Deputy Kirk was in possession.
Private Members' Business. - Higher Education Grants: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Martin on Tuesday, 24 January 1995:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to take steps to ensure that the level of maintenance grants and the means test thresholds in relation to higher education grants is increased substantially in the forthcoming budget in the interests of equity and social justice and that, in this regard, the Government forthwith publish the de Buitléir report on the system of State grants for third level courses to enable a fully informed public debate to take place on the issue.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"endorses the Government's commitment to support mechanisms to increase participation by third level students from low-income backgrounds, including the abolition of third level fees, to comprehensive reform of the higher education grants scheme, the introduction of support for students on post-leaving certificate courses, an increase in the number of third level places, and welcomes the decision by the Government to publish the report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support."
—(Minister for Education).
How much time remains, a Cheann Comhairle?
There are six minutes remaining. May I take it that Deputy Kirk indicated his desire to share time with Deputy Ó Cuív? Agreed.
Cuireann sé an-áthas orm labhairt ar an ábhar seao. Is ábhar é a bhfuil an-imní ar mhuintir na tuaithe faoi.
Tá an tuairim thart go coitianta i measc daoine áirithe gur lucht feilméarachta amháin atá ina gcomhnaí faoin dtuath. Tá go leor de mhuintir na tuaithe — bunáite de mhuintir na tuaithe a bhfuil postanna acu — sa chóras PAYE.
Tá an-imní orthu faoin moladh atá ann go mbeidh na táillí in aisce agus nach ndéanfar tada faoi na deontais cothabhála. Tá sé dochreidte go mbeifí ag smaoineamh ar a leithéid mar bheifí ag cur go láidir leis an mí-chothromas atá ann cheana féin idir a bheith i do chomhnaí faoin dtuath agus a bheith i do chomhnaí i gceann de na cathracha móra.
Tá gá go mbeadh cothromas i gcúrsaí an Stáit seo. Tá gá le athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar chóras na ndeontas. Níl duine ar bith a shéanfadh é sin. Tá gá, dar liomsa, breathnú ar cheist na covenants atá chomh coitianta sin. Tá siad sin go mór i bhfábhar dream a bhfuil ioncam ard acu. Níl haon mhaith teacht suas le moladh, is cuma cé chomh simplí is atá sé, nó cé chomh deas is atá sé, má cuireann sé le mí-chothromas sa chomhthéacs seo.
In the very short time available to me I should like to highlight an issue causing great concern in regions outside main urban areas, where there is no access to third level education without the necessity for students to leave home and remain away from home. If we are to believe what is printed in our newspapers, the proposal is that all third level students be exempt from fees, but there is no mention about anything being done vis-á-vis maintenance grants. In the case of those who face the costs of maintaining a third level student, or students, away from home it can be presumed that the minimum expenditure involved — that is between travelling to the college, returning to one's lodgings and so on — is in the region of £40 to £50 per week which, to many parents, constitutes a much greater burden than the cost of university fees.
What is proposed here is the creation of a two-tier society within which people earning equivalent incomes will be favoured or disfavoured, depending on where they live. In other words, if a student lives within reach of third-level college, and it is the college of his or her choice, he or she will be exempt from fees, be able to live at home, and the cost of attending college will not be considerably dearer than attending a second-level school. On the other hand, if one lives beyond the range of accessibility to a third-level institution, one will be exempt from fees but, on the same annual income will have to bear the huge burden of providing for a student's total needs, if one's income is above the threshold, vis-á-vis maintenance.
To dispel a myth about rural Ireland, let us face the reality that the majority of people in rural areas are now PAYE taxpayers. Therefore, the famous argument that to date the means-testing system in some way favoured rural areas, because it favoured farmers — which I do not believe to be necessarily true — does not stand the test. Indeed I look forward to a full debate that will apparently now take place since we have at last received the de Buitléir report on the system of State grants for third-level courses. I do not believe there is a bias per se in favour of farmers. Perhaps, in certain circumstances, certain types of farmers can make the systems suit them but, in general, that is not necessarily true. If one also accepts that the vast majority of people living beyond the main urban centres in which third level institutions are located, or living beyond those towns with universities — if university is their choice — are PAYE taxpayers, the proposal to direct all available resources to the implementation of exemption from fees, irrespective of income, is totally anti-rural and favours those living within the range of such colleges. In fact it will add to the discrepancies and costs of maintaining rural societies and will do nothing in the interests of equity.
There are various types of inequities within our society. One of the greatest is the growing disparity between living costs of people on a similar income living in a rural area and living in a town. Exempting people from third level fees, irrespective of income, could lead to circumstances in which a household with an income of, say, £200,000 per annum would reap the advantage of being exempted from third level fees while another person in receipt of say, £19,000 or £20,000, gross before tax or the payment of mortgage, would be forced to pay huge maintenance costs. All available resources should be used to help as many people as possible, to ensure that the system is devised in such a way that on an equal disposable income level people bear equal costs of putting their offspring through third-level education. That has to be the target but would not appear to be. Rather, the easy, or publicity-seeking, way out would seem to be what is proposed which will not engender any equity in the system.
I propose a step-back in regard to this matter and that we have a full Dáil debate, as was suggested by the Fianna Fáil Party and our spokesperson on education, on this issue and on the de Buitléir report, some parts of which are praiseworthy while I disagree with others.
I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that his time has now expired.
We should devise a system that, first, would increase students' access to third level education and second, be implemented in an equitable fashion so that, rather than adding to the inequities of the present system, would improve it.
I wish to share my time with my colleagues Deputies Lynch and Dukes.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I stand fully behind the commitments in the programme of A Government of Renewal to develop the mechanisms to increase access to participation in third level for people on low incomes. That will include the abolition of third level fees, major reform of the higher education grants scheme and in particular support for post leaving certificate courses so that, in general, the total number of third level places will be increased. Having listened to the last speaker I wonder if he has read the report because in the appendix to it shocking cases are reported of rural families with massive assets, of perhaps £0.5 million, who qualify for grants when it is almost a miracle for people from Dublin 17 in my constituency to complete second level and go to third level. That is the real discrepancy.
