Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 May 1968

Vol. 235 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1968: Money Resolution.

I move:

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to provide for the making of grants in certain cases by local authorities out of funds provided by them and by the Oireachtas to enable persons to attend courses of higher education and to provide for matters connected therewith.

In the Money Resolution provision is being made for the purposes of the Bill and one of the ways in which the sum requisite to finance the provisions of the Bill is estimated is by determining that the local educational authorities should contribute the same sum as they were contributing to scholarship schemes in 1967-68. Is that not right?

That is right.

I submit that that is not an equitable provision, not an equitable measuring of the contributions to be made by the local authorities, for the reason that local authorities which went out of their way to appropriate the maximum sums the ratepayers in their districts could afford in the past now find themselves, in this proposed frozen state, at a material disadvantage as compared with counties which appropriated the minimum. In the future, all will be on a basis of equality. It seems rather hard that Monaghan, which is not a rich county—I can give particulars of a case to illustrate my point to the Minister—which gave not only university scholarships but technological scholarships too, is by this method of calculation the sixth highest contributor of all counties in the country and there are 19 other counties, many of which are very much more prosperous areas than Monaghan, who under this frozen device will be making lower contributions to the total expense of the scheme.

Therefore I ask the Minister whether it would not be more equitable to levy an average rate in the pound for all counties, whether it was 1d, 2d or 3d, and to freeze the rate for all counties on a basis of average poundage so that a county which has led the way in the past in expanding higher educational facilities at great cost to itself will not be put in the position of having to carry in perpetuity a heavier share of what I call this frozen contribution to the total cost than counties which held back and did not offer the same educational facilities in the past to the children in their jurisdiction.

I have received representations from County Monaghan in this respect and, without wishing to labour the matter unduly, the present proposal involves a contribution of £1,600 from Monaghan. Yet we find Carlow with a contribution of £760, Louth with £740 and Longford with £480. That is the way it works out. If everyone were asked to pay, say, 2d in the pound, at least everybody would feel, no matter where he lived, that he was bearing an equal burden of the frozen part of the cost of this scheme, but it does not seem reasonable to me to propose that our people in Monaghan should be asked to pay three times the amount they will pay in Longford, twice the amount they will pay in Sligo, twice the amount they will pay in Clare and nearly twice the amount they will pay in Wicklow, Donegal and Cavan. I suggest that the Minister should look into this again and consider whether something cannot be done to remove this apparent inequity to which I draw his attention.

Deputy Dillon has said practically everything I intended to say. We have had genuine complaints from local authorities to the effect that those who made an effort in the past to pay for scholarships are being discriminated against. As Deputy Dillon has said, it is most unfair and the Minister should try to find another way of dealing with it.

Would this not arise more appropriately on section 3? I was about to point that out to Deputy Dillon. This matter arises on sections 3 and 5.

You ruled out of order a question which I put down last week and directed me to this debate. Can you tell me in which circumstances I can raise the question of whether students already in universities who had obtained the necessary honours and who were unable to continue because they were unable to pay will come under this scheme? That is No. 1. No. 2 is whether students who failed last year in Irish, but had four honours, are to be allowed to take the examination this year and thus to come under the scheme? I assume they will not.

I defer to Deputy Dillon who made the point much more adequately than I could hope to. I should like to say to the Minister that as a result of many representations and complaints, or whatever you like to call them, to me personally and received by other Deputies of my Party and passed on to me, if the Minister had thought he would get all Stages of this Bill today, in view of the suggestions we have to make——

Is the Deputy trying to harm the children?

Now, now. I wish to say at this stage that any contributions I propose to make in relation to this Bill will be made constructively——

——in the sincere belief that politics should not envelop our educational system——

——and that education for our children and the problems of their parents should not be made political playthings. I trust the Minister did not think anything of the kind. I will be prepared to meet him by indicating that any suggestions we shall make here today can be taken next week when we are considering the Report Stage.

I want to reiterate what Deputy Dillon has already said on the Money Resolution and this inequitable facet of the Money Resolution, and indeed as it occurs in other parts of the Bill. It occurred to me and if it had not, I had adequate representations and complaints made to me to bring it to my notice.

An integral part of the financing of the Bill is what I call this frozen contribution. If the Minister were to announce now that he proposed to drop this plan by substituting a flat rate, freeze a flat rate, I think the objection to this proposal would disappear. It is the differential on an inequitable basis as between one county and another which gives rise to our problem.

