Q. Minister, the dust has now settled, to some degree, on the ASTI dispute and there is a perception that the Government has won the battle. But how does the Government intend to address the genuine concerns of many teachers about pay?

A. We did not set out to win any battle. We don't want winners and losers. What we were trying to do was to protect the social partnership because it is essential to our economic well-being.

The trade unions are very anxious to see it successfully maintained. That is what we have been trying to do. We were trying to work in accordance with the PPF, which provided the 22 per cent pay increase for teachers, plus a wide range of other educational benefits.

In addition, the PPF provided for benchmarking. I think there was some misunderstanding of what was involved in it in the first instance, and of the potential of the benchmarking system. But the Buckley Report which gave significant increases to politicians and others underlines its potential.

Despite all the difficulties of the past year, we can make progress.

I'm very glad that the

ASTI co-operated very fully and extensively with the examinations, both in the preparation for them and in the correction of them.

That in itself has created a new atmosphere, and it's within that atmosphere that we will try to develop a good working relationship with the ASTI.

We are very happy that the ASTI is maintaining informal contacts with the ongoing discussions on one of the key issues - payment for supervision and substitution. That is a major step.

I would still now like to see the ASTI getting involved in the benchmarking process. It will be a matter for themselves to decide what steps they want to take. As far as I'm concerned, my door is open. I certainly recognise the good will demonstrated by ASTI in relation to the exams.

Q. During the teachers' conferences you appeared to suggest that ASTI would be guaranteed sizable pay increases if they entered benchmarking. But how can you give these assurances when the benchmarking body is totally independent?

A. I am confident that teachers will emerge very well from the benchmarking process.

Q. So in broad terms you would agree with Joe O'Toole's view that benchmarking is like an ATM machine?

A. Well that is a colourful way of putting it. The benchmarking body is fully independent and will make up its own mind.

But the Labour Court has come out and said that there was scope for an increase for teachers and that there was a substantial case for it. You could put that in more colourful language and say that all you have to do is go and become involved and draw down what's going to come to you. The teachers have to make their own case, but the Labour Court has given it a great impetus.

Q. On the Sinnott case. You and the Government were blamed for pursuing Jamie and his mother through the courts. Do you now regret your approach?

A. The point is we didn't pursue anyone through the courts.

What we wanted from the Supreme Court was a clear statement on what the position was, because - as has been vindicated entirely by the Supreme Court now - the finding at the High Court left us in numerous quandaries - we had no clear definition.

For instance, the court said that any person, say an autistic person or person with a disability or any person who felt that they hadn't had a proper education at primary level, was entitled to that education for as long as they felt they could benefit if from it. How could we manage a situation like that? We couldn't.

It would also mean that people could claim the schools they were at for generations back were inadequate and seek compensation from the State.

We had to have a clear definition

as to what was our responsibility -

what was our Constitutional responsibility.

I would have been happier if we had a court system that could establish legal principles without the need to involve people like Jamie and Kathryn Sinnott, but this was not possible under our system. At the same time, while we were taking the court action, we set out to protect Jamie and his mother and their position as much as we could.

Q. Does the criticism you attracted as a result of your handling of the Sinnott case have any impact on you? Here was the State taking on Kathryn and Jamie Sinnott in a very aggressive way.

A. As I said, we were not doing that. We were seeking to establish legal principles.

You have to do what you think is right. I am a public servant and I believe in public service. You have to do what you believe is right... and my decision has been borne out.

None of this takes away from my unflinching commitment to upgrade services for people with special needs.

I have also said that the Government has given me a virtually blank cheque to upgrade resources. Historically, no one has done anything like this.

Q. Minister, a clamour has been building up for reform of the Leaving Cert. There are suggestions that the exam is old-fashioned and needs a radical overhaul. Do you agree?

A. The Leaving Cert is a tried and trusted exam that enjoys a strong level of public support. From a personal point of view, however, I would like to see a more wide-ranging exam that tests a wider range of abilities. I think there might be a great role for a range of other continuous assessment models.

We all want an exam which tests a broad range of abilities. The problem is how to achieve this and how to come with an alternative model that enjoys the same level of public confidence.

We also have to try and move forward. The NCCA National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is reviewing the senior cycle and we will be consulting people and listening to their views.

Q. But you are the Minister - should you not be setting the agenda?

A. The Leaving Cert is a delicate flower; I am someone who is very much in favour of strong political decision, but this is an issue which needs careful reflection. Consultation is critically important.

Q. What about the apparent crisis in science and maths, with a fall-off in student interest and few science/technology graduates entering the teaching profession. Why don't we follow the British example and give these graduates a special allowance - or "hello money" - if they enter teacher training?

A. Some of the trends in maths and science are worrying - what we are seeing here is very much a Europe-wide phenomenon - but we are doing a great deal to address the problem. We have spent £15 million on the modernisation of labs and, for the first time, we are now introducing science at primary level. These initiatives should help to foster great interest.

As for a special allowance, I don't think that is the solution. Each subject is very important in its own way.

I am not sure you can give one precedent over the other. I think we are in a cycle here; when

the IT sector was booming, people were rushing into it. Now, with us facing into a possible downturn, a lot of good people with science qualifications will be more anxious to enter the teaching profession.

Q. The report by Sean Cromien was very critical of the Department of Education. It basically said that the Department's preoccupation with day-to-day issues left it with no breathing space to frame longer-term policies. Is the Department now in better shape to take the longer view?

A. Sean Cromien did an outstanding job, but the conclusions he reached were by no means revolutionary.

Broadly, I came to the same conclusions after about a week in Education. I asked Cromien to come in because from my time in Social Welfare, I could see that this Department needed structural reform.

I think Cromien will help us to deliver a much better service. We are in the process of farming out a range of services to independent agencies so that we can concentrate on formulating policy. Overall, I would hope that my tenure in the Department will come to be seen as one where major structural reform was achieved.