Vote No. 35, Higher Education, is before the House. We take with it for debate purposes—they have already been passed—the other Supplementary Estimates for Education—Vote 30, Office of the Minister for Education, Vote 31, Primary Education; Vote 32, Secondary Education; and Vote 33, Vocational Education.
Supplementary Estimates, 1979. - Vote 35: Higher Education.
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £6,990,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1979 for grants-in-aid of An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachais, certain Higher Education Institutions and Services and the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
Níl ach meastachán foirlíontach amháin—an chéad meastachán foirlíontach do Vóta 35— á chur os comhair na Dála agam i láthair na huaire, ach tá mé chun trácht ar chúig cinn. Na ceithre cinn eile, do glacadh leo gan aon díospóireacht ar an 28ú Samhain, de bharr práinne, ach tá mé chun caoi a thabhairt don Teach, anois, na cuinsí is cúis leis na cúig cinn a chloisteáil agus a phlé.
Is iad seo a leanas na méideanna airgid a bhí sna príomh-mheastacháin d'Oifig an Aire Oideachais, don Bhunoideachas, don Mhéanoideachais, don Ghairmoideachas agus don Ardoideachas i mbliana:
Vóta 30: Oifig an Aire Oideachais, £30,182,000; Vóta 31: Bunoideachas, £148,765,000; Vóta 32: Meánoideachas, £107,344,000; Vóta 33: Gairmoideachas, £60,115,000; Vóta 35: Ardoideachas, £44,569,000.
Cuireadh na méideanna breise seo ar fáil leis na meastacháin fhorlíontacha a tugadh isteach i Mí Iúil i leith na Vótaí seo—an chéad Meastachán Foirlíontach i ngach cás:
Vóta 30: Oifig an Aire Oideachais, £2,474,000; Vóta 31: Bunoideachas, £1,055,000; Vóta 32: Meánoideachas, £405,000; Vóta 33: Gairmoideachas, £398,000.
Seo iad na méideanna breise a theastaíonn anois:
Vóta 30: Oifig an Aire Oideachais—An dara Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £1,401,500, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £34,057,500.
Vóta 31: Bunoideachas—An dara Meastacháin Forlíontach i suim £16,080,000, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £165,900,000.
Vóta 32: Meánoideachas—An dara Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £12,302,000 a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £120,051,000.
Vóta 33: Gairmoideachas—An dara Meastachán Forlíontach i suim £8,166,500, a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dtí £68,679,500.
Vóta 35: Ardoideachas—An chéad Mheastachán Forlíontach i suim £6,990,000 a thugann an soláthar iomlán faoin Vóta seo go dti £51,559,000.
Tá mór-iomlán de £44,940,000 i gceist sna cúig cinn.
Costais bhreise tuarastail is pá, a éiríonn as feidhmiú an chéad chuid den chomhaontú pá don bhliain 1979, maraon le socruithe idir-réitigh is eadrána gur glacadh leo, agus fós an t-ardú sna cioníocaíochtaí Leasa Shóisialaigh a thuiteann ar an bhfostuitheoir de thoradh scéim nua Síntiús de réir Pá a theacht isteach ón 6ú Aibreán 1979, is cúis, don chuid is mó, leis na meastacháin fhorlíontacha seo.
Is eol dom go bhfuil deacrachtaí ag brú ar údaráis scoile toisc costaisí fuinnimh a bheith árdaithe imbliana. Is maith liom a fhógairt go bhfuil soláthar déanta sna meastacháin fhorlíontacha do na beartais seo a leanas, chun cur ar chumas na n-údarás sin dóthain solais agus teasa a choinneáil sna scoileanna bunoideachais agus iarbhunoideachais:
—£500,000 breise i Vóta an Bhunoideachais faoi Mhírcheann C.5—Deontais Chaipitíochta i leith chostaisí reatha bunscol, agus
—£400,000 breise i Vóta an Meánoideachais faoi Mhírcheann A.1—Deontais Chaipitíochta (ar a n-áirítear deontais i leith Tuarastail Múinteoirí).
An soláthar breise a theastaíonn do na gairmscoileanna, do na Coláistí Ghairmoideachais, do na Ceard-Choláistí Réigiúnacha agus do no hInstitiúidí Ard oideachais, tá sé déanta sna méideanna breise atá á n-iarraidh do Vótaí 33 agus 35.
Vóta 30: Oifig an Aire Oideachais.
Na suimeanna breise atá ag teastáil faoi na Mírchinn A.1, Tuarastail, Pá agus Allúntais (£500,000), G.2—Acadamh Ríoga na hÉireann (£6,000), G.8—Leabharlann Chester Beatty (£12,000) agus G.12—Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Eireann (£27,000), is i leith chostas bhreise tuarastail agus pá iad—cioníocaíochtaí leasa shóisialaigh an fhostuitheora san áireamh freisin. Faoi Mhírcheann A.2 (1) tá suim bhreise de £130,000 ag teastáil chun allúntais mhéadaithe taistil agus iostais a íoc, agus fós chun an taistil bhreise a bhí riachtanach i leith scrúdúchán na Roinne a chlúdach. Meastar go mbeidh sábháltas de £30,000 faoi Mhírcheann A.2 (2) le cur ina choinne seo, sa chaoí go mbeidh glan-bhreis de £100,000 le soláthar faoi Mhírcheann A.2.
Tá gá le £1,990,000 breise chun na seirbhísí iompair scoile a riar, is é sin faoi Mhircheann D.3. Éiríonn an méadú seo, don chuid is mó, as:
—méadú ins an bhfordheontas a íoctar le Córas Iompair Éireann i leith táillí taistil páistí scoile a iompráitear ar na gnáth-sheirbhísí agus nach bhfuil i dteideal saor-iompair.
—méadú ó Mhí Iúil 1979 sna rátaí a íoctar i leith páistí a iompráitear ar na gnáth-sheirbhísí agus atá i dteideal saor-iompair.
—an méadú i gcostais reatha seirbhísí iompair i gcoitinne a tharla de bharr ardaithe i bpraghas an bhreosla a ceadaíodh i Mí Márta, i Mí Aibreáin, i Mí Bealtaine agus i Mí Lúnasa, 1979.
—an méadú a tugadh le héifeacht ó Mhí Meán Fómhair, 1979, do na conraitheoirí príobháideacha a oibríonn seirbhísí scoile.
—leasú ins an gcóras íocaíochta sa chaoí gur féidir conraitheoirí a íoc, anois, as laetheannta a ndúnann scoileanna gan coinne.
