asked the Minister for Education the estimated annual saving in expenditure, under each heading, arising from his decision to increase the entry age to national schools to four-and-a-half years.

I would refer the Deputy to the replies already given by me to similar questions.

I trust the Deputy will appreciate, accordingly, why I am not in a position to reply to this question at the present time.

Are we to take it that, in his view, because the Minister received a letter to which he referred earlier, dated mid-November, and received no further communications, as I understand it, from the INTO, all questions bearing in any way on this matter, or, apparently, all consultations with the INTO, or any other organisation, must cease until the proceedings referred to take place, or he is formally notified that they will not take place? Is that the Minister's contention? If he never received such notification would he never again reply to a question on this matter? Is that his position?

I am advised, as I have already pointed out to the Deputy in reply to supplementary questions on Question No. 5, that that is the normal procedure followed within the Department of Education in handling Parliamentary Questions in which matters of this type might arise. I have already given an example from November 1979. I have a further example. On Tuesday, 30 May 1980, the then Deputy, Dan Spring, asked the then Minister for Education the reasons why he had not sanctioned the appointment of a principal at the School of Engineering in the Regional Technical College in Tralee, County Kerry. The then Minister for Education answered:

"Legal proceedings were threatened in this case in relation to the procedure for the filling of the vacancy by the vocational education committee. I considered it necessary in the circumstances to seek legal advice.

I do not consider that I should make further observations in regard to the matter at this stage other than to say that a decision will be expedited as much as possible."

Would the Minister now answer the question put to him? Is it his contention that if he does not receive notification of completion of proceedings, or withdrawal of the threat of proceedings, he will never again in this House answer a question on this topic?

I am following the precedent set by my predecessor.

The question is different from whether the Minister is following a precedent. The Minister heard the question. Would he answer it, please?

The answer is that I would intend to follow the precedent set by my predecessor.

It is becoming clearer by the minute.

Arising from the Minister's non-reply, would he tell the House if, in fact, Deputy Bruton, the Minister for Finance, has asked him to save £19 million at the expense of our primary school children?

No. The only source for this figure that I have is from a confidential memorandum produced by the Minister for Finance suggesting that savings of £19 million might be brought about if the age of entry for primary school children was raised to six years, which was submitted to the Cabinet and to the Minister for Education. My only source of knowledge of that circular is from the fact that Deputy Wilson quoted from that internal memorandum produced by the Minister for Finance and submitted to the Cabinet. He said that the date of the circular was October, 1980, when Deputy Fitzgerald was Minister for Finance and Deputy Wilson Minister for Education.

Would the Minister tell the House that he has yielded on that demand to the extent of the saving that will be made as a result of the issue of circular No. 24 of 1981?

No. I have never seen the suggestion made, according to Deputy Wilson, in the House. I have never seen the confidential memorandum produced by Deputy Fitzgerald in which he suggested that £19 million should be saved from primary education. I have never seen that other than hearing it quoted in the House by Deputy Wilson.

Now that we are on this topic——

There is another question on which the Deputy can raise this matter.

Can the Minister state how much he is saving out of the primary school vote as a result of circular 24/1981?

There is no effect on the primary schools subhead for this year. I tried to explain that to Deputy Wilson in the House during the Supplementary Estimate.

I am talking about 1982. The Minister knows perfectly well what I am asking. Would the Minister make even an attempt to assess how much money he will be taking out of the primary system as a result of circular 24/1981?

I am not in a position to do such.