Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Dec 1979

Vol. 317 No. 6

Supplementary Estimates, 1979. - Vote 35: Higher Education (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £6,990,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1979 for grants-in-aid of An tUdarás um Ard-Oideachas, certain Higher Education Institutions and Services and the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
—(Minister for Education.)

Deputy Horgan was in possession and we are taking the other Votes in the Education group with Vote No. 35.

There are a couple of items in relation to these Supplementary Estimates to which I should like to draw the attention of the House because I consider them important and there is a danger they may be overlooked. One of the subheads we are discussing relates to the school transport service which was dealt with at length by Deputy Collions. It is an irony of educational administration and, perhaps, of politics and finance as well, that when school rationalisation at primary level and free education so-called at second level was introduced few people realised the size of the transport bill that would be involved in the provision of this necessary service. Indeed, in the Supplementary Estimates before us the additional sum required is of the order of £2 million, a substantial sum by any standards. In fact, it is the largest subhead in the Supplementary Estimate on this Vote. I should like to draw attention to one group of people in relation to the administration of this service. When I did so before the answers I got were very unsatisfactory. I should like to remind the Minister about this problem and ask him to do something to solve it.

There are a number of people who live far enough away from their local primary school to be entitled to a free transport service if there were enough of them there to justify the sending of a bus or car. But because there are not enough of them, because there may be only two or three of them, or perhaps one only, they get nothing. They do not get a free transport service because it is uneconomic to do so and they are left to make their own way to school at their own expense. Some time ago in a parliamentary question I asked the Minister how many people were in this position. I got the answer that he simply did not know. I am not making any special plea here for my constituency because, if I can be sure of one thing, it is that few, if any, of them live in south county Dublin. But they do exist; they exist in the west, south and, I suspect, the north-west. Perhaps they exist even in the Minister's constituency. It would seem to me, in the interests of equity, a very valid and worthwhile exercise for the Minister to get the officers of his Department to find out who these people are and to include them in the free transport system at least in some way. If he cannot send a bus or car for them—and I fully accept that this may be beyond the scope of the scheme—then he should consider making a cash grant out of this Supplementary Estimate to the parents of the children concerned so that they could at least defray the expense of getting their children to school.

In relation to the Vote on Primary Education, reference has been made already to the question of the additional grants made by way of capitation grants towards the operating costs of national schools. An extra £500,000 is being provided here. We are all glad that this amount is being provided but we must remember that this money, and the additional sums being provided under this Estimate, will be administered by boards of management which do not, at this time, include any representatives of the teaching profession in those schools. The reason that the administration of the system will be lacking this very important ingredient is that, apparently, the review body the Minister set up to examine the operation of the system after their initial years in operation stalemated. Since that stalemate nothing substantial has been done to bring the teachers back on to these boards.

I am as aware as anybody else that the Minister cannot achieve miracles, he cannot do the impossible, but at least he should be making some kind of a stab at what is possible. Surely he cannot agree that the continued absence of teacher representatives from these boards of management is in the best interests of the administration of these funds and indeed of the primary education system in particular. He must tell the House what steps he has taken since the stalemating of the review body to ensure that this state of affairs is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. It was the last administration so frequently jeered at by the Minister which made a change in the——

On a point of order, I do not jeer. I do not like that word.

I believe it is probably within the rules of this House to make that kind of accusation.

I think it is, but it is not factual.

So frequently derided, perhaps, by the Minister that made a very substantial change in the administration which covers the allocation of these sums of money. It is odd, to put it mildly, that the Minister who came into office has only partially honoured the commitment, not just to review but to act on the results of a review of that system after three years in operation. The part of the country from which the Minister comes is such that he will be no stranger to the art of striking bargains. I am sure, if a bargain can be struck about anything, it can be struck here. I would argue that it is vitally important to get the teacher back on to the boards of management in these schools and to undertake whatever negotiations are necessary to bring this about.

In relation to the community schools, which are financed under the Vote for Secondary Education, I spent some time—and I do not propose to repeat myself—investigating the deeds of trust. All I should like to do at this stage is to specify the questions I was raising the last time: why, in the consultation processes that he initiated in relation to the finalisation of the deeds of trust, did the Minister treat two Protestant organisations differently from the other organisations invited to consult? Secondly, is he happy with the situation in which representatives of some Protestant denominations have now stated that the deed of trust, as finalised, is unacceptable to them in certain respects? Thirdly, does he propose to do anything about it? I believe this whole episode has been a very sad, missed opportunity for the effective rationalisation of second level education in this country. The irony is that, instead of rationalising it, we have now a secondary education system split in four different ways; whereas before the whole process of experimentation began it was split in two different ways only, between secondary and vocational, it is now split between secondary, vocational, community and comprehensive. Indeed, within that general split, there seems to be no likelihood that the so-called community schools, for any time in the foreseeable future, will educate more than a minority of the community's children. This is a sad irony in view of their name.

In relation to the Vote for Vocational Education, could the Minister tell us what future he envisages for this system? Is it merely to remain as a rump of the second level educational system? In reply to a parliamentary question recently the Minister indicated to me that the huge majority of the projected community schools were in fact to be green field schools and that less than five, if I remember rightly, involved the amalgamation of vocational schools. Therefore the question arises: what future does the Minister have in mind for this system? Is he not prepared, even at this late stage, to consider these schools and the committee system under which they operate, however amended and refurbished, as the basis for a regional system of education? I would urge that view on him, not just in the name of the vocational education system—because I would be the last to agree that this is perfect in all its aspects—but in the name of providing an important, democratically organised and based buffer state between the individual school and the tentacles of the Department of Education.

Finally, I want to turn to Higher Education and to that part of the Minister's speech when he said:

This amount also includes a sum of £1,750,000 towards deficits which are expected to accrue on the current accounts of the various institutions in 1979, due to increased approved costs on non-pay items.

There is a very important issue at stake here. The Minister should tell us exactly what is the current account state of the various institutions. Is it not a fact that, owing to under-financing by his Department in the last couple of years, they have been forced to go into the red in order to keep their services to the student community and to the community at large at the appropriate levels? Is it not a fact that his Department have refused, apparently until now, to face up to the problem caused by university institutions running into overdraft situations? Further, can he tell us whether any sums will be made available to pay overdrafts which may have been incurred prior to 1979, or indeed what is his policy in relation to the future incurring of overdrafts. If he is going to allow and expect educational institutions to go into overdraft, he is perhaps introducing a new element into the political equation or balance between these institutions and his Department, which has implications for the future.

In relation to the grant to St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, for secular education, I have already said all I propose to say. In case it should be misunderstood as a criticism of any particular institution, I should like to make it clear that I believe the concept of academic freedom should be defended by the Minister in any institution in which it is under threat. It is not so long ago since that late and very distinguished Member of Seanad Éireann, Owen Sheehy Skeffington, fell foul of his own authorities in Trinity College, Dublin, when he had the temerity to append the name of that insituation to a letter he wrote to the newspapers on some controversial subject or other. This, too, I would regard as an infringement of academic freedom, although a considerably minor one compared with the one which involved the sacking of two professors in Maynooth. I ask the Minister to be vigilant on this and to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that there are decent conditions created and maintained for the staff in those institutions.

There is a subhead in the Higher Education Estimate in relation to the general expenses of the higher Education Authority. The higher Education Authority have been doing an excellent job. Their recently retired chairman deserves a vote of thanks for the contribution he has made at the end of a very distinguished public service career to the very demanding position of chairman of that Authority. I would like to single out, particularly, in relation to the Authority the frequency with which they publish documents, reports and analyses, which do not shun controversy and which are clear if sometimes arguable. I noted the Minister's exchanges with Deputy E. Collins about the participation rates in higher education and I presume the Minister was referring to things like the proportion of graduate students and the average length of courses in other European countries, which might be taken as qualifying some of the statistics in that particular report. While it is true that those statistics may be qualified, the Minister should not be allowed to suggest that because those statistics need to be qualified they are worthless. I believe that a large part of them indicate a very substantial problem for higher education enrolements.

I would like to draw the Minister's attention to one particular publication, which is not actually a publication of the Authority as a whole but one to which a section of the Authority contributed, in which a servant of the Authority, has a most interesting section called Higher Education in the European Community, A Handbook for Students. I refer the Minister to the section of that publication on Ireland, which I believe was written by Mr. Hayden of the Higher Education Authority and refers, among other things, to the cost of living and states:

It was estimated in June 1978 that the cost of living for an Irish student for a period of nine months amount to IRL £1,368 (or IRL £152 per month). It should be noted that this figure which does not include student fees, will normally be higher for foreign students.

Here is another example of a member of the staff of the authority publishing an important political fact which throws into a very disadvantageous light the Minister's apparent assumption that the level of the maintenance element of the higher education grant at the moment, which is substantially below the £1,300 that is considered by a member of the staff of the Higher Education Authority as being essential, in any way meets the real needs of the situation. I urge the Minister, in at least this area if in no others, at this particular point in time, to take account of the wisdom of this member of the staff of the Higher Education Authority and to increase the maintenance element of the grant proportionately.

