asked the Minister for Education the steps he proposes to take to promote recreational and sporting activity in view of his decision to disband An Chomhairle Spóirt agus Caitheamh Aimsire.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sports Policy.
57.
My Department has been carrying out detailed work on sports policy for some time and will soon be in a position to make outline proposals to other Departments interested in sport development. In the meantime the existing schemes for financial aid to sport will be continued and supported by my Department.
COSAC was originally appointed for two years, which ended in January, 1973. On coming into office I decided to extend its period of office for a further year, during which I received very valuable and objective advice from it. In March, 1974, it held its last meeting. In the course of considering the reconstitution of a new body, I came to the conclusion that this could be done if a clearer understanding of its role and function in overall national planning for sport were arrived at. It is for this reason that the work I referred to initially is being undertaken.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that those who are associated with recreational and sports facilities are very concerned with the Parliamentary Secretary's delay in establishing some overall national plan, which was one of the intentions behind the original establishment of COSAC?
First of all, I do not consider the establishment of a national body to be an end in itself. Essentially, it is an instrument of policy rather than a policy in itself. I am anxious to achieve acceptance not just by the Department of Education but by other Departments as well of the proper role of any such council. What is needed is a reasonably coordinated policy by the Government as a whole. It is only in that context that the council could be really effective. I am sure both Deputies opposite will appreciate from their experience that COSAC as originally constituted was under the disadvantage that its functions were not seriously understood and accepted by other Departments. Also, COSAC was only our advisers to the Minister for Education whose functions, of course, do not encompass all Government action which could and should be taken in the interests of sport.
The Parliamentary Secretary will, nonetheless, concede that one must crawl before one walks. Everyone realises that this is an early tentative arrangement——
Will the Deputy please ask a question?
Does the Parliamentary Secretary concede that the regional committees of COSAC were broadly representative of development authorities, Bord Fáilte and the various local authorities and that the vast amount of work they have done by way of survey and otherwise is not being put to any good effect?
The Deputy will appreciate that to put any such work to good effect involves the provision of financial resources and that it involves local and other authorities giving a definite status to the effort. My position is that in the first instance to get the money one requires to have a clear policy. To give any such committee status one must get specific agreement on that point from the other authorities involved.
In re-establishing whichever body he will be re-establishing—I accept a lot of what he has said—will the Parliamentary Secretary ensure they will be as representative as possible of the 32 Counties, in view of the great potential there is there, and will he also endeavour to ensure that the Government, who do not seem to have an awareness——
The Deputy is engaging in an argument.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary urge the Government to give adequate financial support, which is what is lacking at this stage?
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us any indication of what the Vote under this heading is likely to be in the coming year? Is he looking for a substantial increase?
The Deputy is, I think, well aware that it would be highly irregular for me to anticipate what may be in the Estimate before it is published. In reply to Deputy O'Kennedy, I should say I have set up a small panel of advisers, containing a number of outside experts, to advise me on the immediate task I have on hand of reformulating policy, which is a specific short-term task. I say that lest he or the House should think I am not availing of outside expert advice.
As the Estimates are no doubt now at a formal stage, would the Parliamentary Secretary regard it as helpful if he had an assurance from this side of the House that if he goes to the Government looking for at least twice the amount, we will support him in that?
I regard that as helpful, but I believe that, in looking for money, it is very important to have a reasonably clearly set-out policy and to an extent, but not entirely, that has been absent in the past, both during my tenure of office and in the tenure of office of my predecessors. That is what I am trying to remedy now and, when I have that done, I will probably be in a better position to argue for more money.
I do not accept that.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us the names of the committee he has set up.
Cyril M. White, Sheila McNulty, Noel Drumgoole, David Galloway, Moore McDowell, Reverend John Fitzpatrick, Noel Carroll, Kieran Dowd, Pat Stanton, Derry O'Dwyer and Dr. Jim Oliver. I should say that these have already been announced in the newspapers.
Would the Minister accept that the names of the people he has just given us do not carry any greater weight than the names of the people he has scrapped? Why did he not use the original council?
The Deputy must not reflect on persons who cannot defend themselves.
But the Parliamentary Secretary has reflected——
I wanted to put the matter right. Why did he not use the original COSAC as the instrument since that was the best instrument he had in formulating national policy?
That is a separate question. Question No. 58 is postponed. Question No. 59.
This is an important matter. I am concerned——
I am also concerned that there should not be any reflection on persons outside the House who are not in a position to defend themselves. Such a reflection is a breach of privilege.
Since the Parliamentary Secretary has jettisoned one excellent committee it could be assumed, or presumed, that the personnel of the new committee is far superior and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to justify his jettisoning of the excellent national representative committee that was there.
That is a separate matter.
May I answer the charge rather than the question? As I said in my original reply, COSAC was set up for a term of office of two years and that term of office expired in January, 1973, when the Deputy was Parliamentary Secretary. I can find no evidence in my Department of any steps taken by him at that time, which was the proper time, to reconstitute the body.
It was the best body we had.
Far from jettisoning the body I extended its term of office for another year. It was a body originally set up for two years.
That is not so.
The members were appointed for two years, but the body was set up as a permanently established body.
Question No. 58 postponed.