The Deputy should not use the farming community to make his case for the urban community.
We have heard that from the Deputies opposite for many years. Donogh O'Malley must be turning in his grave.
We all have the same problems. The Deputy should not use the farming community to make his case.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy in possession without interruption, please.
I am proud that the campaign for free third level education originated and has its headquarters in my constituency. I congratulate Ms Margaret Hopkins and her committee who have pursued the campaign relentlessly as one of the measures to increase access to third level education. As the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, said last night, the key issue is psychological as it was in the late 1960s when the great Donogh O'Malley opened up second level education to all. We had the same "doomsayers" and "naysayers" who said it could not be done, that it would bankrupt the country etc, yet Donogh went ahead and did it. As the Minister proudly said last night nearly 93 per cent of students are completing second level education. My experience as a second level teacher vindicates that position. Four or five years age 30 to 40 per cent of my students in the CBS wanted to go on to third level education, now all those students want to do so.
Many crocodile tears have been shed and there has been much phoney debate on this matter. I will consider the unholy alliance that exists. It is made up of self-serving self-interested university lecturers and the conference of the heads of universities and people like Seán Barrett and Tom Mitchell talking about a bad piece of social engineering. Who are those men trying to fool? Members may recall that Tom Mitchell had the cheek not to include the huge number of places in regional technical colleges. Dublin Institutes of Technology and PLCs. As the Minister proudly said last night, this year ——
On a point of order, is it proper for the Deputy to attack people by name in this House who cannot defend themselves?
I believe they entered the public debate.
They are not in this House. It is the practice in this House that Members should not name people who are not in a position to defend themselves.
They entered the public debate and they can respond to my caveats.
The Deputy should refrain from mentioning them.
I will not refrain. I am here to speak for my constituents.
I ask the Chair to rule on this.
Acting Chairman
Let us hear the Deputy without interruption.
Thank you. Those people had the cheek not to include those extra places. For the 68,000 who will sit the leaving certificate this year, as the Minister proudly said, there are up to 50,000 places available in third level, not just the 15,000 places in the universities, but 17,000 places in the regional technical colleges and Dublin Institutes of Technology. Many of the courses available in those colleges are degree courses and others are diploma courses leading to degrees, and there are also 18,000 places in PLCs. As the Minister said last night, there is already massive financial support for the third level sector, approximately £300 million. Three quarters of the funding for the seven senior colleges in the country comes from the public purse. The abolition of third level fees is the key element in this debate. As Mr. de Buitléir said, the present system is unfair, complicated and inefficient. What have the three large elitist institutions in this city done for the people we represent? When I went to my alma mater a Dublin working class accent was almost as rare in UCD as perhaps an Irish accent is in the town of Grozny in Chechyna.
That is one of the finest universities and the Deputy should be proud of it.
Similarly in relation to Dublin City University ——
It is unbelievable to hear that claptrap.
Those are the facts.
It is one of the finest institutions and the Deputy is lucky to have attended it.
The Deputy is self-serving. He is representing his class of people. I will represent my class of people.
I went to a regional technical college, I am not self-serving my own class and I am proud of that.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Deputy to refrain from interrupting and allow Deputy Broughan to continue his contribution.
The colleges have a big case to answer in terms of increasing access. The new university in Dublin is surrounded by a wasteland of unemployment. A recent survey by the committee on the future of higher education highlighted that parts of my constituency in Dublin 17 and Dublin 13 have among the lowest take-up numbers of third level places in the country. Members may have enjoyed the famous film "Educating Rita" when it was shown over Christmas. Although it may be a melodramatic metaphor for the reality of elitism in third level, it highlighted some of the problems associated with that whole sector. Often people opposed to what the Minister has been doing try to have it both ways. The Minister has a magnificent track record of diverting and targeting resources at first an second level. She secured a doubling of the funding available for the primary school building programme, in excess of double the previous allocation for the secondary school building programme and launched 72 major building projects at primary level.
We applaud all that.
She has authorised the building of new second level schools in the past two years, something dodged by her predecessors.
The former Minister for Finance authorised funding for those projects.
The Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, has reduced the pupil teacher ratio from 22:1 to 21.8:1 and aims to reduce it further. This Minister is providing 500 additional remedial teachers at first level. She started national pre-school education in this country and that is to her credit. She has increased the number of disadvantaged primary schools from 12 per cent of the total number of such schools when the previous Government came into office to 20 per cent now.
(Interruptions.)
Unfortunately Deputy Cullen and his colleagues in the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil dodged those issues. The Minister did not dodge them and she carries on the work.
It was the leader of my party, the former Minister for Finance, who gave her the support and the finance to do what she did and we supported her.
She delivered at first and second level and continues to deliver. She is meeting the target whereby shortly 93 per cent of second level students will complete their education and that is a magnificent achievement. I welcome the de Buitléir report. It is clear there was gross discrimination in the past against the PAYE Schedule E sector. I warmly welcome the proposals to introduce capital means testing in addition to income means testing and to assess that whole area because the cases listed in the appendix to the report are truly shocking in respect of the PAYE sector and their representatives. It is striking that although this report was published only today or yesterday that the Minister has implemented much of its recommendations. She has introduced a single application form and brought the scheme forward dramatically.
That means she must have had it a long time.
Since last year.
She has significantly changed the administration of the scheme.
What about the means test?
Acting Chairman
The Deputy in possession without interruption, please.
As Minister for Education I believe that will stand out as her great achievement. She has opened up and will opened up third level education to all, including my constituents who do not have much chance of going on to third level education.
I support the Minister's commitments to the post leaving certificate courses. The level of support provided for them is grossly inadequate. The fees for those courses should be abolished immediately and we should ensure that they are properly funded.
Maintenance for students attending PLCs is the issue.
When the Deputies opposite were in Government a few weeks ago they dodged the issue. Donogh O'Malley is looking down on the Deputies opposite and is ashamed of them.
Acting Chairman
Please allow the Deputy to continue without interruption.
This Minister has targeted the disadvantaged. Like Donogh O'Malley who introduced free education at second level, this Minister will go down in history as the one who introduced free third level education.