While my colleague, Deputy E. Collins, and Deputy Horgan have covered this Vote in detail, I want to concentrate on more specific matters in relation to it. I am glad to speak particularly on subhead F.1, the National Museum. This subhead seeks an additional sum of £15,000 to enable the museum to purchase a Gunmoney Crown Proof in Gold dated 1690. We are told the coin is one of only two original specimens, the other being in the British museum. I am very disappointed that the Minister is not coming to the House seeking a much greater sum of money to carry out the very essential repairs which are so obviously needed for our National Museum.

The Minister must be aware of the report of the board of visitors for the years 1977 and 1978 of the National Museum of Science and Art, which was presented to him. This is a cry from the heart from the 12 members of the board imploring the Government to finally do something for our museum. The board is composed of 12 members, four appointed by the State, three by the Royal Irish Academy and five by the Royal Dublin Society. Nobody can accuse those members of being politically motivated. Their aim is to advance the cause of culture particularly the National Museum. This document is very critical of the Government for the neglect towards this most essential institute of culture. The report states that the Government have completely ignored the advice which their report contained.

The Chair has allowed the Deputy to raise this matter but I cannot see anything in the Supplementary Estimate for repairs to the museum. We can only deal with what is in the Supplementary Estimate and nothing else. I allowed the Deputy to raise the matter but I ask him to go on to some other topic.

The National Museum is under subhead F.1.

Subhead F.1. deals only with the purchase of specimens. There is nothing in that with regard to repairs or reconstruction.

The Board of Works are responsible for repairs to the museum.

It would not come up in the Supplementary Estimate. It would arise on the Board of Works Estimate when it comes in. I allowed the Deputy to raise the matter.

I should like to enlarge a little on that and bring to the attention of the Minister, who is the responsible Minister for our National Museum, the deplorable condition of this building. I urge him to take cognisance of the report of the board of visitors and bring forward a policy which will give the National Museum its rightful place in the cultural life of the nation.

The Deputy must understand that repairs of public buildings is a matter for the Board of Works and would come up on their Estimate.

I accept that but surely the initiative should come from the Minister for Education who is responsible for the National Museum.

It would arise on the main Estimate. When we are dealing with Supplementary Estimates we can only deal with exactly what is in them. A Supplementary Estimate is not like the main Estimate.

I appreciate that but we may not get an opportunity of discussing this matter.

The Deputy has raised it and he must move on to something which is in the Supplementary Estimate.

I would like the Minister to give a solemn undertaking to the House that he will look at the recommendations and the points raised by the board of visitors so that the museum will be able to play its part in the cultural life of the nation. There are many other references to this matter. There is a very excellent article by Dr. Lucas of the National Museum, published in 1976, which gives an idea of the place of the National Museum in our cultural life. In a report by the National Museum Development Committee called a Museum Service, there are recommendations which should be brought to the attention of the Minister for Education.

We can leave it at that. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate for repairs to or reconstruction of the museum. There would be in the Board of Works Estimate.

I intend to bring up this matter also under the Board of Works Estimate. As the Minister is a responsible person and the report has been presented to him he should give the lead in this regard. It is amazing that, in 50 or 60 years of our freedom, no advancement at all has been made, indeed, the reverse. The numbers visiting the National Museum in 1929/30 were 367,147 and the figure for 1970 is a mere 178,486 people visiting our Museum. Also space has been reduced; little by little the museum space has been whittled away. In 1920, their accommodation was 115,000 square feet; in 1972 this was reduced to 96,500 square feet.

The Chair is very sorry to interrupt the Deputy again, but there is really nothing in this Estimate for the museum.

I appreciate that, but this is the only opportunity I have to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister.

You have made your point now, Deputy, and I have been very lenient with you. Leave it at that.

I appreciate and understand that, but in case the simple facts have escaped the attention of the Minister, I ask him to bear them in mind. The exhibition space also has been reduced. In 1920 it was 88,400 square feet and in 1972 it was reduced to 44,200 square feet. Indeed, the National Library and the College of Art are worried that this House, Dáil Éireann, may make further encroachment on their very valuable space. Paraphrasing the old country saying "The nearer to the church, the farther from God", is it a case of "The nearer Dáil Éireann, the farther from the Minister's purse", because these buildings are adjacent to Dáil Éireann? Is there a parallel case here? I urge the Minister, in the coming budget, to advocate a complete reappraisal of the role that the museum must play in the life of the nation. I look forward to the day when our museum could enter for such competitions as the European Museum Award or, indeed, the Council of Europe Award.

The Deputy has had a really good say on the museum now and it does not arise on this Estimate. The Deputy must admit that.

He should leave it at that. The Chair has been very kind to the Deputy.

The Chair is being pretty difficult.

It does not arise on this Estimate. There is not a thing in the Estimate about the museum, except some small allocation for specimens. The Deputy could talk on these specimens, if he so wished. I do not know what they are.

I shall speak on the amount of space needed to exhibit this particular gold crown.

The gold crown or the philosophy behind the 1690 struggle.

I have referred to the lack of exhibition space. If the Minister does intend to purchase further exhibits, he should ensure that there is adequate exhibition space. I understand that this coin will not take up that much space, but should the museum contemplate further purchases, I trust adequate arrangements are being made to accommodate them. Concern has also been expressed about the damage to existing exhibits.

I am trying to take the Deputy away from the museum. I do not wish to shout him down, but he will have to come into line with the Chair's ruling.

I realise that. Indeed, there are more exciting and exhilerating news items around the House at present and the museum is very mundane.

The Deputy will have an opportunity on some other estimate to discuss and debate the museum fully. It is not relevant to what is before the house. That is all I am trying to tell the Deputy.

It is there as a subject and I feel I should be allowed to make this point.

There is nothing in the Estimate except the purchase of a specimen. The Deputy could discuss that specimen for an hour-and-a-half if he wished. That is the only thing which would be relevant on this Estimate.

This is a Supplementary Estimate and it is only the headings in it that are relevant.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair is trying to reduce the limits of this debate.

That is not correct. The rule of the House, down the years, is that Deputies debate, on Supplementary Estimate, simply what is in it and nothing else. They cannot debate headings that are not in it, only the amounts being allowed under the various headings in it. The Deputy has already been told that repairs to and reconstruction of the museum is a matter for the Board of Works. I am sorry, Deputy.

I feel I have made my point.

There is no doubt about that.

At this stage, the Minister and his officials must be aware of the critical need of our National Museum and the dilapidated condition of the building. At present, half of it, including the Rotunda, is closed to visitors. Some of the exhibition rooms are closed daily from 12 noon to 3 o'clock. At this hour, the exhibition rooms should be open to allow people to view this magnificent coin.

There is a Standing Order from which I mustquote at this stage. Standing Order No. 124 says:

In the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate, the debate shall be confined to the items constituting the same and no discussion may be raised on the original Estimate.

I am concerned for the people of Dublin and, indeed, the country, the school children, who will not be in a position to view the coin which was recently bought by the National Museum. It may be exhibited in one of these exhibition rooms which are closed to the public from 12 noon to 3 o'clock.

They must have the troops up by now.

Sorry, Deputy. That does not arise on this Estimate. The Chair will be in trouble with everyone else. I am asking the Deputy not to say another word about the museum, please, and that is final.

I will speak about the coin, so.

I would ask the Deputy not to say another word about the coin. He has already spoken several times about this coin. He brought into it ruins as big as Leinster House and everything else.

I am concerned that because of the poor state of the buildings, the coin may not be preserved properly. Because of the lack of proper exhibition rooms and proper attendant staff we will not be in a position to show this coin to the numbers of people who wish to view it.

If the Deputy is going to continue on those lines, he will have to resume his seat. Someone has said that the Chair has already had too much patience. If the Deputy does not get away from that point, I will have to take action.

I am worried about this coin and about the failure of the museum to exhibit it properly, to preserve it and about the lack of attendant staff to show this coin to the Dublin people. I would urge the Minister to take all the necessary measures to ensure that this coin is properly exhibited——

I hope that somebody takes the coin as well as the measures.

——and that it is properly preserved in our National Museum.

Under subhead F.3. on Wood Quay, the Government have been totally insensitive to the demands of the archaeologists who feel that Wood Quay has a significance at both European and international level. Surely the Minister is aware of a resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which urged the Dublin authorities to delay further construction until the systematic archaeological excavation of the site is completed, to reconsider plans for developing the site for offices for Dublin City Corporation and to consult international archaeologists about the best means of conserving and presenting the material discovered on the site. In his reply would the Minister indicate if he is prepared to spend a greater amount of money on further excavations on the site?

There is grave concern among archaeologists that no proper reported survey has been produced on Wood Quay by the National Museum. I do not wish to enter into the controversy of Wood Quay. I understand the humanitarian difficulties being encountered by the Government and by the Dublin Corporation in providing office space, but here we had a golden opportunity to preserve a site of rare archaeological importance and we failed miserably to take that opportunity. In Stavanger a similar situation arose and it was dealt with differently. But for the action taken in Stavanger a whole village of a wooden house area would have been destroyed forever. The Wood Quay episode is a sorry episode in the life of the Government. The Minister for Education should have taken the lead and urged his colleagues in the Cabinet to preserve this valuable historic site for Ireland and especially for our Northern European colleagues in the EEC. Instead, it was brutally handled without sensitivity to the needs and wishes of the people genuinely concerned with its conservation and preservation. I would urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to rescue what he can and ensure that further excavations are carried out under proper supervision, that a proper report of the archaeological finds to date is made and that a proper survey is carried out so that we will at least rescue something from the unholy mess of the Wood Quay site.

