asked the Minister for Education the number of redundancies accepted in each of the three sectors, primary, secondary and vocational; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Voluntary redundancy has been given to 374 primary, 179 secondary and 39 vocational teachers. We are presently issuing offers in a limited manner to community and comprehensive teachers.

May I ask the Minister if it is her intention to offer further redundancies in any of the other sections of both the primary and post-primary sectors and, if so, when an announcement will be made to that effect?

The matter is still being considered within my Department. I should have an answer to this question shortly, but the matter is still under consideration at present.

(Limerick East): May I ask the Minister if redundancies were accepted strictly on the basis of age and, if so, down to what age were redundancies granted in primary, secondary and vocational schools?

In the primary sector redundancies were accepted strictly in accordance with age. Naturally, this varied in each diocesan panel according to the variant in the teacher's age in each panel. It would be a mammoth task to answer the Deputy's question across the floor but in general terms the redundancies at primary level were in order of age. The age at which the redundancy offer ceased varied in each diocesan panel.

At secondary level the redundancies were based on the redeployment panel system worked out between the JMB, the ASTI and the Department and the availability of teachers who were deemed to be eligible for the voluntary redundancy scheme as per the subjects they taught. At vocational level the redundancies were based on recommendations from the vocational education committee and one presumes that they in turn based these on the subjects taught. The age factor was not considered at secondary or vocational level. As I said, the redundancies at second level were based on recommendations and at vocational levels were based on recommendations from the VEC. With regard to community and comprehensive schools, which we are presently working through the redundancies will again be on the basis of need and also on subject choices.

My supplementary question relates to the matter raised by Deputy Noonan and, arising from the Minister's reply, it will be very brief. If at primary level the criterion was one of age only, does this mean that primary teachers with, for example, a history of stress related illness who applied for voluntary redundancy were refused it on the basis that they did not meet the age requirement?

Yes, voluntary redundancies in the primary sector were based on age criteria. With regard to teachers with disability, a scheme has always been in operation so that their cases can be considered.

I take it that the voluntary redundancy scheme — I understand it is essentially funded by the surpluses of the Central Bank — which was last applied in education was based solely on the age criterion?

At primary level.

My point is that if a teacher recognising his or her disability — and he or she may not be physically disabled in any sense — decided to get out of teaching they would not be considered because they had not reached the age required. Is that the situation?

The voluntary redundancy scheme was designed for cases where there were perceived to be teachers above quotas who could be relieved. In the primary sector this scheme was based absolutely on age grounds. The voluntary redundancy scheme was not designed for teachers who have stress, physical or psychological problems of one kind or another. There is in operation, as there is throughout all of the public service, a disability scheme for such people.

It is much different.

I call Deputy Máirín Quill for a final and, hopefully, a brief supplementary.

In relation to the criterion applied to secondary schools, may I ask the Minister what consultation, if any, took place with principals of schools before voluntary redundancies were offered to teachers? I have in mind a school in my area where a principal would very much have liked if a teacher on his staff who suffered from severe burn-out had been given a redundancy but where a much younger and very fit man was given the redundancy, has taken his money and is now a farmer. I agree with the Minister that the voluntary redundancy scheme was not designed to meet this kind of case but against that it could be argued, from the point of commonsense, that it was an ideal opportunity to cater for the teacher in the predicament I have described who was——

The Deputy is arguing rather than questioning.

——suffering from severe burn-out and who should have been given voluntary redundancy. This would have served——

Please, Deputy Quill.

——the overall needs of the school much better.

I would not have the details of the case to which the Deputy referred because she did not mention it in her question.

I accept that.

Redundancies at second level were based in the main on the subjects which a teacher taught and whether within the panel redeployment area that teacher could be offered voluntary redundancy. I accept the point made by Deputy Quill and Deputy Higgins about the many teachers who have put forward reasons why they should be offered voluntary redundancy but we have operated the scheme very much in accordance with established criteria.

Can the Minister——

Sorry, Deputy Quill, I am calling Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla's question.