—méid na híocaíochta cothromaíochta a deineadh le Corás Iompair Éireann nuair a cinntíodh costas na seirbhíse iompair scoile i leith na bliana 1978, agus
—méadaithe i gcostais shaothair agus abhair, thar mar a measadh, i rith na bliana 1979.
Tá soláthar á dhéanamh faoi Mhírcheann nua—Mírcheann D.13— chun deontas de £1,500 a íoc le Foras Éireann—agus tá áthas orm é seo a rá leis an dTeach—i leith ghníomhachtaí chultúrtha agus oideachais do dhaoine fásta agus on obair bhreá atá ar siúl ag Foras Éireann.
An suim bhreise £15,000 a iarrtar faoi Mhírcheann F.1, cuirfidh sé ar chumas an Mhusaeim Naisiúnta "Gunmoney Crown", bonn profa óir, dar dáta 1690, a cheannach. Níl ach aon bhun-shampla amháin eile den choróin seo ann—is i Musaem na Breataine atá sé sin.
Tá £75,000 ag teastáil do na tochailtí seandálaíochta atá ar siúl ar shuíomh Oifigí Chathardha Bhaile Atha Cliath ar Ché an Adhmaid agus tagann se sin faoi Mhírcheann F.3.
Tá suim bhreis de £300,000 á cur ar fáil don Chiste Deontas—is é sin an Ciste Deontas-i-gCabhair a fhreastalaíonn d'eagraíochtaí Ogra agus Spóirt, Mírcheann G.7, chun gur féidir deontais a íoc le heagraíochtaí spóirt i leith beartas chaipitiúla. Ní thabharfar deontas níos mó na 50 faoin gcéad den chostas i gcás ar bith, agus i gcoitinne ní bheidh leibhéal an deontais nios aoirde ná 12½ faoin gcéad.
Ar an iomlán tá £3,026,500 ins na suimeanna breise a theastaíonn sa Vóta seo. Os a choinne sin tá na sábháltais seo a leanas ann: Mírcheann D.9—£750,000; D.11—£375,000, agus G.14—£500,000, rud a fhágann glan-mhéid breise de £1,401,500 le soláthar.
Vóta 31: Bunoideachas.
Sa tarna mheastachán fhorlíontach seo tá soláthar á dhéanamh i Mírcheann C.1 do £13,416,000 breise chun íoc as na méadaite tuarastail a fuair na múinteoirí náisiúnta, agus do £2,924,000 chun costaisí breise aoisliúntais, a éiríonn as méadaite tuarastail na múinteoirí náisiúnta, a ghlanadh, is é sin faoi Mírcheann D. Tá £55,000 breise ins an áireamh mar chúnamh chun leabhair scoile saor-in-aisce a chur ar fáil—Mírcheann C.6, agus £500,000 faoi Mírcheann C.5 le haghaidh deontas caipitíochta i leith chostaisí reatha bunscol mar tá ráite roimhe seo.
Sé an t-iomlán breise a theastaíonn ná £16,895,000, ach ina choinne sin tá méadú measta de £80,000 sna Faltais-i-gCabhair ó ranníoca pinsin faoi scéimeanna aoisliúntais na Múinteoirí Náisúnta is é sin faoi Mhírcheann F.3, agus tá súil le sábháltais mar a leanas: Mírcheann A.1—£400,000 (caipitil); Mírcheann A.2—£110,000; Mírcheann C.9—£100,000 agus Mircheann C.10—£125,000, sa chaoi go bhfuil glan-mhéid de £16,080,000 le soláthar.
Vóta 32—Meánoideachas.
Seo é an dara meastachán forlíontach don Mheánoideachas. Tá soláthar ann i Mírcheann B do £10,886,000 breise, agus i Mírcheann H.1 do £1,094,000 breise, chun costais mhéadaithe tuarastal múinteoirí i meánscoileanna agus i scoileanna coimsitheacha agus pobail a íoc, agus fós chun na costais bhreise pá a íoc i gcás na bhfostaithe nach múinteoirí iad, sna scoileanna coimsitheacha agus pobail. Tá suim bhreise de £553,000 istigh faoi Mhírcheann C. chun costas táillí breise do na scruduitheoirí agus do na feitheoirí scrúdúcháin na meánteistiméireachta agus na hardteistiméireachta a chlúdach, agus fós tá an £400,000 a luaigh mé cheanna le cur leis na Deontais Chaipitíochta, ar a n-áirítear Deontas i leith Tuarastail Mhúinteoirí, faoi Mhírcheann A.1.
Tá £69,000 breise ag teastáil chun easpa sna faltais ó Tháillí Scrúdúcháin na nDaltaí—Mírcheann K.1—a dhéanamh suas.
Tagann an t-iomlán go dtí £13,002,000. Meastar go mbeidh sábháltas de £700,000 faoi Mhírcheann H.2 (2) le cur ina choinne sin, agus fágtar glan-mhéid bhreise de £12,302,00 le cur ar fáil.
Vóta 33: Gairmoideachas.
Tá soláthar déanta faoi Mhírcheann A den dara meastachán forlíontach seo i leith breis-deontais de £7,383,200 le Coistí Gairmoideachais chun cur ar a gcumas costais ardaithe tuarastal, pá agus ranníoca leasa sóisialaigh na bhfostóirí de £5,383,100, maraon le £2,000,100 de mhéadú ar ghnáthchostais reatha, a íoc.
Tá soláthar déanta faoi Mhírcheann H.1 i leith £647,900 breise chun costaisí den tsort chéanna a ghlanadh sna Ceard—Choláistí Réigiúnacha— £397,900 i gcóir tuarastail agus mar sin, agus £250,000 le haghaidh costaisí eile. Is chun an méadú i gcostaisí aoisliúntais a éiríonn as na hardaithe tuarastail is pá an £200,000 breise atá istigh faoi Mhírcheann F.
Tá £15,100 riachtanach faoi Mhírcheann C chun ráta níos aoirde deontais a íoc le Scoileanna Cónaithe Tís. Méadaithe sna táillí a íoctar le scrúduitheoirí is le feitheoirí sna Scrúdúcháin Teastais Ghrúpa, i Scrúdúcháin na gCeardscol agus ins na Scrúdúcháin Bhloc-Scaoilte is mó is cúis leis an £85,300 breise faoi Mhírcheann E. Tá £35,000 níos mó ag teastáil faoi Mhírcheann G, ar an ábhar go mbeidh na haisíocaíochta leis na húdaráis rátúcháin i leith iasachtaí níos aoirde ná mar a measadh.