I would also urge the Minister to give greater grants in future. I am pleased to note that under subhead D.13 a grant of £1,500, small though it is, has been granted to Foras Éireann. I would urge that an increased grant be given to them in future years to help them with their splendid work in the cultural adult education field. I would urge the Minister also to take my remarks about the museum into account when he is formulating his policy for 1980.

I will concentrate on vocational education and the role of the regional technical colleges since their establishment as institutions of higher technological education. The ministerial decision of 1967 to establish them has been vindicated as these colleges have proved very successful in terms of their huge enrolment and their contribution to providing skilled people to industry. I would compliment all those involved in the regional technical colleges for the success of this project.

However, in recent years it has become obvious that we are facing a serious crisis because of the shortage of suitable trained people in certain key skilled areas. This fact was confirmed recently by the FUE, the trade union movement and others who are alarmed at the serious shortage of skilled technicians to man industry as it comes onstream. This crisis affects our ability to attract new industry which is vital to our national development. There is an unfortunate situation in relation to the national attitude towards academic education at a time when we need more technological apprentices, scientists and so on. We need workers to man industry which is needed so much as we face the eighties. This crisis is further compounded by our growing population, the increasing numbers of boys and girls participating in third-level education and the serious shortage of places projected for third-level education by 1986. The IDA Industrial Plan, 1978-1982, indicates what I am saying very clearly where it says:

The central industrial strategy in the IDA Plan is to shift our industry into products with higher added value based on good quality and design, aimed at specialist market niches using well planned professional marketing. The strategy will aim to capitalise on the strengths of the country, such as the high level of education, where we have an advantage over Third World Countries.

There is a danger that a serious mismatch could arise between the job opportunities arising in industry and the qualifications of job seekers, particularly young persons. We could, for example, have high unemployment side-by-side with shortages of graduate engineers, technicians and skilled craftsmen. Investment in educational facilities and equipment should be adequately geared to give the education and training in technologies appropriate to the rapidly growing industrial sectors, such as, computers and electronics.

A recent survey was carried out by a Dr. Hennessy for the NCEA which emphasised the points I am making. He pointed out that an additional 12,000 places will be needed in the higher technological education sector by 1986.

This brings me to a project which is in the minds of all the people in a united Tipperary. I want to compliment the Minister on his recent sanctioning of the building of a vocational school in Thurles. We are grateful for his interest in the needs of County Tipperary. This year people concerned with the development of our county got together several times. The local authorities of North and South Tipperary, the VECs of North and South Tipperary, trade unionists, SFADCo, our industrial agents for the area and voluntary organisations were unanimous that now that a new school is on-stream for Thurles we believe we have a very good case to make for one of the regional colleges which I hope the Minister will be contemplating in next year's budget and the years ahead. We have many things going for us in Tipperary and our figures compare very favourably with areas where regional colleges were established.

The Deputy is getting into the local club now.

That is what this is all about.

No, it is not. We are dealing with Supplementary Estimates. You were in order on the vocational schools because there is money provided for building of schools.

The money has been allocated for the building of this school in Thurles. County Tipperary has a population 133,000 which compares very favourably with catchment areas of three other regional colleges. I appeal to the Minister, after considering the very strong case put to him by the people of Tipperary, when deciding on the location of the new regional colleges to keep the Premier County in the front of his mind. The school being built in Thurles can be dovetailed into a technical college which will meet the needs of industry, employment and all the other infrastructures in our area.

We are an agricultural county and are endeavouring to promote more industries for our larger towns and peripheral areas. We believe the establishment of this college in Thurles will go a long way towards meeting the needs for skills and expertise which will be required when the new industries are established in our county. I want to put on the record my appreciation of the establishment of the new technical school in Thurles. I look forward to the Minister recognising it in a very short period as a regional college for County Tipperary.

There are a few points I want to make. I want the Minister to consider building a new second level school in Dunboyne. The situation there is that up to this year pupils were attending two schools. The Coolmine school, which is in County Dublin, is the nearest school for the children living on the eastern side of Dunboyne and the children on the western and northern sides attend the Dunshaughlin Community College.

I made some inquiries recently about the situation and will be supplying the Minister within the next 24 hours with information I obtained from each of the three community colleges in the area. In the case of Dunshaughlin, they have already reached capacity. They have 24 classrooms and every one is full. They carried out certain projections as to the needs for next year and estimate they will need 25 or 26 classrooms. On the basis of projected enrolments this will mean that the authorities in Dunshaughlin will either have to turn pupils away or look for pre-fabs. The same situation obtains in Coolmine. The Minister may not be aware, but his Minister of State is, that Coolmine succeeds the Blanchardstown vocational school. Coolmine is also full. They told pupils from Dunboyne that they will not be able to accept any of them unless they come from families, members of whom are already attending the school. The third school in the area is Blakestown, a new school recently opened in a new suburb——

We cannot continue on those lines. We cannot discuss the local clubs under the Supplementary Estimates. They may be discussed on the main Estimate.

This concerns school buildings.

School buildings have been discussed. They do not come under this Supplementary Estimate.

In the Estimate for Secondary Education there is an additional £1 million for comprehensive and community schools under subhead H.1. There is mention of grants under section 109 of the Vocational Education Act, subhead C, Vote 33. All these items are relevant——

The Deputy is entitled to raise matters on those subheads but on Supplementary Estimates the Chair has never allowed local matters to be raised. They should be discussed on the general Estimate.

I am seeking to raise the adequacy of these provisions——

The Chair is responsible for relevance. The Chair has ruled that the Deputy will not continue on all local matters.

The point I am making is that there is a need on the basis of this information for a new second level school in Dunboyne and I would ask the Minister to look into the matter. There is a proposal to reorganise secondary level education in Kells which is not making the progress I hoped——

The subhead for community schools is current, not capital.

I ask the Minister to attend to the matter. In relation to Vote 30, I notice there has been a saving on subhead D.9, grants towards clerical assistance in secondary schools. I understand there is a considerable need for clerical assistance in these schools and yet this subhead shows a saving of £750,000. Perhaps the Minister would tell us how such a massive saving could be made, a saving which constitutes more than half the amount provided. Has the Minister received any representations on this matter from the teaching organisations? Are they happy that money voted from this House was not spent? On the face of it, there would appear to be some appearance of maladministration in failing to ensure that money voted by this House was spent.

There is a saving on Vote 30 according to the Estimate under subhead D.11 but in the provisional Book of Estimates I have—the yellow edition—there is no subhead D.11. I am at a loss to know what the saving was. It is a significant matter because the saving comes to more than £¼ million. Where a saving of that nature was made and it relates to a subhead that does not appear in the Book of Estimates there should be some explanation as to how this occurred. Perhaps I am under a misapprehension because I am working from the yellow book.

There was a first Supplementary Estimate and this is the second one.

What was the saving under D.11? What does it relate to?

Caretakers in national schools.

I must give another ruling which is not my own but one that has been given down through the years. I do not agree with it very much but, however, where part of sums are obtained by savings on certain subheads of original Votes such subheads are not open to debate on Supplementary Estimates.

I am not seeking to debate the subheads but the savings, so I am in order. I am merely asking how the saving was made.

They are appropriations and the Chair through the years has ruled that they cannot be discussed on Supplementary Estimates.

These are not appropriations-in-aid. They are savings which appeared in the Estimate. The document we have before us states: "less savings D.9, D.11 and G.14". We are entitled to debate the document before us and there are savings amounting to £1,600,000. Those are relevant. I note also that there has been a saving in the grant-in-aid fund for youth employment of £½ million.

The present occupant of the Chair thinks that they should be relevant but all other occupants through the years ruled them out.

The present occupant of the Chair is a man who is in a position to make a decision on the matter on his own.

It is not worth bothering about. There have been about a dozen decisions against what the Deputy is doing.

The Chair is making an historic decision which will redound to his credit.

I am not sure I am.

I hope his decision will be inserted in the precedents and will delete all the other ill-advised decisions. As the person responsible for commencing the grant-in-aid for youth employment albeit at a lower level than it exists now—I compliment my successor on the big increases made under this heading—I am surprised that a saving of a £½ million could have been made when there is such a need to aid youth employment. Can the Minister explain those two matters?

We had a long discussion on the museum. I am proud to have been associated with the first ever increase in the space of the National Museum when the premises in Merrion Row were acquired when I was in office. I am also proud that I was associated with the National Library when the premises in Leinster Lane were acquired and that I was associated with the initation of an educational service for the museum, library and National Gallery. A co-ordinating committee were set up to bring together the various educational services and my information is that this committee have been meeting infrequently, if at all. There have been some sub-committee meetings but no meeting of the plenary committee. I do not know how a sub-committee can function without any meetings of the main committee. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the idea of a co-ordinating committee for all the educational services for the various institutions has not been abandoned. It would bring good results in this general area.

