In so far as the education sector is concerned, the programme for Government from 2002 states:

We will continue to reduce the pupil: teacher ratio in our schools. Over the next five years we will progressively introduce maximum class guidelines which will ensure that the average size of classes for children under 9 will be below the international best practice guideline of 20:1.

Next year, 100,000 pupils will be in classes of over 30 and more than 450,000 primary school children will be in classes of more than 20. My understanding is that primary and secondary schools submitted their enrolment figures to the Department on 20 September. In his replies from China, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, stated there will be 200 job losses each in the primary and secondary sectors. I seek a commitment from the Tánaiste that the Government will publish the enrolment figures within the next 48 hours to verify who is telling the truth in this regard——

Hear, hear.

——and what will be the scale of cutbacks in the teaching sector.

Education is the future and if the State or the Government are not in a position to provide an educational system for the primary and secondary school children of the nation, we have failed in that regard. These are the people who will be obliged to compete with their international peers from the new European counties, the far eastern countries and throughout the world. As Ireland will not have as many manufacturing jobs as it had previously, we must be able to adapt, be flexible and deal with the future. In this budget, which now is only a discussion document that is open to negotiation at all turns of the road, the Government deliberately went the other way, although it had alternatives. Will the Government publish the enrolment figures for the country's schools submitted to it on 30 September in order that Members can verify who is telling the truth? Second, what savings are projected by the Government as a result of increasing the pupil-teacher ratio figures?

First, the Department of Education and Science's budget, which in 2009 will be slightly more than €9.6 billion, represents an increase of €302 million.

That is not the question.

Overall, that budget will comprise an increase of 3.2% over the 2008 figures.

Fascinating.

The amount of spending on education has been trebled since 1997.

What is the answer to the question?

What is the answer?

I will revert to the Ceann Comhairle.

The Tánaiste, without interruption.

The league of youth.

On the issue of primary school staffing, Members will have heard the Minister for Education and Science this morning asking, in the context of the economic climate in which we are working at present, for partnership in the process with the teacher unions and the teachers.

What about the students?

That is the most appropriate framework in which we can deal with this temporary impasse in the context of overall expenditure on education.

As a former primary school teacher, the Leader of the Opposition is aware——

Of considerable note, I might add.

Yes, of note.

Does he have a pension?

He is a legend in his own mind.

Has he got a pension?

As the daughter of a national school teacher with a family history of national school teaching, I would not take away from that. Equally, I would not take away from him being a Mayo man.

The staffing schedule and applications will be based on the figures at the end of September. The figure of approximately 200 teachers each in the primary and secondary sectors is based on the overall allocation this year. The figures from Members opposite do not take into consideration the increases, changes and permutations there always are within the available staffing schedules.

There will be 200 losses in Galway alone.

Will there be 1,000 losses nationwide?

The Deputy asked a question about availability.

There will be 200 losses in Galway alone.

I am unsure whether the Department of Education and Science has completed its analysis.

Members should be provided with a translation service.

Deputy Stagg has been around here for long enough.

To advise the schools in question of the changes in the staffing schedule, that circular usually is not available until around Easter time. However, if the leader of the Opposition wishes to spend his time looking at how the Government intends to issue a circular arising from this discussion, I am sure he can be facilitated.

Teachers would like to know whether they are being fired.

However, as he is aware, the pupil-teacher ratio contains flexibilities that always have been there——

No there are not.

——dependent on, for example——

The Tánaiste is waffling.

Not for pupil-teacher ratios.

Please allow the Tánaiste to finish.

For example, in the primary system there is a redeployment schedule that is based on the diocesan framework.

Blame the bishops.

Unfortunately, that situation does not obtain in some secondary schools. However, the Government hopes that in the context of partnership, as the Minister for Education and Science has noted, this issue also can be dealt with.

I would not bet on it.

The Tánaiste gets two out of ten for that answer.

I did not know I was sitting an examination.

She was asked two questions but answered neither. The first question was whether the Government will publish the enrolment figures submitted to the Department of Education on 30 September within the next 48 hours in order that Members can verify what the level of job losses will be.

Hear, hear.

