Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1993

Vol. 432 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Higher Education Grants: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Jim Higgins on Tuesday, 15 June 1993:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the parties in Government for their failure to fulfil their election commitments to improvements in higher education grants and calls on the Government to:

(a) adopt the Fine Gael proposal to allow tax-free allowances to parents and guardians of students who do not qualify for grants and

(b) extend the higher education grants schemes to Irish students studying recognised courses in third level colleges in other EC countries.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann commends the Government for its commitment to continuing improvement of the Higher Education Grants Scheme and endorses its initiatives in the promotion of social justice and equity".

—(Minister for Education.)

Mrs. T. Ahearn

This is a timely motion. As we debate this issue 66,000 students are sweating it out doing the most trying examination of their lives, the results of which will either close or open a door to their future. Their task is far more difficult than ours. Ours is to give them a fair and equitable chance for a worthwhile future. For them and their parents I sincerely hope this motion will force the Minister to take action just as a similar motion proposed by this party forced the Minister for Education in 1992 to make improvements in the higher education grants system. The continued persistence of Fine Gael in outlining the gross inequities in this higher education grants system and our determination to pursue this issue I hope will force this Government to take the necessary steps to improve the system and widen eligibility for many students.

We cannot forget that discrimination against the PAYE workers and their families continues as does the exclusion of modest income families from third level education grants. Sadly, the Government continues to pussyfoot. Never was this more apparent than in the Minister's response to this motion. The Minister's contribution could be divided into three parts, none of which addressed the motion before the House. The Minister succeeded in ignoring the motion. She gave a long dissertation on the history of higher education grants. That is very interesting but it does not help those who cannot afford to attend third level colleges. The Minister then outlined the present system and boasted of the improvements made over the last year without conceding that the system is inadequate and without admitting that it was the persistence of Fine Gael which resulted in the improvements to the system. Worse still, when it came to future plans for the system we got the expected response that the Minister had set up an expert advisory group to carry out a fundamental review of the third level education grant support system. God help all those students as they wait desperately for a realistic and fair response from this Minister. They are intelligent people and the last thing they want to hear is that there will be a fundamental review. They know as well as we do that this means putting off any action.

I was stunned to hear the Minister say that inequities probably exist in the system. I can say without fear of contradiction that inequities exist and because of them students are denied access to third level education because they cannot afford it. The discrimination against the PAYE workers and their families continues. It is in their interests that we propose that income tax relief must be allowed to those who are not in receipt of higher education grants. Does the Minister realise the burden that was imposed on these families when the controversial, regressive and unjustified decision was taken to means test the ESF grant? The reality must be faced. Modest income families do not qualify for third level education and although the Minister might not like it, the result is that students cannot, due to financial reasons, accept third level places for which they have worked so hard. Income tax relief would be a major help to families in those circumstances.

It is unacceptable that parents who fork out almost £4,000 a year for fees and maintenance for third level education students are not given income tax relief when such relief is allowed for dental treatment. Does the Government believe that third level education is not as important as dental treatment? Is investment in a child's future not as entitled to income tax relief as investment in certain types of dental treatment? Both are essential and both should be allowed relief.

I am sure the Minister will not deny that the system discriminates heavily against PAYE workers and places almost impossible financial burdens on families with modest incomes in providing third level education for their children. The income eligibility limits introduced last year, praised as they were by the Minister, must be judged against the original limits which were scandalously low. Modest income families continue to be excluded from grant aid. A family with two children earning one penny over £15,000 per annum will lose part of a grant. Because of the deductions from that gross income such a family cannot possibly fund a student through college. We speak for these families, the families who provide the vast bulk of the income tax take, the PAYE sector. These families should and must have a tax free allowance on expenditure on third level education. It is extraordinary that tax relief is allowed on other major investments but not on education.

I hope that as a result of this motion and the contributions made to it the Minister will realise the enormous burden placed on families with modest incomes in order to provide third level education for their children. Indeed, as other Members have pointed out, in many cases such families are forced to remortgage their homes or take out expensive loans. In the interests of equity and fairness it is reasonable to propose that in such circumstances income tax relief should be allowed.

I also want to support that part of the motion dealing with students who, through no fault of theirs, can only find a suitable course in colleges outside our jurisdiction. Education should not be of a "buy Irish" quality; education, no matter where it is obtained should be for the well being of the students because their future will depend on that education. It is for this reason I believe that maintenance payments should be paid to such students. After all, none of us can deny that those same students would pursue courses in our colleges if they could succeed in obtaining places there. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this motion and support it.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to share my time with Deputies Ó Cuív, O'Leary and Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Agreed.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Private Members' motion and to support the amendment in the name of the Minister commending the Government for its commitment to continuing improvement of the higher education grants scheme and endorsing its initiatives in the promotion of social justice and equity. In the past, the grants scheme was perceived almost invariably as a recognition of academic achievement and excellence and as a way of rewarding both. However, today, thankfully within a more enlightened society the grants scheme is regarded as one of the parameters within which successive Governments and society are judged as promoting equality of educational opportunity. Its main purpose is to ensure to the greatest possible extent that no student is deprived of access to third level education because of his or her financial circumstances. I am convinced that Members on all sides of the House share the laudable objective that improvements in grants and in student support must continue in order to achieve equality of access to third level education on the part of students of all social backgrounds.

Before commenting on recent significant improvements effected in the grants and student support areas — significant improvements on which Deputy Theresa Ahearn commented but to which she did not attach great significance — I want to comment on the amendment tabled in Deputy Quill's name, which reads:

‘reform the 3rd level grants scheme to ensure complete transparency and equity in its operation, taking into account the criteria for inclusion of wealth and assets in determining income and eligibility'.