As regards the Primary Education Vote, No. 31, I agree with the Minister on the emphasis he has put, at least in his public statements, on the primacy of primary education and the need to give a greater weight to primary education than has been given in the history of the State. It is the one aspect of education that is availed of by the entire community. Those who are privileged, if not financially at least intellectually, benefit from higher education. In the case of secondary education only half that period is covered by compulsory school attendance. Although every child attends for a time he or she does not have to attend for the full duration. In the case of primary education every child must attend for the full duration of the primary curriculum. The amount of money devoted by successive Governments to primary education has been less per pupil than the amount allocated to higher education, which absorbs a good deal more money than either of the other two, and less also in the amount devoted to secondary education. I should like to see a continuing priority on primary education in the interests of social justice.

I am concerned that there seems to be—there is controversy about this matter—a number of children leaving primary school without the basic skills of literacy and numeracy being sufficiently imbued in their minds. There are people in the secondary sector who claim that children come to them without these basic skills. Given the pupil/teacher ratio and the many problems facing primary education this is not necessarily anybody's fault but it should be sorted out at the earliest possible date. There should be some system of testing on an objective basis of pupils, not with a view to streaming them but to finding out whether they have these basic deficiencies. I suggest this could be done at the age of nine or ten years on a national scale so that these children, instead of not being identified until they reach leaving certificate which is the first time they do any comprehensive national test under existing rules, would be identified at that age. Remedial measures could be taken to prevent their continuing to labour under the considerable disadvantage of not having numeracy or literacy.

When one makes this point one is frequently chided by teachers who say the objective of education is not solely to make people read and write. It is to develop the full person. By having tests such as these one could be putting an undue emphasis on the learning of these skills to the detriment of the broader purpose of education. That would be a valid argument if, as was done in the case of the 11 plus in Britain, we were going to stream children on the basis of the results of the tests. If such a system was introduced here it could distort primary education. If the purpose is merely to identify children who need help and is a positive one none of the objections I have heard made in the teaching profession——

I have given the Deputy a lot of lattitude but we are getting into educational policy matters and on Supplementary Estimates they are not in order. All these matters will be in order and relevant on the Estimate proper.

I put that forward for the Minister's consideration but he may not wish to reply to it. I note also that there have been considerable savings in relation to training colleges. A sum of £400,000 was saved in relation to the training of teachers and £100,000 saved in relation to loans and grants to students in training colleges. I understand there was a suggestion in the Green Paper that there would be a policy of bringing about equivalence in the conditions of pupils in the training colleges and those in the universities, that training college pupils would no longer have the benefit of residential facilities and so on and generous grants which are not available to the universities. Is this policy continuing and are these savings an indication of its implementation? If this is the case we should be told so explicitly and if not we should have some other adequate explanation as to why savings of about £500,000 have been made in regard to training colleges on these two votes.

Again there have been savings on subheads C.9 and C.10. I presume these savings are explained in the first Supplementary Estimate because there are no such subheads in the original Book of Estimates that I have. There must be some other explanation. It is all the more odd that there should be a saving on subheads C.9 and C.10 which were only created in a supplementary estimate in June or July. Only five months later we find that money deemed to be urgently necessary then and requiring extra time in this House to give it now cannot be spent and has to be handed back. It is no mean saving; it is £225,000 and I think the Minister owes the House an explanation. What went wrong? We should be told.

The main increase in secondary education is in the provision for an incremental salary grant. I should like an explanation of this. Is it a grant in relation to increments, accelerating the incremental stage or making it more generous or is it an across-the-board increase in salaries? If it were the latter I presume it would have come through subhead A.1 which deals with teachers' salaries. Instead it comes under subhead B. I should like to know how salaries are distributed as between subhead A.1 and subhead B. Subhead B is in fact the greater one and so the incremental grant is the bigger grant amounting to £61 million and the capitation grant which includes teachers' salaries comes to only £5 million. There seems to be a rather odd congruence of two means of paying teachers' salaries through two different subheads. Possibly A.1 relates to secondary school salaries which are paid on a different basis to community school salaries. It still does not seem to make sense seeing that subhead B is so much greater than subhead A.1. I should like the Minister to explain the need for the extra £10 million. Is it a result of the national understanding?

The Deputy must not have been here for my original statement. It was all explained there.

I was not, as the Minister knows, and so I shall not detain the House on that point. There has been a saving of £700,000 in relation to building grants towards capital costs of secondary, comprehensive and community schools. There is a very urgent need for additional school buildings in Kells, Navan and Dunboyne, three locations with rapidly increasing population. In the case of Kells and Navan specific agreements on the building of these schools were made more than two years ago but the progress seems quite limited. It surprises me that, where the money is provided and there is such an urgent need—I mention only cases in my own constituency as illustrations because I am familiar with them but I am sure there is the same situation in many other places—for additional classrooms in community and comprehensive schools, there should be a saving of £700,000 on such schools. One could also build a school with the amount being saved.

The Deputy is innocent if he thinks that.

One could go a good way towards building a community school with it. I should like the Minister to explain how money could be saved when there is such urgent need for community schools. I am certain that there are ways and means by which this money could have been spent if the Minister had the will to spend it. There are certain points at which money can be paid to contractors and others involved in the building programme and if the Minister had the industry and energy to ensure that the various administrative steps had been taken he could have arranged to have that £700,000 allocated to some schools and not have the situation—which is surprising for a Minister for Education—when having fought to get the money in the first place he has abjectly to hand it back because he was unable to spend it. It is more than surprising that such a saving could have been made in relation to such an important matter.

There is a similar saving of £200,000 in relation to vocational education. The total saving on secondary school buildings—taking secondary as a global description—is nearly £1 million of money apparently voted for this purpose and not spent. We should have an explanation for this. I note there was need for additional expenditure in relation to examinations on Votes 33 and 34. Does this indicate that examinations have cost more than originally expected or was there not proper budgeting or did more pupils present themselves for examination than originally expected when the provision was made?

Much bigger fees.

That should have led to a bigger appropriation-in-aid.

There were also greater transport expenses.

That explains that. The last Estimate that we have to consider here is No. 35 relating to higher education. I know there has been no supplementary estimate for residential homes. The amount of money provided for residential homes was never adequate. It was not adequate when I was responsible for the area and it is not adequate now. I would like to see the Minister do everything he can to increase the amount of money available.

The Deputy is talking about something that is not in the Supplementary Estimates.

The Minister did not bring in a supplementary estimate on that one, above all. I am out of order on that.

The higher education Estimate amounts to £7 million approximately. The only point I would like to make here is in relation to subhead A.3. This is in relation to the building grants and capital costs for university colleges and designated institutions of higher education and I note there has been a saving. The Minister should give us an explanation as to how this saving occurred. I presume it was because some particular project did not proceed as fast as it should and as a result the money did not have to be paid out. I can understand that happening when dealing with very big projects as in higher education. It is not easy to transfer such savings to somewhere else because there are not so many projects going on in higher education that one can easily find another project to which to allocate the saving on a project which did not proceed as fast as it should.

But that excuse does not apply in secondary or vocational education because there is no end of building projects in these areas. While I am not surprised that the Minister finds himself with a saving in relation to higher education—and I do not blame him because that is due to something he has no responsibility for—I do blame him for the fact that he has to hand back almost £1 million in relation to secondary school building. That certainly warrants some explanation.

I would like to make one last concluding point here. It refers to subhead F1 which is the purchase of specimens for the National Museum. The position at the moment is that in respect of many of the specimens they have to purchase the National Museum have to compete on the open market, the antique dealers market, for specimens which are of vital national interest and which may be irreplaceable and unique. But because the National Museum is only one bidder at a market where these items might be sold, they have found themselves having to pay an antique dealer's price to prevent something which is of vital national interest going abroad. Something should be done to strengthen the museum's position in this sort of situation. I realise there are considerable difficulties in regard to incursions on the rights of private property which is enshrined in our Constitution and I would be the last to suggest that there should be any incursion into that. I believe that in the case of export of precious historic objects from this country there should be some legislative means of preventing this occurrence or at least of licensing it because the fact that historic Irish objects are now capable of being freely exported means that effectively there is a world market price on these objects. If that situation did not exist the museum would not need as large a grant for the purchase of specimens because they would not have to pay a world market price.

There is legislation at the moment whereby the Minister may designate a particular object to be an object to which the Act applies. I am not quite sure what the Act is but I think it is one of the national monuments Acts. If the Minister so designates an object it may not be exported unless there is a licence but if the Minister does not so designate an object then it may be freely exported. To the best of my knowledge no Minister for Education has ever exercised the powers under the Act to designate any object to be one to which the Act applies. I must accept as much responsibility in this matter as anyone else in that I held tenure of the Department of Education for four years. Unfortunately at the time I was not as conversant with the legislation in the matter as I am now because I had other responsibilities. The result of that situation, if I am not mistaken, is that one is free to export objects at the moment if one has them in private ownership. There is no customs control whatsoever and it is very difficult to prevent objects being exported where there is no customs control even with the legislation.

