I move:
That a sum not exceeding £334,618,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1982, for Post-Primary Education.
Estimates, 1982. - Vote 31: Post-Primary Education.
Is there any basis for an article which was published in the newspapers a week ago suggesting that there would be possible savings in this Vote by way of charging school fees for all children above the age of 15 attending post-primary schools?
I can only repeat that I have no responsibility for the nature of the speculation indulged in by the authors of articles in newspapers.
I am talking about the education correspondent of one of our daily national newspapers and, while I know that the Minister has no responsibility for the correspondent, equally I am sure he would disclaim any responsibility for the Minister. I am merely asking whether there is any foundation for the suggestion contained in the article in question to the effect that it is the intention of the Government to charge a fee for children above the age of 15 who are attending post-primary education.
No such decision has been made by the Government and neither have any such discussions taken place.
Again, that was not my question. I asked whether consideration was being given to the imposition of such a charge.
How could consideration have been given to it if there was no decision and no discussion?
I will answer that in the following way: if the £45 million ball of smoke has not yet been decided by the Government in a specific form and within a specific Department but if in the past month each Department have presented to the Department of Finance proposals about how spending cuts or savings might be effected, contained within the overall proposals there may well be proposals from the Minister for Education in relation to savings in his area. In that way the proposal may be there though not yet discussed or decided on by the Government. The Minister has chosen his words carefully but perhaps he would care to comment now that I have answered the question he asked.
I admire the tenacity with which the Deputy is pursuing all these lines of inquiry but I can only point out that questions of this nature are in the form of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife" because regardless of what answer one gives it conveys the impression of some misdemeanour or misbehaviour by the party in question. For that reason I do not choose to reply to the question in the form put by the Deputy. I have indicated that no such decision has been made and that no such discussions have taken place but the Deputy knows well that neither he nor anyone else is in a position to anticipate what anybody might choose to talk about at some future date.
I am satisfied with the Minister's answer but would draw the attention of the House to the difference in the content and tone of his answer to this question compared with his answer in relation to the matter contained in the same article concerning school transport.
I should like the Minister to spell out again the figures in respect of the Estimate for Primary Education and that for Post-Primary Education so that I may determine what the difference is.
In round figures, the Vote for Primary Education is £285 million whereas the Vote for Post-Primary Education is £334 million. That represents approximately £50 million more for Post-Primary Education.
Does the Minister consider this to be in the interest of fair play so far as primary education is concerned especially since that is the only level of education that many people are in a position to avail of?
The Deputy is making a valid point in that a number of people, including myself, have expressed concern to ensure that the right balance is struck in regard to the way in which moneys are allocated to the different levels of education. Inevitably there will be differences of priority as between people. Some will put more emphasis on one level of education rather than on another. To refer again to Deputy Boland, I am on record as having said on a number of occasions that perhaps there is a need for greater priority to be given to the primary school level of education. For that reason I shall not attempt to reply in detail to questions of the kind put by Deputy Boland. The particular reason why I had to be more careful in replying to Deputy Boland on the question of school transport, is because, as he knows, there were some forms of proposals — I am not saying these were from either the Minister or the Government — in the area of school transport. If I were to say I were not aware of that——
Since 1978.
There were some later than that but if the Deputy wishes to go back further, I will remind him that so far as I am aware the first suggestion in this regard was made by Deputy Bruton in 1976. However, the point is that if a Government are reviewing their spending programmes they must consider various headings of expenditure. If they failed to do so I am sure the Deputies opposite would be the first to accuse us of some form of dereliction of duty.
(Dún Laoghaire): The Government also make the decisions.
I was very careful to say in reply to Deputy Boland that no such decision had been made about school transport and that no such discussion had taken place with the Government.
The Minister was not so careful on the other question about charging fees to secondary school pupils.
I asked the Minister a specific question but he proceeded to give a rambling answer to Deputy Boland. Apparently as an aside the Minister said in the course of that answer that he is on record as saying that he considered greater attention should be given to primary education than to the other levels. Is it not reasonable to expect that that attitude be reflected in the Estimate whereas what we have is a difference of £50 million in respect of this level of education compared with post-primary education? What is the Minister doing to ensure that greater priority is given to primary education? What is the Minister going to do about it because the figures there are contradictory?
