asked the Minister for Education if she will make a statement on the outstanding issues in the teachers' dispute.

The Minister for the Public Service and I have had discussions with the teacher unions on the 25th round of pay increases and other pay-related matters, including the recent findings of the Arbitration Board for Teachers on a claim for a special pay increase for teachers. It was not found possible to reach agreement at those discussions.

In their findings the board recommended an increase of 10 per cent in the pay of teachers "to take effect as to 50% thereof as and from 1 September 1985 and as to the balance as and from 1 March 1986". In the course of the discussions with the teacher unions they were informed that the Government were prepared to implement the recommended 10 per cent increase in pay, but that in view of the cost involved it was not found possible to approve its implementation from the dates recommended by the arbitration board. They were offered a three-stage phasing, corresponding to offers made, in parallel negotiations, to other public service unions in relation to special pay awards. That offer was rejected by the unions even though it was intimated to them that it would be hoped to improve further on it. Such an improvement would have been in line with offers made to other public service groups. This would, of course, have covered a 25th round offer equal to the final offer which has been taken away for consideration by those groups. However, the unions were demanding a commitment to have the 10 per cent increase paid in full from the dates recommended by the board and they made it clear that that was for them a breaking point.

Under the terms of the teachers' conciliation and arbitration scheme it is a matter for the Government to decide whether to implement the arbitration findings; if the findings are not being implemented in full the scheme requires that an appropriate motion be introduced in this House. It has been decided by the Government, following detailed examination of all aspects of the matter, to introduce a motion in the House providing for a modification of the findings. I intend to introduce such a motion within the next week.

Can the Minister indicate what is the latest position, what level of agreement has been reached to date with the unions and what exactly are the outstanding points of difference between the Government and the unions on the various negotiations that have taken place? Also, are the negotiations ongoing or are have they been broken off?

The position is that the teachers' unions decided they could not discuss any offer unless we were including full retrospection of the 10 per cent special pay award so they were not considering taking away any full package from the talks. On the question of whether negotiations are in progress, so far as the Minister for the Public Service and myself are concerned, we were in negotiation and wished to remain so. The Government side did not terminate the discussions.

Would it be correct to say that the only outstanding item is the question of retrospection and that the phasing of the award has been agreed between the Government and the unions? Would the Minister agree that it is important that continuing efforts be made on both sides, particularly on the Government side as employer, to try to resolve this matter, having regard to the fact that negotiations of this nature are not going to be satisfactorily concluded even by a vote in this House?

I am as convinced as the Deputy of the importance of continuing talks and have made that clear at all points, including a statement immediately after the teachers' unions had left the negotiating table. I hope we will be able to resolve these matters satisfactorily and I believe this can be achieved by reasonable discussion.

Do I take it that the Minister for Education and her fellow Minister are ready to reopen negotiations immediately with the teachers' unions with a view to resolving the issue of retrospection prior to the Dáil vote and soon enough to avoid any disruption of educational facilities? Would the Minister agree that the whole issue has been clouded by confrontation since its inception because of the initial responses made by the Minister last August?

I have answered fully the question put down by Deputy Taylor and I do not believe it would be helpful to pursue this line of discussion.

On a point of order, the orders of this House allow for supplementaries and the Chair is particularly liberal and kind in allowing the spokesperson for a Department to put supplementaries if the question is not in his or her name. I put a legitimate question and the Minister said she had chosen to answer my admirable fellow Deputy and not chosen to answer me. I put it to you that this is a matter of discrimination against the spokesperson of the major party of this House.

The Chair, as the Deputy must know, has no control over the manner in which questions are answered.

Would the Minister not be forthcoming?

The Minister indicated in her reply that she proposed to introduce a modified award for ratification by the Dáil. Can the Minister give details of the modifications which she proposes to table?

I would like to say quite clearly that I do not consider that would be appropriate at this stage. The motion will be put down in due course at the right time and it would not be correct to discuss it beforehand. My indication of unwillingness to discuss the matter furthere at this point is because I believe that approach to be in the best interests of the educational system.

In view of the difficult situation we now face and the fact that we will be asked collectively to vote on a motion which will have very serious consequences for the teachers and the country, would the Minister agree that it would be appropriate for her to issue an invitation to the teachers' unions to meet with her with a view to finding a solution before it comes to a confrontation here in the Dáil?

The teacher's unions are under no illusion about my willingness to meet with them. They are well aware of that willingness. I agree that discussions are at all times preferable to any other course of action. I find myself in a position where I do not wish to discuss this matter further.

On a point of order, may I have clarification as to why Deputy Bell and Deputy Taylor were honoured with an answer while I received the indignity of a refusal? I put it to you that this is an abuse of this House and its procedures.

It is an abuse of the privileges the Minister has. She ought to be ashamed of herself.

I and my predecessors have been saying for 60 years that the Chair has no control over the manner in which questions are answered.

Might I have it reported to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

The Deputy can arrange that.

I would ask you, as chairman of that committee, to note the fact that the Minister refused to answer a question in my name and yet answered the same supplementary, couched albeit in different terminology, from another Deputy.

Will the Minister state that she will issue an invitation to the teachers' unions to meet with her for the purpose of exploring the possibility of settling this dispute before the matter comes for final vote in the Dáil?

That is precisely my question.

I would like to say to all the Deputies in answer to all the supplementaries, including Deputy O'Rourke's, that in the interests of the educational system it would be better if we did not pursue this matter at this time. I am asking for the co-operation of the House.

Will the Minister make clear her position regarding her willingness or unwillingness to issue an an invitation to the teachers' unions now in the interests of our schoolchildren? It is imperative that she should indicate to the House whether she is prepared to issue an invitation, given her own confrontational initiation of this saga.

There are many Deputies who have met representations from the teachers' unions. The position expressed by the Minister in relation to outstanding problems is not the same as that expressed to us by the teachers. It is essential that the Minister should issue invitations for discussions to clarify the outstanding issues. It is clear that there are areas of misunderstanding, at the very least. I am not asking the Minister to reply.

The Deputy has made his point. I am moving to the next question.

Order, please. I have allowed innumerable supplementaries and the Minister has said that she does not wish to make any further answer. There is nothing I can do.

The Minister stated that the Government had examined the position fully. Have they agreed on the terms of the motion to be laid before the House?

That is another question.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply.

I will communicate with Deputy O'Rourke.