I think the discussion would probably be more relevant to section 3. However, that is another day's work. I do not want here to go into the whole question of the rating and valuation system. We know well that there are inequalities as between county and county and to levy a flat rate all over the country would merely preserve those inequalities. I do not propose to go into a full discussion on the inequities of the rating system. The House is well aware of anomalies in this regard. If you levy a flat rate system over the whole country, you merely incorporate into this measure a perpetuation of the inequalities that exist.

I think the most practical thing is to accept what reasonable men on local authorities regarded their counties' contributions should be last year and to accept what these reasonable men in the various local authorities have decided their counties' contributions should be towards helping the boys and girls in their areas towards higher education, and having accepted that to freeze it at that level and to have a State contribution from now on. I think that is the most practical way of going about it. We want to get this scheme in this year, to make sure that the boys and girls within the income categories, who achieve the educational qualification of four honours, will get in this year to higher education.

The most practical way of doing it, I feel, is the way we have incorporated in section 3, freeze the contribution from the local authorities at the level that reasonable men on the local authorities thought last year should be their particular counties' contribution towards higher education and have the State add to that so as to enlarge the number of people getting into higher education from the figure of 300 odd to what we hope will be 1,000 odd. That is our thinking in the matter and I think, on balance, we have adopted the right approach. If the House considers it in the light of the fact that we did not want to incorporate the anomalies of our rating system, they will agree that this is the best approach, what reasonable men thought should be their contribution, and we will pay over and above whatever is required to finance the education of boys and girls achieving four honours and coming within the income categories. The State will do the rest for this year and every year on. I want to get away from the whole county conception, by the way.

It ought to be irrelevant but you are freezing it, making it eternal.

What we are incorporating here is what reasonable men thought proper in the circumstances of last year.

Which you and I agree is wholly irrelevant.

Surely what they thought proper in relation to the wealth or otherwise of the particular county?

I would put a bet on that it will be from the very counties which were, and rightly so, so conscious of educational needs as to make more provision last year for their boys and girls in the form of excellent educational establishments, that the greatest intake will come of boys and girls to our new scheme. I would guarantee that Monaghan, which has a very good record in regard to educational progress, excellent educational establishments, always one of the top counties in this respect, will have twice as many boys and girls next year as heretofore participating in our scheme and that counties like Monaghan will benefit enormously, and that it will be from any county that has been a frontliner or a pace-setter in regard to higher education that the greatest number of boys and girls will come.

Deputy Dillon is well aware—better than I am—of the small farming population you have in Monaghan: 90 per cent of them will qualify for the maximum grant. It is to counties like Monaghan, Leitrim, Donegal, the poorer counties of Ireland, that the greatest benefit will accrue.

We are not arguing about the method of financing this scheme. We are prepared to accept that the outlay of local authorities may be called in to aid the Exchequer to finance this scheme. I think the Minister rightly says that what they did in past years is really irrelevant because the aim is now to make secondary education available to all eligible children, wherever they live. Can you imagine the exasperation of responsible public representatives on the vocational education committee and on the county council in Monaghan, who have stuck their necks out to get the rates to provide the educational facilities they thought were within their ability to finance, learning now that the children in Monaghan will enjoy exactly the same facilities as the children in Leitrim?

The average county councillor comes to me and says: "Put it the other way round: the children in Leitrim are going to enjoy the same facilities as the children in Monaghan. We have been bearing the heat and burden of the day for several years and the Minister admits it, trying to push him forward into providing the kinds of standards of education we thought the children ought to have. We are actually spending nearly three times a year what they are spending in Longford and the reward for that is that we are told now that although that is all irrelevant, in perpetuity we are to be placed on the same level as the cute operators in Longford, Leitrim, Louth, Carlow, Sligo, Clare, Wicklow, Donegal, Cavan, Waterford, Offaly, Kildare, Westmeath, Roscommon, Wexford, Tipperary (North Riding), Mayo, Laois, and Kilkenny who in the past bore a much smaller burden for education." What will I say to them?

That is your problem. It is the boys and girls that count, not the county councillors.

I would have said to the members of the county council that they were acting wisely in asking the ratepayers for money to bear the burden they asked for to provide the educational facilities.

May I point out that there is a section in the Bill dealing with this particular matter? We are dealing now with the Money Resolution and we cannot use the Money Resolution for a debate on a section of the Bill which will be discussed in Committee.

Yes, section 3 is the relevant section.

