Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 May 1998

Vol. 491 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Regional Education Boards.

Mr. O'Shea:

I welcome the opportunity of raising this serious matter. During the Second Stage debate on the Education (No. 2) Bill, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, made two statements regarding the cost of the regional education boards proposed by his predecessor, Niamh Bhreathnach. At the beginning of the debate, the Minister stated:

I spent many months in opposition attempting to get the previous Government to tell the House what the boards would cost, but to no avail. I have since discovered that a 1995 estimate stated that they could cost up to £40 million a year to run and that no credible plan was drawn up for their establishment.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Minister stated that there are concrete actions which will make a more significant contribution than the creation of a series of £40 million ministerial quangos.

I was extremely concerned about the accuracy of the information supplied to the House by the Minister. I had reached the conclusion that no substantial Estimate, like the one indicated by the Minister, existed. I put down a parliamentary question for oral answer on 12 May asking the Minister to publish in full the 1995 Estimate to which he referred in his Second Stage contribution. The answer given by the Minister to that question confirmed my worst suspicions. He stated:

However, it was estimated that, on the basis that in 1994 the administration costs of the vocational education system and the health boards were £14 million and £44 million approximately. Tentative preliminary Estimates suggested that the operational costs of the regional education boards could cost up to £40 million. As I have said on a number of occasions, I believe we could have had a more honest debate had this figure been revealed when requested.

That answer confirms my suspicions. It refers to a tentative preliminary Estimate based on totally bizarre comparisons that are so simplistic they insult the collective intelligence of the House.

Effectively the Minister is stating that the £40 million cost to which he referred in the House on at least two occasions was reached by using two reference points. First, that the administration costs of 37 vocational education committees in 1994 were £14 million and, second, that the administration costs of eight health boards, with their various duties, were £44 million in 1994. From this the Minister is suggesting that officials in his Department extrapolated that the administration costs of the ten proposed regional education boards would cost approximately £40 million.

It is absurd to suggest that this "back of the envelope" type methodology can be in any way described as a departmental Estimate, as the Minister has done. The Minister is doing a great disservice to his officials by suggesting they would produce this figure in the manner he has indicated and elevate it to the standard of a departmental Estimate.

I challenge the Minister to set the record straight on this matter once and for all. Will the Minister provide full and accurate answers to three simple and specific questions? Will he publish the details of the 1995 Estimate to which he referred in his Second Stage speech on the Education (No. 2) Bill, and will he make the file available for inspection? Will the Minister clarify whether the 1995 Estimate to which he referred was prepared by officials in his Department and, if so, will he outline the guidelines used to produce this Estimate? Will he tell the House whether this 1995 Estimate was supplied to his predecessor?

The Minister referred to his wish to have an honest debate about this matter. I agree there should be an honest debate but that is not possible until the Minister establishes his credibility in relation to this alleged Estimate and responds in a fully accountable and transparent manner to my three simple and specific questions. His failure to do so can only be interpreted as his having misled the House regarding this important matter.

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. Martin):

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue as it gives me an opportunity to address some important points.

The Labour Party's proposals to establish regional education boards have been on the agenda since the publication of the White Paper in 1995. During the debate on the White Paper in this House, Deputies repeatedly asked for details of the funding required to implement the widely trumpeted proposals. The then Minister refused to give these details.

With the production of the Education Bill at that time, as Opposition spokesperson on Education I asked for details of the costs of the proposed regional education boards, which we were all informed would revolutionise education. I direct the House to questions tabled by various Deputies on 24 May 1995, 28 September 1995, 10 October 1996 and 17 April 1997 when information was directly refused.

Since taking up office I have seen outline, best-case projections, produced in March 1995 by officials in my Department with officials in the Department of Finance, in the context of proposals contained in the White Paper. As I said on various occasions, these best-case projections show that the boards could have cost up to £40 million. Based on a minimum staffing of the new bodies and the transfer of some staff from the vocational education committees, it was estimated that they could cost in the region of an additional £20 million. It was further estimated that if the vocational education committees were abolished, as envisaged, and the savings transferred to the regional education boards, they would have cost in the region of £40 million and provided a modest range of services.

Furthermore, there was a flaw at the very heart of these projections which means that they can only have greatly underestimated the true cost of the proposals for these regional education boards. The White Paper and the last Education Bill envisaged the new boards undertaking a range of new services such as a psychological service, a building maintenance service and a library service. A basic estimate for a psychological service of, say, 250 people indicated that this would cost over £7 million. Similarly, other knock-on costs of the regional education boards were not included in the costings. One example of this is the recruitment of additional inspectors, estimated at up to £4 million.

In spite of this, the best-case projections assumed that the regional education boards would simply do for every school, primary and second level, what the vocational education committees currently do for their schools. As we all know, vocational education committees represent a small minority of the totality of primary and second level schools within the system.

Allowing for the fact that it is three years since the best-case scenario was produced, and especially in light of pay and building cost increases, it is clear that the State would have faced a cost for establishing these boards well in excess of £40 million.

The real question concerns the reason the House was repeatedly denied basic information on which to base its discussions of fundamental legislation, and the reason a detailed study of costs was not undertaken even when legislative proposals to establish the boards were close to passage.

The question of whether this Estimate was supplied to my predecessor is amazing. Any person bringing legislation to the House proposing the establishment of a board such as this should have demanded access to such a file and should have at least inquired about the cost of my proposals in the event of the legislation being passed by the House. It is an incredible question to be asked across the floor of the House.

Mr. O'Shea:

I would still like the Minister to answer it.

Mr. Martin:

With all due respect, my predecessor, who is a member of the Deputy's party, should be in a position to tell him. The bottom line is that the file exists and the preliminary Estimate is there.

I remain firmly convinced that expenditure of this level on a new layer of administration, which would have undermined core strengths of our education system, cannot be justified. Resources need to be concentrated in the classroom where they are needed. This will continue to be my policy.

I will arrange for the 1995 preliminary projections to be placed in the Oireachtas Library where they can be consulted by all Deputies.

Mr. O'Shea:

Will the Minister make the file available?

Mr. Martin:

Yes.

Mr. O'Shea:

The whole file?

Mr. Martin:

Yes. I have no difficulty with that.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 May 1998.