I can sympathise with Deputy Bermingham's point of view.
There is no point in the Minister sympathising with me. I want to know what he is going to do about it.
I must point out to the Deputy, with respect, that he was a member of the Government party, or rather he was not a member of the Government but was a party to the decisions taken on these Estimates because these were struck in January last. What I am doing this year in effect is administering decisions that were taken——
(Cavan-Monaghan): No.
I am, because——
(Cavan-Monaghan): The budget was rejected and it was over to them as from then.
It was not, and we made it quite clear, in the interests of some form of reasonable administration for 1982, that it would not be possible to go back, re-open and revise the estimates that had already been established. Therefore, what is happening in spending for primary and post-primary education this year is in effect to spend the sums of money that had been decided on in January last. Deputy Bermingham will have to wait until 1983 to see the first fruits of the Fianna Fáil approach to this question.
I want to ask you, Sir, after all this hassle here since 10.30 this morning——
Acting Chairman
Is the Deputy rising on a point of order?
I am. Is the Minister now saying that he has no responsibility for these Estimates?
The Minister is saying what he has said already, that it would be grossly irresponsible to try to disrupt spending on education in the middle of a school year, as the Deputy well knows.
On a point of order, Sir, and I hesitate to make this, I am sure it is not deliberate, but I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister is misleading the House. In relation to Vote 29——
Acting Chairman
Is this a point of order?
I am on a point of order. Sir, I am making the point that the Minister is misleading the House in so far as he has explained to the House that in his Supplementary Estimate on Vote 29 he is implementing the budgetary provisions of 25 March last and yet, two Votes later, he insists that he was unable to do anything with the Vote because it was prepared in January last. I am afraid that means that the Minister has misled the House on one Vote or the other. Would he care to indicate which?
I was finding it impossible to hear what Deputy Boland was saying but now since he has taken to shouting at the Chair I can hear him.
I am sorry if my replies have given the impression of misleading the House. Let me assure you, Sir, that there is no such intention on my part. Inevitably when one is replying, as one is attempting to do briefly, apparently one may create that impression. May I suggest to Deputy Boland — as I imagine he would recognise — that it is feasible to come along and simply add on a smallish amount of money for once-off type grants and so on, or for grants in aid of the expenses of a number of youth activities, it is feasible to do that. I know, Sir, that it would be feasible to add on some sums of money to spending in various levels of education, I am not disputing that, but what I am suggesting is that if one wanted to achieve any sort of substantial alterations in the pattern of education spending, that is not something which can be done at the drop of a hat or overnight. Let me point out that we were able to make one change which did affect primary education, namely, the reversal of the school entry age. We did that because it was administratively feasible to do so and we made provision for it.
Let me say also that if one were to try to go further than that it would be appropriate to provide time for consultation with the various interests involved in education, the various teaching bodies, the management groups, parents and so on. For that reason I certainly did not wish to attempt any instant, overnight changes in the pattern of education spending. Therefore, I do not feel that my replies were misleading in the context of dealing with what is, after all, supposed to be a discussion on the Estimates for spending for this year and not, Sir, at this stage, I understood, a discussion on the whole, general reform or policy for education.
The Government had their opportunity in their budget to change any of the Estimates published in January. They did so in respect of whichever Estimates they choose to change. They did not do so in respect of those Estimates they wished to adopt in their totality. It ill behoves the Minister, or some of his colleagues whom I have noted also in recent days, to adopt this Pontius Pilate-like attitude of endeavouring to suggest that the Estimates were incapable of being altered.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Boland, what we are discussing here is Vote 31 — the Post Primary Education Estimate for a sum of £334,618,000. I have not yet heard any suggestion that that should not be adopted. Do we take it that the Deputy is opposing the Estimate? We have got bogged down somewhat on this one. The argument has been going on for over ten minutes. We want to know is the Estimate agreed or, if it is not agreed, is there a case being put forward as to why it should not be adopted? In the interests of good order and keeping the business of the House going, I should like to know that.
If the Chair wants to invite me, or the other Members who are in the House, to make a contribution on post-primary education I imagine that, in the interests of the remainder of the Estimates——
Acting Chairman
I am asking Deputy Boland is he opposing the Estimate.
You have no right to ask that, Sir, I am entitled to speak on it, with respect to the Chair.