I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me. I have heard that when a Member makes a first speech in the House he or she is seldom interrupted and I hoped that when someone had something worthwhile to say he or she would not be interrupted, but that does not appear to be the case.
I would be able to respond more positively to this motion if it did not come from the source from which it did. Education is very important. I came up through a system which did not allow everybody access to third level education and I had to do without it. However, having witnessed the performance of some Members opposite, who readily admit they had the benefit of a third level education. I probably did not miss very much.
The motion in the names of Deputies Martin, Coughlan and Flood appears to have been tabled with indecent haste. Deputy Martin was no sooner appointed Front Bench spokesperson on Education — a position he had sought for a long time — than the motion was tabled. The motion proposes that we should not have free third level education, a sentiment with which I could sympathise if it were the only proposal on reform of the education system. This proposal comes from a source which has made the headlines in nearly every local newspaper demanding that the Government — of which the Labour Party is the only old element — honour the commitment to allocate £10 million to UCC to refurbish a building which is beyond refurbishment. That is not the type of commitment to education on which a Government should proceed. There are divided opinions on that issue as well as on the issue of fees for third level education.
The new programme for Government is a package containing many significant elements, one of which is the reduction in class sizes in primary schools, with special emphasis on areas of disadvantage. I take that to mean primary schools in Cork North Central will be better treated. The programme also proposes increased access to remedial, psychological and home school link services — a necessary development — and increased capitation grants for primary schools — somethings which should have been done in the past ten years, seven of which Fianna Fáil has spent in Government. It proposes the investment of special resources in adult literacy and education schemes, a very laudable proposal. The abolition of fees for third level education is only part of a package which extends to four pages in the document, A Government of Renewal.
We must target education on an area basis and not give one school disadvantaged status while refusing it to a school across the road. Education must be area rather than pupil targeted.
Statistics prove that those with leaving certificate have a far better chance of securing a job than those without it. We cannot say we are providing free education when we charge a fee for the most compulsory examination, the junior certificate. In that regard I sympathise with the sentiments of the motion, but I do not sympathise with the way it was proposed and presented. Deputy Ahern, stated that Fianna Fáil would not present opposition for opposition sake, but that it would present constructive opposition. There was nothing constructive in the debate which took place here in the past hour or so.
When I speak about education I speak about a means to an end, but that does not always mean third level education. I refer to it as a means by which people can live with integrity. Without all the other measures, we cannot continue to fund the richer sister in education. We must examine education as a whole. If a family is bankrupted to get a student over the financial and social constraints to take up third level education how can we expect him to live on less than half he would receive from social welfare? That is now being dealt with and this Government must continue to examine the question of education as a whole.
Those who tabled the motion are not sincere in what they say. They may believe what they say, but they are not sincere in how they want the proposals implemented. If they were, they had ample opportunity to do that in the past seven years, but they did not. They failed abysmally to address this question.
I will support the Government's programme on education and I will not single out any item in it. We must examine the question of thresholds and the possibility of increasing maintenance grants because that is the most crippling burden in the context of third level education. The Opposition should examine the Government's programme on education and note its good points.
This motion is timely in that it gives us an opportunity to debate these issues immediately after the publication of the de Buitléir report. It is timely also in that the debate is taking place in advance of certain decisions being made by the Government. From that point of view I welcome the motion, but I would be more impressed if I thought Fianna Fáil tabled it because it felt it was timely or if it was a follow up to something it had done over the past two years. There has been no evidence over the past two years of any progress on the part of the previous Government in the areas mentioned in the motion. The motion is opportune in the sense that it has brought the Minister's amendment before us and that has widened the debate considerably.
Before proceeding I wish to make a parenthesis. I assure my colleague, Deputy Broughan, that when I was a student in UCD — a little time before he was there — there were plenty of Dublin accents to be heard, including mine. There were people there, including me, who could not have afforded to be there if we had not got scholarships from Dublin Corporation. That has given me an interest in equity and opportunity of access to third level education and in the efficient use of public expenditure to bring that about. I would like to see the resources available for third level education used in a way that would mean that the maximum number of children of parents on low income can have access to third level education. I fear that the emotion, some of which we have seen from Deputy Broughan this evening — I do not know what was seen from Deputy Cullen — gets in the way of looking at the implications of what is proposed.
As is the cold way of people who are trained in economics. I sat down and did the sums before getting worried about the emotions. I looked at the cases that may arise if we abolish third level fees.
I will take three cases, each of which includes a family with fewer than four dependent children, two of whom are full-time in third level institutions. I have taken that as an example because it will be my position next autumn, all going well for my younger daughter, so I know what I am talking about. A family with an income of less than £18,348 is now getting the full fees grant and full maintenance. The abolition of third level fees, without anything else, will do nothing for that family. On the the other hand, a family like mine, where the total income is in excess of £40,000 — in addition to a Deputy's salary I happen to have a ministerial pension because, wisely I think, I opted for the old system — gets no fee grant, no maintenance grant, and properly so. The advantage to that family will be in the region of £4,000. If that family is covenating a part of the income — 5 per cent is the maximum, £2,000, it appears as if they would stand to lose about £540. The net benefit to that family is likely to be in the region of £3,500 or, in my situation, the equivalent of a gross increase in salary of £7,000.
A family in the middle of the spectrum with four dependent children or fewer, two of whom are in full-time third level education, on an income of between £18,300 and £21,600, is getting the full fee grant and no maintenance grant. There is no gain for that family in the abolition of third level fees. Contary to some of the propaganda we hear from some activists, that family is probably convenanting part of its income. It would be sensible for such a family to use the covenanting provision although the total amount that family could covenant would be around £1,000. That family might stand to lose if it is covenanting in the region of £250 to £300. I put it to the House that a family in that situation, on a gross income of £21,617, with two children, both of whom are in third level education are finding the shoe pinching most cruelly at this stage. They are not getting any fee grant and the maintenance grants are not at a level that would allow such a family to face, without difficulty, the maintenance of children in third level education especially if they do not live in the city or town in which that third level institution is located. It is in that centre group of families that one of the major problems arises.
