Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Nov 1998

Vol. 497 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Third-Level Education: Motion.

Mr. O'Shea

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, recognising the severe difficulty that students from low and middle income families now face in funding their third level education due to rapidly escalating accommodation costs, calls on the Government to introduce a comprehensive package of emergency measures to tackle this crisis. These measures should include:

– a substantial increase in income eligibility limits for student maintenance grants, with eligibility calculated on net as distinct from gross pay;

– the introduction of a graduated system of entitlement to maintenance grants, with a substantial increase in the size of the maximum grant available;

– a programme for the provision of good quality student accommodation in universities and institutes of technology, involving both direct State aid and tax incentives for the private sector; and

– the abolition of the student registration fee. In addition, the Minister for Education and Science should undertake a review of policy with a view to ensuring a more equitable and rational geographical distribution of student numbers throughout the State.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Penrose and O'Sullivan.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Shea

As Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach finally made free education a reality across the whole system when she abolished fees at third level. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, seeks to constantly criticise Niamh Bhreathnach on this issue. When all the bluster is stripped away, there is only one relevant question in regard to third level fees which the Minister must answer, that is whether he intends re-introducing fees. If the answer is "no" then his criticism is empty hypocrisy. If his answer is "yes" then all those attending or intending to attend third level education will know where they stand. The Minister must put up or shut up.

The motion which I move tonight on behalf of the Labour Party seeks on the one hand to build on the very solid foundation provided by Niamh Bhreathnach in abolishing third level fees and on the other hand, to deal with a whole series of factors that impede equality of access to third level education. Essentially these are socio-economic and geographic factors. This timely motion comes against a background where it is widely accepted that our highly educated workforce has been a key factor in our recent economic success. It also comes at a time when economic and social commentators have pinpointed a shortage of skilled labour as one of the key factors that may limit economic growth over the coming years. The steady supply of skilled workers is one of the most serious economic bottlenecks that our economy and society will encounter in the coming years. It is essential that we face up to this fact now before it is too late.

Our policy in this regard should be twofold. We must ensure that a steady stream of graduates is forthcoming from our universities and third level institutes. We must also ensure that the obvious inequality that currently exists regarding access to third level education is addressed. The provisions of this motion will achieve both of these important economic and social policy objectives.

Before I turn to the specific proposals mentioned, I wish to say a few words about the context in which this motion was proposed. In late summer and early autumn of this year the soaring cost of accommodation in our major urban centres, where many of our third level colleges and institutes of technology are situated, became all too apparent to the families of students who have secured a place in college. One of the key structural problems affecting our third level education system over the years has been student accommodation. Due to a lack of capital investment, our third level institutions have not developed the on-campus student accommodation facilities that are a feature of colleges among our partners in the European Union. Our student accommodation needs are catered for in the main by the private rented sector.

The serious dangers associated with this situation were made all too apparent this year by the huge inflationary factors affecting the housing market. The demand for rented accommodation increased as more people could not afford to purchase a house and remained in the rented sector. In addition, the Government measures on foot of the Bacon report, and its appalling decision in last year's budget to slash the rate of capital gains tax, combined to produce an exodus from the rented sector by many landlords. The problem of high demand and shrinking supply resulted in exorbitant rises in the cost of rented accommodation. This is the situation that greeted thousands of students and their families after they received an offer of a college place in the summer or prepared to return to their studies.

To date, the Government has failed to introduce a package of measures to address the situation. It has buried its head in the sand in the hope that if the problems are ignored they will go away. Nothing could be further from the truth. The recent surge in house prices will have an effect on everyone seeking rented accommodation over the coming years. It is a severe problem that will reappear year after year unless the Government takes action. The Government must face up to this situation sooner rather than later. Those worst hit by the accommodation crisis are families on low and middle incomes. The Labour Party motion before the House this evening seeks to introduce measures that will provide relief to these families and allow their children to continue their studies at third level. The motion also seeks capital funding for on-campus accommodation that will provide a long-term solution to the current crisis.

