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.

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.