There is another problem that worries me, Deputy Broughan and a great many Deputies on all sides of the House. The families whose incomes are in the region of £10,000 to £12,000 and who, even if the child gets a place in university or third level institution and they do not live in the town in which the institution is located, and get the full fee grant and maintenance grant, will still not be able to top up those grants at the required level. I know of such families who live only ten or 15 miles, as the crow flies, from Maynooth in my constituency. There is no bus service from anywhere in County Kildare, other than the Leix-lip-Maynooth corridor, that goes to Maynooth. There is one town in north Kildare from which there is a bus service to Maynooth every second Friday. It goes in one direction one second Friday and goes back in the other direction the other second Friday. Those people might as well be living on the moon. Under the present scheme they live too near the university to get a substantial maintenance grant.
It seems that if we have additional resources to devote to third level education we should look at how we use them in the most socially just and effective way to attain the objective of expanding, in real terms, the access particularly of children of low income families to third level education. I can only conclude, on the basis of the analysis. I have been able to sketch out very briefly, that there are more immediate issues which would be much more effective in terms of social equity than the abolition of third level fees. That is something I hope we can aspire to at some stage but I would not put it anywhere near the top of my agenda. For example, I would look at maintenance grants and funding the expansion in the number of places in third level colleges in a way that would be to the benefit of people on low incomes. Those are much more important. I do not know what amount is being talked about.
The arithmetic, as I understand it, goes something like the following. The abolition of third level fees would cost gross about £50 million. I was told a few months ago that the abolition of all covenants would save about £39 million. A more limited operation now being suggested would save about £20 million. The implication of that proposal is that the Minister for Education is considering the possibility of spending a net extra £30 million on third level education. I would like to see more information being presented to us on the range of things that need to be done, some of which are mentioned in the Minister's amendment to the motion, that are part of the effort to improve access to third level education and a rational debate on prioritising them. Let us start with what will have the greatest effect for the people on the lowest income and the greatest difficulty of access.
I am glad that the de Buitléir report has been published. I hope we do not hear in the next few weeks the proposition that we have to take this report holus bolus or not at all. Every time a report like this is published, wise people say you cannot take the parts you like and leave out the parts you do not like. Every commission set up since time began tried to fool its customers into saying, "you have to take all or nothing". That is not what we are here for and that is not why we are elected to this House. I like some of these recommendations. For example, I like the idea of the grading of all the grants, whether fee grants or maintenance grants, which is long overdue.
I would dearly love to see a greater proportion of the total funding for third level education being routed through the means-tested grants scheme rather than going directly in block grants to the colleges. If we route more of the money through the means-tested scheme we will have a greater influence in favour of people who have difficulties with access. Paying 80 per cent of the total cost directly to the colleges in the form of block grants means that we make all that part of the money available to people irrespective of their means. That is not the tenor of what we want to do.
There are other issues in this report that required a good deal more examination. I cannot let the occasion pass without commending on the case histories here, some of which would bring tears from a stone. There are many case histories not included in this report which outline even greater problems. I find those case histories to be a very partial presentation. To propose, for example, that all assets be taken into account when assessing means, even with the qualifications on the value of agricultural land and other matters referred to here, seems to be nonsensical. Nobody can say it is valid to ask a person who owns a small business, without owning any other realisable or liquid cash resources, to liquidate part of that business, which is the foundation of the family income, to send a child to college. Everybody is entitled to say that if people applying for grants have access to large amounts of liquid assets or easily realisable assets, it is more than reasonable to require that they should liquidate those. I would like a debate that makes a distinction on properly thought out economic grounds in those regards.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Ned O'Keeffe and Keogh.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Considering that the Government has eaten into our scarce time I hope it will be returned to us at the end of the debate.
The time allocation will be met.
I compliment Deputy Dukes on his comments which are in stark contrast in many respects to Deputy Broughan's remarks. One would expect nothing less of Deputy Dukes than to be well researched in his contribution. A number of Deputies referred to the de Buitléir report as the reason the Government proposes to remove fees, but that is not the case. In many respects that report states the opposite. For example, it states:
Vertical equity requires that people who can be ranked according to some agreed measure are treated consistently in relation to that measure; in the context of a student support system for third-level education, the rate of grant given should vary from full grant support for those with low means to zero support for those with means adequate to support a student at third-level. In essence, those who cannot afford to pay for third-level education should be supported by grants while those who are better off, and therefore able to pay, should received a lesser or zero grant.
What does the report say about salaried families?
That is what my party is proposing.
The Deputy should give a few more selected quotations.
While we would all aspire to a system where we can afford to totally abolish fees at third level education, there are a number of issues involved.
The Deputy is still thinking like a Progressive Democrats Deputy. He is in Fianna Fáil now.
Deputy Broughan should please desist.
Some of these have been highlighted and I wish to deal with them.
The Deputy is in Fianna Fáil now.
I know where I am, but the Deputy is on a spinning top and is not sure which side of the House he is on or who his partners are.
I have always been in this party.
I ask Deputy Broughan and others to desist. This debate should continue in a dignified fashion and if Deputies want to compose themselves, I will allow them the opportunity to do so.
I wish to deal with two issues. The effect of removing fees from third level education will not help one extra disadvantaged student who cannot afford, because of family circumstances, to avail of third level education. The greatest deterrents to any family with a student attending third level education are maintenance and distance from the third level institute. That is the reason some regions have a lower uptake of students at university. That is an accepted fact in all reports.
It is not.
The Minister seems to have totally ignored the funding this country is in receipt of through the Community Support Framework, particularly the ESF. The Minister's presumption obviously is that in 1999 when the present programme has expired we will automatically receive, at a minimum, the same level of funding under the Community Support Framework to maintain the resources available in the education area. I put it to the Minister that that is a very unwise presumption. If the funding available at present through the Community Support Framework is reduced, which all commentators agree is likely to be the case, what will happen in the area of third level education? Current spending on education is in excess of £140 million and a further £177 million is being spent on training — those figures are available from the EU. How can a Minister make a decision in those circumstances to remove the money available to universities through college fees? This is a nonsensical step because it does not allow for extra places to be created at third level, it does not help those in the disadvantaged or lower socio-economic groups and does not overcome the greatest difficulty, that of sustaining a student at a third level institute. The Minister has put the cart before the horse. With the available resources she should have ensured, through the grants system, that a greater number of students at lower income levels have access to a third level college.
