asked the Minister for Education the number of teaching posts that will be lost in the 1982-1983 school year arising out of circular 24/81 in the following areas: (a) Dublin north city, (b) Dublin north county, (c) Dublin south city and (d) Dublin south county.

The terms of the resolution adopted at the special congress of the INTO on 14 November 1981 were as follows:

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 trust that the Deputy will appreciate that in these circumstances I am not in a position to reply to this question at the present time. I consider that it is reasonable and prudent that I should avoid making any statement which might subsequently come to be regarded as prejudicial to the defence which the State would put forward in the case.

Does the Minister not accept that his silence on this matter, just as in other areas, will only build up fears rather than alleviate them in this case?

I am not in a position to comment on what effect that might have on the fears of individuals. I regret that I cannot reply to these questions as fully as I would otherwise like.

The Minister will remember that when this very matter was being discussed here on Private Members' Business, he was in a position to refute figures quoted by me and to quote figures of his own. In regard to the areas mentioned here, are we to assume that his silence now is an indication that he feels the figures he was so sure of that night are not now true?

We are not in such a position. We are still in the position of realising that the statistics which I quoted on the occasion of that debate were accurate and the figures the Deputy quoted were fallacious.

Since the Minister has now accused us again of giving fallacious figures, would he again give the House the benefit of the figures he quoted on that occasion?

I did not quote any figures in relation to any of the areas mentioned in the question before the House.

I may be corrected on this but, as far as I can recollect, the Minister mentioned the greater Dublin area and produced figures which he said were statistical facts. How did the Minister compile those statistics and whom did he consult to draw up those projections?

Statistical facts are normally compiled within my Department on the basis of statistics and facts and they are drawn from the returns to the Department made by the principal teachers in the national schools through their management boards.

I would refer the Minister to section (b) of Question No. 10. Will the loss of jobs affect the position of schools in the area? Will the school at Hedgestown continue in operation despite circular 24/1981?

I have already explained, in reply to Question No. 7 by Deputy Blaney, that no two-teacher school will become a one-teacher school as a result of this change. As the Deputy knows, the school at Hedgestown had, for one-quarter, fallen below the retention figure necessary to retain two teachers prior to the change in the age of entry requirement. Consequently, any difficulty which is or may be experienced in that school was not occasioned in any way by the change in the age of entry requirement but by other factors stretching back over the past 12 months. I understand however that arrangements are being made, which I am endeavouring to encourage, to see that the enrolment at the school at Hedgestown will continue and that the Hedgestown school, which is a school with an honourable tradition, will continue to be a two-teacher school.

Will the Minister agree that the problem will be a major one for three-teacher schools as well as for two-teacher schools? Will the Minister agree further that every drop of 28 will mean the loss of a teacher?

I would suggest that the Deputy examine the enrolment and retention figures which are necessary for third, fourth, fifth, sixth and subsequent assistants. The figure would be greater than 28 in relation to retention.

I am talking about the national average pupil-teacher ratio and using it as a rough figure. Each drop of 28 all over the country will mean a loss of a teacher.

The latest figures I have here for a national average were between 29 and 30 to one. I appreciate that since the Government's decision to employ 300 extra teachers last September——

Our Government's decision, this year and the year before and the year before and the year before that.

——the national pupil-teacher ratio figure is now at a lower level than ever before in the history of the State. I am not in a position to agree with the Deputy that it has now reached a level of 28 to one, but if it has, I am very pleased.

Is the Minister reducing the ratio by expelling children from the schools?

When replying to Question No. 7, the Minister gave certain information, but why did he give information to Deputy Burke in reply to a supplementary question and yet refuse to give information in respect of the other questions?

In my reply to Question No. 7, I referred the House to the general comments I made during the course of the debate on a Private Members' Motion some weeks ago. In relation to the question posed by Deputy Burke, because the problems in that school are extraneous and quite separate from anything relating to the question of the age of entry, I felt it was appropriate to deal with it in case people in that area might be misled by the Deputy's question.

Did not the question, and the supplementary by Deputy Burke, suit the Minister, but it did not suit him to answer the other questions? Is that not the reason why he gave that information on Question No. 7 but did not reply to the other questions put to him?

That is not correct. I have already indicated to the House that I would far prefer to be able to answer each of these questions fully and, I believe, to the satisfaction of the House——

The baby doll.

That is a far cry from what I was called last week. I have indicated that I believe very much in the rights of Deputies to table questions, that it is one of the most important aspects of the operations of this House. I feel disappointed that I am being precluded from answering these questions in the way in which I should like.

11.