asked the Minister for Education the importance she attaches to the Report of the Committee on In-Service Education on the necessity for in-service courses for teachers.

I attach great importance to the report. As stated in the Programme for Action in Education 1984-1987, however, proposals of the dimensions indicated in this report cannot, due to economic circumstances, be contemplated in the period covered by the four year plan. A principal recommendation of the report regarding the setting up of an independent council for the in-service education of teachers must, in my view, have to await the experience arising from the establishment of the Curriculum and Examinations Board.

I expect to be in a position to lay a copy of the report before the House in about two months time. It will then be possible to have it fully examined and discussed.

Which report does the Minister intend to lay before us in two months?

The Report of the Committee on In-Service Education.

The Minister of State said that the cost implications of such findings by the in-service committee were very high. Would he accept that the aspirations as outlined in the action plan for education make nonsense of what he has now said? The desirability of intensified teacher training is particularly applauded in the action plan for education and now the Minister has stated that the cost implications would be enormous and cannot be carried out.

I did not say that they would not be carried out. I said the costs involved would be pretty high and would have to be considered in conjunction with the resources available. The Minister will not shelve this report. It is an important report which deserves careful consideration. It will receive such consideration when it is published and when the various interested parties have had an opportunity to comment. The report will be available within the next two months. I hope there will be widespread comment on it. As I said, there is no intention to shelve it. Naturally we have to consider the resources available for its implementation.

What is the order of priorities?

The report will come before the House within two months and apparently there will be a debate on it then.

We are sympathetic towards that point of view, but we are trying to clarify something.

That is where we are wrong. We are having a debate on every question. That is quite unreasonable.

Where in the order of priorities does the Minister place in-service training for teachers? That is a very simple question.

That is policy.

It relates to the question.

We cannot have a discussion on policy. If Deputy Fitzgerald thinks about it he will agree with the Chair that what the Deputy is at, does not make sense.

On the contrary, I have to dispute that with the Chair for once. On the last occasion I took a different line. My supplementary is entirely in accordance with the wording and the spirit of the question.

It may be, but it does not make sense at Question Time. It is not in keeping with the procedure at Question Time.

Will you permit the Minister to answer my question?

The Deputy asked me what importance the Minister attached to this. In the first sentence of my reply I said: "I attach great importance to the report."