Why did the Deputy oppose the primary education changes last year when he was in the Progressive Democrats?
Another issue totally ignored by the Minister is that even though we expect a drop in the numbers attending primary and secondary education, the opposite is the case in the third level education. It is clear we will see, over the next decade and, I am sure, beyond, continued growth in the number of students wishing to attend third level colleges.
Can resources not be redeployed?
Many thousands of students are unable to gain access to universities and regional colleges because there are not enough places. In that context why does the Minister not put the resources into ensuring that there are adequate places. There should be adequate funding available through the maintenance grants system——
The Minister made resources available last year and the Deputy voted against it.
The two priorities are maintenance and the creation of more places at third level.
Why did the Deputy vote against it last year?
I did not.
I will not ask the Deputy again to desist.
Unless we create a much greater number of places at third level, this proposal will mean nothing. Students are already refused access to those institutes because there are not enough places for them. By making extra places available and providing funding to enhance the maintenance grants system access to universities and third level institutes will be increased. This would be much more beneficial to the groups Deputy Broughan spoke about earlier. I wish to correct Deputy Broughan, 23 per cent of students at second level leave without a leaving certificate — Deputy Broughan said the figure is 93 per cent.
The Deputy is wrong; it is 82 per cent.
You are incorrect.
If the Deputy in possession speaks through the Chair, he will be less provocative.
The last Minister to increase maintenance grants was Deputy Séamus Brennan who was a Fianna Fáil Minister for Education.
It was Deputy Bhreathnach.
No, it was not. She did nothing about maintenance grants, nor, from what she said, does she propose to do anything about them.
The Deputy did not listen to her.
This is a smart ploy in terms of short term political advantage for the Labour Party and she will rue the day. If the Government does away with third level fees and there is no extra funding for maintenance, where will the funding to support third level students come from in the future?
That is what people asked Donogh O'Malley.
I can only guess at the Minister's reasons for doing away with third level fees — she knows that it will not be her problem in five years time, that the Labour Party will not be in power at that stage and that Fianna Fáil will have to sort out the mess.
We will not need any ex-Progressive Democrats.
This is the most relevent motion on education to have come before the House for some time. The Minister's proposals are an outrageous attack on the self-employed, farmers and property owners generally.
People in rural areas have always placed a high value on education and many of them made sacrifices so that their children could receive an education. This ideologically driven so-called reform Minister is a wolf in sheep's clothing for the self-employed and farmers. If Fine Gael supports this proposal the electorate will not forgive it. Up to one-third of farmers and business people could be disqualified if this measure goes through. It is the same as taking the Minister's pension into account when calculating her income.
Much has been said about the assessment system for the self-employed. The Revenue Commissioners must clamp down on false claims. I know from experience that the assessment system and criteria used in determining eligibility for a higher education grant are the severest applied by any Department. A farmer with 40 acres and four or five children who is assessed as having an income of £40,000 will be put to the pin of his collar to have a disposable income of £10,000, and this using the highest levels of production and assistance from his Teagasc adviser on how to gain the maximum income. Do the Minister and her so-called extreme left friends in Government understand the harshness of this proposal and the difficulties it poses for self-employed families?
Why did the Deputy not ask her that question when he was in Government?
The Deputy without interruption, please.
The Deputy, who has been given a nice job, should keep quiet. It has been the policy of successive Governments, as proclaimed in the Constitution, to cherish all the children of the nation equally. It is totally unacceptable to apply an asset test when determining eligibility for third level grants. The introduction of such a test is a clear attempt to discriminate against farm families. Farming depends on heavy investment in assets such as land, buildings, stock and machinery. Deputy Dukes's explanation of the consequences of using an asset test to determine eligibility for a third level grant was like a breath of fresh air. Many self-employed families will have to sell some of their assets in order to give their children a third level education. I know this prospect is not acceptable to Deputy Bradford who represents many farmers.
Eligibility for third level education grants must be based on taxable income as acceptable to the Revenue Commissioners and it must allow for a deduction for capital investment, finance lease payments and interest on funds borrowed to finance capital investment. While welcoming the announcement to do away with fees for all third level students, I want to stress the importance of maintenance grants. Maintenance grants are vital to the children of farm families who have to travel great distances to higher education institutions. In many cases the provision of maintenance grants is the deciding factor in whether a child attends a third level institution. There is a simplistic view that the children of farm families get an unfair proportion of the available grant-aided college places. Under the current scheme children from farming backgrounds are unfairly discriminated against as no allowance is given for onfarm investment, lease payments or interest paid on money borrowed to finance capital investment.
In deciding on reckonable income, the figure used to determine whether a child should received a grant, the current scheme does not recognise that a farmer must invest to stay in business and that such investment is not discretionary. One of the farming organisations carried out an indepth analysis of the number of third level grants awarded to the children of farm families which indicated that such children avail of significantly fewer grant-aided places than do other sectors of the population. For example, the urban class, which includes higher and lower professional employers, management and salaried employees, accounts for 20 per cent of the population but accounts for 46 per cent of the places in third level colleges. In contrast, the agricultural sector represents 17 per cent of the population but accounts for only 22 per cent of third level places.
A means test is designed to favour those on low to moderate incomes. An analysis of the £15,000 income threshold shows that the low to moderate income urban workers are more favoured than farmers by the current system. Though representing 17 per cent of the population the agricultural sector receives only 19 per cent of higher education grants. This is a grant-aided ratio of 1:1.1 and means that under the means test farmers receive only 10 per cent more of higher education grants vis-ávis their share of the population. However, urban classes and moderate income groups such as lower professionals and salaried employees who represent 7 per cent of the population get 11 per cent of the grants, a grant-aided ratio of 1:6.6.
A cautious approach must be adopted to any proposal to remove the current tax breaks available for covenants entered into with children attending third level colleges. Any new educational support system must take into account the thousands of students already attending third level colleges with little or no support and who currently rely on covenants with their parents for vital financial support. Covenants are binding legal agreements normally drawn up for a minimum period of six years. The status of these agreements must be taken into account in any new system.