That is a simple question.

Yes or no.

Will the Government publish it?

The Tánaiste should make a call to China.

Second, what savings are projected by the Department of Education and Science by increasing the pupil-teacher ratio? I wish to ask a couple more questions. On what figures did the Minister for Education and Science base his assessment? He stated there will be 200 job losses each in the primary and secondary sectors. On what basis did he arrive at that figure?

The lotto.

Teachers from around the country have been in contact with me. From China, the Minister is seeking a partnership with the teachers' unions. Everybody recognises the economic disaster this Government has brought down on the country, of which pay freezes are an element. A pay freeze on those earning above €50,000 within the teaching sector would save in the region of €128 million, thereby allowing the continuation of the current pupil-teacher ratio, the appointment of language support teachers and resource teachers, cover for sick leave and the visits to Dáil Éireann and the sporting activities which are so important to the lives of children all over the country. Has the Government sought a partnership with teachers' unions in this matter?

This morning, the Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, said from Shanghai——

In a letter from Shanghai.

——that the reversal of the programme for Government in so far as the pupil-teacher ratio is concerned will be rescinded in two years time.

We heard that before.

This is a two year proposal. Has the Government factored a reversal of this decision into its programme for spending for 2011? The budgetary statement for 2011 proposes a reduction in borrowing to 2.9% of GDP. Clearly the budget introduced last week envisaged the continuation of these cuts beyond that date. Will the reversal of these cuts in two years time be factored into the Estimates for 2011? These questions require "Yes" or "No" answers, so let us see how the Tánaiste performs this time.

We need a tutorial.

Given the seriousness of the issue, I will not rise to a retort.

Just answer the question.

Get someone else to answer.

It is under "E" for "education".

On the staffing schedule, there will be a realisation of savings worth €18 million in 2009 and €96 million in a full year. The issue the Minister described as the suspension of a payment refers to uncertified sick leave and absences on school business. This reverts to the 2003 agreement. However, it does not take from another aspect of supervision pay, namely, an annual payment of €1,789 in return for which 37 hours of substitution or supervision is provided each year.

That is an agreement which the Government is breaking.

It is offering a rain check.

To clarify the matter, that will be retained. The other aspects will revert to the 2003 process.

Breaking an agreement.

To clarify, it is a suspension which will revert back, I am sure, with the advent of changed circumstances.

That is great comfort.

It is important to have due regard for the quality of teaching and education in this country——

Bigger classes are better.

——and the capacity of our teachers to teach. That has not been mooted by any Member of the Opposition. On the issue of staffing levels, the Leader of the Opposition has requested the staffing schedule.

We know that.

From what I can ascertain, the circular will not have been finalised——

Why not?

——because the figures are being compiled.

We are seeking the school enrolment figures. We know what the schedule is.

Allow the Tánaiste to finish.

The ratio is 28:1. We know that.

As a practising politician, the Leader of the Opposition will realise these matters have to be checked and rechecked.

Why did the Government not check the budget? The Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, could have done it.

It is 28:1.

There are a number of contenders for leadership on the Opposition benches.

It is another U-turn.

If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to spend his time preparing the staffing schedule for the Department of Education and Science, I am sure we can facilitate him.

Rubbish.

That is the Government's job.

The Deputy is reverting to type.

At this moment in time, it is not in the better interest of the primary schools in respect of which he asked this question.

League of youth.

I was asked where the figures were. I am basing my response on the figure of 200 teachers prepared by the Department in the context of the overall increase in primary school enrolment and whatever cross cutting has to be done for special needs, etc. I can certainly ask the Department to forward the staffing schedule to the Leader of the Opposition when it is ready.

Next year.

Every Member of the House will have the opportunity of showing where he or she stands on the education cuts and increases in class sizes when the Labour Party tables a Private Members' motion on the issue next Tuesday.

I want to pursue with the Tánaiste some of the matters I raised yesterday with the Taoiseach in regard to medical cards for the over 70s. I want her to answer two questions which the Taoiseach did not address. First, is it the case that the Minister for Health and Children will be able to change the income limits which were announced yesterday in respect of medical cards for the over 70s without coming back to the House? Second, is the Government going to index-link these income limits?