I believe there would be a good case for having the legislation on the Statute Books requiring everybody who is exporting an object which is in a particular category, regardless of whether that object has been designated to be an object to which the Act applies, to be licensed. The consequences of that would be that although one might not have power at the airports or at the ports to prevent objects going out, it would be known in the international markets or wherever these articles might be up for open sale that they were being exported contrary to the law of the country of origin and were in that market on that basis. Therefore reputable auctioneers would be less likely to carry in their sales rooms objects which were exported from their country of origin without a relevant licence having being granted. That would close off one of the possible outlets for this sort of trade. It would also leave it open to the Minister to negotiate reciprocal arrangements with other countries who could have legislation for similar control of exports.

The Minister of State at the Department did indicate over a year ago in response to parliamentary questions I put to him that he was preparing legislation on this subject. I would like to have some information from the Minister as to how this legislation has progressed and if in fact any drafting work has been done at all. We should have that sort of legislation. The present Taoiseach raised this very matter here in the House when he was in Opposition and expressed concern about the lack of legislation on this issue. I answered questions on the subject and at that stage I initiated inquiries about legislation and had some preliminary work done, but it was of an unofficial rather than official character. No heads of Bills or anything like that were prepared.

The present Minister of State gave a commitment at Question Time, I understand, to do something about this and I would like to know how matters are progressing since this undertaking was given. I would not like to see the present situation continuing for any length of time. We seem to be heading back into a period of high inflation and in a period of inflation people who cannot find their money safe in stocks and shares tend to invest it in antiques and objects d'art and give themselves a veneer of culture by so doing as well as hoping to make a capital gain. This is likely to increase the demand for historic objects, from this part of the world and also to increase the necessity for an education of this sort. I hope that the Minister in the period remaining to him in the office which he now holds will take a personal interest in the matter with a view to having legislation of this sort introduced at an early date to protect our national heritage.

I intervene to make one single point. The Minister ought to consider amending the Act to extend the functions of the HEA along the lines which I suggested when I was in the Seanad when this Bill was going through in July 1971. I believe the Minister himself was not in public life at that stage and he may not, therefore, remember the debates which took place in this and the other House at that time, but if ever there was an argument against having a second House of the Oireachtas that argument was richly provided by his predecessor and present colleague, Deputy Faulkner, who was then Minister for Education. Deputy Faulkner arrived in the Seanad with this Higher Education Bill after the Dáil had risen, and quite clearly he had made up his mind that not a single amendment of any kind whatsoever was going to be accepted. He was dealing with a Seanad which included a lot of people—I hope that the House will not think me opinionated and conceited if I say this—who had something of a nonpolitical kind to say about higher education. Apart altogether from the six professedly university Senators who were there——

The Deputy is aware that we do not criticise or refer to the other House. It is a long-standing, accepted and honoured principle.

I have heard that convention quoted from the Chair by you, Sir, and other occupants of it. With respect, I cannot see the reason for it and I suspect that in this, as in so much else, we are trotting after the English and that because some rule of privilege which goes back to the English civil war or thereabouts inhibits them from allowing proceedings in one House to be mentioned in the other, we have to copy them. Of course, that is more than good enough for the Irish, according to the frame of mind which is far more prevalent in the party opposite than ever it was in my party, although we all suffer from it to some extent. However, I do not want to quarrel with the Chair, but for the benefit of the Minister I tell the House that, although a very large number of amendments were put forward then—Deputy Horgan will remember this—not one line of that Bill was changed because the Minister did not want to have to wait until October to go back to the Dáil with those amendments. In other words, a Bill like this would have been a justification for having a second House even if there were no other justification. Various members of the Opposition put down amendments. Not one comma was changed in that Bill when it left that House from the way it was when the Bill came in. I never saw an exercise in stonewalling more disspiriting than that which Deputy Faulkner then put up.

It was not the first or last Bill to suffer that fate.

I agree, but it is a particularly bad example because if ever the second House had before it a subject on which people might have something to say, that was the subject. A Government might be forgiven for going to the Seanad without changing a line of a Bill about security, agriculture or industry, but to go through a House which contained a number of people who had put down amendments was a depressing experience. I am not thinking simply of myself. I did put down amendments but most of them came from other people. There were no politics, good or bad, in this. The magic words "Fianna Fáil", "Fine Gael", "Labour" or any others, were not mentioned in the debate from start to end, nor were any of their respective philosophies. I put down an amendment which the Minister, if he is interested, will find at column 1379, Volume 70 of the Official Report of the Seanad, to the effect that the functions of the HEA outlined in the Bill which proposed to set it up should be extended by the addition of a further function, namely that of watching the job market, watching the economy generally to see what kind of demand existed for various forms of higher education and third level training. The intention was to conduct no very pretentious campaign, but in some appropriate level or way to evolve a system of informing young people and their parents about what kind of profession was likely to leave them three or four years later in a seller's market and what kind of professional training was available. About eight and a half years have rolled by since then and I can say without exaggeration that events have borne out the view that I put to the other House at that time. The universities here have continued to turn out very large numbers of Arts graduates from faculties which do not apply a numerus clausus or anything corresponding to that and a substantial number of them—not a majority—either do not find employment at all or find it difficult to get employment. The Minister himself will know that an Arts degree very often leads to the teaching profession but there are and have been for years a large number of disappointed graduates who cannot find proper employment in that profession. They come to me in my little political clinic. It is sad for a young woman or man at the beginning of life, having set out with high hopes and gone through a rigorous training course, to find himself or herself combing the country looking for a job and certainly not able to find one in this city or even the county where he or she would like to work.

On the other hand, there are technical skills of which this country is in extreme need and for which there are literally hundreds of vacancies, as presumably the Minister knows and he can satisfy himself about it by looking at the situations vacant columns in the daily papers. The people to fill these are simply not there. Apart altogether from the fact that here are instances of well-paid employment with a potentially very fine career profile, social position and so on, is it not simply a tragedy that jobs are going abegging in a country where a lot of people are looking for jobs? It is not simply that, but that feature is already a very strong inhibiting factor in our national economic growth. I appreciate that it is not easy to relate a topic such as education to the economy and that there are dimensions about this which prevent us from comparing one factor with another but the CII have complained repeatedly that one of the factors which holds back the country, apart from such other factors as the transport and communications networks, the abominable telephone service, the deteriorating roads in the city and country, the wage instability and the instability of credit as well as other such large scale macrofactors, is the severe shortages of skills in certain sectors. We know that the Minister cannot produce such skilled persons out of a hat but I urge him to refer back to what happened in the Seanad eight-and-a-half years ago and to ask himself, whether, though the month was July and the Dáil would not be meeting again until the following October, the Higher Education Authority would not have been better had they been given the additional function which I recommended at that time. However, it is not too late yet to give them that extra function.

I am not saying anything original when I say that we Irish suffer from attitudes to life which are the result of our conditioning down through generations. We have a set of responses which I suppose are normal in a population which, looking back to their grandfathers, think in terms of very poor, simple and non-pretentious people, people who would have been delighted that their grandchildren would be living in nice houses with central heating and enjoying three square meals a day without having to worry about where the meals for the next day were coming from. Perhaps we have the weakness and the foibles of an emerging population in any country with a history similar to ours but one of our weaknesses is a pathetic attachment to the white-collar job. Though I denounce this attachment I find the same emotion stirring within myself in regard to what the future of my children will be like. This notion is associated above all with the vision of the public service as a haven of security. People who work with their hands usually hope that their children or at least their grandchildren will work, complete with collar and tie, in a heated office. I am not denouncing that aspiration but it is a situation that is a drain and a handicap on the economy. It is a sad waste of human resources that our training and career guidance systems should be so defective that they tend to produce many people who are trained to work in jobs where they wear a collar and tie and never find it necessary to work up a sweat but who are not trained for the skills that are needed in the economy and for which the economy is prepared to pay richly. It is not simply a matter of talking about jobs for navvies or for those fellows who add to our priceless collection of ripped up footpaths in this city which must be unique in the world in terms of the number of footpaths that are ripped up, sealed and criss-crossed with multiple diggings going back long before I was born.

That relates to the archaeological excavation subhead.

It is very difficult to know which subhead it would come under, having regard to the broken condition of the roadways and to the general neglect in that area. We live in a shambles in this respect. In such circumstances one can hardly believe that there are more than 100 elected public representatives, of whom our honoured Chairman is one, whose main job is to look after such matters.

Perhaps the Deputy would get back to the Estimate and leave the Chair out of this.

I am sorry but one of my hobby-horses is standing invitingly close and with one leap I would be firmly in the saddle. There are very many high grade well paid jobs which do not mean necessarily wearing a collar and tie.

What about a vest?

Under the shirt or over the shirt?

The Deputy knows what a vest is.

Perhaps we do not share the same sartorial attributes. There are jobs other than white collar and a tie jobs which offer enormous scope for development of the personality and, let us not be shy about saying this, for making money.

A certain freedom around the neck is something to be desired.