I quoted her amendment because I wanted to highlight at least one serious anomaly that obtains in the scheme. I shall cite the case of a professional person, such as a teacher, with four children and an annual salary of £22,180. I am thinking now of a specific case, I could quote other professionals but I am taking just one example with which I am familiar, as Deputy Jim Higgins will appreciate. That teacher generally will find that he will not have much surplus, disposable income at the end of the month. Yet he will not qualify for eligibility for a third level grant.

I am speaking now as a Dublin Deputy but those to whom I have spoken, in such circumstances, particularly those residing in the country, experience great difficulty in sending their children to college where fees and maintenance costs are involved. Yet a sister of that teacher, in a very secure, semi-State job, married to a reasonably prosperous farmer, with a generous surplus, disposable income, with a reasonably good standard of living, can obtain grants for both fees and maintenance. That is but one example of many self-employed people — I am not digging into the self-employed but I must highlight this anomaly — who can use tax write-offs to create a disposable income enabling them to qualify for both fees and maintenance under the provisions of the grants scheme. I do not blame the Minister or the scheme for that. Rather I believe there is a need for much closer collaboration between the office of the inspector of taxes and the operators of the scheme in an endeavour to abolish this most unacceptable inequity, certainly most unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to the Minister. I would appeal to the Minister to examine this anomaly very closely and endeavour to devise a formula to deal with the problem. If I have an opportunity I shall refer later to the review group the Minister has established to examine the operations of the scheme.

I have examined paragraph (a) of the Fine Gael motion which reads:

adopt the Fine Gael proposal to allow tax-free allowances to parents and guardians of students who do not qualify for grants and...

which, while having certain merits, could be re-examined. If the Fine Gael motion was passed in an unabridged or unamended form it would run totally contrary to the concept of equity. I say that with no disrespect to Deputy Jim Higgins of whose overall commitment to education and educational policy I am well aware. Quite frankly, were the House to pass a tax-free allowance measure for students in third level education without amendment theoretically parents in receipt of a salary of say, £100,000 per annum, could be granted a tax-free allowance simply because their sons or daughters were attending a third level educational establishment. That would run totally contrary to the whole concept of equity in education, an aspect which may well have been missed.

Despite the very significant improvements in greater access to third level education implemented recently, I might remind the House that last year, for example, there was an increase in the income eligibility limit of 40 per cent. Deputy Theresa Ahearn did not think it much but an increase of that amount in one year is very significant. Indeed, the example most quoted to illustrate that point was referred to by the Minister last evening, that is the case of a family with an annual income of £15,000 with three dependent children. That constitutes a significant move forward on the road to greater equity, greater access and equality of opportunity. I know from my dealings with constituents that it is not sufficient, that more needs to be done within the short and medium term in this area.

Another improvement effected last year was the passage of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1992, containing two special provisions for mature students, to whom the Minister referred last evening. I will not go into them in detail but those improvements are significant and constitute a positive move forward on the road to addressing the inequities that have obtained to date. I would encourage the Minister to continue along that road. I know of her commitment and that contained in the Programme for Government. All I can do is continue to support that commitment and the unequivocal sentiments that have been expressed in that respect.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Is dóigh liom nach bhfuil oiread is Teachta amháin sa Dáil nach mbeadh i bhfábhar deontais breise do scoláirí tríú leibhéil. Ach ag an am gcéanna, ní fólair breathnú ar an gceist go fuarchúiseach.

The first thing I should like to say on this motion is that when it comes to money — which will always be scarce — we cannot come into this House one day and say we want more money for primary school buildings, on another day say we want money for secondary schools, on another day, money for third level, without putting some order, sequence or choices on the table. Although I come from a background in which third level education was considered the norm, I make no bones about the fact that we must look first to primary education because that is where it all begins. Indeed, it is at that level that certain sections of our population begin to fall behind and never catch up. Therefore, resources for primary education must become and continue to be a priority. I have never made any apology for so saying.

A few things strike me as rather odd about this motion. As my colleague, Deputy Liam Fitzgerald said, if one takes what is included in that motion, that is to grant tax-free allowances to those at present above the income limit, one would wind up making resources available to some very well-off people. If there are choices to be made then we cannot afford to direct resources at very well-off people, in a willy-nilly, across-the-board fashion. This would be wasting scarce resources which should be targeted at those most in need.

Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with the motion which, if passed, would mean that a taxpayer in the highest tax band would reap greatest benefit from the provisions of that scheme. In fact, I would go so far as to maintain that until we change to a tax credit system we cannot talk about tax-free allowances of this type. It would be much more to the point to begin raising the income ceilings, thereby rendering more people eligible for grants. Speaking as somebody for whom obtaining a Dáil salary meant paying the highest tax rate in his lifetime, I should say that I have spent more of my working life on the lower income level than on the higher income level. Bearing in mind the £30,000 or whatever it is we receive annually, there are very many more people in less fortunate circumstances than I in our society. If resources are scarce the available resources should be directed at those whose income is just above the limit to include them in the scheme. Instead of trying to include everybody, including those with incomes of up to £200,000 or £500,000, the limit should be raised systematically.

Significant changes have been made during the past few years. For instance, the number of honours required has been reduced from four to two while the grant limits have been increased significantly. In addition mature students can now benefit while assistance is provided to those families with two or more children in third level education at the one time. This represents significant progress but there are still anomalies in the system. It therefore needs to be reviewed so as to remove the rough edges and to ensure that money is targeted at those most in need.

I would like to make a few suggestions. For example, certain items of expenditure, such as mortgage repayments, should be taken into account. Where the amount of disposable income is small a case could be made that such expenditure should be taken into account in arriving at reckonable income. Furthermore if the self-employed are benefiting under the system, this is due to inefficient tax assessment. However, having said this, I know of self-employed persons who lost out because depreciation was not taken into account.