The Government is trying to give the impression that the self-employed are ripping off the system and is obviously trying to shelter behind the de Buitléir report while endeavouring to put its anti-rural policy in place, thus depriving the children of rural Ireland of their rightful entitlement to a third level education.
On 1 March last year I called on the Minister for Education to publish the De Buitléir report on the system of State grants for third level education. The Minister published that part of the report dealing with the issue of administration, the nuts and bolts issue of the disbursement of grants. However, she refused to publish that part of the report which deals with the issue of grants, the students who would be eligible and the measures which should be adopted for the future. She replied to me that she will publish the report when the recommendations have been fully considered by the Government. She did not say which Government. She went on to say that she will come to the House with the recommendations. Whatever difficulties she may have had in publishing the report when she was a member of a different Government, she should have no difficulty in coming to the House with the recommendations.
The Minister has finally published the full report. However, she pre-empted discussion on it by her announcement last July — this is hardly surprising given some of the unpalatable findings of the report that she would introduce free third level education during the lifetime of the Government. This was a very attractive prospect, particularly for those of us who hope that our offspring will gain entrance to third level education in the next few years. Like Deputy Dukes, I wonder if I should be a beneficiary of such largesse.
When I tried to establish what the proposals from the Departments of Education and Finance really meant there was silence and populist rhetoric. There were no details available on how the extra places implicit in the promise would be provided. I was very taken with Deputy Duke's cogent argument about those people who, because of a very low income, qualify for full maintenance support but who are completely excluded from third level education.
In her speech here yesterday evening, the Minister again spoke in aspirational terms of mechanisms to increase participation by third level students from low income backgrounds, including the abolition of third level fees — comprehensive reform of the higher education grants scheme, the introduction of support for students on post leaving certificate courses and an increase in the number of third level places — long on aspiration, short on detail. The Minister says that the commitment to free third level education means she is pledged to introduce a fairer system of third level funding for all students.
The Minister latches on to one part of the de Buitléir report which recommends that the system of convenanting income to children at college should be abolished. The £20 million saving on income tax allowance from that is what the Minister is seizing upon. Obviously, there is a popular appeal inherent in having free third level education, but, as has been pointed out, if this happens, nearly all, if not all, of the funds available to improve access to higher education will be used up. Where will the Minister find the funds to improve maintenance grants for needy students, or the post leaving certificate area, which has no grant support at present?
The de Buitléir report makes a strong, uncontestable argument for capital assets to be taken into account in assessing eligibility for higher education grants on the grounds that it is reasonable that those who have the wealth should be able to fund education. These are the type of points we should be debating. We all know that the middle income groups, in particular PAYE earners, have been squeezed out of the system. We should, in a full debate in this House, examine the de Buitléir proposals to see if, indeed, the measures promoted in the report would redress the imbalance and the inequity, especially as far as those who are on fixed salaries are concerned — the teachers, gardaí, nurses and so on, who are the hard-pressed PAYE workers.
One thing is certain from the report — there are gross inequities in the system as it stands and we all acknowledge that. Perhaps Deputy Dukes did not like the case histories but they are damning and underpin the widely held view that it is unfair that someone whose father has assets of over £200,000 can be eligible for grants while another applicant, whose parents' income is marginally over the £16,544 limit, gets nothing.
During a discussion on the whole question of assets with my colleagues, Deputy Quill, she pointed out that she knows people who have mortgaged the family home so that their children might receive third level education. I have little sympathy for those in the wealthy classes.
One worrying feature, in addition to what I have already outlined, is that there is no acknowledgement by the Minister of the difficulties faced in the wider area of education. As yet we do not even enjoy free primary education. Every parent knows that they will be involved in either so-called voluntary subscriptions or fund raising — education funded by cake sales. There is an absolute priority in ensuring that primary education is truly free to parents and children.
A recent report by the INTO confirmed that lack of books and supplies to schools in disadvantaged areas was seriously undermining the quality of education. Another recent survey by the ESRI confirmed what we already know — that those with the lowest levels of education are bearing most of the burden of unemployment and that those who are poorly educated have little chance of breaking out of the poverty trap. In a catch 22 situation, those within the poverty trap have the least chance of a high standard of education. For example, the Inner City Teacher's Group have called on the Minister to help, asking that if £50 million is available in the education budget, it should be spent on poorer children at primary level, not on free third level education. That is an argument we should at least debate.
Other bodies have views on this also. The Education Commission of the Conference of Religious of Ireland called on the Government not to proceed with the abolition of third level fees because it would represent a major reversal of stated Government policy which it says is to give priority to breaking the link between education and poverty and to tackle the regressive nature of Exchequer spending on education.
The Commission says there is now overwhelming evidence that children who are poor are least likely to benefit from their schooling and that, as a result, they are destined to remain poor and marginalised in the future unless specific policies aimed at reversing the situation are successfully adopted. It is known, for example, that 80 per cent of those who leave school with no qualifications are from working class or small farm families — the figure is 50 per cent where the father is unemployed. At the other end of the scale, young people from low socio-economic backgrounds are grossly under-represented in third level institutions, especially universities, where their participation rate is approximately 3 per cent. In addition, upper middle class young people are at least six times more likely to receive third level education than those from lower working class backgrounds.
The Commission further contends that the extent of social inequalities is exacerbated by the fact that educational spending is highly regressive because an analysis of recent Department of Education financial reports reveals that the State spends at least twice as much on the education of third level graduates, predominantly from middle and upper class backgrounds, as it does on the education of early school leavers, predominantly from working class backgrounds.
The abolition of fees, according to this group, would do little or nothing to increase the participation rates of those who are grossly under-represented in third level colleges, namely, young people from unskilled and semi-skilled backgrounds, and I wish Deputy Broughan was in the House to hear that. The vast majority of people from these backgrounds have their fees paid through one of the existing student support schemes if they qualify for, and decide to take up, a place in third level education. It seems likely that if there is a financial barrier to participation of young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, it arises from the inadequacy of the maintenance element of the existing student support schemes. I am sure we are all agreed on that.
