asked the Minister for Education if she has made any progress in removing the anomalies which she publicly accepted exist in dealing with the staffing needs of primary schools in disadvantaged areas.

The anomalies referred to by the Deputy will be considered in the context of a review of the provision for teaching resources in schools serving disadvantaged areas which is being carried out at present by the Primary Education Revenue Body. In addition, a working group comprising representatives of my Department, the INTO and the primary school management authorities have been set up and are at present examining criteria for the identification of schools as disadvantaged.

Does the Minister recall her contribution to the INTO conference in Bundoran when she indicated that she was fully seized of this issue and was addressing it as a matter or urgency? How does the Minister tolerate the position — as has been pointed out in the House on a previous occasion — in which some schools sharing the same campus find that one school is regarded as disadvantaged for staffing purposes, the girls' school, and not the boys' school? What is the reason for the delay in addressing anomalies as glaring as those?

If I may reply, with no sense of malice, the anomalies in question were introduced by my predecessor when she initiated the scheme in 1984. The anomalies do exist and I publicly identified them in this House. I now intend to review their operation. As I have said, it is a matter to which I have given my attention and am still doing so.

Would the Minister accept that the difficulty arises from the fact that the Minister's predecessor introduced a system whereby a number of teachers were allocated to schools in disadvantaged areas, that this Government have stopped that scheme in its tracks resulting in the scheme never having been brought to encompass all schools that are disadvantaged for capitation grant purposes? Would she agree there is an anomaly obtaining because she has disimproved the pupil/teacher ratio?

No, the Deputy is all wrong. As I see the position, my predecessor did not see it as an anomaly and never addressed it as such. I found it rather odd that, for instance, there should be two schools in the one campus, a boys school and a girls' school, with brothers and sisters from the one household attending one school to which my predecessor had awarded special capitation grants and said: "yes, you are disadvantaged and you will receive grants," whereas to the sister school she had said: "yes, you will get a teacher." That was set up in 1984 and it is that anomaly I am addressing.

Question No. 4 please.

Deputy Birmingham rose.

Sorry, I must try to make progress with other questions. A very brief question, Deputy.

Would the Minister be frank and confirm to the House that she has reinforced that anomaly by drawing the distinction for the implementation of circular 20/87, that only schools that are regarded as disadvantaged for staffing purposes were exempt?

We are now entering a different ball-game. The Deputy is asking if I am now reinforcing the anomalies which were there; that is not what the Deputy acknowledged the first time. It is because the existing anomalies appear to me to be reinforced that I am seeking to address the matter.