In éadan an iomláin bhreise de £8,366,500 atá ag teastáil, tá sábháltas measta de £200,000 faoi Mhírcheann H.2; leis sin tá glan-mhéid breise de £8,166,500 le soláthar.
Vóta 35: Ardoideachas.
Is i leith breis-chostas tuarastail agus ranníoca leasa soisialaigh na bhfostóirí atá an soláthar breise de £19,300 á dhéanamh faoi Mhírcheann A.1. Tá £6,868,400 á chur leis an soláthar i Mírcheann A.2 chun na costaisí chéanna sin a ghlanadh sna Coláistí Ollscoile, sna hInstitiúidí Náisiúnta Ardoideachais i Luimneach agus i mBaile Átha Cliath, sa Choláiste Náisiúnta Ealáine is Dearadh, i gComhairle Náisiúnta na gCáiliochtaí Oideachais agus in Acadamh Ríoga na hÉireann. Istigh ann, freisin, tá suim £1,750,000 in aghaidh easnamh a meastar a bheidh ar chuntais reatha na n-institiúidí éagsúla sin i mbliana de bharr méadaithe i gcostaisí ceadaithe eile seachas costaisí pá.
Teastaíonn suimeanna breise de £37,000, £103,000 agus £63,000 faoi na Mírchinn B, D agus F faoi seach chun costaisí tuarastail sa bhreis a íoc i gcás Ospidéal Fiaclóireachta Bhaile Atha Cliath—an deontas i leith Oideachas Fiaclóireachta—i gcás Coláiste Oideachais Thuamhan agus i gcás Institiúid Ard-Léinn Bhaile Átha Cliath. Tá soláthar déanta freisin chun sábháltas £400,000 ó Mhírcheann A.3 a aistriú chun Mírcheann A.4, le go mbeifear in ann tuilleadh fearais chaipitil a cheannach imbliana. Tharla an sábháltas toisc go raibh an ráta caiteachais ar oibreacha tógála níos moille ná mar a beartaíodh i gcásanna áirithe. Tá £1,000 breise ag teastáil i leith costaisí ginearálta Bhord na nOspidéal i gCorcaigh—Mírcheann C.
Ar an iomlán tá £7,491,700 breise ag teastáil. Tá Faltais-i-gCabhair de £11,500 thar mar bhí coinne lei i Mírcheann G.1, agus sábháltais measta de £490,200 i Mírcheann A.3, ach mar a dúirt mé tá £400,000 de na sábháltais sin á n-aistriú go dtí Mírcheann A.4: ús bainc ar chuntas chaipitil an Údaráis um Ardoideachas atá sa chuid eile, agus tá sé sin á chur i leith an Vóta i gcoitinne. Mar sin tá glan-mhéid breise de £6,990,000 ag teastáil sa mheastachán seo.
First, I wish to thank the Minister for acceding to my request to defer this debate from last week to this week. As the Minister is aware it was not possible for me to be here last week and, consequently, I appreciate his patience in allowing me to discuss the Estimates this evening.
The Minister's speech was factual and detailed in so far as the additional moneys required are concerned but it lacked primarily any indication of educational policy. There was not an indication of the direction of Government policy in the context of any of the subheads that have been put before us. This is most unfortunate especially since the Minister has a sympathetic audience so far as we on the Opposition benches are concerned. We are anxious to support the Minister in terms of the additional moneys that may be required for education. However, we would question the direction and the quality, as it were, of the expenditure in this area. Therefore, in discussing the various subheads I shall confine myself to questions of policy.
I understood that the debate was confined to the theme of the Estimates and that, consequently, the question of policy was excluded.
I accept that we cannot go outside the theme of the subheads before us but that does not preclude me from discussing the direction of the expenditure and the policy behind that direction.
It is not my intention to delay the House. I know there are other Estimates to be considered before the Christmas recess and, therefore, it would be unfair if other spokesmen were denied the opportunity of discussing the Estimates in which they have a particular interest. I shall choose subheads from the various Supplementary Estimates and discuss within them certain points which must be discussed if we are to have a proper and on-going debate on education.
In relation to Vote 30 I wish to discuss first the transport services under heading D.3 the little yellow buses that go up and down our country roads and which have become part of school life. In this context I wish to discuss the Hyland Report which was initiated by the last Government and which reported in June last. The Hyland Report on the school bus system suggested two basic changes. One was the introduction of a flat charge of £21 per annum or 40p per week per pupil. That suggestion has caused considerable public discussion. Indeed, the Minister for Education on 21 June last was quoted in The Irish Times as saying that he could more or less make a commitment that the Government would not introduce a levy on the users of the school transport system.
That is perfectly right.
Is it more or less?
More.
Of course it would have the full support of Fine Gael at least——
Could not the Deputy include Deputy Horgan as well?
I shall make my own speech.
Deputy Horgan is well capable of speaking on behalf of his party. I am quite happy to confine myself to speak on behalf of my party. I accept that commitment of the Minister for Education as genuine, as one which we can assume has some meaning. I take it that there was consideration of the matter at Government level, that the question of charging for the little yellow bus does not arise in the foreseeable future and that it can be accepted that the recommendation of the Hyland Report in this matter has been rejected by all parties.
The Hyland Report referred also to the anomaly concerning approximately 8,300 pupils who, because of the rationalisation scheme in respect of some schools, were allowed to use the school bus scheme to travel to other schools. In other words, the principle of the nearest school has been disregarded where schools have been closed. A question has been raised about the constitutionality of the practice. I am not aware that the Minister has made any decision in regard to this matter nor am I aware that anyone intends to challenge it in the courts. I suggest that the present situation where when a school closes the pupils are allowed the choice of another school is a reasonable and rational position and I do not think the constitutionality of it will be challenged. However, I should like the Minister to make it clear that pupils will not be challenged with regard to their right to attend a school of their choice.
Another aspect has arisen in relation to the school transport scheme which is perhaps of more significance to parliamentarians. It relates to the rights of children whose parents are members of the minority religions to attend the schools of the parents' choice. Obviously this is a difficult area but I think all governments have been generous in their attitude in wishing to abide by the wishes of such parents. Therefore, I was sad to note that there has been a change in policy in respect of such children and that their choice of schools has been severely curtailed or eliminated.
That is not true.
It is certainly true in respect of children who are new entrants to the school system.
The Deputy is widening the scope of the debate.
