Vol. 453 No. 4
13 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Finance whether his Department was consulted in relation to the financial implications of the White Paper on Education; whether the policy objectives in the paper have been costed by his Department; if he will confirm that the cumulative costs of implementation up to the year 2000, would together with provisions for pensions, exceed £1 billion; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9438/95]
The White Paper on Education entitled, Charting our Education Future, was published following consideration and approval by the Government. The Minister for Finance participated in that process which would, of course, have included consideration of the cost implications of the White Paper.
I could not confirm the cumulative cost to the year 2000 of implementation of the White Paper policy proposals and provision for pensions referred to by the Deputy. As the Deputy will appreciate, the cost of education measures is determined to a large extent by pay costs, which in turn reflect numbers employed in the sector and pay rates at any given time. It would not be useful or appropriate to comment on what these cost elements might be to the year 2000.
As indicated in the White Paper, the Government will aim to provide the resources for the development needs identified in the White Paper, within the framework of the budgetary parameters set out in the Government of renewal policy document, including the acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty convergence conditions. The amount which can be made available in any given year will have to be decided by the Government in the context of its financial position and its other public expenditure priorities at that time. In this context the Government will have the opportunity to consider any potential for reallocating resources within the education sector in the light of demographic changes.
We had a long debate in this House this morning about information, transparency, openness and accountability. In that context will the Minister say whether the Department of Finance conducted an estimate of the cost implications of the policy proposals, which are now Government policy, for the period between now and the year 2000? Why was not one word in the 225 pages of the first edition of this benighted document devoted to the subject of how much it would cost? Will the Minister say — a simple yes or no will suffice — whether the Department attempted to evaluate the cost implications? If so, will he indicate the cost implications in the White Paper? If the Department did not attempt such an evaluation, will the Minister explain the reason for not doing so?
There is a number of factors which would render any medium-term cost estimates problematic at this stage. For instance, as indicated in the White Paper, the report of the steering committee on the future development of higher education is not available and the issue of early retirement has not been concluded. The impact of demographic change on the cost of education is difficult to assess at this stage. Accordingly, I am not prepared to elaborate further apart from saying that any cost arising from implementation of the White Paper proposals will be met within the constraints of the Government's budgetary parameters and the Maastricht Treaty convergence conditions. The Department has produced round numbers with qualifications and possibilities——
May we have them?
Because of the constraints I already outlined, it would be futile to give figures because they would immediately become the cornerstone of people's thinking, and that would be unrealistic.
I asked a fair and straight question. What are the ballpark figures, in the best judgment of the Department of Finance for this hugely expensive process of change in our education system? The Minister conceded there are ballpark figures available but like the Taoiseach, he said he will not give them to the House because they might confuse or mislead the public. As a Member I want to know the amount involved, particularly since there is an ongoing debate on the White Paper. I plead with the Minister to comply with the Constitution to some extent and give a rough estimate of the cost implications of the White Paper. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
The Department undertook rough evaluations——
The Minister should tell us what they are.
I do not have them. The figures are so tentative and qualified——
So frightening.
I do not know about that. It would be unrealistic to give concrete numbers when there are so many imponderables. The principle of giving figures is not the issue here, but when figures are given they ought to be realistic.
Having regard to the debate earlier today which has connotations relating to another day's Question Time which some people believe led to the beef tribunal report, perhaps the Minister for Finance will consider giving the figures involved. As the Minister confirmed, the Department of Finance has made straightforward calculations of the cost of the White Paper, as it does with every proposal that comes before Government. That is the role of the Department. Perhaps it is unfair to ask the Minister of State to take responsibility for giving those figures to the House, but the Minister for Finance should reconsider the position and give the figures in the interests of openness, transparency and accountability.
I will pass those remarks to the Minister.
Given that the Minister has responsibility for public expenditure, will he accept that the White Paper as it stands is a meaningless document in that it does not have the financial parameters to back it up? Without the stamp of authority from the Department of Finance the aspirations — that is all they are — in that paper are meaningless. When that Department has completed the full costings that may substantially alter the contents of the White Paper.
It may only alter the timeframe.
If that was the case the Minister would have the figures.
Of course the White Paper must be costed, but that can only be done in the context of the Government's ability to make the money available without breaching its own expenditure parameters and that may take a longer period of time. I do not accept the Deputy's suggestion that it will not be proceeded with.
I must protest, even if the estimates are rough and there are imponderables, at not being given the figures as I consider I am entitled to more than that. I am surprised and disappointed that the Minister of State was sent in here today to stonewall on the issue given that I believe his Department has prepared estimates and knows we are dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds. Will he indicate if that is the case? I understood from the Minister's reply that he was not willing to confirm that £1 billion would be the cost of implementing the programme between now and the end of the century. Is he saying that the programme could be implemented before the end of this century without the expenditure of at least £1 billion?
I am not in possession of sufficient information to answer that question.