It is easy to treat a subject such as this with levity, but it is not my intention to do that. I believe that the functions of the Higher Education Authority could be extended by way of a one section Bill. In saying that I am not in any way criticising the Authority. Perhaps I might succeed in persuading Deputy Collins to bring in such a Bill by way of a Private Members' Bill, a Bill that would extend the function of the Authority to give them, to use that ghastly trendy expression, a monitoring function—it was far from monitors we were all reared—in regard to employment opportunities in the technological branches of the economy.

The other point I wish to make relates to the financing of higher education. I know that I am in a minefield in this respect and that I may not be of one mind with Deputy Collins or with Deputy Bruton. I have not discussed the matter with them.

I am surprised.

I was not under any obligation to discuss the matter with Deputy Horgan.

Is there any significance in the fact that Deputy Kelly is speaking while his back is turned to Deputy Horgan?

I face the front but I know who are the people whom I must watch and I shall be watching very carefully as and from tomorrow. The situation in regard to higher education is one which will require us to call a halt and to redistribute the burden of expenditure. This is a nettle we must grasp but we will have to grasp many such nettles if this State is to be kept on a even keel. I was reading in——

The English newspapers.

Apart from the business section of The Sunday Times I never read an English newspaper.

Acting Chairman

Perhaps the Deputy would speak to the Estimate.

It is a bitter pill that I should be accused of looking over my shoulder at the English media by a party who themselves look first at what the English do before taking any step.

The Deputy is away again.

I suppose that the economy and the expectations of the people are topics which are outside the scope of this debate but in an Irish newspaper I was reading only the other day of a talk that had been given by Senator Whitaker. The Senator's message was that far from tax reliefs, from reliefs for the PAYE earner, from expansion in the public service, from life becoming easier for everybody, that if we wished to take up the burden of increased oil prices as we must and the payment for the enormous ballooning in imports, particularly in consumer imports, we will not be able to devote to our own ends the degree by which the wealth of the economy may grow in the next couple of years. That is a sinister message which presumably has a significance for higher education as well as for everything else. Yet, in that area, too, unrealistic expectations are being generated.

Recently leaflets were distributed by students in UCD concerning the level of grants. On a previous occasion when there was some kind of demonstration at Belfield I recall reading a banner held by some of the picketing students and which read, "cherish all the children of the nation equally". The implication was that those students were the ones who were not cherished when we know that exactly the opposite is the position. Though students experience a certain privation and shortage of money at this time of their lives, they should remember that when they qualify they will have their foot on the lowest rung of a ladder that will lead them into practically any discipline. A graduate of any discipline changes his social bracket by that act and that means his economic bracket also. I do not mind which comes first. Of course, it is possible that he may not make much of himself. He may have character failings and weaknesses that will prevent him from realising his full potential but essentially he is now on a ladder from which he cannot be thrust off by anybody. He is being given as much of a privilege as it is in the power of this State to confer.

I have had the benefit of an education by the National University of Ireland and I accept that that conferred a privilege on me. I am not in any sense trying to pretend that there are differences between us in this regard. The idea that the State must pay not just for the maintenance of these very expensive institutions but also pay for the maintenance of students is one that would be more acceptable and understandable in a rich country. It is premature to talk about that here. This is a personal view; it is not necessarily the view of my party although I hope it would be their view. I realise it is something of a nettle and we know the record of the party opposite with regard to grasping nettles.

In the end we will have to have some system of financing higher education by loans. I know that there will be students who will not pay back, who will vanish abroad, or who will not be in a position financially to pay back the money. Let it be so. We will have to think about some method of financing higher education so that the people who principally benefit from it will have to carry the burden. I know they cannot carry it while they are at college and that many parents cannot carry that burden. I do not ask that they should. I am not advocating any regulation that would have the effect of keeping people out of higher education who could benefit from it. Quite the contrary. The nation owes it to itself and to those individuals to make sure that everyone gets the chance which his talents make appropriate for him. At the same time, when afterwards he climbs on to the moving staircase that can only go upwards—unless the person becomes an alcoholic or has illness or misfortune—he should be required to repay the money to the State. In other words, he should be required to carry retrospectively some of the burden which others have had to carry in order to put him in that position. I am not a Marxist or anything like that—far from it—but I think it is quite wrong that a man who has had a poor start in life—perhaps his parents did not have enough gumption to save or to direct or guide him—and whose whole life will be in some deadend occupation should be asked to pay a brass farthing to maintain higher education. I know that higher education has other values. I regard myself as a beneficiary of the proposition that it has values other than purely economic ones. That poor man should not be asked to pay a brass farthing towards the cost of placing each year thousands of young people in a position of privilege for the rest of their lives. Without harshness or unreasonableness and without ideological bitterness they should be asked to contribute from their earnings in their later professional existence.

I am not going into the other dimensions of the matter such as whether we should demand more from somebody who emigrates. These are difficult questions and I do not want to be taken as making over-short work of them but the costs of higher education have become staggering. This is particularly so in the technical faculties but even in what I call the "chalk and blackboard" faculties like my own in which the main expense apart from salaries is simply acquiring books—we do not have any other equipment—the cost has become so staggering that it is a bit much to ask the State to go on not merely paying for it but to enhance its aid in the sense of paying salaries if you please to students or full maintenance virtually irrespective of the parents' means or of the students' future means. I know that many of them will not be able to make full recompense. So far as I am concerned they are welcome and are entitled to the support of the State but those of them who end up as doctors—in the way that a grub over-night turns into a butterfly, these students suddenly sprout pin stripe suits and cufflinks—are prescribing pills and potions for a lot of money. It is absolutely right that they should be asked within reason to contribute retrospectively something towards the cost of putting them into the position of which they are the principal beneficiaries.

I should like to sum up the two points I made. First, in my opinion, the function of the Higher Education Authority should be extended to give them a certain national career guidance function. Secondly, the Minister should get his Department to work on some system of extended loans for financing higher education. I bring my remarks to a close and wish the Department every success.

Is mian liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí a d'fháiltigh roimh na Meastacháin Fhorlíontacha seo. Dáiríre, i rith na díospóireachta, chuaigh na Teachtaí ar strae, ar seachrán anois is arís, agus bhí ar an Leas-Cheann Comhairle, nuair a bhí sé anseo, tarraingt ar an mbéal bhocht, mar a déarfá, chun iad a thabhairt ar ais go dtí bunábhair na Meastachán. Dachad is a cúig mhilliúin púnt atá i gceist sna Meastacháin Fhorlíontacha seo. Ba mhaith liom a rá leis an Teach—agus tagann sé leis an méid a bhí an Teachta Kelly ag rá nóiméad ó shin, gurb é seo an suim is mó airgid a chaitheadh ar oideachas sa tír seo riamh. Cuireann sé áthas ormsa gur chuir an Rialtas an t-airgead sin ar fáil domsa, mar Aire Oideachais. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil an caiteachas seo atá árduithe, á chaitheamh chun cuspóirí agus fheidhmeanna fiúntacha a chur i gcrích.

I have a good many notes and I want to go as quickly as I can through the various points made by Deputies in the debate. As I have said, in the Supplementary Estimate—second supplementaries in some cases and first in the case of Higher Education—the total sum involved is £45 million. The total sum for the year is the highest ever spent on education in this country. I mentioned this in my introductory speech and Deputies who spoke should pay attention to how this money was spent. It is my contention that the expenditure is watched very carefully and that it is directed to worthwhile educational objectives. I have every right to be pleased and to recommend the Estimates to the House.

Reference was made to actual buildings at third level. I want to tell the House that the following projects have been completed or are being planned; the Agriculture Building, University College, Dublin; the Arts Building, Trinity College; the Arts and Commerce Block, University College, Galway; the Arts Building, Maynooth; the Library and Lecture Theatre, University College, Cork; the Engineering Building, University College, Dublin; phase 2 of the Library, University College, Dublin; Thomond College; National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin; second phase of the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick; and the Cork Dental Hospital.

I should like to emphasise particularly that major extensions to seven regional technical colleges are included in the development at third level. There are major extensions also to three primary teacher training colleges. I submit that is a substantial capital development and one which has as its objective the provision of places at third level for the various types of students.

Deputy Kelly mentioned the feasibility of a system of loans. I will come back to that later. Obviously the Higher Education Authority are not hide-bound by the terms of the Act to which Deputy Kelly referred and make studies which are germane to the whole purpose of an tÚdarás. They have done a study on the feasibility of a system of loans. I have just received a copy of the study and I do not propose to take any action as of now until I see the full implications of a loans system.

Would the Minister publish the study for us?

Deputy Collins referred to transport and the suggested charge of £21 per annum for school transport. As the House knows, the Hyland Report to which Deputy Collins referred was commissioned by my penultimate predecessor in the Department of Education. I made a categorical statement on that report. I got the impression that Deputy Collins hoped I would not be in a position to make that categorical statement. My impression may have been wrong, but his approach to it suggested to me that he was rather disappointed.

Deputy Collins also referred to a change in policy with regard to the provision of transport for children whose parents are of the minority religions. I assured the Deputy at the time that that was not so. This also came up in the House when we were debating the NCEA Bill—Deputy Collins is not happy with the funding of the RTCs by the vocational education committees. He indicated that he had a preference for the total funding coming from the Higher Education Authority, in other words, that the HEA would, so to speak, invade the territory of the vocational education committees so far as the RTCs are concerned, and fund the regional technical colleges.