Finally, there is one peculiar anomaly in the system which the Minister should examine and it relates to the position in which 22 year old married persons find themselves. If their spouse is on the dole and their father's or mother's income is above the limit they are considered to be a dependant of their father or mother, not their spouse. That anomaly should be rectified.

Mr. O'Leary

Fianna Fáil has always been the party concerned with education. Our schools undoubtedly need more resources. Fianna Fáil has always and will continue to address the question of disadvantage in education. The Government is continuing to advance further policies in this regard. Fianna Fáil has constantly upgraded the system to the extent that Irish graduates are among the most highly educated in Europe. They have travelled all over the world and gained employment in the most competitive of jobs markets.

The Government's commitment, is reiterated in the Programme for Government. In relation to student support the programme states:

We anticipate that under the new Structural Funds extra resources will be available to assist with the cost of third level education. On that basis it is the Government's intention to ensure that these additional resources are used to widen the access of all students to third level education in the interests of social justice and equity. The promotion of social justice and equity will include continuing improvement of the Higher Education Grants Scheme to ensure that no student is deprived of access to third level education because of his/her financial circumstances.

The number of students in third level education has trebled over the last 20 years, from 21,000 in 1965 to almost 50,000 in 1992-93. If this trend continues it is expected that there will be over 100,000 students in third level education by the turn of the century. This increase is reflected in the increasing proportion of the age group proceeding to third level — 20 per cent in 1989, over 40 per cent last year and close to 50 per cent by the turn of the century.

Universities cater for the largest number of students, with 46,000 currently in third level education. The growth in regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology has been particularly dramatic. In the last 13 years full-time student numbers have risen from 6,500 to 22,000.

Total public expenditure on education in 1993 will amount to £1.8 billion, or approximately 19 per cent of Government expenditure. Third level education now accounts for about 22 per cent of the education budget. Total student support, in respect of fees and maintenance grants, provided by the State this year will amount to approximately £84 million compared to a figure of £75 million in 1992. This represents a 12 per cent increase in one year. While these figures are welcome, they highlight the shortfall. Much work has been done, but much more needs to be done. As I have said, we have probably the best education system in Europe, but not everyone can gain access to it. This situation must be reversed.

These are the very positive indicators of progress which highlight the Government's continuing commitment to the systematic expansion and development of our higher education system and underline the willing co-operation that has been forthcoming from all higher education institutions in maximising the use of existing facilities and resources. What we need to do now is build more facilities and provide more resources. The Minister must not rest on her laurels. She is to be congratulated on the work already done, but she must remember that there is a long way to go.

From the above information it can be clearly seen that overall developments in higher education have been excellent. It is also evident that the major phase of expansion in the capacity of the third level system has already taken place, for which I congratulate the Minister and her Department. However, I would like her to examine the grant system further in a more specific way. The grant system as it stands at present serves only a small percentage of the students at third level colleges. In 1992, 39,000 students received third level grants. In Kerry, for example, Kerry County Council paid out £3,156,000 in student grants, excluding the ESF and vocational education committee grants.

I request the Minister to look into the possibility of obtaining a further allocation of Structural Fund moneys, as promised in the Programme for Government. This money could go towards achieving the ideal situation, where everybody wishing to obtain third level education could do so regardless of their financial status. No person should be deprived for material reasons of their right to obtain third level education. These Structural Funds could also be used to provide more places in third level education.

The PAYE taxpayer has been victimised so as far as third level education is concerned — the majority do not qualify for student grants even though they are footing the bill. What we urgently need is the most equitable system possible to facilitate as many people as possible. What we cannot forget is that education is a fundamental right that everybody is entitled to. The education system has changed dramatically from what applied in the days when I was growing up. Everybody was then expected to leave the education system as quickly as possible to try to gain employment to help the family finances. I am delighted that this attitude is now defunct and that everyone realises that it is their right to continue in education for as long as they wish. The only thing that is currently holding them back is the lack of financial support from the State. It is for this reason that I am imploring the Minister to provide more State funding for third level places and grants.

The decision to open up two new universities in Dublin and Limerick was welcomed universally. This decision has proved to be a major success, with the two universities thriving and full to capacity. This can be taken as an indication that the number of people denied access to universities is still far too high.

In discussing student grants and education on a wider scale, we should not forget those students who are currently sitting their leaving and junior certificate examinations. They are the future of this country and they are looking for their rights to attend third level colleges. However, the current points system is not encouraging them; it puts the students under too much pressure. We should put a system in place as a matter of urgency under which students would be welcomed to third level education and not frightened off, which is what happens at present under the current system.

I will conclude by asking the Minister to consider the suggestions I have made. I do not expect her, as she stated last night, to wave a magic wand and produce streamlined procedures overnight; but I want her to implement as many improvements as possible at the earliest possible date. I hope that next year leaving certificate students will not be put under the same pressure.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Labour Party will continue to press for access to third level education to be extended on an equal basis to all sections of society. If one looks at the socio-economic background of the students currently attending third level educational institutions, one will see that the situation has got worse rather than better in recent years. The imbalance has worsened to the extent that less than 5 per cent of third level students come from families where the parents are unskilled. This anomaly has continued despite the introduction of grants during the seventies, their extension during the eighties and the improvements last year. Educationists know that this imbalance can only be redressed by improving the education facilities available and the family circumstances of the bottom 20 per cent in our society. Otherwise any extension of the grant system will simply pass them by.

Cherishing all the children of the nation equally requires, in terms of resources, positive discrimination in favour of children from the lower socio-economic groups. I am glad the Minister has placed emphasis on intervening on behalf of disadvantaged children. This emphasis, which is long overdue, has been generally welcomed. The appropriate financial measures needed to increase the participation rate of children from the lower socio-economic groups in third level education must be imbued with the basic principle of social equity. Unfortunately, the motion is defective in that respect. The motion proposes, in effect, to increase Exchequer funding through tax free allowances for parents who fall outside the existing income limit for student grants. As Deputy Theresa Ahern said, the objective should be to eliminate the inequities in the current grant system. I fear that this motion would only make those inequities worse.