I am talking about the free school bus scheme.
I have allowed the Deputy considerable latitude.
I am referring to the fact that the present position in relation to the free school bus scheme has been changed in respect of the children I have mentioned. There has been a significant change in the past year.
The Deputy is mistaken.
I will refer to a letter from the CEO of the Dún Laoghaire VEC to a certain person. It is dated 7 March. The letter states: "I will be unable as from 1 September next to grant free transport to any new entrant or transferee whose home is within three miles of either the Cabinteely Community School or the Ballinteer Comprehensive School". This is a change of policy in respect of new entrants to the school system. I think it is an attempt by the administration—I am inclined to exclude the Minister; I think it was done behind his back and without his knowledge—to be niggardly in respect of the school bus service.
The Minister is responsible for the Department.
On a point of information, in order to save the Deputy from continuing on that line I should like to tell him that is not the policy.
I have quoted a case where children whose parents are members of minority religions have been refused a choice of schools.
What is the date of the letter?
7 March 1979.
We are now in December. The Deputy should check the facts as they relate to December 1979.
I have had this position confirmed in the meantime and I am satisfied I can stand over the case. The position now is that apparently where there is a community or comprehensive school within the acceptable radius which is available to the children they must attend such a school under the free transport system or not have the facility at all. That is deplorable.
If the Deputy checks he will find that is not so.
Two weeks ago I had the position confirmed to me. Severe reservations were expressed by the secondary education committees of the four minority religions about the multi-denominational concept of the community schools. I was saddened to read that they were not consulted and were not invited to make submissions about the new structures of the deeds of trust of community schools. That is serious.
Did they get grade 2 invitations?
They got ad hoc invitations when the deeds had been agreed by others. In view of the traditional attitude to the minority religions in respect of participation in our educational system, and the way in which they were treated in the development of community schools and the school transport service, there is a yawning gap between what they would wish to be the case and what is developing. What is now developing is not bigoted. I could not call it bigoted. It is penny pinching and narrow minded. Those are the best descriptions of the attitude of the Department of Education to the parents of children belonging to minority religions. They had been treated generously having regard to their minority position within the whole system.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but he is barking up the wrong tree. No matter what he says about checking his facts, he is wrong in that statement.
Which tree should he be barking up?
One with Dutch elm disease.
There is dry rot in the Department.
There is no point in my making statements full of fury and signifying nothing. I am making my statement in all seriousness and with the full backing of the facts. If the Minister wishes to reject the facts, he is entering into a new realm of philosophy. I do not think the Minister is so naive. On the general question of the school transport service, I want a commitment from the Minister that there will be no flat rate charge——
The Deputy is hoping there will be.
I want to know if it is the intention of the Minister to introduce a flat rate charge.
It is not the intention of the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
Surely the Ayatollah from Mayo can bear with me for a few moments while I make my contribution.
It is dreadful listening to that type of chat.
I am sorry if I am boring the Deputy. I am looking for an assurance especially in view of the fact that a circular is going out to the schools seeking their views on the introduction of a flat rate charge for the school bus service.
I give the Deputy that assurance here and now and he can stop blathering.
There will be no flat rate charge? The Minister is making a voluntary contribution and I am asking him to assure the House——
All my contributions are voluntary.
——that a flat rate charge will not be introduced.
I do assure the House.
I accept the Minister's assurance.
That cuts out half the Deputy's speech.
I look forward to seeing the position after the next budget. I should like to move on to the very important area of higher education under Vote 35. We discussed the role of the Higher Education Authority. For the information of the Ceann Comhairle I should like to discuss subhead A.1. relating to an tÚdarás um Ard Oideachais, that is, general expenses.
(Interruptions.)
We sorted out that one on the NCEA Bill. That was the first correction made in a Bill which was not done by amendment. It was done by a subterfuge.
The Deputy is blathering about something else now.
I am making the technical point that no amendment was introduced.
The Deputy would chance anything.
We have two statutory bodies established by law dealing with higher education. We have the Higher Education Authority established in 1971 to formulate policy in relation to the third level sector. We have established quite separately and quite positively the National Council for Educational Awards. The council deal with overall policy in relation to the non-university sector. They deal with the regional colleges and the technological colleges.
I am not particularly happy about the way in which some of our third level colleges are funded by the HEA and others are funded by the Department of Education, in particular the regional technical colleges and the Dublin technological colleges. An overall structure is lacking and that is unfortunate. The difference in approach to financing these third level colleges, unofficially based on a kind of capitation system and half based on a block grant system, is wrong. I would prefer to have a system under the one umbrella. I would prefer all the funding for our third level institutions to come from the HEA. That seems on balance to be the most logical approach to the third level sector. It is not the present approach and the Minister has shied away from introducing a unified approach at least in respect of funding the third level sector of education. That is unfortunate. The Minister had an opportunity to unify the system and to make it more sensible, but did not take it. The present position where the regional and technical colleges do not get their allocation until August, September or October and are not aware of their teacher allocation until September, October or November is very much against proper planning for any third level college. Another example is the absolutely ridiculous letter which emanated from the Department either on 1 August or 31 August, seeking an increase——
31 July possibly?
——of 25 per cent in fees for new entrants to RTC's. This direction from the Minister was considered by most boards of management of regional colleges some time in September. We considered it the day before the registration of students to the Waterford Regional Technical College.
On what date did they register?
Some time in the middle of September, but that is not the real point. The Minister may or may not be aware that boards of management of regional technical colleges generally set the fees for the following year in February. They then proceed, as any rational board of management or educational authority would, to print their syllabus, circulate it and seek to attract students within the catchment area who would be suitable to the college. This all happens in the first quarter of the year. Is it not rather ridiculous that the Department should come along at the commencement of the academic year and direct colleges to increase their fees by 25 per cent when already the syllabi are in circulation, the pupils interviewed, assessed, accepted or rejected? Of course, colleges could not accede to the request. They had more sense than to try to implement the ridiculous direction from the Department at the beginning of the academic year.
What are the Department doing? What are the officials thinking of? Their whole attitude to the non-university sector is pathetic. They are looking at the third level sector as part of the second level sector. I have a high regard, as the Minister knows, for the non-university sector. In 1978-79 the full-time student population of the Dublin technological colleges was 3,168 and in other RTC's throughout the country it was 4,828.
Is that not great?
It is marvellous; it is a reflection of a broadening of the availability of third level education.
Thanks to a Fianna Fáil Government those 4,828 places were available.