It lays down the categorical principle, but if we are passing the Money Resolution for the money to be provided, surely we ought to know what quantity of money is to be provided? The money to be provided is the difference between what this frozen sum yields and the Exchequer contribution. I do not mind if anybody wants to discuss it on section 3. I have made my case, and, I think, an unanswerable case. The Minister is simply saying that it is administratively convenient to adhere to the present direction. He nods his head in assent. I think that is awfully bad politics in the highest sense of the word. It is our function here, Ministers and Deputies, to see that administrative convenience does not override what we consider to be social justice.

That is what I am concerned about here. I am concerned about social justice for all our boys and girls.

The head of the British Civil Service recently was interviewed on the BBC television and was asked did he not find it a great trial because of his Civil Service career to be dealing with amateur politics. He said that was the greatest tripe he ever listened to, that he never met an amateur politician, that he served under a number of Ministers and none of them was ever an amateur politician. It is right for the civil servants to say to the Minister: "Administratively, this is the way to do it." I am putting it to the Minister that he ought to say: "Perhaps you are right but socially this is the way I want it done. I want to carry everybody with me." I am warning the Minister, and I am trying to help him to carry everybody with him, to bring them in in good faith and to make them feel that they are getting a fair deal. I warn the Minister that if he persists in an administrative system which places on a congested area like Monaghan the heaviest burden in perpetuity, exceeded only by Dublin, Kildare, Limerick, Tipperary South Riding and Meath, this will cause a lot of dissatisfaction.

Would 90 per cent of the farmers in Monaghan be under £60 valuation?

I could not give you that answer off the cuff. We are concerned with the psychology of this matter. We are going to have a perennial grievance whereas if there is a level poundage on every county, be it 1d, 1½d, 2d or whatever it is, there will be no grievance. I believe that is the way to carry the people into this scheme whereby they will feel they want to co-operate and also feel they are getting a fair deal. You can only have such if every ratepayer is asked to pay 1d, 2d, 3d or whatever it is.

I suggest the method of calculation suggested by the Minister may be administratively right but I do not think it is politics in the highest sense of that word, or psychologically right. It is the function of the Minister to say to his administrators: "Maybe you are right; maybe administratively this is right. But I am the political head of the Department and it is my function to bring the people with me in this matter. I believe this is the right way to go about it and accordingly I would prefer to do it this way". I believe it is right to level off the contribution from every county, to make it the same and not to have different contributions from every county. As far as the local authorities are concerned, they know they are making a contribution to the national scheme. If you are going to levy three times as much on Monaghan as you levy on Longford, there will be an annual approach to the Minister for Education about it, whereas if everybody is paying 1d or 2d as the local authorities contribution towards the national cost of expanding the educational system, this will be accepted.

I do not agree that levying this 1d in the pound will be equitable at all because we all know that the places where the 1d in the pound produces very little are the places where most people will qualify for scholarships. Counties like Meath and those mentioned by Deputy Dillon are counties where the 1d in the pound produces a much more substantial sum and those are the places where fewer children have in the past availed of scholarships. We have had experience in some counties where all the money provided for scholarships was not taken up by actual scholarships. Indeed, the Department by way of special grant came to the rescue of counties where the 1d in the pound produced very little by way of special grants over and above those available in the country at large. The system now being suggested by Deputy Dillon of levelling off the contribution on the basis of a 1d in the pound would not be a valid one at all. It would cut across what has been done in the past and would, I think, provide moneys in certain quarters that would not be fully taken up in scholarships.

It would not be based on the county thereafter: it would be on a national basis.

There is one thing I would like to ask the Minister. Will the total put up by the local authority in a county or local authority area, plus the Department's allocation, be the amount of money in each county?

No. We will get away from the county.

In other words, it will be pooled.

It is £33,366 by local authorities but I want the contribution levelled off.

I appreciate Deputy Dillon's effort in devising a scheme of contribution which would be fair but I think he misses the point I have been making, that is, that you have already got inequalities and anomalies in regard to the system of rating and values in different counties. I think by having a flat scheme you only import those anomalies.

Will our 1d in the pound be less than that?

It will be £62,000.

All that is involved is a halfpenny on the rates of all counties and the whole problem is solved.

Deputy Dillon is exaggerating the matter. I have heard complaints from counties which have gone ahead and they have been penalised by counties which did not go ahead. That is all right for this year but in the following year and the years ahead, it would not be so.

They will have to pay more than 1d in the £.

This will be an irrelevant factor. As the years go on, they will have a growing State contribution. As I said, the State contribution will increase but the other contribution will be static. In counties like Monaghan, every farmer of under £60 valuation will benefit to the maximum amount when his children will be in from the beginning.

