The Minister stated that he had a saving of £1.750 million from primary when answering Question No. 8 and states also that there was a saving of £4.355 million on primary in his reckoning just now. Would the Minister state what was the total expenditure for primary, as a result, if it was reduced by £1.750 million and £4.355 million?

I am afraid that information is not in this brief. This question relates to vocational schools and third level institutions under the vocational education committees. My recollection is that the final outturn for primary school building purposes was £20.5 million, or £21 million. Certainly it is in that region if that is helpful to the Deputy. I have not got the exact figure, but then it is not the subject matter of this question.

Is the Minister aware that £30 million of the £79.3 million was allocated to the primary sector? Is he telling the House that £10 million less is being spent?

It does not arise on this Vote but——

It does not arise on this question. This question is concerned with comprehensive and community schools.

The reason is that the Departments of Finance and Education put the dead hand on primary school building in the autumn of 1980. They did it so effectively that, having tried to start the primary school building programme again, they discovered it took them longer than expected to get it under way. The £30 million they had included in the Estimates for 1981 they were unable to spend because the Office of Public Works took such a length of time to get the programme under way. Because of a Government decision having so effectively dead-handed it in the autumn of the previous year, it became necessary at intervals during the 1981 financial year to transfer sums from the primary Vote into the post-primary area, which had been seriously underprovided for. The moneys which the Office of Public Works were unable to expend on primary education were transferred and used for post-primary building purposes.

Is the Minister aware that the primary building sector in the Department of Education received a strict instruction as early as January of this year that £30 million were being provided? Is he aware that there are large lists of schools involved? There are 12 questions on the Order Paper about primary schools. Is the Minister telling the House that, despite the fact that the Government stated they were giving priority to primary education, despite the fact that all social scientists say that that is where the priority should be given, he has welched on this and is spending £10 million less on primary school building than he should have spent?

What I am telling the House is that the primary school building programme was in such tatters because of the embargo placed by the previous Government——

There was no embargo.

——on all new starts for primary schools in the autumn of 1980. Because of that embargo ——

Nonsense.

——which carried right through the autumn of 1980 until the beginning of this financial year, the Office of Public Works found difficulty in launching a comprehensive building programme in the primary sector until belatedly in 1981. Now, because of quite a number of starts which I and the Minister of State have authorised, there is a widescale building programme in the primary sector. As the House will know, because of the nature of construction and the lead-in time involved, the bulk of the demand for payment on foot of that ongoing work will fall to be met during the 1982 financial year. Really what happened here was that the previous Government dead-handed primary school building in 1980 ——

Would the Minister tell us the story of the three bears?

——dead-handed primary school building in 1980, then provided so much money in 1981 they were unable to spend it.

Is the Minister assuring the House that there is no bias in his Department against primary education in view of his performance since he became Minister for Education and as exemplified in the short-fall of £10 million in expenditure on primary school building this year?

There is no shortfall in expenditure on the primary capital Vote. I endeavoured some weeks ago to explain the financial facts of life to the House and in particular to Deputy Wilson but unfortunately he did not take in what I was pointing out. There was a necessity to transfer capital moneys which could not be expended due to mismanagement on the part of the previous Government in October 1980. I assure him and the House that there will not be bias in any direction shown by me in relation to any aspect of education. On the contrary, I intend as Minister to treat all aspects of education equally and equitably.

10.