If we are genuine about allocating more resources for third level grants the correct approach is to progressively increase the income limit and the payment of the higher level of student grant. All third level places involve a high level of subsidy by the State which benefits both the country and the individual concerned by equipping them with the necessary skills to secure decent employment in the labour market. There is a clear correlation between a student's level of skills and qualifications and his or her success in the labour market.

If our Exchequer position and national debt were not such serious problems the Labour Party would be in favour of extending the grant system across the board and dispensing with all means testing. Of course, this would mean that grants would be funded entirely out of general taxation — a matter which would have to be addressed by this House — and the current claw back from families with up to three children with incomes above the £15,000 threshold would be abolished. However, it is acknowledged that tax free allowances automatically benefit those on the higher levels of income most. A more practical and equitable approach would be to raise the basic income limit to approximately £20,000, with a subsequent widening of the tax bands. If we are to focus on the greatest priority in this area — this is the stated aim of most Members — we must raise the level of grants, the incentive low income families require to allow their children to make the breakthrough into third level education.

I welcome the establishment by the Minister of the advisory group which will examine the criteria for eligibility for third level grants from the point of view of ensuring equity in the financing of higher education. A number of individuals and groups have made detailed, thorough and deserving submissions to the advisory group. I look forward to the early publication of a report by that group. I am confident that action will be taken promptly on foot of that report.

The second part of the Fine Gael motion has much merit. The number of students seeking third level places is likely to exceed the number of places available within the next ten years. Enrolments at primary level are falling and the student population bulge is now in the 12-14 age group. This means that the number of students seeking places will exceed the number of places available during the next ten years. The unemployment situation will make the demand for graduate, technical and post-graduate courses more necessary. In order to accommodate Irish students who take up places in other EC countries we should extend the grant system. Under EC regulations Irish students who attend colleges in other member states must be treated the same as students from the member state in which they attend college. However, as we know from many students who take up places in Britain there are no maintenance grants available for these Irish students. The Minister should look at this matter.

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Quill in her contribution last night. The inclusion of wealth and assets in the eligibility criteria is essential if the perceived inequity in the percentage of third level students from non-PAYE backgrounds is to be rectified. It is particularly galling for me as a TD to have to tell workers caught in the PAYE-PRSI net that the children of people with assets in excess of £250,000 can receive a full grant because of their parents' income tax returns. The suggestion made during the general election campaign that free third level education should be made available to all would only be feasible if all existing covenanting arrangements were abolished. The cost of doing this would be in excess of £50 million. While this suggestion is not totally prohibitive, obviously it would require increased funding. The thrust of the first part of the Fine Gael motion is unintentionally regressive. I would prefer to go down the route of ensuring free access to third level education through some means other than additional taxation allowances.

The Minister has stated clearly that one of her priorities is to improve support and access to education. The measures she has taken at primary level will hopefully mean that more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds will eventually be faced with the problem of how they will support themselves while attending a third level institution. At present many of these students do not complete secondary education. As a person who has worked with children who left school at an early age, I am glad the Minister is making the primary sector a priority. She has taken clear action in regard to capital funding for primary education, increased the capitation levels for primary education and taken the first steps in substantially improving the number of remedial teachers allocated to primary schools, particularly schools in rural areas which had been neglected for many years. This type of action, together with the review which will be carried out on foot of the report of the expert advisory group, will increase participation in all levels of the education system.

In regard to administration, I should like the Minister to publish the scheme for third level grants early, make clear information available to parents and students from this stage onwards and provide the application forms at an early stage so that students may apply for grants, assemble the necessary information, collate it and check it as soon as they have completed their leaving certificate examination. This would avoid the problems which arose last year. The system was improved last year for various families and mature students but other people were crucified by having to compile the necessary information in such a short time. Will the Minister have this matter addressed in time for this year's round of grant applications?

I cannot support the Fine Gael motion because the proposed measures are regressive rather than progressive. I commend the Minister's amendment and I know that the process of improvement which has started in third level grants will continue during her term of office.

Proinsias De Rossa

I rise to support the amendment in the name of Deputy Gilmore. As other Deputies have pointed out, the first part of the Fine Gael motion would be regressive. I would be one of those who would benefit from this Fine Gael motion as my children in third level education do not qualify for grants, but I do not believe that I should benefit from additional resources for third level or in any area of education. Any additional resources should benefit those on low and middle incomes. While a Deputy's income is not extraordinarily high, it enables us to cope with the cost of third level education.

If we introduced a system of funding at third level which was based on tax relief on parent's income for those whose children would not otherwise qualify for grants, we would be increasing the disparities that already exist at third level and this would increase the gap between the opportunities available for the children of skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers and those of the salaried, managerial and professional class and employers. The Higher Education Authority report, which was published late last year, pointed out yet again that there is a major disparity between the children of working class families and those on higher incomes entering university. This has highlighted the need for a major review of the current grants system. I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced a body to do that and I hope its report will be made available quite soon. I do not know if it is possible to introduce major changes in the coming academic year but I hope some changes can be made in October so that we begin to address the disparities that exist.

Obviously money alone is not the only reason that some students do not have the opportunity to go on to third level education. Clearly the financial burden is a major problem for parents, some of whom live in my own constituency. Some young people who would be excellent do not get the opportunity to go on to third level education because their parents are struggling to maintain them and I believe that any additional resources given to third level education should go to them. I would be reluctant to allow a system where tax free allowances would be used to assist those with children going to third level education. The reality is that those on the higher marginal rates of tax benefit most. That is how income tax relief operates in relation to VHI and mortgage interest relief. Essentially, as a society we are subsidising in a range of areas people who in many respects do not require subsidisation. I am not arguing that there are not people on low enough incomes and paying tax who may benefit somewhat from income tax relief in this area, but I do not think that help should be given in the form of income tax relief. It should be done instead by reforming the grants system itself.

