asked the Minister for Education if she has any proposals to assist parents who are unable to afford the cost of sending their children to post-primary schools because of the new charges; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

In order to take into account any difficulty in the circumstances of large families, family contributions were limited to a maximum of £50 per term. In addition, it was decided to exempt from charge certain senior cycle pupils whose parents or legal guardians hold medical cards.

I would also refer the Deputy to my statement of 22 February 1983, in which it is proposed to make arrangements for the exemption of certain junior cycle pupils whose parents would face particular hardship in meeting the charge and for whom the use of school transport is essential to enable them to make satisfactory school attendance.

I understand there will be a debate at 3.30 p.m. dealing with these changes.

I am glad the Deputy appreciates that.

As a TD for a rural constituency — I am sure the Minister is aware of the position — I received numerous letters from people who are genuinely suffering hardship——

A question please, Deputy.

I want the Minister to ensure that every child is in a position to attend school up to the legal age of 15 years. I am appealing to him to desist from imposing this charge on children going to school. It is one of the most unfair charges ever imposed by any Administration——

The Deputy has asked a question and he must allow the Minister to answer.

I am amazed to hear such questions coming from that side of the House because, as I reminded Deputies, it was the Fianna Fáil Minister for Education who, on 18 November, made the statement that charges would be imposed. The only difference is that now concessions have been granted to certain categories in order to reduce the hardship such charges might cause. I would be concerned if I thought the charges, altered as they are, would in any way hinder or prohibit children from attending school. I do not think I can go any further than the statement made last evening by the Minister.

May I ask a supplementary?

There will be a debate on this subject for a couple of hours later today.

Unfortunately it is a limited debate and those interested might not get an opportunity to contribute.

Nobody knows better than the Deputy that it would not be in order to anticipate the debate.

Exactly, and that is why I ask permission to put a question.

I will allow that.

Would the Minister agree that, while one can use the medical card as a criterion, that does not always guarantee that those children are more necessitous than others? Would he agree that there are certain circumstances in which a family may have a medical card, but that does not guarantee greater poverty than in a house where a medical card does not exist? Medical cards are granted on medical grounds and not always on grounds of poverty. Would the Minister assure the House that it will not be the only yardstick used in the matter of adjudication upon necessitous students?

I accept the Deputy's claim that a medical card is not the last word in determining the income or wealth of any family. However, there is no other instrument or measure for determining poverty or income. I assure the Deputy that the matter is being examined with regard to hardship cases and I would refer the Deputy to the statement made yesterday evening by the Minister.

A final Supplementary, Deputy, please.

May I take it that the medical card will be the strict criterion for deciding eligibility? If so, does that mean that hardship cases will not be considered if these people are not in receipt of a medical card? This is a very serious matter in relation to the provision of school transport on a constituency which is very vulnerable to all which has been involved in this unfortunate debacle. Could I have further clarification?

I have referred the House to the statement made yesterday by the Minister. The medical card will not be the sole criterion or yardstick. I repeat that for the Deputy's benefit.