I notice a certain ambivalence on the part of many people with regard to this type of question. On the one hand we are supposed to favour devolution with maximum responsibility to be exercised at local level. On the other hand, we have this centralising tendency. That is what the suggestion by Deputy Collins means: a departure from a devolutionary system of financing and a return to central financing for RTCs. We always claimed that the regional technical colleges were established in certain areas and that they were expected to absorb the industrial and commercial flavour of the area and to cater for it. That very objective alone would indicate that the funding should be from the local committee.

Deputy Collins also referred to and condemned the rise in fees in the regional technical colleges. I contend that for the quality of the education provided in the RTCs, the fees are more than reasonable. The increase was in no way the kind of hardship Deputy Collins pretended it was. He also referred, as did Deputy Horgan later on, to the amount of money being allocated to Maynooth College. Both Deputies referred to recent problems there with regard to the dismissal of two members of the staff. The particular business we have with the college in this Supplementary Estimate is to approve a certain sum of money. Deputy Horgan said he had no intention of opposing it. As the House knows, university legislation is being prepared, and the whole status and problem of Maynooth will be settled in the context of the legislation which we are preparing for all the universities, the existing university colleges and future independent universities. We prepared the way for this legislation in the referendum last summer.

Deputy Collins mentioned the funding of a fishery science course at University College, Galway. I know there is a place for research and a very lively interest in fishery science. The Department of Fisheries and Forestry are interested in it. I do not know whether that Department have made any decision about any funding or any possible funding of the course. I know that there is a precedent in that the Department of Agriculture fund certain departments in University College, Dublin.

Deputy Collins claimed that the HEA pronounced against a rise in fees and said that the rise was not compensated for by grants. First of all, before the rise in fees the official document from the HEA in the Department of Education dealing with this matter was in agreement with the rise in fees. I should like to rebut Deputy Collins's suggestion about the rise not being compensated for by grants. Deputy Collins did not seem to know that the fee element in the aid given is separate from the maintenance grant and is automatically paid. I want to put it on record that since I took up office the maximum grant for students has been increased 100 per cent at maximum level and that the eligibility limit moved from £2,950 to £6,100 in that period. I know there is a point of view such as Deputy Kelly expressed, and, significantly, he did turn his back on Deputy Horgan when he was preparing to make that statement—I do not know how deep the symbolism went—but as far as both grant and eligibility limit are concerned an effort has been made by the present Government. If I may quote the President of the USI, he said that the real damage was done between 1973 and 1977 when no effort was made to keep in touch with rising inflation.

I referred to the hazards of international comparisons. In doing so I was not indicating that the statistics were invalid. However, I think Deputy Horgan put his finger on the area I was hinting at. A graduate from a university in the Netherlands or in Germany will have spent about seven years in university. There are complaints about this on the Continent. While Johann Schmidt might start in 1980 he would graduate in 1987, and Seán Mac Gabhann, who would start here at the same time, could graduate in 1983 or 1984, depending on which degree he took. Many of our arts degrees take three years and many of our science degrees take three or four years. Even the longest course, the medical course, is somewhat shorter than the normal degree period in many continental countries. That is one area in which it is difficult to make a scientific comparison. Another obvious one is that many of our students go into the universities at 17 years of age, which is far too young, and are coming out at 20. Many of them are not caught by the statistics. They are regarded as being not at university but in the pre-university system because of their ages.

Is this on the international classification?

I am simply saying that we have many students going into universities at 17 and coming out at 20 or 21, whereas in many countries it is not unusual to start university at 20.

Deputy Collins referred to grants in the non-university sector. He told the House that only 4 per cent of the non-university sector had grants. This may be true, but what he did not tell the House was the number of scholarships available and the number of EEC grants available in, for example, the regional technical colleges. They are of the same value as the grants and administered in the same way and they have been increased to the extent that in some areas vocational committees have had this year's scholarships for the regional technical colleges for all the people who were looking for them. I am glad to say that the demand for places in the regional technical colleges is increasing.

I was puzzled by the reference to secondary schools whose pupil numbers are falling. Deputy Collins made a plea for them, but I should like him to let me know where exactly these secondary schools are.

In the centre of the city.

I am not aware of secondary schools in the centre of the city whose numbers are falling.

What about the Masonic School?

The Masonic School is in Clonskea and that is not in the centre of the city by any definition.

It is a secondary school.

It is a secondary school which the governors intend to close. I would regret the closure of any school, small or large. I have no official information as of yet as to whether the decision has been taken to close it.

Because of the remarks made by Deputy Collins on Vote 31, I want to assure the House that we are committed to the proper heating of schools and to the provision of aid for the purchase of books to the maximum extent possible. As the House knows, there is provision in these Supplementary Estimates for an increase in that area.

Deputy Horgan started by referring to the position of Maynooth. I have already commented on the matter. Although one would find it difficult to get total agreement on the definition of "academic freedom", I agree with him that it should be maintained and sustained.

Deputy Horgan referred to the White Paper and he also referred to university legislation. The preliminary work on the White Paper has been done. It only remains for the Government to examine it minutely. We hope to have it ready for publication at an early date.

Before Tuesday?

Deputy Horgan referred to Wood Quay and welcomed the extra £75,000 available for work there. I am particularly proud that since I came to office Father Martin came to me and asked me for an increase in the amount of money available for excavations. I did not have any trouble in getting a substantial sum of money from the Minister for Finance for that purpose. In 1978 a very large sum was made available for excavations on that site. Deputy Horgan referred to the fact that money was being paid out as expenses rather than wages to archaeological assistants on the site. That is true and, as far as I know, that was done at the request of the people concerned because they felt they had more freedom. They were agricultural undergraduates and graduates and they felt that system suited them better.

On Vote 31 Deputy Horgan welcomed the extra money, £500,000, being made available in the Estimate for the heating of national schools. I should like to make it clear that that sum was for the heating of schools in the period up to 31 December 1979, the period covered by the Estimate. Deputy Horgan also referred to the cost of school books and welcomed the increase in the grant for them. With regard to Vote 32, Deputy Horgan wanted to know if the money under subhead A.1 was for oil. There is confusion about this matter. Subhead A.1 provides for the capitation grant, including teachers' salaries grant. The Deputy did not see how one could distinguish between subhead A.1 and subhead B, incremental salary grant. That is an historical matter. Subhead A.1 is a capitation grant paid to the schools and when this Estimate was initiated in the twenties the capitation grant was paid to the schools and had an element in it—I remember from my innocent trade union days arguing to establish that—for the payment of school salaries of secondary teachers. There is still a school salary which is paid by the schools and an incremental salary which is paid by the State. The reference in subhead A.1 is to the school salary rather than the incremental one.

Deputy Horgan raised some points about community schools. Parliamentary questions will be coming up which will help to clear the Deputy's mind of any doubts about how excellently I have handled the whole business of the community schools. The Deputy will have an opportunity of congratulating me again during Question Time. I am sure the Deputy is as pleased as I am that we made such progress in this very difficult field. Deputy Horgan mentioned the problem of children who live far away from a school but are not in sufficient numbers to warrant a bus service to school. I accept that that is a problem but I do not think it is possible to work out a system that will obviate hardship in toto. The school transport scheme is a very expensive one and it is the intention of my Department to administer it with as much humanity as possible, making as many allowances as possible and bending the rules if necessary here and there. No matter how elaborate we devise a system it will not cover every possible eventuality.

Deputy Horgan welcomed the £500,000 for the primary education system and referred to the boards of management and the problems. I agree that boards of management without teachers are missing an important element which can contribute a great deal. I can assure the Deputy that it will be my earnest endeavour to get the boards of management put together to the satisfaction of all participating groups as soon as possible. I do not agree with the Deputy when he stated that our post primary or secondary system is split in four ways. I would prefer to look at it as one system with variety. There is nothing wrong with variety in education and I do not think the effectiveness of the educational process is in any way impaired by the fact that there are community, comprehensive, vocational and secondary schools. It is my contention that the system is enriched by that. With regard to the future of vocational schools, I should like to assure the House that I see a very good future for them. There will be considerable development of vocational schools. Deputy John Ryan is on record as thanking me for the fine vocational education provision we are making in Thurles town.

Deputy Horgan spoke about the current account going into the red on that account. As the Deputy is aware the HEA assess the needs of the various designated institutions and if there is a deficit it is noted. On a current account in a large transaction such as that, I do not think one could expect to have spot on budgeting year by year, particularly when we are dealing with the financial year from January to December and the academic year is from October to June. The Deputy also referred to the concept of academic freedom and my views on that are on record. Deputy Griffin displayed an interest in numismatics which does him credit. The "Gunmoney Crown" acted as the basis of his entire contribution. He spent a good deal of time talking about it and its proper presentation. Had he listened to my introductory speech he would have known that it is covered in gold, and that it did not tarnish. He indicated that if this coin was not properly housed it might rust. I do not think gold rusts. I am sure he will sleep soundly tonight when he knows that "Gunmoney Crown" hopefully will be well housed and will not suffer the fate he feared for it.