Maintenance grants are the mainstay of Government support to many students in the third level sector. The motion before the House this evening deals with three aspects of the maintenance grants system, namely, the level of the grant, the manner in which it is calculated and the introduction of a graduated system of entitlement. In a Dáil reply on 22 October this year the Minister stated: "My Department has not carried out research into the cost of maintaining a student at a third-level college". That is patently obvious when one considers the latest increase in the maintenance grant.

This year the value of the maintenance grant was increased by 1.7 per cent. In real terms this meant that students living away from home received a 77p per week increase and students living at home received a 36p per week increase. It is hard to accept that these miserly increases are in line with the escalating costs that face students and their families. The Minister must accept that costs have increased substantially in the recent past, most obviously for students who have to find accommodation away from home. Only a Minister living in cloud cuckoo-land could stand over an increase of 1.7 per cent. It is clear that the current maintenance grant level of £1,624 for a student living away from home and £660 for a student living at home is wholly inadequate. These grant levels place enormous strain on both families and students attending third level. I have no doubt that many students, either mid-way through their courses, or even when they are offered courses, fail to continue their studies due to the sheer financial pressure it places on themselves and their families. Unfortunately, not only has the Minister no idea of how much it costs to maintain a student in a third level college, he also has no idea how many students drop out of third level.

In a reply to a question put by Deputy Hayes on 23 June last the Minister stated: "Information is not readily available on the number of students who fail to complete third level courses at the institutes of technology and universities". The only figure to which the Minister could refer was in a study carried out by the Higher Education Authority for students entering university in 1989-90. This study showed that 19 per cent of students failed to finish their courses. I read with interest an article in a newspaper today about the OECD "Education at a Glance" report which shows that almost a quarter of all university students fail to complete their third level education. These figures do not refer to students attending institutes of technology. However, the figures as they refer to the university sector are revealing.

Undoubtedly, many factors influence the drop out rate among third level students. However, it must be accepted that the increased financial burden imposed on families has a serious impact. If the Government insists on maintaining grant support at the current levels and continues to measure grant increases solely on the inflation rate as distinct from the real costs facing students, the situation can only deteriorate.

The students worst affected are those from low income backgrounds. In the interests of equality of opportunity and access, the maximum level of grant support should be increased. In addition to an increase in the level of student grant, it is time to reform the grants system to ensure provision is made for a graduated system of support. An arbitrary cut off point, such as the one now in existence, is not the way to handle our grants system. There are two rates, the full rate and 50 per cent. Where the parents' gross income exceeds £17,740, a child will receive the 50 per cent rate. It is time we took the harshness out of the system and considered the introduction of a 75 per cent rate and a 25 per cent rate. The 75 per cent rate should be introduced as a priority.

Regarding the calculation of eligibility for grants, it is unjust that eligibility limits are based on notional rather than real income. The motion seeks to base these eligibility limits on net rather than gross income. The relevant income figure would then be the gross figure minus PRSI contributions, Government levies and income tax. When assessment starts from the base of disposal income, it starts from a base rooted in reality. This would extend eligibility to a considerably larger group of students. This principle was present in the last budget when the basis for the calculation of entitlement to family income supplement was changed from gross to net income. It is fair and sensible and should be extended to the calculation of third level maintenance grants.

There is also a major failing with regard to the income limits for maintenance grants. Income limits are increased for families which have a child currently in college. This is a reasonable additional allowance which takes families' circumstances into account. However, it is time to extend this principle to cover families where there is a young adult with special needs. On the one hand we acknowledge the extra financial strain on families where a child is already attending college but, on the other, we do not recognise the additional financial strain that is placed on families with young adults with special needs.

In the past fortnight, there has been a detailed debate in the House regarding the challenges and difficulties facing students with special needs and their parents. Waiting lists are unacceptable and many families have to make considerable emotional and financial commitments to ensure that these young adults receive the quality of life they deserve. This places an additional financial burden on the family and this should be recognised by the third level grants system. It is time a special allowance was introduced to the current eligibility limits which would take account of the position of families with young adults with special needs.