I believe that access to third level education starts at the pre-school stage. I come from a large family with no tradition of third level education. I did not pursue third level education and of my late mother's 50 odd grandchildren only two have gone on to third level education. This is not because the other grandchildren were not bright and could not have benefited from further education, or indeed that their parents could not afford to send their children to college, but it was not the tradition to go on to third level education. Because of their social background and culture, working class families do not see third level education as a means of acquiring a job or enhancing job prospects. It is not only a question of ensuring there are adequate grants. We have to ensure that even before children go to formal school they have adequate access to preschool. Based on the available research, there is no doubt that children who go to preschool have a major advantage over those who do not, and having gone through some form of preschool education the children are streets ahead of the primary school pupils who have not. That is an area where money could be spent, particularly in the disadvantaged areas about which the Minister has already indicated her concern.

Resources could also be put into reducing class sizes in primary schools. I do not want to go into too much detail because I omitted to ask at the beginning to be allowed to share my time with Deputy Paul McGrath.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa

The quality of some school buildings hinders the capacity of children to benefit from their excellent teachers. I draw the Minister's attention to the Holy Spirit School, Ballymun, which sent a deputation to her office in recent weeks. This school, which is 25 years old, is literally falling down around the teachers' heads and there is an urgent need to have it refurbished. Everyone in the country knows that Ballymun is a disadvantaged area.

At second level, schools unofficially select their students by one means or another. Sometimes the parents self-select the schools because they have particular views on the skills they wish their children to acquire. Unless mixed ability pupils are encouraged at second level, we will continue to have a large number of students in disadvantaged areas who do not achieve their full potential. The whole question of amalgamating schools on the basis of numbers falling below certain levels is one which the Minister should seriously consider. There is an example of this in my own constituency in the comprehensive schools which, in terms of the criteria applied, fall below the numbers required for maintaining separate comprehensive senior and junior schools. Given the socio-economic problems in that area it would be a major error in terms of preparing children for later education to amalgamate those schools and create a situation where children who are already disadvantaged would be further disadvantaged because of class size, lack of technical classes and so on. A range of areas needs to be addressed to ensure that an imbalance does not exist at third level as between one socio-economic group and another. I am not arguing that the sons and daughters of farmers or the sons and daughters of salaried parents should not go to university. Clearly they should, but as a democracy we have to ensure that every child in our society has equal access to third level education where they have the ability to benefit.

We come now to the competitive aspect and the points system. Many children go through most of their second level education scared stiff that they will not be able to obtain the necessary points to gain access to a particular course or to get into a third level institution. Clearly there have to be some entry criteria but they should be the same for all students. We need seriously to address the damage caused to many young people as a result of competition in the leaving certificate.

There are many things I would like the Minister for Education to do in the area of education. Giving tax free allowances for third level education is not one of them. I would urge her to ensure that the recommendations from the expert group are brought forward as quickly as possible so that we will begin to see some change in how our children gain access to third level education.

Mr. McGrath

As I listened to this debate I thought there was a possibility that we would win the vote because a number of Government speakers indicated their satisfaction with the proposals brought forward by Deputy Jim Higgins. I was beginning to think there were some conversions and that we would have an historic occasion but, unfortunately, each one concluded by saying that they wanted change, that the system was inequitable but, alas they were not ready for change just yet and suggested it be postponed to another day. Deputy Liam Fitzgerald outlined very clearly that a teacher's salary would not be adequate to send somebody to third level education. He went along with the the bones of what Deputy Higgins proposed but said, "let us have it but not just yet".

Deputy John O'Leary referred to the need for third level grants and said that the PAYE sector is victimised in relation to third level grants. I was convinced that Deputy O'Leary would cross the floor tonight and vote with us but, unfortunately, he shied away. Perhaps he was preparing a script for the local newspapers which he could circulate, omitting the last sentence in which he said he was not able on this occasion to vote along those lines or to vote for those changes.

Deputy Gallagher was in favour of the second part of this motion and felt strongly that students who have to go to Britain or elsewhere should qualify for grants in the ordinary way. Perhaps he will cross party lines with one leg and stay back with the other. I do not know how he will vote this evening. The media in his own area of Tullamore will report that he almost voted to give a fairer system to students but not just yet.

Proinsias De Rossa

We will let the hair split.

Mr. McGrath

We will let the hair split. I welcome this opportunity to debate the present inequitable system of providing grants to students of third level colleges. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Jim Higgins, on initiating this debate and on the excellent manner in which he introduced it. His contribution, in which he outlined the nature of the problem and the real financial difficulties experienced by PAYE workers who are endeavouring to educate their children, is in stark contrast to the Minister's reply, in which she said:

I fully accept the need for urgent action in this area. Not only must the general terms and conditions of the schemes be improved but their actual delivery has also to be streamlined ... and I will await the expert group's recommendations in that regard.

If the matter is so urgent — and she acknowledges it is — why not accept Deputy Higgins' proposals even on an interim basis? On many occasions the then Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, indicated she was setting up an inter-departmental group to review the whole system. There were similar promises from former Ministers for Education, Deputy Séamus Brennan and Deputy Davern. In fairness to Deputy Brennan, he introduced improvements in the system. The Minister has promised us that the expert group is reviewing third level grants but are we to continue to wait? Why not accept Deputy Higgins' proposals and put them into operation until the expert group report? When the group recommends a system better than that proposed by Deputy Higgins, then we should be in a position to go back to the Minister's proposals. In the meantime we must not allow people to suffer and to be out of pocket.

