Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 1976

Vol. 294 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Youth Training Centre Grants.

The reason I raised this matter is because of the shilly-shallying that has gone on between the Department of Education and the vocational education committee in the last couple of years. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated today that funds which were sanctioned prior to the beginning of 1975 would be allocated. I brought to his attention that on 13th May, 1975, in a letter to the chairman of An Chomhairle le Leas Óige, the Sport and Youth Section of the Department of Education, for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, it was stated:

A Chara,

Further to the meeting which took place in the Department on 2nd May, 1975 in connection with expenditure of money allocated for the activities of An Comhairle, I wish to point out that, as a sub-committee of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, An Chomhairle is not empowered to spend money on activities outside the Dublin city boundary.

This letter was written in spite of the fact that Statutory Instrument No. 328 of 1975 was in existence. It is called Vocational Education (Grants for Annual Schemes of Committees) Regulations, 1975. It commences with: "I, Richard Burke, Minister for Education, in exercise of the powers conferred on meel". Section 5 states:

In respect of the financial year commencing the 1st day of January, 1975, there may be paid to the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, in addition to the additional grant a grant (to be called and known as a supplementary grant) not exceeding £167,000 of the corresponding expenditure incurred by the said committee, under arrangements which have been approved by the Minister with the sanction of the Minister for Finance in establishing and maintaining or encouraging or assisting the provision and maintenance of youth training centres for the Dublin City Vocational Education area, the Dún Laoghaire Vocational Education area and the functional area of the county of Dublin of the Vocational Education Committee.

In spite of the existence of this document the Department of Education said they were not empowered to allow the VEC to release funds outside of the city.

On 19th February, 1976, a letter was written to a gentleman in Raheny regarding an application by a youth club outside the city boundary. The letter he received from An Chomhairle le Leas Óige stated:

I wish to confirm what has today been communicated verbally to you. The youth club in Donaghmede, about which you spoke, appears to be situated outside the city boundary. By virtue of a recent decision of the Department of Education, Comhairle le Leas Óige is not empowered to provide its services to youth groups outside the city area. Accordingly, I regret to inform you that affiliation of the youth club cannot be considered by my committee.

A letter from the Borough of Dún Laoghaire Vocational Education Committee, dated 22nd January, 1976, to An Chomhairle le Leas Óige stated:

Please find enclosed copy of letter sent today to the Department of Education concerning the above.

This was a letter dated 22nd January, 1976, to the secretary of the Department of Education and stated:

A Chara,

My Committee at their meeting held on 12th January, 1976, and indeed at some former meetings, questioned the fact that the services of Comhairle le Leas Óige have not been extended to their vocational education area. They fail to understand why provision is made in section 5 of the Statutory Instrument No. 328 of 1975, and indeed in several former statutory instruments for this purpose, and yet the services have not been extended to the Committee's area. My Committee would be grateful if you would look into this matter and let them have your comments at your earliest convenience.

No reply was received to that letter. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why have the officials of his Department denied the authority of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee to extend outside the city area when the VEC of County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire have agreed to this? In fact, they have requested it.

I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that County Dublin VEC and Dún Laoghaire VEC in October, 1974, requested the sanction of the Minister for Education under section 40 of the Vocational Education Committee Act, 1930, for co-operation in the youth area but no reply was received from the Department on that. This is very ironical because I have here a question which I would like to read from Volume 243, dated 4th December, 1969. It is from the present Taoiseach and states:

Mr. Cosgrave asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that at present facilities provided by Comhairle le Leas Óige which operates under section 21 (2) of the Vocational Education Act, 1930, do not extend to County Dublin or Dún Laoghaire; and if he will make funds available so that facilities may be extended to County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire such as are at present available within the County Borough of Dublin.

The then Minister for Education, Deputy Faulkner, referred him to a reply of 13th February, 1969, concerning the matter. The present Taoiseach then asked:

Is the Minister aware that Dún Laoghaire and County Dublin are discriminated against at present? Perhaps he would consider making a grant available so that the Comhairle le Leas Óige service could be provided outside the borough area—I mean outside the city borough?

The then Minister for Education, Deputy Faulkner, replied:

I appreciate what the Deputy has in mind. Discussions took place on this and it was decided that the city group could help in the other areas but that no extra money could be given for that purpose. This year An Chomhairle received a grant of £53,890, which is £17,630 more than last year. Perhaps they might wish to help.

