asked the Minister for Education if he has refused to provide an initial sum of £30,000 for the initiation of night classes in Trinity College, Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trinity College Night Classes.
15.
I have not refused to make funds available for the establishment in Trinity College, Dublin, of night courses additional to those which the college already provides.
A deputation from the college received in my Department on 26th February, 1971, presented proposals for the introduction as from autumn, 1972, of night courses additional to those already provided by the college, and it was indicated in a letter received subsequently from the college that the preparatory arrangements for this purpose which it would be necessary to make during the financial year 1971-72 would cost approximately £30,000.
The annual State grant which the college receives for secular education is not earmarked for particular purposes. I have, however, been informed by the college authorities that, in view of the college's present financial position, there does not appear to be any prospect of embarking on night courses in 1972.
I am at present considering what steps may be taken to ameliorate the college's financial difficulties.
Will the Minister not agree that he has come to this House on several occasions and associated himself, quite correctly, with criticisms of the governing body of University College, Dublin, for failing to continue night courses on the level then existing? Will he not further agree that many distinguished servants of this State, whom it would be unfair to name, began their academic careers in night courses in Trinity College? Given the joint anxiety, which the Minister is supposed to share, for the establishment of increased night courses, is it not illogical to come here and defend the refusal of this paltry sum of £30,000 which would have enabled Trinity College to initiate these night courses? You cannot, after all, ask a university to make bricks out of straw.
As I have told the Deputy, I am considering what steps I can take. The Deputy will remember that, when we were discussing the Higher Education Bill, any question of earmarking was objected to strenuously by Members of the Opposition. In this particular instance I am simply pointing out that I have not refused the money. The annual State grant which the college receives is not earmarked for particular purposes. I share the Deputy's desire that there should be night courses in Trinity College. As I say, I am having a look at the situation to see if I can help.
Would the Minister not agree that it is being less than candid with the House, to put it politely, to imply the issue of earmarking arises? Would the Minister not agree that he and his Department requested Trinity College to take on an additional and separate burden which they had not done in the preceding five, six or seven years? Is it not quite understandable that the college would seek additional funds in order to do this?
The college specified what they believed would be the cost of this. So far as we were concerned we provided a bulk sum to the college as in previous years.
Could the Minister say whether in providing that sum he listed, as is done in the case of the NUI Colleges, the purposes for which the money was being provided without specifying the amount for each purpose? If he did so list them was this purpose included amongst them?
I cannot say that.