The motion also refers to the abolition of the registration fee. This fee, which covers examination and registration fees and contributions for student services, was capped by the former Minister, Ms Niamh Bhreathnach, at £150. Since the Minister took office, the charge has increased by 73 per cent to the current rate of £260. However, the manner in which this money is allocated is not understood by the majority of students. There is a lack of transparency and accountability in the charge. There is also major concern that this charge could be used to introduce fees through the back door. The Minister's actions in increasing the charge by 73 per cent has given credence to this concern. Are we to expect a 73 per cent increase over the coming two years, pushing up the fee to £450?

I propose that a degree of transparency and accountability should be introduced into this charge as a matter of urgency. I also propose that the current fee should be scrapped and that a new method of payment which would separate college and student service fees should be introduced. The college fees regarding examinations and registration should be linked to inflation and any move to increase these fees above this rate would have to be transparently accounted for and approved by the Minister. The separation of the student services element of the current charge would also allow for greater accountability and transparency for students.

The social aspect of college life is important and students should be expected to contribute to these costs. However, individual colleges should account to their student bodies for the allocation and dispersal of these funds. The funding of essential services, such as medical, career guidance and counselling services, should be funded separately from the registration fee. The degree of pressure on young people in third level make such services a vital element of third level institutions. We are all aware of the alarming increase in suicide among young people. Other pressures relating to examinations, family breakdown and relationships affect young people at college. It is vitally important to have well resourced back up services available to students. I have grave concerns that the current funding arrangements do not provide for the necessary support services.

My proposals amount to widespread reform of our third level student grants system. They will also involve a substantial increase in the current £91 million which is spent on third level grants. However, given the importance of education in society and its crucial role in attracting investment and sustaining our recent economic growth, it is a timely and sensible investment.

Beyond addressing the failings of our maintenance system and the need for expanded capital investment in on campus accommodation, the motion also calls on the Minister to seriously review our third level education system with a view to ensuring a greater geographical distribution of student numbers. The expansion and enhancement of the institute of technology sector over the past decade has been a welcome development. The Minister and his predecessor deserve the support of the House for their endeavours in this regard. However, a more imaginative and innovative approach to regional distribution could achieve major benefits in our third level sector.

In addition, the opportunity presented to us now should be used to actively encourage the construction of on campus accommodation. Government finances did not allow for such capital investment in the past, but our recent impressive economic performance has changed the situation. The Minister for Finance has indicated his intention of providing substantial finance for capital projects during his tenure in office. This is a sensible approach to economic and social planning which contrasts with his short-sighted approach to limit net current spending to 4 per cent per annum. However, that is a matter for another day. Unless there is an expansion of on campus accommodation the crisis in the housing sector that hit students particularly hard this year will continue. On campus accommodation would not only relieve this problem and thereby take pressure off the private rental sector as a whole, it would assist in developing a more convivial community atmosphere on many of our college campuses.

The capital required for this endeavour could come from two sources, direct Government grant to third level institutions or alternatively private companies could be invited to tender and construct the accommodation and receive tax relief on the profits for a set number of years before the accommodation is handed back to the third level institution concerned. The Government has signalled its intention to avail of capital made available through public-private partnerships. Whether it be through this route or direct State aid to third level institutions, the Government should take action on this issue immediately, otherwise the growing student population in our major towns and cities will continue to exert immense pressure on the already strained private rental sector pushing up prices and allowing disreputable landlords who let substandard accommodation and breach the housing regulations put in place by my colleague, Deputy Stagg, to continue to rip off students and those on low incomes who have to avail of rented accommodation.

The motion seeks to support ordinary families which endure the huge cost of sending children to third level. This is a huge burden to thousands of families throughout the country. The present level of support is inadequate. For families with high disposable incomes the cost can be borne without much worry. However, for the vast majority of families who have to make ends meet on the average industrial wage or slightly above, it creates a huge degree of hardship. When one looks at those families which survive on wage levels below the average industrial wage or on social welfare entitlements the need for this package of measures is even more evident.