In other words, there was no objection whatsoever under the provisions which we introduced to an Chomhairle spending their funds outside the city of Dublin and in the Dún Laoghaire borough. The Parliamentary Secretary owes an explanation why there has been this shilly-shallying, why the delay, why no replies have been received from the Department of Education and why there has been a lack of co-operation. Nobody wants to be at war with anybody about this.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows that about three or four weeks ago I spoke to him about this. I said I did not want to put down a question as I do not like to make politics out of youth work or anything to do with youth work. I prefer to get things done quietly behind the scenes. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I spoke to him on a number of occasions. I told him if I did not get a response he would leave me with no alternative but to put down a question in the House, which I had to do today. When the question was put down the Parliamentary Secretary's colleague, Deputy Percy Dockrell, had been primed to put another question down ahead of mine.

I can tell the Deputy that that question was not inspired. He can accept my assurance on that. The matter was as much a surprise to me as it was to the Deputy.

I told the Parliamentary Secretary last week I intended to put down a question.

That is correct. The Deputy spoke to me about two or three weeks ago, as he said.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary offer some compensation in some way by allowing any applications for grants which have been made since this Government came into power, which were denied to them because of the refusal by the Department of Education to allow An Chomhairle to implement this, to be paid? I also want to ask him, because of the lateness in the year and the possibility that there are still funds which have not been spent by an Chomhairle, because they have not been allowed to spend outside the Dublin city area that this money be brought forward into next year and added to whatever the vote will be to the VEC. That is the very minimum the Parliamentary Secretary can do.

I am quite certain the youth clubs which applied to An Chomhairle in full expectation that they would receive grants for the various pieces of equipment and whatever decorating materials they ordered still have the invoices. If those invoices are submitted to An Chomhairle I am sure they will be allowed to be paid for them from the time this began. This would settle a lot of bad feeling which certainly is there.

This question was asked by the Taoiseach on 4th December, 1969. It was asked by Deputy Clinton on 13th February, 1969. It was put down on 14th July, 1970, by Deputy Tunney to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Kennedy, and he was assured that the money could be spent outside the Dublin city area. I hope I have made my case without engendering too much bad feeling. I want to see that justice is done. I am glad that, in the reply today, the Parliamentary Secretary said they are entitled to pay out these grants. I think I interpret his reply correctly when I say that.

I should like to thank Deputy Briscoe for the manner in which he has approached this question and his genuine desire to get to the rights of the matter. I should like to start by quoting from a reply given by the then Minister for Education on 13th February, 1969, in which he said:

I have authorised An Chomhairle le Leas Óige to make assistance available to clubs operating in the areas immediately outside the Dublin Borough Area—i.e. Borough of Dún Laoghaire and County Dublin —in conjunction with the County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Vocational Education Committees. This authorisation was conveyed on the clear understanding that the extension of the area of activity would not be a basis for seeking an increased State grant. In the circumstances, I am unable to make an increased grant available to An Chomhairle as a result of this development.

In other words, the position taken by the Minister of the day was that there would be no objection to Comhairle spending their money outside the area, provided there was an agreement between the three VECs, and that there would be no extra grant sought on the basis that money to be spent outside the area was involved.

This was the position of the Minister since some time in 1968. He took the view that he would be prepared to see money spent outside the area, subject to agreement. The Director of Comhairle le Leas Óige, Mr. Lyons, wrote to the Department on 17th December, 1968, and said:

I am also to draw your attention to the position that has now arisen and to the Minute of the Meeting where An Chomhairle has deferred the extension of its activities outside the City Area "until the question of the financial arrangements had been clarified with the Department of Education".

The financial arrangements he was referring to were the adoption by the Department of Education at that time of the position which was subsequently contained in Deputy Faulkner's reply of 13th February, 1969, where he said this authorisation was conveyed on the clear understanding that the extension of the area of activity would not be a basis for increasing the State grant. In other words, Comhairle and, on their initiative the VEC of Dublin city, were not prepared to enter into the agreement in question unless they got the increased State aid which Deputy Faulkner, in his reply, said he would not be prepared to make available. My position is the same as that of Deputy Faulkner on this matter. We are prepared to give a grant to Comhairle, but we are not prepared to give them a supplementary grant for Dún Laoghaire or Dublin County.