Any debate on education must have an integrated package of measures with particular emphasis on strategies which focus on a child's early years and which forge partnerships between school, home and the wider community.
Apart from all that, we should examine the situation in the universities. They can only accommodate 18 per cent of the school leaving population. They can only accommodate 30 per cent of demand for places and thousands of well qualified students are denied entry to university education every year. Free fees, as the Minister describes them, will not do anything for this problem — the opposite is the case. A recent report stated there will be a freeze on college intake next year, in spite of increased demand. The universities, naturally, want to know what provision is being made for the expectation that will be created for students about the availability of college places. They would say that capital funding is needed — this has fallen from £11,000 per additional student in 1982 to £1,950 in 1993.
To their credit, the universities have reduced their dependency on public funding to below 50 per cent of their cost. One concern is that underfunding will result in more dependence by the universities with a consequent reduction of autonomy. Many will ask if the same outcome will be achieved as happened with the abolition of rates in 1977? The rate support grant was supposed to provide for the shortfall but, as all of us involved in local government know, that is not the case. The rate support grant is only at some 30 per cent of the original amounts. What will happen and who will decide the substitute payments to universities?
If I was a naïve politician I would believe that the initial purpose of this motion was to force the Government into publishing the de Buitléir report but, I welcome the fact that the report has at long last been published. I ask that we have the opportunity to debate it in full. I regret, however, that the Minister to some extent pre-empted any debate by her announcements last year. What would be the point of having an empty debate with the pretence of attention by a Minister?
Much of what has taken place over the past two nights could be described as "Alice in Wonderland" politics. Having been in Government up to a few weeks ago, Fianna Fáil has tabled a motion which, but for the amendment, would not make sense. It is criticising the Government because of the contents of a report commissioned by a Fianna Fáil majority Government and is trying to peddle this report as a Government measure in certain sectors. That will not wash with the public. Fianna Fáil was in Government for almost eight years — on its own, with the Progressive Democrats and then with the Labour Party. Now, suddenly, after three weeks in Opposition, it has tabled this motion. I am not sure what it is about but it does not credit to this House.
The contributions to this debate and the issues raised have shown the serious interest both inside and outside this house in our third level education system which currently involves some 88,000 students and their families. The Government of Renewal policy agreement outlines the Government's commitment to promoting greater access to third level education. The policy agreement gives a commitment to new support mechanisms to increase participation by third level students from low-income backgrounds including the abolition of third level fees. A comprehensive reform of the higher education grants scheme, the introduction of support for students on post-leaving certificate courses and an increase in the number of third level places.
In the course of the debate so far a number of issues have been raised to which I would like to respond. As the Minister for Education has already indicated, this Government is anxious within available Exchequer resources to increase maintenance grants and income thresholds. The case for improving the support mechanisms to increase participation by third level students from low income backgrounds is very strong. However, I would stress that it is important that the fundamental inequities within the system be addressed and the initial step in this regard is the proposed abolition of fees.
In this context, however, I would point out that the current income thresholds make provision for each child after the first in third level, contrary to a view expressed in this House yesterday. The income limits may be increased by increments of £2,000 for each child after the first in third level.
The issue of delays within the system was raised by Deputy Coughlan. In 1994 the third level student support schemes were issued to the awarding bodies at the end of April 1994 as against mid-August in 1993, something that my party highlighted. This was in line with a previous commitment of the Minister and allowed an additional three months for processing grant applications in 1994. It is envisaged that a similar timescale for issue of the grants schemes will be met in 1995. Any delays encountered by Deputy Coughlan should be raised with her local authorities.
The position of Irish students living in the UK and other EU countries was addressed in the Advisory Committee's report. The committee recommended that subject to appropriate quality control, courses abroad should be covered for maintenance grants and fees grants if payable, if there is not a similar course available in Ireland. It was envisaged that this should happen as resources become available.
On the topic of access, the Minister has initiated or expanded measures to help the education of disadvantaged groups; these actions should enhance the participation of such groups in third level education in due course. They include providing 206 remedial teachers at primary and post-primary level over the past two years; a special initiative to improve the pupil-teacher ratio in disadvantaged areas; a home/school liaison scheme; and early start pre-school programme; allevation of fees in hardship cases for certificate examinations; the introduction of free book grant schemes; and a hardship fund at third level.
The national plan includes a provision of £120 million under the European Regional Development Fund programme for third level capital investment for the period up to 1999.
The proposed abolition of third level fees is part of a comprehensive package of support mechanisms to increase participation of students from all socio-economic groups in third level courses.
This package will have a major psychological significance on the attitude of students and their aspirations for further education. This Government is fully committed to ensuring that income eligibility limits and maintenance grants will also be increased within available resources.
I support the steps already taken and the further measures proposed by this Government to improve access to third level education.
I should like to share my time with Deputy Micheál Martin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
What I have to say relates primarily to my area of responsibility. I should like to touch briefly on Deputy Duke's theme with regard to his desire to see more social equality, and to make some suggestions to the Minister. Some speakers have already expressed the desire that any additional resources available within the education budget should be spent on dealing with areas of disadvantage. One cannot take the question of education at any particular level on its own because third level institutions depends on the primary and second level system for their supply of students and are dramatically affected by the quality of students coming through that system.
How would the abolition of fees affect the travelling community, one of the most disadvantaged groups in our society? There are approximately 5,000 travellers children here at the moment. It is suggested, although I cannot find any definite information on this, that about 4,000 of the traveller children attend special schools, special classes or ordinary primary classes. Very few of them progress to second level education but drop out of the system as they progress through the primary sector. Of those who enter the second level sector very few manage to get their leaving certificate, and few if any find their way successfully into third level education — that is not to say there are none in third level. This has nothing to do with the specific abilities of these children. It has to do with their extreme disadvantage in trying to enter the school system. If finance is available in the education budget, some of it should be targeted not just towards providing classes or additional teachers but towards providing back-up facilities. There is no point in providing the means whereby traveller children can enter primary and second level schools if we do not support them socially. It is impossible for a child of the travelling community to complete socially with the children of the settled community. It is impossible for a child of the traveller community to leave a halting site or an unauthorised site at the side of the road and successfully enter school and remain there unless there are additional facilities apart altogether from the special teaching facilities that might be required. I suggest that the Minister seriously consider this area.
