asked the Minister for Education if the speech she is reported to have made in Bray on 19 August last, and her follow-up comments on radio on 20 August, on teachers' pay and the attitude of teachers to pay levels, represent Government policy; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

The Government have consistently made clear that the extremely difficult situation facing the country demands a policy of severe pay restraint for all sectors in Irish society, particularly for the public sector whose salaries must be met from the public purse. It was in this context that I made the remarks in the speech to which the Deputy refers and in a subsequent radio interview.

I have been gravely concerned by the way in which some of my remarks have been misrepresented and quoted selectively out of context. In particular it has greatly concerned me that an impression is being created, aided by members of the Opposition and now rapidly becoming part of popular folklore, that I challenged the "morality" of teachers who seek pay increases or who process claims for increases through the machinery available under agreed conciliation and arbitration schemes. I made no such challenge. I want to avail of this opportunity to set the record straight. What I said was:

It is vital that all those organisations who publicly clamour for increases should address themselves to the morality of what they are about.

It was my intention to question the morality of the tactics being used in this public clamour. I made this quite clear in the radio interview the next day — and here again I quote from a transcript of that interview:

When I used that word "morality" I was reacting to expressions that have been used since the Government's announcement last week. The word "morality" had nothing whatsoever to do with the arbitrator's award.

I went on to make it clear that I was referring to those who were using terms such as "recipe for chaos" of "resisting outright" in relation to the Government's approach to pay and to sensational newspaper headlines which threatened selective strikes penalising children in certain constituencies. It was the morality of these kinds of threats that I was questioning and would still question.

Thus I was in no way saying that it is immoral for teachers to seek to improve their pay rates or to use the conciliation and arbitration machinery. To say that I did is nonsense.

On the radio in answer to questions I expressed a view about the State's capacity to meet the cost of a reported 10 per cent special pay award to be recommended for teachers. I also indicated clearly that the arbitrator's award had not at that time come to the Government — this is still the case. I shall be submitting the report in due course for consideration by the Government in accordance with the provisions of the teachers' conciliation and arbitration scheme. Then and only then can the Government make a decision in the matter.

Until this is decided, therefore, any comment made on the subject of the 10 per cent award does not constitute a statement of the Government's position on the issue. I have made that perfectly clear. I answered a specific question put to me regarding the special pay increase. I felt it necessary to make some comment in view of the fact that certain spokespersons for the teacher unions had already commented about the matter.

I felt it important to give this reply in detail in view of the misrepresentation which has occurred. I note, for instance, that the sections of my speech in which I praised the work of public servants and in particular when I paid tribute to the work of teachers have gone almost unreported and subsequently overlooked.

I am not surprised that the Minister dealt with the morality issue in her speech. Having that on the record raises the whole question of the morality of actions of the Government as well as what she is reputed to have said — and which I think she said again that she did say — that those who clamoured for wage increases should address themselves to the morality of what they are about, in other words, looking for a wage increase is the immoral issue. That is not what my question is about at all. My question is about the Minister's speech which was not said on that occasion to be a personal opinion which she is now saying it is.

A question, please, Deputy.

My question was in regard to her statement that the arbitrator's award for teachers would not be paid. Deputy O'Rourke again confirmed——

Deputy, in all cases I insist — and I cannot make an exception — that it must be dealt with by way of a question.

Precisely.

The Deputy appears to be making a short speech.

What I am saying is that the Minister's reply was not addressed to the particular issue of my question which was in connection with the arbitrator's award——

Perhaps the Deputy would put by way of question what he wants answered.

I am about to do that. I want to clarify precisely what I am about, which is that the Minister's statement, not the statement about the morality of the teachers' strike, but the Minister's statement that the arbitrator's award would not be paid——

If I allow a speech on this or any other question, Question Time will get out of hand. I cannot make exceptions.

Is the Minister now saying that her statement that the arbitrator's award for teachers would not be paid was a personal statement and not a statement of Government policy? Is the Minister saying that?

I did not say that the arbitrator's award for teachers would not be paid.

Arising out of the Minister's reply ——

I think I should allow Deputy Mac Giolla in.

I will ask Deputy O'Rourke to come in to confirm that point——

That is for the Chair.