It has taken nearly ten years and the Minister might like to know that a large part of the increase in the population of these colleges occurred during the last Government's period in office.
We built them.
The Minister may not want to accept it but it is a fact. That is not what I wanted to say but the Minister's political xenophobia deserved the answer.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair has a demarcation line too, it says that only one speaker should speak at a time. On the Supplementary Estimate we can only deal with the headings in them.
The Minister is giving a bad example.
I accept that.
The non-university sector broadly accounts for 9,000 or 10,000 full-time students and the university sector broadly accounts for perhaps 24,000 students. This reflects a great growth in the non-university sector and that is welcomed on this side of the House.
I am worried about the attitude of the Department to announcing the teacher allocation every year and to announcing the financial budget for each of the third level non-university institutes under whose umbrella these colleges come. A new system will have to be adopted in relation to these non-university colleges. A three or five year budget system will have to be implemented where the colleges know exactly how much money they will have in five years time and in what direction they wish to go. The proper umbrella for these colleges is not the Department but the HEA.
I am glad the Deputy sees what Government will be here in 1984.
It hardly arises on this Supplementary Estimate.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy is getting into policy matters now.
I am not, the Minister is getting into policy matters.
We can only deal with the headings in these Supplementary Estimates and they are broad enough indeed.
I am prepared to say on behalf of my party that there is a direction at the third level but the Minister is not prepared to admit it because he was cowardly when he introduced the NCEA in respect of the rationalisation of the whole third level sector. That is very unfortunate. The Minister shirked from his opportunity to rationalise the system, the flow of funds and the flow of teachers to the non-university sector.
I will refer back to Vote 35, subhead A.5, dealing with the general grant for a secular education in St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. The position in relation to Maynooth College is causing concern among many people involved in education. There is nothing but goodwill on the part of all politicians towards the involvement of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth in our education system and in relation to its role in the community. The recent Supreme Court decision confirming the dismissal of two lecturers from the college established that St. Patrick's is essentially a seminarian university. The HEA have not designated Maynooth College as an institute. We have all defended university independence and autonomy. Third level institutions and colleges should ensure freedom of thought and independence of expression.
I am pleased to note that Cardinal Ó Fiaich has called for the establishment of St. Patrick's College as an independent university. I support the Cardinal's request. Maynooth College should be as free and open in its appointments as our other universities and colleges. I concede that there were peculiar circumstances surrounding the position of the two dismissed lecturers. They had signed contracts and the court ruled that they were dismissed in accordance with the terms of their contracts. Their dismissal raises a question whether Maynooth College is to remain a constituent college or should become an independent university.
I look forward to the Minister's White Paper. I recall him stating that the White Paper would be published on the last day of December 1979, but I do not think that we will see it then. Perhaps the Minister would tell us the date on which we can expect publication of the White Paper. We need the White Paper to indicate the direction in which the Government intend to go.
The new fishery science course which it is proposed to establish in UCG in October 1980 was mentioned by Dr. Colm Ó Eocha, Uachtarán, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe. The Minister has not confirmed that finance will be available for this course. The Minister should take this opportunity to state that the establishment of the new course will become a reality next October. I mention this matter because the future of the fishery industry is a controversial issue. The Government's policy in relation to fisheries has been severely criticised on a number of occasions.
I think that Estimate is coming up in a short time. Surely we are not going to discuss fisheries on this Estimate.
I am talking about the general grant for UCG. I referred to the establishment of a new fishery science course.
If the Deputy wants to challenge the Chair on these matters he can do so. The Deputy cannot discuss fisheries policy on an educational estimate.
I am discussing the establishing of a fishery science course at UCG which is a different matter.
As far as the Chair knows, the Supplementary Estimate does not relate to that matter.
I should like the Minister to reply to my query in relation to the establishment of the new course in UCG. I should like to discuss fees for universities and other third level colleges. I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will accept that this is within the terms of the Estimate.
I do not think there is anything in the Estimate about fees. If the Deputy can find something in the Estimate about fees, we will discuss it.
Grants-in-aid primarily come around to fees for higher education.
On a Supplementary Estimate the Chair has ruled umpteen times that the House can only discuss exactly what is in that Supplementary Estimate. Everything can be discussed on the general Estimate.
I should like to refer the Chair to Appropriations-in-Aid(G) on Vote 35 and I suggest that that would involve revenue from fees. The rise emanates from a number of Government pronouncements, primarily the Green Paper of June 1978 and those pronouncements evoked a reply from the HEA.
We are not going to debate fees on this Supplementary Estimate because they do not arise.
The Chair is not being helpful.
The Chair is being as helpful as possible but we must stick to what is in the Supplementary Estimate.
The Higher Education Authority stated that they would not recommend any substantial increase in fees for access to higher education. However, we have seen the first phase of a doubling of higher education fees for new entrants this year. They were faced with a fee increase of 25 per cent, a shocking blow to them. That increase was not compensated for by the eligibility limits for higher education grants and the grants were not increased to any extent in the current year. If we look at the future of higher education we will see that the Government are not involved in providing the necessary third level places needed by the middle eighties to ensure that the participation rate within the age group is at a level equivalent to the participation rates achieved in other European countries. Frankly, I do not think we will be providing the 15,000 extra higher education places by 1981.
Has the Deputy checked up on this participation rate in other European countries?
I refer the Minister to a report, sponsored by the Higher Education Authority, entitled Future Enrolments in Third Level Education and prepared by Dr. John Sheahan of UCD. That report dealt with that problem very thoroughly within the context of a high and low participation band. In view of the recent census, I am sure the Minister will agree that the high band calculations of the author of that report might be more realistic than the low band.
They need careful study.
They always do, and on this occasion they have received such careful study. Whether we discuss the high or low band participation it can be said that we are not providing the extra places needed to bring up the Irish participation ratio in the third level sector to that enjoyed in other European countries.
The Deputy should have a look at the number of graduates as a percentage; that is interesting.
It is McNamara's band.
There is an echo of Deputy Brian Lenihan here; there is no crisis and no problem.
The Deputy should refer to the Minister for Fisheries.
He should not refer to him at all because he does not have any place in this Estimate.
He has no place in Fisheries either.
That is a matter of opinion and the Deputy can express that view on another occasion.
The Minister did well today.
One day in a thousand.
The Minister is one man in a thousand.