I ask the Tánaiste the legal position on medical card entitlements for the over 70s. I put it to her that the statement made yesterday by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children does not change the legal entitlement of people who are over 70 to continue to hold a medical card. I will explain. The Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 gives the over 70s an automatic legal entitlement to medical cards. Yesterday the Government stated its intention to repeal that section of the Act. Repealing the 2001 Act will change the position for those who are not yet 70 but it will not change the legal entitlement to hold a medical card for those who are currently over 70 because the Interpretation Act 2005 states:

Where an enactment is repealed, the repeal does not—

[. . .](c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the enactment,

In other words, the repeal of the 2001 Act will not change the legal entitlement for people who are currently over 70 to continue to hold the medical card. The only way that can be done is by bringing in a legislative measure to take the medical card off them.

Try that.

Frankly, if the Tánaiste is having problems now in getting her backbenchers to vote for the repeal of the 2001 Act, let us see how they face up to a legislative measure that takes the medical card off the people who currently have a legal entitlement to it.

Deputy White will not go for it.

Back to the drawing board.

Given that people who are over 70 continue to have a legal right to hold medical cards and given the made-up nature of the figures on which yesterday's announcement was based, cannot the Government make a decision before the pensioners assemble on Molesworth Street later this morning to do the decent thing and leave them with their medical cards?

Hear, hear.

He is looking for socialism.

Ask Joe Behan about that.

The Minister did not say that in 2001.

That is all we can expect of the Members opposite.

Government Members are reverting to type.

It is a legal view.

Bully boy.

If the Labour Party wishes to continue muddying the waters on this issue, that is a matter for itself. However, it is the intention of the Government to repeal the Act. It is also the intention of this Government to introduce the income thresholds in other legislation. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that the Government's intention is to move with the new income thresholds of €700 and €1,400, respectively, for those over 70 with eligibility entitlements.

What about the following year?

It is the Government's intention that the top 5% of earners would stay outside that remit. On the basis of legal advice to the Minister for Health and Children, this is the methodology by which this process can continue and come before the House. This is the legislative measure that will enact the Government's decision to support those over 70 within the income thresholds of €700 and €1,400.

The Tánaiste did not answer the first two questions I asked her, that is whether it is the position that the Minister can change the income limits at the stroke of a pen after 1 January, when these measures will be enacted. Will the Government index-link the new income limits? I would like an answer to those questions and I understand other Members seek answers to those questions before voting on the Fine Gael motion later this evening.

The Tánaiste did not answer my question on the legal position regarding those over 70. It is perfectly clear that repealing the Act of 2001 does not remove the legal entitlement to hold a medical card of those who have already reached the age of 70. Can the Tánaiste clarify the position? Is it the Government's position that it intends to repeal the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001, which will change the position for those under 70 but not for those over 70? Is it the intention to bring in legislation that expressly provides for taking back the medical card from those who hold them? After a number of interviews on radio and television by the Taoiseach and the press conference yesterday, we are entitled to know what the Government intends, if the Government knows what it intends to do. We need clarity on the three simple questions I asked. Can the Minister change the income limits? Will she index-link the income limits? Is there a legal basis for taking back the entitlement from those who got the entitlement under the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act?

I assure people that whatever is required to ensure that no more than 5% are outside the remit is the intention of the Government.

Does Deputy Noel O'Flynn know that?

All matters can be dealt with in the context of the legislation.

The Tánaiste is making it up as she goes along.

The legality of any legislation, changes to it and requirements within this House, are done with the best legal advice from the Attorney General. The Minister for Health and Children has been advised by the Attorney General in the context of the legislative framework in which she will introduce this new scheme.

The Tánaiste does not know.

There will be an opportunity to discuss these issues once the legislation has been brought before the House.

Will the Tánaiste not confirm the assertion of her Minister of State on "Prime Time" that this will be index-linked?

Deputy Reilly is not the man to be talking about that.

Is that the Tánaiste's answer? She left her Minister of State out to dry.

How much does Deputy Reilly get from the GMS scheme?