Great news! £250 million is to be spent on computer literacy in Irish schools. The burning question, of course, has to be - what about literacy itself? Is it to be bypassed in the great rush to satisfy the multinational companies that we are a truly computer-literate society? The subtext is, of course, the reassurance that we can supply sufficient, highly-skilled labour for their future needs.

How will learning to click a mouse, open windows on a screen or play computer games benefit the illiterate? If they cannot spell, there is no point in learning to type. If they cannot read or write, there is no point in learning how to programme. If they cannot read or write or spell, what price the great virtual world?

If a child's introduction to a computer is limited by his or her illiteracy, all he or she is likely to gain is a certain dexterity of the wrist. Of course, if the ultimate goal is to improve these children's reaction times in shoot-em-up games, that's fine.

Which is more urgent - illiteracy or computer illiteracy? The most recent OECD report on international adult literacy suggests that up to 25 per cent of Irish adults have literacy problems. This means that about 500,000 Irish adults fall into the lowest literacy category in the report. Of course, more than 25 per cent of Irish adults are computer illiterate. Which is the more worrying statistic?

And, what is the function of Irish schools? Are they there to educate their students so that they leave school literate or are they there to fulfill the projected skills shortages in the labour market?

The ESRI's Medium-Term Review: 199720003, published last May, states that education is not a very effective instrument for dealing with short-term capacity problems in the labour market. It puts the ball back in the employers' court, suggesting that firms should provide increased training.

The report warns that, in a rapidly developing economy, it would be unwise to try and predict the precise skills needs more than a decade in advance. The role of the education system is "to produce citizens who have a broad enough education that they will be able to adapt to the ever-changing needs of a rapidly evolving society and economy. Those providing the necessary training in specific skills can build on this firm foundation."

What about it, Minister? Why not pause for a moment in your great mission to expand the third-level system so that it can educate more and more computer scientists and electronics technicians? Why not pause in your great rush to connect schools to the Internet?

Take a little time to think about reading, writing and spelling. And what about spending some money and expanding some of the more successful initiatives such as Early Start Breaking the Cycle?

The INTO yesterday said it could guarantee the elimination of illiteracy among primary school-leavers over an eight-year period. The union called for a working group, more psychologists and more remedial teachers. In Senator Joe O'Toole's words, "it will not be cheap but it can be done."