I have indicated to the House already—and do not need to repeat—what Deputy Griffin said with regard to Wood Quay. I pointed out that Fr. Martin came into me in 1977, that I provided him with more money in 1977 and in 1978, gave him a substantial sum of money for excavation at Wood Quay, and we are coming into the House this evening to provide more money still.

Deputy Ryan dealt with the problem which seems to be surfacing everywhere, that is, the one of the shortage of skilled personnel for industry. I would not like people to get alarmist about it; it seems to me that everybody is up talking about that. I know that we are today developing our industrial arm. I know there are great opportunities. The fact that there are opportunities will direct the interest and gaze of parents and students to the necessary disciplines. I made certificate presentations at a competition sponsored by a computer company, at which one of the people involved in the computer business said that he would prefer a liberal arts base on which to impose the technical training in computer science. It was an interesting kind of idea. Therefore, there is not necessarily the mutual exclusivity Deputy Ryan fears between the ordinary academic type subjects and the more scientific ones. It is true that in the past, as Deputy Kelly also remarked, there was an overemphasis on the white collar type job. Frankly, I do not think that there is such a big danger in that regard nowadays.

My philosophy on this is that what was wrong was more the philosophy which indicated that a certain type of education stereotyped the student for a certain type of job, that that is where the fault lay rather than in the type of education given. I remember going to an AnCO training centre in Ballyfermot and being very pleased to find somebody there undergoing one of the skilled tradesmen courses who had just graduated in arts from one of our universities. Someone might think that this was a great waste of time but it gave me hope that this stereotyping of people through the subjects they took might be dying. In that regard we could look at the United States where they do not allow that kind of thing to occur; in fact there the Ph.D may be cleaning windows the following day in a practical way if he finds he has no particular job to do in his own field. We could throw off some of our thought shackles in this regard, and it would be a great help.

Hear, hear.

Deputy Ryan talked of a shortage of places in third-level schools. I think I have indicated the efforts being made by way of capital expenditure in the universities, the teacher training colleges but, above all, in the regional technical colleges, and I have indicated to the House that there have been extensions to several.

I want to let Deputy Bruton know about some of the savings about which he waxed so indignant. For example he referred to the £400,000, I think it was. If I could find my note on this, that £400,000 was actually transferred to something else and subsequently spent.

What £400,000?

Here it is.

Subhead A.1 on Vote 31.

The Higher Education grant. All the capital moneys for the Higher Education Authority were spent. Reversing the role of Cassandra who always prophesied the truth and was never believed, I was afraid Deputy Bruton would be believed although he did not have the truth. The saving on the building was spent on equipment, and that is clear from the Supplementary Estimate; the £400,000 was transferred from building to equipment; that is the point I am making. The saving shown is £490,200, the extra £90,200 is bank interest which was handed back by the Higher Education Authority.

On what was that spent?

I am talking about the Higher Education grant.

What was the saving spent on?

On equipment. I take it the Deputy does not want me to detail it in cups and saucers.

Deputy Bruton spoke also about the clerical assistants and why the saving. I am glad to tell the House that this was a new scheme initiated by me. No clerical assistants had been available to any secondary school hitherto. The House will understand that in getting a new scheme going there would be problems, that the whole system would not run smoothly from the beginning. But I am very proud to tell the House that 340 have been appointed already and we intend to fill out the full complement. I should like to tell Deputy Bruton also that as far as the caretakers are concerned, 190 have been appointed. It is interesting for the House to know that the whole climate of employment is now much better, that there are not so many people around looking for these jobs as there used to be. For that reason we are somewhat slower in the actual appointments than we had hoped. But I am satisfied that in initiating the scheme, in employing the clerical assistants and the caretakers, and in setting a scheme under way, I deserve the support of this House.

To whom should one apply for one of these jobs the Minister cannot fill?

The boards of management of the schools advertise for them.

I have got a few clients for the Minister.

I am very glad to hear that because I thought we might not be able to get any more.

I think Deputy Bruton came under the strict eye of the Chair in regard to part of his speech on Primary Education, his emphasis on the achievement of a degree of numeracy and literacy. I agree with him but I will also yield to the Chair because we may have another opportunity to talk about that.

There were some savings in the capital expenditure on the training colleges referred to by Deputy Bruton. As the Deputy knows very well—I know he has a strong interest in farming—it was a very bad year for construction work. Any saving there was due simply to the inability of builders to continue their work during the very severe weather. I think Deputy Bruton referred to that matter under Secondary Education. Does he understand now the point I made to Deputy Horgan about subheads A.1 and B?

There are two factors I should like to mention in regard to Deputy Bruton's point about expenditure under subhead H.2—all our builders were retarded during the spring by bad weather. I should like to point out also—and it was in this connection that I made an interjection when Deputy Bruton was talking about £700,000 almost building a school—in the construction industry itself there has been considerable overheating. A great deal of building is going on and tender prices for schools consequently resulted in being considerably in excess of the cost limits. We had to get going on bills of reduction, which I am sure the Deputy will agree is part of my function.

The Minister did not start the schools and spend the money because he could not agree on the price.

It is not that. We did not start the schools as early as we might have started them until we agreed the price.

Could the Minister not have started more schools in order to use up the money?

The Minister should be allowed conclude.

We were not able to cater for the full demands. I explained to Deputy Bruton, while he was speaking, about more money for examinations. This extra money was paid to examiners for examining the scripts and in travel and maintenance allowances. I already pointed out to the House that Deputy Bruton is wrong when he says that there is not much building going on at third level. I have already outlined the building that is going on. I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that it is substantial and praiseworthy.

Why was there a saving, then? I only mentioned that in the context of the saving.

I told the Deputy why it was not all spent.

Minister and Deputy, we cannot have questions across the House in this fashion.

I take the Deputy's point, which was not relevant, about the export of objets d'art. I will consult with my Minister of State on the promise which Deputy Bruton said he made in the House about legislation. We also initiated a praiseworthy scheme of providing child care assistance during the year. I am glad to inform the Deputy that the full 70 will be employed by the end of this month. They do very good work in the handicapped schools and they were welcomed with open arms by the schools. Not merely will the 70 we originally envisaged be appointed by the end of this month but ten additional assistants are being allocated and will eventually be appointed.

I want, in reference to what Deputy Ryan was talking about, to refer to the quite substantial sum of money that was provided by me to initiate courses which resulted from the study of the Manpower Consultative Committee. A sum of £1,725,000 was provided by the Department of Education to finance courses in various third-level institutions—the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick, university colleges and RTCs—to equip people for the skilled jobs which are available, as various Deputies have said and as the House is fully aware.

I felt that Deputy Kelly was doing a little filling in an amusing way. He spoke about his attempt to amend the Bill setting up An tUdarás um Ard Oideachas Bill and his failure, which he seemed to regret. I pointed out in another connection that the Higher Education Authority are not inhibited from making studies along the lines Deputy Kelly referred to. He said he wanted to watch the scene, so to speak, and to be able to inform parents the type of education and the courses in education which would put them in a seller's market, as he put it. This is being done increasingly not merely by the Higher Education Authority but by the NCEA and by individual guidance teachers in schools.

Deputy Kelly went on to say that it was time to call a halt to a rise in the expenditure on third-level education. I am not so sure that Deputy Kelly, as he said would find many in agreement on this. It was significant that he turned his back on Deputy Horgan and then started on this particular line. In fairness to him, he says what he thinks; but he created a kind of euphoric picture of the graduate with his foot on the social and economic ladder climbing steadily upwards, doling out medicines, nostrums, pills and so on to various people and being well paid for it. He felt that the graduate should pay for this privilege. He came down heavily on the side of loans rather than grants. I have already told the House that the Higher Education Authority have made a study of the possibility of loans. I am not making any statement about my view on it at the moment but I believe it will be necessary to continue the system of grants for those who cannot afford third-level education.

I maintain that very often those who are from either large families, reasonably well off, or from families who are not well off should not be excluded from third level education because they have not got the money to pay. If on top of the economic worries that will be on them because of the lack of ability on the part of their parents to pay they have this idea of a loan hanging over them, it would not be very good for them psychologically while they are at their third level studies. In that area, whatever about a wider use of loans, I maintain that grants are necessary.

Deputy Kelly said this side of the ill were not very good at grasping at nettles. He said we would have to grasp a nettle. He quoted Senator Whitaker as saying we were living above our means. I know also that a study made sometime ago on the whole educational system by an American said we would not be able to cope with the rising costs in our educational system. I will stick with the agrarian metaphor and say that I have a hard furrow to hoe, never mind the grasping of nettles, but that it is the intention of the Government to hoe that furrow and maintain the initiative in education, which has always been the proud boast of the party which forms the Government.

I recommend to the House the Supplementary Estimates. I thank those who contributed to the debate. I am sure that many Deputies privately are amazed that the Government have been so good at providing money for education since they took office. I know that the Jeremiahs said it could not be done. I know that we have international experts and economists who say that we shall not be able to maintain our position. However, in recommending to this House Supplementary Estimates to a total value of £45 million, the Government are determined to maintain progress in education and to sustain people as long as possible in the system by aiding them with grants and special finances.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share