During the election campaign last November Fianna Fáil promised free third level education for everybody. Was this a genuine proposal or was it simply an election promise made in a last desperate effort to win support? The person who made that promise to the electorate was the then Minister for Education, Deputy Brennan. He should come before the House tonight and explain why he did so and why his party when they subsequently got into Government did not live up to that promise. I wonder how he will vote tonight. Will he do what his party tells him?

At the same time the Labour Party promised to work towards basing income limits for higher education grants on net rather than gross income. They also promised that take home pay would be the criterion for assessing eligibility for medical cards. Despite the fact that Labour Party members are Ministers in each of those two Departments — Education and Health — neither promise has yet been implemented. While I realise it is still early days in the Government's term of office they should be moving in that direction and we should have definite signs that something is about to happen.

The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy O'Shea, debating an education motion introduced by Deputy Jim Higgins in July 1992 agreed that PAYE workers were discriminated against. He said that the proposals by then Minister for Education, Deputy Brennan did no go far enough and that more needed to be done. He was in Opposition on that occasion but I wonder how he will vote tonight.

The cost of sending a student to a third level college is of the order of £4,500. I speak from experience as I have two children in third level education and I am aware of the tremendous burden of putting somebody through college. I estimate that it costs in the region of £4,500 per child per annum to cover fees, books, accommodation and so on. That is a large sum of money and is difficult to find. On a TD's salary one will manage it but many people on £16,000, £17,000, or £18,000 a year are doing likewise and I admire them for it. They are doing so under extreme difficulty, frequently having to remortgage their houses. This cannot be tolerated any longer.

Many speakers on the Government side indicated that the proposals put forward tonight are a gift to the well-off and that both persons earning £20,000 per annum and £100,000 per annum will benefit to the same extent. We must clarify what exactly is involved. Deputy Higgins' motion proposes that people who do not qualify for a grant should be entitled to write off the expenses against their income tax, which will amount to approximately £1,650 per annum. It will not be any more or less; it will amount to approximately £31 per week. Although we would prefer if the super rich paid for their education, that is the extent of the benefit, and many super rich people receive grants anyway because of the way the system operates. I am aware of a self-employed person in my area who had great difficulty in obtaining a grant for his daughter. Following much correspondence between that person's accountant and the county council, eventually he was given a grant for his daughter who high-tailed it off to college. However, it was disturbing to note that that young lady arrived at college on her first day in a new car which her father bought for her to assist her in getting to and from college. That is an example of how a self-employed person can manipulate the system in order to get a grant. I am aware of another self-employed professional with three children who qualified for grants in quick succession. That man was able to buy a house in the university town for his children so they could live there while at college. How was he able to do that and at the same time receive grants for his three children? There must be something wrong with a system that allows for such an injustice. At the same time any soldier, garda, teacher, factory worker or others earning more than £15,000 per annum will not qualify for a grant and their children might not be able to attend college as a result.

I commend this motion tabled by Deputy Higgins and I hope that as many Members as possible will support it.

Mr. Deenihan

I congratulate Deputy Jim Higgins for putting down this motion especially at a time when students are considering their options for next September following completion of their examinations. Unfortunately, many students will not be able to pursue careers of their choice because of our unfair and inequitable higher education grants scheme.

It is ironic in the year the Government has no difficulty in granting a tax amnesty to the rich that it is unable to give modest tax relief to hard-pressed PAYE parents. It is even conceivable that some of the people who will benefit from the amnesty have received higher education grants already. It must be an embarrassment to the Minister's party that on the one hand it can allow many wealthy people that great concession and on the other deprive many families of a tax concession on their hard earned income.

The rising cost of keeping students at university and other third level colleges is causing severe financial hardship to many parents. The burden on parents of middle income families in particular in maintaining students away from home is intolerable. Parents who are not entitled to fee subvention or maintenance grants are under great financial pressure and in many cases must forego their life savings or resort to second mortgages or loans to keep their children in college. Those are mainly middle aged parents who have worked hard for 20 to 25 years and made substantial tax contributions to the State. The financial burden is particularly difficult where students are required to live away from home to pursue their third level studies. The total cost to parents of a typical four year college degree course is approximately £20,000, roughly £5,000 per annum. The financial burden is alarming as those costs must be met from income after the parents have paid income tax, mortgage payments, life insurance premia, VHI contributions, service charges and all the other routine costs of rearing and maintaining a family. If two children from such families wish to go to college, the position becomes impossible. Our higher education grants system needs a radical overhaul. The proposal in this motion by Fine Gael to allow tax free allowances to parents and guardians of students who do not qualify for grants will help to ease the burden considerably on that sector.

Deputies Higgins and McGrath referred to the promise made by the Minister's party during the election campaign. I appreciate that it still has some time to implement its promises, but it should start making an effort in that direction. I will draw the Minister's attention to the words of the Fianna Fáil manifesto at that time. Indeed, according to a statement issued by the Minister here on 11 March, he dissociated himself from the words of that manifesto by stating that it would be unfair to make such a commitment. In its election manifesto the Labour Party promised to work towards a position where the income limit for higher education grants would be based on net income rather than gross income. Many parents voted for the Labour Party based on that commitment. Deputy Costello must feel ashamed of the Labour policies in this regard, because I frequently heard him speak of the intolerable burden on middle income parents. On many occasions he emphasised the inequitable grants system we operated. When the Fianna Fáil Party realised that the Labour commitment struck a chord with the parents of this country, not to be outmanoeuvred before the election, it promised free third level education for all. That commitment has been put firmly on the backburner.

