asked the Minister for Education the reason for the failure to spend the £3,800,000 voted under subhead C.5 of Vote 30 for the operating costs of national schools.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - School Operating Costs.
1.
It is expected that at least £3,300,000 of this provision will be spent in 1976. This maintains the 1975 level of expenditure on this service which was, in fact, three times the previous annual State expenditure. Some increases were allowed in 1976, namely, in the case of schools with low enrolments and special schools for the physically and mentally handicapped.
Would the Minister like to say why the Supplementary Estimate sheet circulated last week showed that £3,800,000 were still allotted for the upkeep of schools, merely showing a £30,000 switch to a new subhead to cover outstanding painting costs under the old schemes?
The amount in the Estimate was for £3,800,000 and the amount spent was £3,300,000.
The sheet did not show that £3.3 million only was being spent.
It would not because there was no supplementary Estimate under that subhead. The only thing shown under that subhead was the savings.
Would the Minister not agree that the original Estimate as shown in the Book of Estimates indicated that the Minister for Education was prepared to grant £1per capita extra this year to try to cope with inflation which was 18 per cent this year and 21 per cent last year? That would be only a 16? per cent increase due to inflation and the Minister for Education obviously thought it should be spent. Why was it not?
I do not think that is correct. As far as possible every Minister includes in his Estimate amounts to cover the expenses for the following financial year. In this case it was decided because the amount of the grant in 1975/76 was 200 per cent more than the estimate for the previous year, that this was a fair increase in the level of State aid to these schools in the two-year period.
Would the Minister not agree, when he says that the increase was of the order of 200 per cent that he was talking about new schemes as compared with old schemes and that is not a proper basis for comparison? My supplementary question asked the Minister if he did not think that the Minister for Education had decided that something would have to be done about the high rate of inflation and that something was an increase of £1 per pupil which would account exactly for the £500,000 withdrawn from this Estimate.
I have no evidence to support that assertion.
Would the Minister give an assurance that when he is increasing the grant for 1977 he will remember that the schools thought they were getting an extra £1 per pupil in 1976 and take that into account when giving the increase in 1977?
I will bear what the Deputy has in mind, but this is a budgetary matter and I can give no assurance in that regard at this stage.