Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 May 1994

Vol. 443 No. 4

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sale of Primary Schools.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

8 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Education, in regard to her public statement on 11 May 1994, the steps if any she intends to take to recover moneys due to the Exchequer in respect of capital grants paid on approximately 70 primary schools sold over the past five years; the proportion of the money which is recoverable; if, in regard to the apparent difficulty in recovering such moneys, she intends to introduce any new regulations or conditions to ensure the prompt repayment of taxpayers money when schools are sold; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I wish to clarify for the Deputy that some 70 national schools have been closed over the past five years but not all of these have been sold. It is estimated that some 50 schools have been sold in that period although some of them may have been closed prior to the period in question. I am aware that the Deputy has been promised in this House precise details of the number of schools sold over the past five years. It has proved difficult to extract the information from the Department's records but every effort is being made to collect it and to have it forwarded to him.

In many cases where national schools are closed the Department initiates the closure. The school authorities may decide to sell the premises but, if so, they must seek the Minister's agreement to release her interest. It is usually at this point that a financial consideration arises having regard to the amount of the State investment in the buildings over the years.

It should be pointed out in this regard that State investment will have been in the buildings only. The site will have been provided through local sources without any financial contribution from the State.

Because of all our concerns about the State's investment in schools my Department is at present engaged in discussions with the managerial association for primary schools on the whole issue of the de-vesting and sale of former national schools with a view to arriving at transparent and possibly formula-based arrangements acceptable to all parties.

I will keep the Deputy and the House informed.

I thank the Minister for her reply, but I am at a loss to understand why it has taken the Department of Education two years to establish exactly the number of schools which have been sold. Since she is on public record as stating that the State will recoup all of the money due to it from the sale of primary schools, will she tell the House her estimate of the amount of money owed to the State from the sale of primary schools, the number of schools of school authorities which have been contacted and asked to repay money to the State and the amount of money involved?

I do not have that information.

That is not acceptable. This question, which was tabled properly on the Order Paper for reply today, asked specifically for information regarding the amount of money involved. The Minister will have to appreciate that she is accountable to this House and that when Members ask for information on public money the least they are entitled to is that the Minister research the matter and give them the reply. For the past two years I have been asking questions about the number of schools which have been closed, the numbers sold and whether the money invested by the State has been refunded to it, and it is about time I got a reply.

There is no need to embark upon a speech.

I stated in my reply that it has proven difficult to get this information but every effort is being made to get it. The question regarding the past five years was tabled on 4 May last. The process of compiling the information is ongoing and I will come back to the Deputy on it. I share the Deputy's concern about the sale of properties — it is a common concern — and instead of waiting for the information, which I will come back to the House on, I have initiated talks with the managerial authorities so that we can put in place a formula which will allow us to dispose of primary schools in an orderly and transparent way. Having regard to demographic trends, we can expect the sale of more property in the primary school sector. I will continue to seek the information and will come back to the Deputy.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Can I take it that no refunds are sought in the case of schools which are not sold and are now used by local communities?

Refunds of investment in buildings are sought in cases where the Minister has expressed a disinterest in the property as it is no longer used for educational purposes. To the best of my knowledge, educational activities are no longer continued in a building after the Minister has expressed a disinterest in it, at which stage the trustees are released from the obligation to ensure that it is used for educational purposes and a return is sought on the investment in it.

I want to correct a point made by the Minister. The first question relating to the position during the past five years was not put down on 4 May but, from memory, was put down in October 1992. Will the Minister agree that her Department has not made any attempt to recover the moneys owed to the State from the 50 schools which have been sold? While I appreciate her announcement that she is putting in place procedures to deal with the future sale of schools, both she and her Department have been remiss in not seeking a refund of the moneys owed from those schools which have been sold. She is not even in a position to tell us the amount owed to the State; there is not even an estimate on the amount owed to it. Will the Minister agree that it is very difficult for those communities which are seeking new primary schools or funding for the refurbishment of existing primary schools to stomach a situation whereby educational resources are being sold from under the Minister's nose and she does not even know the loss to the State?

For the record, I have in my files a copy of two questions on this matter put down for written answer. The first question, which was put on 17 November 1993, asked the number of schools sold and the amount of capital grants refunded. I said in my reply the information was not readily available, that I was having the matter examined and would communicate with the Deputy.

The Minister did not communicate with me.

The second question, which was put down on 4 May last, asked the capital grants refunded arising from the sale of primary schools which were promised. I said in my reply, of which Deputy Gilmore has a copy, that a total amount of £68,124 was received during the period in question in respect of the refund of capital grants from closed national schools. That was the amount received.

How much did the Minister ask for?

A breakdown of the amount by year in respect of the schools which have been closed is being finalised and I will be in touch with the Deputy. That question was put down on 4 May last, and I would not like the House to think that the Minister was being obstructive in terms of questions put down by Deputy Gilmore. I have responded to the questions he put down in November and May and while the answers may not be adequate in terms of detail I have promised——

It is not a very hard question to answer. How much does the Minister think is owed to the State?

Let us hear the Minister without interruption.

A total of £68,124 was received, and a breakdown of the amount by year in respect of the schools which were closed during the period in question is being finalised. I will, of course, be in touch with the Deputy.

No grade.

Question No. 9.

On a point of order, is it possible to take Question No. 7?

No. The Chair is continually admonishing Members when it comes to dealing with Priority Questions to strive earnestly to complete the questions within the 20 minutes time limit laid down. I did so again today, and I do so ad nauseam, but unfortunately Members do not seem to respond. Question No. 9, please.

Top
Share