(Carlow-Kilkenny): I dtosach ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil as ucht na deise a thabhairt dom labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Tá brón orm nach bhfuil an tAire Oideachais i láthair cé go bhfuil Aire Stáit cairdiúil anseo chun freagra a thabhairt dom. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle used the phrase “inconsistency” with regard to the answers I received. I used the term “misleading”. The answers are consistent, but the information is misleading. I will explain the background.
Some weeks ago, the priest in Askea parish church started by preaching not from the Gospel, but about the frustration being experienced over a school that has leaking roofs, very bad windows, etc. He said that the roofs could not be repaired because permission to go ahead with the renovations had been deferred. He appealed to politicians in the church to do something about it. There must have been some present because there is no point preaching to absent friends. The following Tuesday, word came back through the local politician, who is a member of the Minister's party, that he had spoken to the Minister, who had rectified the problem, and all was well again.
Why did the priest do this, apart from frustration? He did it because, a few days previously, bad news had been received by the school from the Department that the work could not go ahead, but that there was some light at the end of the tunnel because they might get approval by the new year. I had already dealt with a school where this had happened and I was told that no decisions could be made until the budget. Everything was held off. I put down a question to the Minister, asking how many schools were in this situation, and I got a two line answer telling me that there was no school involved.
I then put down a question about Askea school, specifically asking when it was given permission to go ahead with the restoration work, when it was withdrawn, when it was approved again and why. I got an answer furnishing me with three facts: one, that they started looking for help in January 2001; two, that they were told to go to tender in October 2001; and three, "Following receipt of the tender report from the school's consultant architect, my Department issued a letter to the school authorities in November 2001 authorising them to accept the lowest tender for these works." About two weeks later, when the architect was happy, they got word to stop.
I used the word "withdrawn" in that question and I decided somebody might have been playing with words so I asked the same question again, this time saying that approval was deferred or postponed. I got an answer stating exactly the same three facts as in the previous answer, but there was not a word about when approval was deferred or postponed and when it was restored. When we put down parliamentary questions, we expect answers. The priest did not go mad, have nightmares and get up on the altar to talk about this deferral, nor did the principal think he heard the 'phone ringing in his office when a Department official told him the work could not go ahead.
I am telling the Minister of State in advance, in case she has the same gobbledegook in her answer, that she need not bother reading it to me because I intend pursuing the matter further. The Minister should be here. I told him today I was raising this issue and I regret that he is not here. If the Minister of State has an answer bordering on what I have in front of me, it will be a total waste of time. There was something rotten in the state of Denmark years ago. There is something rotten in the state of the Department now. We are not getting the answers we require. There is a totally different scene in Carlow. I do not accept the answers I receive. Christmas may interrupt my plans, but I assure the House that, after January, because I do not have the right of reply tonight, I will raise the issue again. If the answer of the Minister of State is the same as the one I have in front of me, I will save her breath by leaving the House.