The number of children from disadvantaged areas who make it to third level is shockingly low. If we are serious about creating a just and inclusive society, removing this inequality must be a priority. A small number of children from working class areas access third level through the CAO system. In the recent past third level colleges have been required to address this gross inequality through the provision of direct access programmes which are still in their infancy. In 1997 fewer than 50 students gained a place through these programmes. Reforming the third level grants system would ensure that students from disadvantaged areas could confidently aspire to a third level place without the worry of having to drop out or that they will place an unmanageable burden on family resources. Ensuring students are adequately supported and not cushioned by the grants system is a key element in tackling inequality.

Education is highly valued in Irish society. Third level education gives thousands of children throughout the country an opportunity to develop to their full potential in an intellectual and social sense. Beyond these personal benefits the third level system produces graduates with the skills necessary to maintain our economic success of recent years. The major challenge facing policymakers is how to ensure all sections of society receive their fair share. Ensuring ordinary PAYE workers and those families which survive on social welfare can afford to send their children to third level is a key element of this process. That is what the motion seeks to achieve. It is worthy of the support of everyone in the House.

Ms O'Sullivan

The motion is being debated at a time when the economy is in excellent shape. The riches and new found wealth which come with economic boom can also create some spinoff problems. In the past year we have engaged in debate on the growing housing crisis in which the first-time buyer and the family on the housing list have featured but there is an added problem in the rental sector.

The difficulties which have arisen for those who wish to purchase a home mean that they are staying for longer periods in rented accommodation. Some property owners and landlords have taken advantage of this and increased prices well above the rate of inflation. The rental cost of some poor quality accommodation is being set at unreasonable rates. This has the knock-on effect of pushing low-income earners and students out of the rental sector or into substandard accommodation.

Student accommodation needs to be addressed in the context of what is happening in the rental sector. The motion calls for a programme for the provision of good quality student accommodation in universities and institutes of technology involving direct State aid and tax incentives for the private sector. Most European countries which are pro-education operate accommodation provision programmes for their student population. Ireland has always boasted a quality education system. If we want to sustain quality, we must make provision to support students.

There are students standing in telephone boxes with a copy of the Evening Herald, the Evening Echo and others publications making endless calls to landlords. For some students the new academic term commenced in mid-September and they still have not found an appropriate place to live. In the small advertisements in tonight's edition of the Evening Herald it was difficult not to notice the accommodation strictly reserved for professionals. Even in those advertisements which were not prefaced with the words “professional person required” the cost of the accommodation on offer was far beyond that any student could afford. A shared room in a flat in Ranelagh costs £50 per week while the cost of a single room in a house on the North Circular Road is £260 per month. The only advertisement placed under the heading “Student Accommodation” offered a shared bedroom for £160 per month per person but even this is outside the reach of an average student who is attempting to live on a maintenance grant.

In seeking accommodation at peak times prior to the commencement of the academic term the availability of a parent with a car can make the difference in obtaining affordable accommodation. This is yet another aspect which places less well-off students at a disadvantage. I am aware of students who are sleeping on sitting room floors and others who are commuting long distances to and from their parents' homes daily because of the shortage of affordable rented accommodation. These arrangements are not conducive to studying or to a healthy lifestyle. A student who has to make a two to three hour journey to college cannot expect to be in a position to do course work. Living a long distance from college limits access to library and study facilities. Such students cannot engage in the social aspects of college life.

While students in Dublin and Galway are suffering the brunt of the accommodation crisis, high rental costs are a concern for all those living away from home. It is essential, therefore, that all State agencies which have a direct role in third level education, including vocational education committees, universities and the Department of Education and Science, draw up a plan of action to deal with student accommodation needs. Some universities offer limited accommodation for students but this is merely a drop in the ocean. While on campus accommodation is the most desirable, there is a limit to the amount that can be built, particularly on the older and more developed university campuses. I praise the University of Limerick for leading the way. I hope that will be followed in other universities. It is only what students deserve when they are trying to pursue their third level courses.