The Deputy raised a very pertinent question when he referred to Statutory Instrument No. 328 of 1975 which he quoted and which, apparently, contained departmental authorisation for this expenditure. That Statutory Instrument was made under the Vocational Educational Act and it is subsidiary to the basic provisions of the Principal Act. Section 7 provides that money may only be spent within the functional area of the Vocational Educational Committee in question by a Vocational Educational Committee. However, that is qualified by the provisions of section 40:

Any two or more Vocational Education Committees may, subject to the approval of the Minister, enter into an arrangement for the joint exercise of any of their powers under this part of this Act, or on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between them, and if any question arises between such Committees in relation to such an arrangement the matter in question shall be referred to the Minister whose decision thereon shall be final.

The basic position of the Department is that the Minister has approved, in principle, the making of such an arrangement. This is subject to the caveat that no extra State money would be involved. By virtue of the statement of Comhairle le Leas Óige that they were deferring making such an arrangement pending getting a satisfactory answer, which they never got from their point of view about the financial situation, no formal arrangement under section 40 of the Act was made.

To that extent, therefore, the provision in Statutory Instrument No. 328 of 1975, which says that this expenditure in Dublin city, Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin, was OK under arrangements approved by the Minister with the sanction of the Minister for Finance was incorrect. It should not have stated that. The Deputy was perfectly correct in raising the matter. The arrangement had not been formally entered into because of disagreement about the matter raised by Deputy Dockrell as to whether a supplementary or special grant would be made available to An Chomhairle for the purpose of aiding Dublin County and Dún Laoghaire. Obviously from the point of view of An Chomhairle there is a problem. If we maintain our opposition that we are not going to give them anything extra, there is a problem for them that, if they decide to spend some of their general grant in Dún Laoghaire, there is that much less to spend in Dublin city and similarly if they decide to spend something in Dublin county.

As to the failure of the Department to reply to the letters referred to by the Deputy, I can only offer him an apology and also offer an apology to the other people who did not get replies. I can say that there is and has been considerable doubt as to the exact sequence of events in this matter, most of which occurred back in the late sixties and also as to the precise meaning of the provisions of section 40, as to whether section 40 applied to a case like this where, if you like, Dún Laoghaire had nothing and Dublin had something and where an arrangement could be entered into between two apparently unequal parties. Some people would argue that section 40 only envisaged the sharing of responsibility between the two authorities who had equal provisions but wished to intermingle them in some way, whereas this proposal is effectively for one authority which has something to give simpliciter to another, and the confusion about that accounts for the delay in the reply.

The problem then is not resolved entirely from the point of view of the people in which the Deputy is interested, because there has not been this formal agreement. I believe it would be quite possible to achieve a formal agreement which would be satisfactory to all parties. Given the amount of money which is available to An Chomhairle as it is, generally having been drawn up on the basis of catering for Dublin city, it would not be possible, without grave disruption, to the services of Comhairle le Leas Óige in Dublin city, to envisage any major scheme of An Chomhairle activity in the county or in the Dún Laoghaire area, and I can offer no hope whatever that the Department would be able to provide money to An Chomhairle on a scale that would enable this to take place. In fact I can give no undertaking that any extra money can be given to them.

Therefore I believe that the best approach to solving this problem would be for a meeting to be held—chaired, if necessary, by the Department of Education—between representatives of the three VECs and An Chomhairle, along with the Department. We will see then if we can achieve an agreement which will satisfy the requirements of section 40 and will enable An Chomhairle to meet the type of case the Deputy has in mind. However, I think I should say before this meeting takes place that I cannot envisage any extra money being made available, and I cannot envisage money being made available next year on the scale that would enable Comhairle activity to be extended on the same basis in the rest of the Dublin area as it is taking place at present in Dublin city.

What I would envisage is that within the Comhairle grant we might be able to reach an agreement for certain limited activity the terms of which would be written down and formally agreed, perhaps in relation to clubs on the border between the two areas, which may be what the Deputy has in mind, and perhaps in relation to other limited matters which would be agreed specifically between the three committees.

That, I think, would bring the matter to finality, and I hope it can be so dealt with. I would be perfectly happy to have this meeting take place at a very early date, and I will communicate what I have said here to the three authorities tomorrow. I would hope that if they are interested, they will be prepared to come forward to discuss the matter. In the context of that meeting all the legal difficulties can be thrashed out and the financial limitations which I have mentioned and which are very real, can also be put frankly before all three authorities, so that An Chomhairle can come to a firm decision whether or not they want to share some of their money with the other two authorities.

I hope this interchange between Deputy Briscoe and myself in this matter will prove to have been useful, and I repeat the thanks I have offered to him for the manner in which he has approached it.

Could I just say I know they are anxious——

The debate is ended with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.

We had better wait until the meeting takes place.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30th November, 1976.

Top
Share