Tuesday, 20 November 1979.

Would the Minister agree that he has now set a precedent in terms of industrial relations between the Department and the INTO? Is he taking constructive account of the move within that organisation at the moment arising out of that precedent?

I would be very concerned that a constructive attitude would be taken on all sides in this matter.

Deputy Wilson, a final supplementary.

Has the Minister any information that a legal case is going ahead? Has he consulted, as I have, with the office of the INTO on this?

Yes. I have already informed the House that I have information that the legal case is going ahead. The information is by letter of 16 November last from the INTO, the relevant passage from which I have already quoted to the House.

Has the Minister consulted with the INTO since then?

In relation to a legal case?

In relation to Circular 24/81 in any way.

I am not particularly familiar with this process but I would imagine that when one gets notice of intention to take legal proceedings against one, one does not ring up to know when one might get it.

Would the Minister indicate whether he has received any information, good, bad or indifferent, from the management authorities that they intend to take legal proceedings against him?

No, a Cheann Comhairle.

Therefore, does that not, in the normal precedent and tradition of this House, indicate that the Minister should answer fully that section of the question, as there is no threat of any legal action from the management authorities? How then can the Minister refuse to answer the question in so far as it relates to those management authorities?

It is less than realistic to suggest that these organisations are mutually excluded in this or other matters relating to primary school management or procedures. That would be as ludicrous as to suggest that Deputy Haughey's constituency and the officers and elected personnel in it hold completely different views from those held in, for instance, Deputy Colley's constituency. Constituencies do not operate on a mutually exclusive basis — neither do these two organisations in relation to the management of national schools.

I would like to ask the Minister——

I have allowed the Deputy a lot of latitude on this question.

Would the Minister not agree——

Can we be assured that this is Deputy Wilson's final supplementary?

Would the Minister agree that he did not consult the management authorities and that he has got a communication from them that they do not agree with this decision and are anxious that Circular 24 of 1981 be withdrawn? Would he further agree that this baby doll approach to this question is not impressive and will not benefit our educational system?

Hear, hear.

Ceist 6.

My supplementary was not answered.

I am not responsible for that.

Would the Minister say if he had a communication from the management authorities stating that they disagreed with Circular 24 of 1981?

The management authorities and I are on the best of terms.

Did the Minister receive a communication from them disagreeing with Circular 24 of 1981 and asking that it be withdrawn?

Ceist 6.

6.