Do not forget every small shopkeeper and every other worker in Monaghan.

The same thing applies in wage and salary scales as well. I am only quoting one aspect which has already been mentioned by Deputy Dillon. I will have a bet with Deputy Dillon that there will be twice as many pupils out of Monaghan participating in this scheme in the coming year as there were last year. If that is not good value for the Monaghan ratepayers and taxpayers, I do not know what it is.

If the total amount reaches only £33,000 what is the purpose of having this on the rates at all?

What is the total amount anticipated for the coming year if no estimate is made?

We do not know; it depends on how many qualify.

It will be a quarter of a million for the whole country.

By freezing the county council rate for education it is £33,000.

The figure is £280,000.

The 1967-68 figure was £33,000 and that is the sum to be frozen.

That includes secondary.

Post-primary and higher education from every local authority, and that total sum comes to £280,000.

You are really applying to higher education, that is, to university education, not alone what was contributed in the past but also what was levied from scholarships for primary schools.

Read the Bill.

Why freeze the amount that was provided by local authorities for primary and secondary schools for a purpose other than that originally intended?

We made that purpose redundant by providing free post-primary education.

In other words, you will make the rates pay anyway.

We have free post-primary education.

"Free" is a relative term.

This is totally irrelevant on the Money Resolution. There is a section on the particular matter raised by Deputies and I must rule out any further interruptions.

What is the Money Resolution?

We are discussing money to be provided for local authorities. The Deputy's point arises in section 3.

I am asking the Minister what money is being provided. I understand it is the total cost of the scheme, less some sum he will collect from the local authorities. Nobody seems to know what the sum is.

I have said it three times.

You have said £33,000.

That is the rate contribution.

The only figure which I have at the moment is the contribution by the local authorities for the provision of university scholarships. That is the figure of £33,360 and it varies between one county and another. The total for the whole is £33,360.

If the Deputy reads section 3, he will see that the present contribution includes scholarships under the Local Authorities (Education Scholarships) Acts 1944 and 1961.

Is a local authority properly authorised to levy for an amount of money hitherto attributable to post-primary scholarships?

And transfer it to university education?

If the Deputies would read section 3, we could have a discussion.

We have read section 3. Surely we have not reached the stage where it is a trespass on the use of Dáil Éireann to inform ourselves of what we are doing? We may be stupid men but we are the people elected by the people of this country, and whether we are stupid or clever, we are entitled to clarify our minds, and I want my mind clarified.

The Chair points out that Second Stage speeches may not be repeated on the Money Resolution.

All I am asking for is a bit of information.

The information will be forthcoming on section 3.

What are the elements of the local authority sum that will be frozen? I have given the amount of the university scholarships grants.

It is not in section 3.

It is not in section 3, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Ceann Comhairle's mind is at rest.

My mind is not at rest at all.

The Minister says that what I am raising is not in section 3.

That is not to say it is relevant on the Money Resolution.

It must be relevant somewhere.

I repeat it. It is £280,000 for all scholarships of local authorities. The total amount for next year will be roughly £600,000 and that figure will continue to rise in the years ahead. The £280,000 will be the total static frozen contribution from local authorities.

I know where the £280,000 comes from. It comes from universities and technological scholarships. Where does the balance come from?

From those primary scholarships which are now redundant by reason of our post-primary scheme.

I thought they were free.

This is scholarships to secondary schools.

You are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It now transpires that this is now retrospectively contributing to the cost of the buses, and so forth.

Do not overstretch the point.

This question does not arise on the Money Resolution. It is a question of administration.

Am I right or am I wrong? Part of this money is now coming from post-primary scholarships that were there before.

And we are going to take so much from the ratepayers for that.

As far as I can find out, the sum consists of the post-primary scholarships that were awarded to primary schools.

It is in section 3.

It consists of university scholarships and it consists of scholarships from the national schools.

There is £33,000 for university grants. Then there is a quarter of a million hitherto supplied to post-primary scholarships which the Minister is now taking in lieu of what he calls the free scheme and putting it to university grants.

That is in section 3.

Is that correct? Nobody knew that until now.

I said it on Second Stage.

If you said it, there is no local officer in Ireland who knows what you said.

They all know it.

I did not know it.

If you did not know it, it is not my fault. I know what is in every line of this Bill and the Deputy knows that.

Would the Minister not consider leaving the Money Resolution over to Report Stage?

It would not be in order. The Money Resolution must be taken before Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Top
Share