As pointed out by Deputy Higgins, the Minister reneged on his election promise in this House in March last. That is one of the many promises his party has reneged on since the publication of the Fianna Fáil manifesto last October. I appeal to the Minister to take Deputy Higgins's suggestions on board and consider his arguments carefully. In talking about equality of opportunity applying to all children, we are talking about children from middle income groups who are prevented from pursuing careers of their choice at present because of the inequitable higher education grants system.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion put down by Deputy Higgins, some aspects of which deserve merit, but others do not. I consider the issues raised during this debate on the higher education grants scheme as an indication of the wide interest in what undoubtedly is an important area affecting the lives of many of our people. The commitment in the Programme for Government to widen access for all students to third level education in the interests of justice and equity is the policy basis for the development of a fully comprehensive student support programme. Such a programme will address the concerns raised by Deputy Higgins in making this proposal to grant tax free allowances to parents and guardians of students who do not qualify for grants. I do not see that proposal for tax free allowances as a move in the direction of a fairer and more equitable distribution of resources in the area of third level student support. I am happy to confirm that the higher education grants scheme does cover recognised third level courses in Northern Ireland. I mention this lest any confusion arose as a result of the debate last night.

On the wider issue of extending the higher education grants scheme to Irish students in the United Kingdom, the Minister pointed out last night that this is essentially a question of identifying priorities for Exchequer resources. The Minister might further consider this issue in the context of the ongoing review of the grants scheme. It is an issue that merits careful consideration. It would be of considerable benefit to have grants extended to students attending third level institutions in the United Kingdom.

Deputy Quill's amendment calls for the reform of the third level grants scheme to ensure complete transparency and equity in its operation, taking into account the criteria for the inclusion of wealth and assets in determining income eligibility. The Minister explained last night her reasons for setting up the expert advisory group. I can see that there is a temptation for the Opposition to dismiss the setting up of this group. I understand it comprises some very eminent experts with impeccable credentials. Although there is some concern that the setting up of another committee whose report will eventually be consigned to the dust-laden shelves in the Department of Education is a long-fingering exercise, I note the Minister's stated determination to publish this report and I welcome the transparency and openness of her approach.

We should await the outcome of that report. The remit of the expert advisory group enables it, in the context of means assessment, to focus directly on the issues of equity and financial capacity of parents and applicants to pay and to examine the case for the inclusion of wealth and assets in determining income eligibility for student grants.

Deputy Gilmore's amendment emphasies equal access to third level education for students from low income backgrounds. The Minister stated last night, and previously at Question Time, that by far the most significant improvement in 1992 in the higher education grants scheme was the 40 per cent improvement in eligibility income limits.

It is necessary to weigh carefully all that has been said in this debate. In the last analysis, however, it comes down to making the best possible use of the limited resources available. Given the substantial and continuing expansion of student numbers in the third level education sector it seems that we would need almost infinite resources to provide the kind of supports which we would wish our students. Unfortunately, this cannot be done in the foreseeable future. Choices will have to be made and priorities established. The key issue is to ensure that resources are used to optimum effect in implementing the policy objectives laid down by the Government.

I am happy to support the steps taken to date by the Minister and the Government to redress inequitable funding in the education area generally and specifically the steps she has taken to ensure the promotion of social justice and equity in the higher education grants scheme and improved organisational arrangements for the delivery of that scheme.

Mr. Crawford

I would like to share my time with Deputy Jim Higgins.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Crawford

I thank Deputy Jim Higgins for bringing this before the Dáil. This is one of the major issues for middle income families many of whom, because of the cost of third level education, have become the new poor. Some changes were made but they were by no means enough. Rural parents especially have to pay not only the college fees for their children but the cost of maintenance away from home plus bus fares, etc. They are the worst hit.

There is no question that the promises made before the last election had some bearing on the fact that there are 101 Deputies on the other side of the House. Free education for all was promised. When we put forward a realistic proposal we were laughed at by many parents because they said it was not enough. Today they would be very happy to see this proposal put through this House and get acceptance from all sides. It would be a major breakthrough as many parents would get some relief.

The ESF grants which were available up to a year ago are now gone. Were it not for the fact that many of my constituents were able to get their fees paid at colleges in Northern Ireland such as Queen's University, Jordanstown, Coleraine and McGee they would have very little chance of getting a third level education. I sincerely thank the colleges in the North for giving us in the Border counties that opportunity. There are other colleges in Northern Ireland where the fees are not paid and we should work to get those fees paid as well. I have in mind agricultural colleges, the college in Enniskillen and many others. It is unfair that some students who want to travel North for geographical and social reasons cannot do so because of those restrictions.

We have to be realistic. Some parents have had to give up reasonable jobs and opt for social welfare because otherwise their children would not get third level education. This is a claim that I can stand over. When both parents are working in ordinary jobs they have serious problems if more than one child wants to go on to third level education. Some of my neighbours' children have to go to London and elsewhere during the summer holidays to work, sometimes in two jobs, in the hope that they might be able to stay in college for the following year.

This proposal, put forward by Deputy Jim Higgins, is a very worthwhile one. If it were discussed at our council meeting in Monaghan, I am quite sure that the majority, regardless of party, would back it. I beg this House to treat it seriously. If it is voted down tonight, as I am quite sure it will be from comments I have had, the Minister might at least take the spirit of our discussion to heart and take steps quickly to rectify the present impossible situation.

Mr. J. Higgins

I thank everybody who contributed to this important debate on the need for improvements in the higher education grants system. I particularly thank the Minister for her courtesy in coming to listen to the debate. It is a rarity for a Minister to come into the House on both nights in Private Members' time. Deputy John Browne spoke with great insight and feeling as a parent and a teacher. Deputy Róisín Shortall felt that the emphasis should be on primary education. That is a point echoed by Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív. The reality is that at third level we now have a large number of students, more than 40,000, who are not receiving any grants. As Deputy Crawford said, the majority of those students are coming from the new poor — those in the middle income bracket. Two years ago, Deputies Quill and Theresa Ahearn produced an excellent breakdown in relation to the anomalies and inequities of the existing scheme. Deputy Liam Fitzgerald could not have put the case better, as Deputy McGrath said, he was basically agreeing with us but could not vote for the motion. He, like a number of others, had concerns that the rich and the super rich would benefit from this scheme. As Deputy McGrath said, we are not talking about anything here that would in any way whet the appetites of the super rich. We are talking about a maximum tax relief of £31 which would make a great difference to the thousands of middle income families who are clinging by their finger nails trying to survive and put their children through third level colleges at the same time.

