asked the Minister for Education if he took full account, prior to the introduction of circular 24/81, of the serious consequences for the education of children in the city centre and other disadvantaged areas in the greater Dublin region by raising the age of entry to national schools; and if he will now withdraw that circular.

I do not consider that it would be open to me to reply to this question at the present time in view of the terms of the resolution adopted at the special congress of the INTO on 14 November 1981 that:

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 cannot accept the Minister's use of the same reply to this question as he used to former questions. Is the Minister admitting that he has not taken full account of the serious consequences? Did he consult experts within his own Department in regard to the very special case that pertains to this type of area to determine the complete and total lack of any form of alternative for those very serious, significant, formative months in a child's development? Has the Minister taken full account of this and consulted with experts in his own Department about the significance in educational terms of these early months?

Naturally I have daily and frequent consultations with officers in my Department and in particular in relation to the adequate provision in areas of disadvantage. I have consistently expressed the Government's concern that areas of disadvantage and deprivation should receive priority in times of scarce resources.

In regard to the serious consequences for the education of children, has the Minister studied the first two-year module of the eight-year course as outlined by the new curriculum for primary schools? If so, would he not agree that it is the best possible course that could be designed educationally and psychologically?

I have taken all factors into account.

If the Minister so agrees — and I take it from his answer that he does — would he also agree that the teachers who are being trained are being trained in the light of that two-year module and that they are the best people to teach the four to six-year-olds rather than the ad hoc operators for pre-schools that he is talking about?

The Deputy would be wrong to assume that I agreed with the general tenor of his earlier supplementary. In relation to the rest of this question I regret that I can do no more than once again point out that it would be wrong for me to be induced to make statements in relation to this general issue which might be regarded as prejudicial to the defence which the State might put forward in any legal case it might be taking in relation to this matter.

Would the Minister not agree on this particular case since it is on education and not on legal issues? It is purely on education and the curriculum?

I am sorry, Deputy. I have tried to allow a few supplementaries on every question which pertained to the one subject. The Deputy can ask a question on the next question, but we must make some progress.

This is the first time that education, as such, was mentioned. I accept the Chair's ruling.