Acting Chairman
Again I must say that what is happening is pure repetition. I have allowed ten minutes for the Estimate but I have not heard anything which would, if you like, justify a prolonged discussion. As presiding chairman here I have an obligation to ensure that business is proceeded with. I see that as my duty so, for that reason, I am asking is the Estimate agreed?
Can the Minister for Education assure this House that if a decision is taken by the Government to effect savings under the heading of Primary School Education, that decision will not be reversed afterwards by the parliamentary party? Is he aware that a Fianna Fáil Government took a decision some years ago to save money and reduce school transport and that the parliamentary party met and overruled the Government decision of that time? Can the Minister give us an assurance now that if the Government do take decisions, the parliamentary party will not override them afterwards?
Or no other parliamentary party in this House.
First of all, I am not so aware.
The Minister is not; ah, now.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Minister remember the document that was signed by 30 members of the Fianna Fáil Party protesting against the proposal to interfere with school transport?
There were public meetings held in Westmeath which I attended.
I am simply saying that I am not so aware. If I may continue to reply, the basic question Deputy L'Estrange is asking is will decisions of the Government be brought forward to this House. The precise way in which matters are discussed or debated outside of this Chamber, with respect, is none of Deputy L'Estrange's business.
With all due deference to the Minister, I am not asking him will they be brought forward to this House. I am asking him will the same thing happen as did before, that when a Fianna Fáil Government took a definite decision to reduce school transport, a parliamentary party meeting was called — as Deputy Fitzpatrick has said — and a document signed by 33 members. It appeared from the papers next day that the Government had given in to the wishes of the parliamentary party and had taken a U-turn.
Was that the document found by the——
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Has Deputy L'Estrange made his point?
Yes, but I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer.
Acting Chairman
Does the Minister wish to reply to that?
Deputy Gallagher should go back to making coffins in Dungloe.
(Donegal South-West): I will present the Deputy with one.
The Deputy would need education before he could make a coffin.
(Interruptions.)
Sir, I cannot see how these contributions relate to the Vote before the House.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to make one short observation arising out of something the Minister said. I want to go on record as protesting against the attitude of members of the Government washing their hands of the present Estimates. These Estimates are the Estimates of the present Government. They were adopted by them when they took office and altered where it suited them. The best evidence of that was given by the Minister this morning when he told the House that a figure of £229,000 was a Supplementary Estimate to implement a budget statement made on 25 March. How the Minister can say that these Estimates are not his is beyond me. The Minister has adopted them and rejected the January budget. His party introduced their own budget along different lines. The £45 million mentioned so often this morning is an alteration in the Estimate. It is a fact that that was an alteration in an Estimate and money must be found for it. The Estimates were altered by way of additions and reductions. I do not want to hear any more about these Estimates not being the Government's.
Is the Minister taking responsibility for this Estimate?
I should like to point out that we made it clear when the Coalition were defeated on their budget proposals, including these Estimates, and in the course of the subsequent general election campaign that it would not be feasible to recast the entire budget. We made it clear that we would be only able to select a small number of areas in which to make any sort of substantial change. We spelled out what those substantial changes would be and we also said that it might be possible to make a number of small alterations or amendments.
(Dún Laoghaire): Like the Tony Gregory deal.
We said that, by and large, the Estimates brought forward by the Coalition would have to stand and be adopted. We made it clear that it would be 1983 before the people would see what could be described as a full Fianna Fáil budget.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Before the people would see the enormity of Fianna Fáil's mess.
In the formal parliamentary sense, of course I am accepting responsibility for these Estimates but I do not see that I am misleading the House or the people or being in any way inaccurate in pointing out the basis on which these Estimates were prepared. Deputy Fitzpatrick should be aware of the nature of the points I am making since he is such an experienced Member of the House.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister said that any alterations which were made were ventilated in the election campaign but the change in the PRSI system was never mentioned in that campaign.
(Dún Laoghaire): The Tony Gregory deal was never mentioned.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The change in the PRSI system was not mentioned until the Minister was beaten about the ears. It was changed then and that alteration was made in the Estimates. They are the Minister's Estimates and he cannot get away from that fact.
Of course that one was done in the national interest, to win a by-election.
Vote put and agreed to.