We are making an amount of headway in the non-university sector in providing third level places but we are not seriously tackling the problem of third level education to bring us into line with the rest of Europe and the United States. We are lacking in our effort, appreciation and commitment to third level education. I reject out of hand the objectives expressed in the White Paper that we should double our fees so as to establish an equitable flow of funds from participants in third level education. Our participation rate in higher education grants is falling rather than rising. I should like the Minister to refer to the percentage of students attending regional colleges and other non-university colleges and universities who enjoy a higher education grant. The percentage in 1977 was 24 per cent in the university sector and 4 per cent in the non-university sector. That ratio is most unsatisfactory and a cause for concern.
I should like to refer to the proposal in the White Paper to introduce a loan system.
I should like to remind the Deputy that we are not discussing the White Paper; we are discussing a number of Supplementary Estimates.
I want to refer to this matter in passing. The Chair has always been generous to me.
I have always been generous but everybody appears to play on my generosity. The Deputy has dealt with the White Paper but it does not arise in this Estimate.
Will the Minister comment on the possibility of the introduction of a loan scheme for university students in view of the big increase in inflation and the fact that it now costs in excess of £1,000 for a student living in the non-adjacant area to survive the academic year? The Minister seems to be shying away from the commitment in his party's manifesto of raising the eligibility limits and the level of grants to a realistic level. If the Minister wishes to defend the present level of the maintenance grant or the level of eligibility I would like to hear that.
The Minister would not be in order in defending this on these supplementary estimates, because it does not arise.
It does.
There is nothing about grants in the supplementary estimates, that I am aware of——
It would arise if he were asked to make a comment——
——or anything else. It will arise on the general estimate, Deputy.
In passing, could I have the Minister's opinion as to his favouring or not the introduction of the loan scheme? I come now to the vocational vote, No. 33.
The Deputy has four minutes now.
Is it not half an hour? Is there a time limit?
I am sorry. The opening speaker has an hour and a half. I am cutting it down to an hour for other speakers.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle must be in bad form tonight. He has been at me all night.
No. If the Deputy feels like that——
It just feels like that.
The Deputy is dealing with a whole general policy of educational grants and everything else, which do not arise here at all. Deputy Collins should go ahead.
Regarding the Vocational Education Act of 1930—for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's benefit this is subhead C—the vocational sector being one which is dear to all our hearts, I wonder about the efficiency of using the Act to administer the third-level sector. The Act allows for a sub-committee to administer the regional technical colleges. Is the Minister happy with the structure or with the Dublin County Council's ability to service a number of community schools in the Dublin County Council area? I doubt very much if there are enough people serving on the Dublin County Council to devote sufficient time to a wide-ranging number of community schools within their council.
It is not county council; it is vocational committee.
Well, yes. They come from the Dublin County Council.
Not necessarily.
The members on the vocational educational committee can designate so many members from the county council and so many other members. To that extent, the Minister is technically correct. However, the numbers serving on the county Dublin VEC are limited as to number, I am sure the Minister will agree. I am asking the Minister if he is happy that this limited number of very enthusiastic and well-meaning people are in a position to serve on a rapidly increasing number of community school boards? In respect of County Dublin, it raises the question of the efficiency of the system, under the VEC Act, of administering the community school policy as laid down. This is obviously a non-political comment. It is a matter of management and of finding the best way forward. The Minister should address himself to this area.
I wish to raise the matter of the appointment to the Dún Laoghaire Vocational Education Institute of a principal in the school of art. I understand that the interview and the appointment were carried out quite properly under the Department's memorandum V7. The Minister queried the correctness of the appointment and stated that there would have to be some knowledge of art. I understand now that the TUI branch in the area wishes the original appointment to be made. Would the Minister state precedence for his interference with the committee's right to appoint qualified persons to posts within the system? He may be trying to introduce an element of political bigotry into the appointment. Would he confine himself specifically to memorandum V7 and the rights of the committee in relation to the appointment of principals?
There could be a point on that about which I did not hear the Deputy talking—in the general area.
I make no bones about the fact that the committee is, to a certain extent, dominated by my party. It is all the worse that the Minister should try to interfere with a proper appointment, as he is a man of decent character, widely respected in teaching circles and educational sectors. He is all the more open to criticism when he interferes with what is a relatively minor teaching or administrative appointment.
I would not call it a minor appointment.
Relatively. We are not appointing a secretary to the Department or anything like that.
I accept that.
The Chair feels that the Deputy should not mention specific cases. The grant, I presume, provides for the appointment of teachers but it is not correct, on a debate on supplementary estimates, to discuss the appointment of one particular teacher, or if a specific case is brought out. It is not fair either to the teacher or anyone else.
I do not wish to prolong this agony, beyond saying that, from my examination of that appointment, I am disappointed at the Minister's attitude to it.
Finally, in relation to the vocational education heading, I refer to the community schools and, specifically, to the deeds of trust. We all gave a large sigh of relief when there was general agreement on the deeds of trust. It has been a long drawn out saga. While I may have reservations about the deeds of trust and certainly feel that members of the minority religions are not getting a fair deal, nevertheless, I am, on balance, satisfied that this question has been resolved. I have severe reservations about the multi-denominational aspect of community schools. Recent statements by secondary education committees of four minority religions, among other educationalists of the minority persuasion, have come out quite severely in criticism of the position of the community schools. Quite clearly, a shadow must be cast over this concept of the community school serving as a multi-denominational school. This is a very serious matter for this House and for the Minister for Education. I always thought that we listened fairly closely to the voice of minority people. It appears now that the secondary education committee was not invited to give submissions on the community schools, which is serious and a matter of neglect, I presume, more than bigotry, on the part of the Minister.
The Ministers.
That might very well be but the Minister present had——
The Minister for Education between the years 1973 and mid-1977 did not consult anybody and in fact did absolutely nothing.
Well, the Minister present took the bull by the horns and he must bear responsibility for the final outcome.
And I do.
I am satisfied that my opinion is a balanced one and am happy that the episode is settled. But I am most unhappy about the lack of consultation with the minority religions; I am most unhappy that they now clearly consider that community schools cannot be viewed as multi-denominational. That is unfortunate and is something the Minister may well regret in the future.
I wish to see the continuance of secondary schools and I regret their closures. Not sufficient effort is being made, especially in city centres, to ensure that secondary schools whose pupil population is falling will be encouraged financially to remain in existence. We have a special responsibility to inner-city areas, to deprived areas, very difficult to define but the Minister knows what I mean. A special scheme should be introduced for a specific pupil-teacher ratio to ensure the implementation of an extra special capitation grant scheme to encourage those schools with a declining population to continue in existence.