Was the Minister aware in stating — as I understood she stated — that the award would not be paid that neither the Minister nor the Government has the power to decide that the arbitrator's award will not be paid, that they must bring the matter before this House? Is it not a fact that, if the Government wish to refuse to pay the award, or wish to defer it, they must do so by bringing a motion before this House? Is that not a fact?

I am fully aware of the arbitration machinery and I repeat that I did not say that the arbitrator's award would not be paid. I have nothing further to say.

Is it not a fact that neither the Minister nor the Government can refuse to implement an arbitrator's award unless it is brought before this House?

I am fully aware of the machinery.

If the Minister is, would she tell me what is the machinery? Am I correct in my interpretation of the machinery?

The Deputy has just told the House. I am fully aware of every aspect of the arbitration and conciliation machinery at all its stages.

Would the Minister confirm that I am correct in my interpretation of the arbitration machinery?

I do not believe there is room for interpretation. I know exactly the procedures.

The Minister is being trapped by her own words.

For the Members of the House I must insist that the Minister confirm what is the arbitration machinery. My understanding is that the Minister or the Government can defer or refuse to pay an arbitrator's award only by placing a motion before the House. Am I correct in that interpretation?

Of course.

Of course I am.

Arising out of an aspect of the Minister's reply in which she said that she never said that the arbritation award would not be paid — a careful listen to the radio interview and a rerun of the radio interview in the last 24 hours in which a precise question was put to the Minister — this was on "Morning Ireland" when she chose to address the nation on morality, does she agree that when asked does this mean that this arbitration award will not be paid she said "yes". I am asking the Minister: is it a fact that she said that?

It is a pity that the Deputy did not listen to or read more carefully that radio interview.

I listened——

I was asked a question by a commentator about a report in a newspaper of a possible arbitrator's award which has already been commented on by teacher's unions. As a result of the teachers unions' comments I was asked a question on a reported arbitrator's award which has not yet reached the Government. I gave an opinion about the State's capacity to pay an amount of the order suggested by the interviewer. I did not discuss the award specifically or the merits of the case.

With hindsight is the Minister aware that a precise question was addressed to her which was: "Therefore, Minister, the Government will not be paying this arbitration award", to which the Minister replied: "Yes, that is the position"? Does the Minister not think that she behaved in a most unprofessional, shameful fashion — I am not saying she did it but there was a very opportunist leak which appeared in the national media — when, right on cue the Minister appeared with her morality halo firmly clamped on her head, pronouncing to the nation that she was speaking ex cathedra for the Government, for every member of the Government, when it is not even a matter for them, but is a matter for this House. Is the Minister satisfied that she acted with responsibility with regard to her reported speech to Young Fine Gael in O'Shea's Hotel in Wicklow — what a lovely audience for such utterances — and the next day on “Morning Ireland” when she proclaimed to the nation that this award would not be paid? I might ask her now: when is it expected that this report will be issued to the Government? May we now expect that she will preserve the rights of her office and comment publicly when an issue is raised? It is not——

This is not in order.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, I want this put on the record of the House. Inadvertently or otherwise a misunderstanding has arisen. The Minister is saying she did not say something when I heard the taped interview yesterday.

Deputy O'Rourke cannot shout down the Chair.

I was standing and you were not; I thought I was in order.

Question Time is not for putting matters on the record of the House. It is not for giving information. It is for getting information——

It is for getting the truth.

True, accurate, factual information.

I am calling Question No. 10.

I understand that you may wish, a Cheann Comhairle, to be gallant and protect the Minister of the day.

The Deputy will withdraw that remark, please.

I will withdraw it, and I said it. I still say that because the Minister is questioned and because I am Opposition spokesperson for education. The Minister said what she denied saying——

I will not allow speeches.

She is trying to get out of it now with her back-up chorus, Professor Carey included. On a point of order, will the Minister say——

That is not a point of order.

Of course it is.

Deputy O'Rourke will have to resume her seat.

Is it in order for the Minister to close the book and end the matter? I am not getting the facts regarding 20 October——

The Deputy will have to find another way of doing this.

The Minister is misrepresenting the facts. Could I bring the tape of that interview into the House?

No. The Deputy should read Standing Orders and, if she did so, she would not be so difficult.

Do Standing Orders allow for misrepresentation of the truth by the Minister?

Would you be concerned if you felt that the House was being misled?

It is not my duty to interpret whether information is accurate and I am not going to be cross-examined on the matter.