asked the Minister for Education if the £2.4 million extra funding announced in the budget for the phasing out of primary school prefabs is the same £2 million announced in the Programme for Action in Education as being additional capital for primary school building.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Primary School Prefabs.
17.
I take it that the Deputy refers to the additional Exchequer allocation of £2 million—not £2.4 million——
I do not want to interrupt the Minister of State but I should say that some gremlins got into the printing. The figure I put down was £2 million but some squiggle I wrote must have given the impression that it was £2.4 million.
I will omit the £2.4 million figure then?
Yes, thank you.
I take it that the Deputy refers to the additional Exchequer allocation of £2 million announced by the Minister for Finance in his 1984 budget speech as having been made available for primary school building, with the intention that it be spent on updating substandard primary school accommodation and replacing prefabricated and other temporary accommodation by permanent classrooms.
This is the same sum as that referred to by me in my statement to the Dáil on 6 March 1984 concerning the Programme for Action in Education.
There is nothing like being honest. The Minister of State has given a very straight answer there. If Fianna Fáil did that it would be called funny money.
A question, please, Deputy.
How can a Minister announce in a budget that there is extra money being provided for the phasing out of primary school prefabricated buildings and then come along and announce in another programme that there is extra money being provided for something else in primary schools? Quite obviously it is the same £2 million being recycled, reprocessed, yet emerging from two separate statements as if it were extra revenue going into primary schools when it is not. Is that not so?
That is not so. The £2 million announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech was made available as a result of representations made because of the condition of many primary schools throughout the country. As the Deputy and others have put down a number of questions in relation to pre-fabricated buildings and their condition, I should say that this revenue will be used to update those buildings and to replace some that are in a bad state of repair. That is the same £2 million that was mentioned — I have not the Minister's statement in front of me in which she mentioned that it constituted an extra £2 million over and above the budget — it is the £2 million provided for primary school buildings as announced in the Minister's budget speech.
It is the same £2 million which is being announced in different ways all the time. That is what I had discerned. Yet it is announced here as a great innovation. This came out in March, yet it had already been announced much earlier than that.
The Deputy can raise that matter on the budget if she likes.
It was announced twice with great pomp.
I have not detected the pomp. I was not aware of it.
There can be great pomp on the budget debate about it.
May I say it is the £2 million the Minister for Finance mentioned in his budget speech made available as a result of representations made to him in relation to the primary school building programme.
My point is that in the programme for action it is announced as something else.
I should like to ask, without any pomp, if the £2 million has been allocated. If it has been, what is the point in announcing it on two occasions?
The £2 million is available to the Department and that has been announced. It will be spent to update accommodation at primary school level. I do not know what the objection is to the Minister mentioning that in the programme for action and in her speech.
Has it been allocated? To how many projects has it been allocated?
Even if I had that information I could not give it to the Deputy as it is not normal procedure. The money will be spent to update accommodation at primary school level and to replace some pre-fab buildings which are in a bad state of repair.
How many prefabs would this money cover?
That is a separate question and I am not in a position to answer it.
I am calling the next question.
Is the Minister setting out to mislead by mentioning the £2 million?
The Minister to answer Question No. 18. We cannot stay on this question all day.
I have said what it was all about.
A subtle attempt to deceive was made by the Minister for Education. Our spokesperson was very fortunate to perceive what was involved.
That is not true.
18.
asked the Minister for Education if a survey has been undertaken to ascertain the current physical condition of many of the prefab school buildings throughout the country; and if the location and condition of these pre-fabs will be given.
A survey has not been undertaken by my Department, nor is any such survey contemplated, to ascertain the current physical condition of pre-fabricated school buildings throughout the country. I am not satisfied that any general survey as envisaged in the question from the Deputy is necessary or that the official time and financial resources involved in undertaking it would yield commensurate results.
The suitability of prefabricated classrooms is one in the first instance for the school authorities at primary and post-primary level.
My Department will respond immediately to any requests for the replacement of unsuitable classrooms.
I might add that the replacement of temporary accommodation is being undertaken as part of an ongoing process of the upgrading of school accommodation.
Is the Minister serious about the funding being allocated to replace prefabricated buildings? If he is, there must have been a survey to see how many need to be replaced? How can the money be allocated if there is no list of prefabs which need to be replaced?
I said there was no list as such. If accommodation is inadequate or unsuitable the school board of management make an application to the Department in the normal way. We have that examined by the Board of Works and in that way we have a record of the number of applications before us.
Surely that is following rather than leading.
That is pure argument.
Is it not the responsibility of the Department if, as the Minister repeatedly says, they are genuinely worried about the condition of prefabs, to undertake a survey of unsuitable pre-fab buildings and see how far £2 million will go? It is ridiculous to say £2 million will be allocated if it is not known——
That is argument and I will not allow it.
Anywhere that there is unsuitable accommodation——
This is argument.
I am not arguing. I am replying to a supplementary question. Anywhere that there is unsuitable accommodation or overcrowding an application is made immediately to the Department of Education. We process the application in the normal way. We do not undertake a survey of all prefab buildings. We only have a record of the number of applications before us at any given time. I am not in a position to say if the kind of survey mentioned by the Deputy will be undertaken in the future. I do not see the advantage of having such a survey at this stage. There are a number of prefabs which we would not be aware of. Some may be used temporarily and we would not have a record of them. I am sure the Deputy will understand the reason why we do not have such a survey.
A final supplementary. I will not allow argument.
The Chair is being very harsh today.
Does the Minister accept that the building of prefab schools in any shape or form is bad economy? As regards the building of new schools and extra rooms, there is a long drawn out process which involves the Board of Works and the Department. Would the Minister consider getting away from that and perhaps utilising AnCO training schemes for building new schools? Local labour could be employed and the work could go ahead more quickly than it does at present. I am sure the Department would also save considerably.
I accept that there is duplication between the Board of Works and the Department of Education. In any area of development where two State agencies are involved in doing the work, there is bound to be some duplication and misunderstanding. It is proposed to bring the primary school building programme within the Department of Education. That has been agreed by the Government. I should like to examine the position of applying AnCO training schemes to the building of new schools. It is a separate question and I could not give a definite answer. In relation to pre-fab buildings I agree with what the Deputy said. They are an eyesore but they serve a purpose in meeting emergencies such as an increase in numbers. It is my aim to get rid of them but it will depend on available resources.