At the risk of being told I am something or other this evening, I must point out that the Deputy is discussing in depth policy matters. We cannot discuss or go into policy matters completely on Supplementary Estimates. That is all right on the major Estimate.
I am discussing subhead A1—capitation grant, including teachers' salaries under Vote 32, Secondary Education.
That does not provide for all the policy matters the Deputy is anxious to discuss this evening.
There should be more money devoted to this sector. I shall defer any further comment on this until the debate on the main Estimate.
The other matter to which I wished to refer is the lack of boards of management of secondary schools and the nonparticipation of teachers on boards of management of primary schools.
That is surely a policy matter.
The Minister has some responsibility for encouraging an equitable system of boards of management at both levels.
In relation to Vote 31—Primary Education—I wish to refer to the question of aid towards the cost of school books, the subject of a Private Members' Motion in the House two weeks ago proposed by the Labour Party, and to reiterate the need for the establishment of a library system within schools to reduce the cost of school textbooks to parents.
I wish also to refer to the matter of heating grants being made available to primary schools under the Vote for Primary Education. I welcome the extra £1 million announced by the Minister. I should like him to state quite categorically in this House that, if the winter becomes severe, if there is cause for the provision of extra moneys for the heating of schools, especially primary schools, he will not hesitate to provide the extra money, that he will give the House an assurance that there will be no question of interrupting the school year because of shortage of oil. If he does allow the school year to be interrupted he will encounter very serious difficulties with the teacher's unions, very undesirable from the educational point of view.
I should have liked to discuss the questions of apprenticeship and the structure of examinations, but I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who is looking at me with a hawk's eye, would rule me out of order and I shall refrain from so doing.
I want to make a few specific remarks before commencing my general approach to these Supplementary Estimates. Of all the issues at present facing us in connection with these Estimates certainly one of the most glaring is raised by the allocation of another £400,000 to the authorities of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, for secular education. It is glaring because it is being made in the wake of the controversial sacking of two members of the staff whose salaries were paid out of this fund and, effectively, is adding insult to injury to the taxpayer. The Supreme Court has held that the Maynooth Trustees were perfectly entitled to do what they did and it is not my purpose here to disagree with them. But it must be pointed out that the logic of this decision is that the trustees are perfectly entitled to do the same again if they wish, and to do so at our expense.
Indeed, they can run St. Patrick's College like a rural, two-teacher national school if they so desire. In the light of this the taxpayer has the right to demand of the Minister for Education whether he is still fully satisfied that there are adequate safeguards for this substantial vote of moneys. He must be asked whether the concept of academic freedom means anything at all to him, if he is in the slightest way concerned to ensure that this concept is at least reasonably respected in any third level educational institution to which, as here in this Supplementary Estimate, we are being asked to vote finance. Nobody who has followed this tragic case in any detail will be under any illusion that, while the letter of the law was observed, the spirit and the concept of academic freedom was most flagrantly breached.
In the short-term this £500,000 or so is obviously needed to keep the doors of Maynooth open on a day-to-day basis. Obviously, for this reason we cannot and should not vote against it. But we do have the right and the duty to ask the Minister to ensure that adequate safeguards for the professional integrity and the personal livelihoods of the members of the staff of this institution who are paid out of this Vote are insisted on by him at the earliest possible date. I would ask the Minister not to shelter behind any soutanes here. Let him come out into the open and state that the concept of academic freedom does have a tangible meaning for him and that he is prepared to defend it against arbitrary and discriminatory exercises of power. Frankly, I was somewhat disappointed at the closeness with which the Minister hewed to his brief in introducing this Estimate.
I was afraid of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I would be the last to comment on the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, especially when he is in the Chair.
It would be safer not to.
But I have heard more enthralling readings from the telephone directory. It reminds me of an old and respected teacher of religion in one of my schools, since gone to his eternal reward, whose idea of Christian doctrine classes was to read the Acts of the Apostles to us in a dull monotone after our dinner when everybody was going to sleep.
At one stage the Minister accused Deputy Collins of barking up the wrong tree. One of the problems about this is that the Minister has planted a fair forest of these trees in the last couple of years.
And they are flourishing too.
While I do not propose to spend too much time barking up them, I will be sniffing at one or two adorned by Deputy Collins in the course of his contribution. In relation to Vote 30——
That is a different bark now, I think.
In relation to Vote 30, the main subhead here is subhead A1, Salaries, Wages and Allowances. This is a Vote of over £6 million even before the Supplementary Estimate is added to it. It is now to go up by £250,000. We are entitled to ask precisely what is being done with this money. All the excellent people running around in Marlborough Street and in Hawkins House must be working at something and I have every assurance that they are, but what is preventing the results of this work from reaching us? I was intrigued to note in relation to a recent answer to a parliamentary question that one of the ways in which this money is being spent is on the doubling of the size of the Minister's private office. We have the right to ask why the Minister needs twice as many civil servants in his private office as Deputy Peter Barry did when he was Minister for Education. It is particularly ironic that the money should be devoted to this.
Doubling the size of the staff when there is four times the work.
There is not four times the evidence of it in what comes out. I assume the Minister's private office deals with his constituency work as well.
It does not exclusively. That is where the Deputy is wrong.
It is extraordinary that the size of the Minister's private office has doubled when in two years he was able to provide only slightly more than a third of the 600 jobs for secretarial assistants in primary and secondary schools that he promised. There seems to be a crazy scheme of priorities and we would like to see it put right. We would certainly like to know whether the public servants concerned have finished the work on the White Paper. We were told that we would have it before the end of the year. I hope we are not in the situation, when we come back and hold the Minister up against this commitment, that he will say that he did not say which year. We have to ask also whether and when they will produce the university legislation. Complexities may be involved but they are surely not as substantial as to keep the thing under wraps for so long. In relation to the transport services, as Deputy Collins pointed out, it is important that the Minister has dispelled any doubts that Deputy Collins had today.
The Deputy will sleep well tonight after that.
They were certainly shared. Under subhead F.3, National Museum, the archaeological excavations involved go up by the substantial amount of £75,000. When we look at the small print we realise that what is involved is an extra sum for excavations in Wood Quay.
Not much excavations were done there.
