asked the Minister for Education the criteria used by her Department in determining whether it is necessary to establish a remedial teaching post in a particular school; whether these posts are permanent or may be withdrawn in light of diminished need; and the number of new remedial posts that have been sanctioned in the last 12 months.

A number of factors is taken into account in determining whether it is necessary to allocate a remedical teacher to a particular school, the principal of which are: the size of the school, and socio-economic background of its catchment area; the number of pupils in need of remedial tuition, and the pupils' individual degrees of learning difficulty.

The post of remedial teacher is a permanent one, but the teacher may be shared by several schools or be redeployed among individual schools. In the primary school area where there are 3,247 national schools, a remedial teaching service is provided to approximately 1,100 of these through 857 posts of remedial teachers.

In post-primary schools almost 300 ex-quota posts are available for remedial teachers. Also, some 650 second level teachers have participated in the Department's course in remedial education.

As regards additional appointments, I announced yesterday the appointment of an additional 30 remedial teachers, 95 additional teaching posts for disadvantaged schools and the establishment of the pilot projects about which I spoke.

Also, as no detailed documentation on remedial education had been provided for schools, my Department issued guidelines on remedial education in 1988.

That is the end of priority questions. I am now proceeding to deal with other questions. Question No. 6.

I forebode to ask a supplementary in order that the Minister could answer the next question.

I am administering the rules of this House as laid down by the House. I am now proceeding to deal with ordinary questions. Question No. 6, please.

May I suggest that there is agreement on all sides of the House that the two questions be taken——

Sorry.

I have a list of questions and I am willing to wait.

On a point of order, it is customary that if the Members of the House agree to share time or to make an agreement about time, that you would usually allow the Members to do so.

That is one aspect of the matter. There is another aspect of the matter. If the Chair is being asked every time Priority Questions come before him to deviate from the rules, I am not prepared to do that. If the House feels that extra time is required for Priority Questions, let them so decide and act accordingly.

All I can do is ask that you allow the two oral questions.

Other questions, No. 6.