I accept that the Minister has made substantial progress in her Department during her tenure of office in the Government of which Fianna Fáil was a member, but I would like to see her efforts zeroing in, in a specific and determined way, on areas of disadvantage before taking decisions to target additional moneys at people who could well do without it.
We read in tonight's Evening Herald that some of our primary schools are in appalling condition, one school referred to in the article is 100 years old and has broken windows and doors, the children come to it hungry and obviously cannot address themselves to their lessons. They are neither properly fed nor clothed, with clothing that is totally unsuitable for the weather. I do not think the Minister for Education can ignore these areas and I am not suggesting the present Minister would. Therefore, I suggest that she diverts the additional funding available to her from the top end of the scale — I do not mind the Minister improving the threshold for grant aid or improving the maintenance grant — and target it at the areas to which I have referred specifically.
The Minister has to respond also to the needs of special schools, including schools to accommodate young offenders. None of us want to see places of detention for young people who fall foul of the law but such facilities have to be provided. In recent years we have seen instances where the courts have sent young people to centres that are under the control of the Minister for Education but, unfortunately, there is no place at the inn and the youngsters have to be released again. I am not talking about secure centres or specifically about detention centres but school settings for youngsters who have difficulties of one kind or another. In my opinion we should be able to provide enough places to accommodate them so that we do not have to say to the courts there is no place so the youngster has to be released again.
Well said Deputy.
Regardless of what people say about primary education there are children who cannot gain access to primary education. That is an extraordinary situation. A number of young children, not a large number, in my constituency who because of behavioural problems and so on cannot gain admittance to primary school. They may have attended school for a number of years but then things went wrong in their life. There may have been problems at home over which they had no control and because of their behaviour they were not accommodated in a primary school. I have cases on my files of individuals who cannot be accommodated at primary school and they are left at home or wandering the streets.
I know the Minister has compassion for children with such problems and that she has achieved a great deal already in her term of office. I suggest that in the context of this timely debate, contrary to what Deputy Lynch said, resources be diverted from the third level sector to the pre-school, primary and second level sectors. Resources would be well spent in that area and I suggest the Minister look at that rather than giving resources to people who admit they can do without them.
When I opened this debate last evening I expressed the hope that it would be the beginning of a more open, comprehensive, informed and inclusive discussion on the issues pertaining to third level grants and fees.
The Fianna Fáil Party has endeavoured to be constructive in the debate and cover a broad range of issues — as manifest by the excellent contribution of Deputy Flood on his special area of responsibility — and give a clear illustration of the ongoing needs and demands on very scarce resources for education. We call for a debate in this House on the de Buitléir report.
On the formation of this Government the Taoiseach in his opening address spoke about the need to make this House more relevant to the people. He spoke of his aspiration to give the Deputies in this House a greater say and involvement in the formulation of ideas and policy and of his wish to involve Members in such issues. It seems, therefore, that the Government should agree and must be agreeable to have this report debated in the House before any fundamental decision is taken. Deputy Keogh asked if the Minister will listen or if she has her mind made up already. This matter should be debated because I want the many Deputies who approached me and expressed their views and concerns about this report to have the opportunity to articulate those views in this House. They are the representatives of the people and the will of the people should always be articulated in the national parliament.
Our basis position is that we want an immediate improvement in the lot of third level education students and that is why we tabled the motion on improving the means test. I am disappointed at the Government's lack of commitment to increasing the maintenance grants. Deputy Allen's speech, although he did not get to this point, refers to the aspirations to increase the maintenance grant within available resources. We have the strange situation where on the one hand we are told that fees will be abolished and that we may not witness the increase in maintenance grants or the means thresholds.
We have listened. They were looking for third level——
We want guarantees in regard to the steps the Minister takes that the needs of other areas of education such as pre-school, primary and second level, the availability of places at thrid level and the improvement of facilities are not under provided for because of an anxiety by the Minister to deliver on whatever promises she made.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Why did Fianna Fail in Government not deliver on them?
We must get cast iron guarantees and a commitment from the Government that those needs will be delivered upon. The guarantees given yesterday for PLC students relate to fees and not to maintenance grants but the critical issue for PLC students is maintenance and not fees. In fact in some vocational education committee PLC students are not charged fees so let us not do a con job with the 16,000 to 17,000 PLC students. Their demand is for maintenance because very often they have either to travel or stay away from home to avail of this new developing third tier of education. They will not be satisfied with some woolly commitment on fees. They want decent maintenance grants and I hope they will be forthcoming.
Deputy Cullen made a very important point also on his area of responsibility, European affairs. Have we any long term strategic plan in place to deal with the problems that may arise post-1999 when in all probability we will not receive the same level of European funding that we receive at present in the context of our education and training systems? We receive vast sums on an annual basis to support our educational infrastructure, FAS and the various manpower policies. What is to happen post 1999? Before we take major decisions on reducing the resources to universities and so forth, in terms of abolishing fees, it is important that we have in place a long term strategy.
Deputy Dukes made a very significant contribution this evening and his examples were a good illustration of how the abolition of fees in themselves will not benefit people on low incomes. As an economist, his examples are ones that the Minister should seriously consider. It is quite obvious that on the Government side there are alternative views on this issue. We should be prepared always to listen to good arguments put by various interests.
We have had a great deal of consultation in the education debate, the national convention and so forth, consultation is one thing but it is more important to try to build a consensus on the way forward instead of trying to impose one's own vision of the situation. I would look for greater consensus on this issue and I think the interests involved should be consulted on what is best for the future of third level education and for a more socially progressive education system, which genuinely seeks to improve the participation rates of students not only at third level but at second level. Contrary to earlier comments it is a fact that 23 per cent of students are leaving our school system before attaining the leaving certificate qualification. We need to improve the level of academic achievement and participation at second level, never mind third level. We can only do that if we invest heavily in the pre-school and primary schools sectors. I hope we will have a debate on the de Buitléir report.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Johnny.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Ferris; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.