This £75,000, welcome as it is, is in effect probably the last substantial amount that will be spent on the archaeological excavation in this vital area. It is very sad that the Minister's interest in this and the muscle he was able to muster in relation to this only rose to £75,000 and that he could not persuade his other colleagues of the absolute necessity of providing the money needed to preserve and establish this national monument in the most appropriate way for posterity. The money that was being paid out for archaeological excavations at Wood Quay was being paid out in the most extraordinary manner, by way of expenses instead of by way of wages to some of the staff concerned. It was not until this matter was raised in the House by parliamentary question that it was put right. That should act as a headline for anybody else who is tempted to do the same in future.
In relation to Vote 31, primary education, there are a number of increases. Apart from the salaries of teachers and superannuation which I do not propose to deal with, one of the main increases was in relation to the operation costs of national schools. Here we have an extra £250,000 being provided for a projected increase in the price of heating oils over the winter. This is possibly is addition to an earlier Supplementary Estimate which was devoted partly to the same thing. We would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that this is enough, whether any further representations have reached him about the level of the heating grant for the coming year, and whether the authorities or the managers and teaching organisations are satisfied that this will be enough to meet reasonable needs.
In relation to subhead C.6., aid towards the cost of school books, an extra £55,000 is being provided in addition to the £350,000 which was increased from £270,000 by the first Supplementary Estimate. I would appeal to the Minister to have another look at the administration of this scheme and to ask himself whether a great deal of trouble and the inevitable invidious distinctions might not be avoided by the introduction of a much more generous scheme. The present scheme puts head teachers in an invidious position as it forces them to make distinctions among their pupils. Many of them administer it as a social service, with whatever degree of willingness I am not sure, but even those who do it willingly would prefer it to be done by somebody else.
In relation to secondary education grants, a number of fairly substantial issues arise. In relation to the increase of £400,000 in the capitation grant, including the teachers' salaries grant, has this anything to do with the increased cost of heating oils for the schools, or is it simply an increase in the capitation grant including the teachers' salaries grant? Perhaps the Minister would deal with this when replying. I would appeal to the Minister to get the consent of the Minister for Finance and perhaps of the Committee of Public Accounts for the recasting of some of these Votes to make it more immediately clear to people precisely what transfers of funds are involved, to which institutions and for which purposes, because at the moment it is not clear enough to the average reader.
One particular element which I would like to bring up here, and it is not an unimportant one even though the sums of money involved are comparatively small, is the extraordinary way in which the Minister has increased fees for certificate examinations in our schools. The original fee of £3.50 has been increased to £7 for the group, intermediate and leaving certificate examinations; the late entry fee is now at the level of £19. I should like to ask the Minister how he seriously thinks the unemployed father of four or five children can produce that kind of money at short notice. As far as I know, the average amount of money given to an unemployed person for a dependent child is about £5 a week. The Department of Education are now asking the parents of these children to pay more for the right to sit a public examination than they are receiving from the State in benefit for that child for a week. If they cannot raise the money by the deadline, they have to come back with £19, more than an old age pensioner is required to live on for a week, and nearly four times the average weekly grant for a dependent child of an unemployed person. This examination fee business is one of the most regressive single aspects of educational financing, in that it bears equally on those who can and those who cannot afford to pay, and, I suspect, that the cost of its administration may not even be covered by the money brought in.
If the Minister is serious about promoting access to education at all levels he must seriously consider whether these now extremely large fees, especially in the case of a disadvantaged household, should not be looked at again. It is one thing for the Minister to lash out £10,000 here and £10,000 there, but it is effectively coming out of the pockets of the people who have to pay these increased examination fees for the right to sit a public examination for which they might be encouraged to think they paid for already through taxes. Then it is not generosity but simply transferring money within the Department from one Vote to another and giving the Minister the appearance of generosity.
In relation to community schools, which at present come under the Secondary Education Vote, there are two things that need to be said. The first is to criticise the Minister's studied refusal to bring the laboriously inactive deed of trust into this House for debate, discussion and approbation or otherwise. It is a characteristic of the Department he inherited that they seem to want to do as little as possible on the floor of this House and in this they are facilitated by the absence of any major caucus of modern educational legislation. Thus it is that such a major national issue as the community schools can be dealt with by the Minister to the exclusion of all comment in this House, except that which is allowed at Question Time. We can only assume he does not bring it in here because he does not want to and we can draw our own conclusions from that.
There is also a very serious question in relation to his administrative practice in the consultation process he established prior to the finalisation of these deeds. When I asked him in this House whom he had invited to consult with him on the formulation of the deeds, he gave me a list of people he had invited. He went on to say that two other bodies—the Secondary Education Commission, who represent a number of non-Catholic Christian churches in this State, and the Secondary Education Commission of the Church of Ireland—had been asked whether they would welcome an invitation, or words to that effect. Why on earth can the Minister not treat these people on the same basis as he treats others whom he invites straightaway to consult with him? For example, if he asks the Irish Vocational Educational Association or the Conference of Major Religious Superiors to consult with him, why should he not also ask on the same basis the Secondary Education Commission or any other body he feels have an entitlement to be involved in such consultation?
If the Minister has two different categories of organisations for consultation purposes, we are entitled to ask why one group of organisations are in category A and the other in category B. We are also entitled to ask why it is that even though all the organisations in category A are not Catholic, both of the organisations in category B are Protestant. If that does not smell of sectarianism, nothing does. We have yet to hear from the Minister, and I have questions down on this so I will not pursue it here, precisely what happened as a result of his extraordinarily general request asking somebody if they would welcome an invitation.
I heard that at least one of these organisations said they would welcome an invitation and actually met the Minister and gave him a fairly tough time on the deeds of trust. We have not heard anything about this in public and I hope the Minister will give us the information in due course. It is true that whatever the murky past of the affair, the equally murky present is that this particular deed of trust, as arrived at by his Department after consultations, is for a number of reasons not acceptable to many people and organisations whose views in this matter cannot be lightly disregarded.
This is particularly relevant in relation to the point raised by Deputy Collins about school transport. I, too, had representations of the kind referred to by Deputy Collins but I will be specific about my representations. If the situation has changed since those representations were made, that is a good thing, but the problem should not have arisen in the first place. The representations made to me were to the effect that people who lived adjacent to the Cabinteely community school, which is in my constituency, were sending their children to the Newpark comprehensive school which is further away than the Cabinteely community school. They were told that, in relation to one of the children who is coming up to secondary school age and whom they wanted to send to the Newpark school, because they lived within a certain radius of the Cabinteely school, free transport would not be extended to enable that child to go to the Newpark school.
The question is whether the policy is as that parent told me it then was or whether it has been revised to allow these parents the right, not to a choice of school, because that is not at issue, but to transport to a school of their choice.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 December 1979.