Ba mhaith liom mó bhuíochas a ghabh-áil don Teachta Éamon Ó Cuív as ucht an méid a dúirt sé.

As Deputy McGrath said, I wonder which side Deputy O'Leary was on because he made the strongest possible case for the measure Fine Gael is proposing this evening. I thank Members for the amendments they tabled. I do not doubt the spirit of their intentions and we have heard those views before in relation to reform and review. Deputies on some sides of the House ideologically seem to have some hang-up in relation to tax free allowances. I do not have such a hang-up and tonight we are providing a measure in relation to such allowances. We floated this measure in the Irish Independent last Monday. I received seven letters yesterday and 49 letters today in support of that measure from classic working class families who are caught in the middle income trap and they are there to stay by virtue of the existing system. I am sure I will have many more letters tomorrow because it is obvious that people are desperate when they contemplate the prospect of next September when no grants will be provided.

I thank Deputy McGrath who pointed to the ambivalence on the other side of the House about what they would like to do but, unfortunately, cannot do. Deputy Deenihan, the spokesperson on youth affairs, was inundated by requests from student organisations and youth groups to address the crying need to iron out the inequities in the system once and for all. I am sure Deputy Costello who was president of the ASTI has an insight in relation to the problems in this area.

Deputy Crawford lives in a Border county and understands the problem. He spoke with great feeling about the new poor. People who live close to the Border tend to gain access to facilities on the other side of the Border. I thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions.

There are now 63,000 students sitting the leaving certificate. I imagine the parents of the majority of those students are extremely disappointed that election promises of both parties in Government in relation to changes in the higher education grant scheme have been reneged upon and that an improvement in regard to access and equity promised in the Programme for Government has not been forthcoming. I am disappointed with the Minister's contribution in this regard last night. The first ten pages of her speech gave an historical analysis of the present system. Only the last three pages of her speech referred to the nub of the matter and it still was not fully addressed.

Most of the State systems operating in this country are designed deliberately to discriminate heavily against the PAYE sector. The outturn for 1992 shows that of a total income tax take of £3.5 billion the PAYE sector contributed £2.7 billion or 88 per cent. However, a survey I carried out last year revealed that every local authority which administers higher education grants showed that of the total number of first time entrants to university who were approved for higher education grants only 35 per cent, one in every three, came from the PAYE sector. The PAYE sector ends up paying 88 per cent of the tax take and only obtains one-third of the grants. The Minister told the House last night that the cost to the State of the higher education grant scheme was £8.4 billion and yet the PAYE sector receives only one-third of that figure. As Deputy Fitzgerald said, we do not want to pull down any group in order to pull up another group. We are trying to level the playing field to ensure there is equality, access and fair play for a segment of society that pays for everything and gets nothing in return.

I appreciate the sentiments of Deputies Quill and De Rossa. They are both seeking reform taking into consideration the various criteria and elements required. However, I would point out to the Deputies and to Deputy Gallagher a new Member, that a former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, made promises that were not kept. Another former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, promised reform would be undertaken and that there would be a root and branch shake out and that did not happen. The former Minister for Education, Deputy Brennan, also promised there would be a root and branch reform but that did not come about. However, Deputy Brennan means-tested the ESF grants. Every student who entered a regional technical college last year was means-tested and seven out of ten students who received ESF grants the previous year lost them this year.

Deputy Gallagher advocated progressive increases in income limits. Last night I indicated in my model of the family earning an income of £15,000 that having regard to payments in respect of income tax, £5,000 mortgage repayments, PRSI and an income levy of one per cent, the family would be left with a net disposable income of the princely amount of £117 per week and yet this family would be disqualified from a higher education grant. The only option open to that family is heavy borrowing which causes misery in their domestic life. It is fine to talk about reviewing the higher education system as promised by the Minister or reforming the higher education grant system as sought by the Progressive Democrats, but the higher education system is fundamentally warped, unjust, inequitable and flawed and by reforming it one would be tinkering with it at the edges. The existing system needs to be scrapped and a start should be made from a base of social justice and equity.

The Progressive Democrats appear to have a hang-up in relation to providing relief for the PAYE sector by way of tax free allowances and this would seem to be shared by Deputy De Rossa also. However, without tax relief for mortgage repayments many more houses than the 3,000 repossessed last year would now be repossessed. The tax free allowance for health costs has reduced hospital waiting lists and considerably reduced the pressure on the already overstretched public health service. Deputy De Rossa referred to tax free allowances in relation to the inequity of the system, but if we did not have tax free allowances many of the middle income families could not afford orthodontic treatment for their children. I have no doubt that the PAYE sector who are scraping to keep their children in third level education do not mind one whit where the assistance comes from for their education as long as they receive it, whether it is in the form of a tax free allowance, increased grants, etc.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendments from Deputies opposite. This is a clear motion to make available a tax free allowance which will yield up to £31 per week and which would make a crucial difference to parents. It is clear, simple, effective, prescriptive and would make a major difference to the thousands of middle income families for whom the prospect of college next year is not a pleasure but a nightmare. I urge this House to take this part of the motion on board together with the other part in relation to making higher education maintenance grants available to our students in the UK and other EC countries. If those countries are hosting our children in their cities and towns, educating them in their universities and paying their fees, the least we should do as a social obligation is to provide those students with maintenance grants.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 42.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, David.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bree, Declan.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Derek.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connor, John.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harney, Mary.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Michael.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Boylan.

Amendment declared carried.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.