Plans are now in place to demolish a number of housing complexes in Dublin city centre. In some cases this accommodation is very sound and well constructed. While much of it is unsuitable for families and older people, consideration should be given to retaining some of it for the purpose of converting it for use as student accommodation. Furthermore, the leader of the Labour Party has pointed out the need to retain the section of hospital accommodation at St. Vincent's Hospital earmarked for demolition. It could be converted for use as student halls because of its proximity to UCD. Indeed it could also be used by student nurses who are also suffering from the accommodation crisis.

However, the welfare of our student population goes deeper than the accommodation crisis. In a society which is trying to encourage young people to complete the education cycle and attain some follow-on education at third level, it is essential we put in place structures and supports which ensure the maximum participation at third level. It is still the case that only a very small percentage of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds make it through third level education.

When parents assist their children in achieving the qualifications to move to third level education they do not expect them to have to deal with huge financial problems. The maximum grant for students living away from home is just over £1,600 per year. A student from a low income family who must live away from home to attend third level college cannot live on this amount of money. It is not surprising that so many students drop out of college after their first year because they cannot cope financially. Others must work part-time, which does not give them an equal opportunity to those students who do not have to do so, and this puts them at a disadvantage, which should not arise when students need to devote their time to their studies.

In an economy where it is easier to secure a full-time job than a place in third level college it is essential we are seen to support those who opt for a qualification. It is even more important that we encourage young people to participate in third level education. While the jobs created by the economic boom may be an attractive option for a 17 or 18 year old today, the boom will not last forever and the gloomy prospect of an economic downturn and job losses is never too far away.

Education is the key to securing a route out of poverty and insecurity, but young people, especially those from disadvantaged areas, will not be attracted to an education system where they are faced with dealing with continuing financial insecurity and poverty. We in the Labour Party believe in equality of access and opportunity. If students from disadvantaged areas cannot compete on an equal basis we are not achieving that, which is why we have moved this motion.

Mr. Penrose

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this timely and important debate. I compliment my colleague, Deputy O'Shea, our spokesman on Education and Science, for having the foresight and interest in education to propose this motion. I represent a midlands constituency which is perhaps equidistant from the colleges in the country. We are lucky to have a very important college in the constituency, the Athlone Institute of Technology, which is expanding day by day. It will shortly face accommodation pressures, although this has been streamlined thus far. Traditionally people from the midlands have studied subjects such as agriculture, veterinary and engineering at Dublin, Galway or Cork. That has created a major problem.

I raised with the Minister the matter of the impact of the student maintenance grant on students attending Athlone Institute of Technology. People living in Ballymore, just less than 15 miles from the college, are not entitled to the grant. Some of them are on very low incomes and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter. The maintenance grant amounts to £1,652 per annum, which is very small, especially for a family whose parents are on, say, invalidity benefit. I come from a similar background and I speak on behalf of these people. My father was only a council worker and his wages were very poor — approximately £8 per week. I know the sacrifices parents must make to try to give their children an opportunity. For example, often two or three members of a family would be capable of going on to third level, yet some would make a sacrifice to promote the chances of another. Some of my young brothers stayed at home to enable me to go on to third level. I owe a debt of gratitude to them and to my parents. However, this should not happen. The issue of the maintenance grant is very important in County Westmeath, especially given that the Athlone Institute of Technology is such a fine college. It should be addressed in this time of plenty.

Many young people have to travel to major cities to avail of third level education. These students and their families have had to take on board the spiralling increase in the cost of private rented accommodation in the recent past. In 1974 the council grant was £300 per annum. We stretched it to last, but at the time a couple of lads could share a flat in Dublin for £2 or £3 per week. That would not buy a cup of tea today, which is an indication of the increase in the cost of accommodation for young people over the past 20 years. People are still trying to get accommodation in Dublin for this academic year, indeed some are now trying to commute from home because of the difficulties they have encountered. The underlying problems must be tackled.

The Minister increased the rate of maintenance grant available to students by 1.7 per cent, from £1,624 to £1,652 per annum. This is a miserly increase and it does not take account of the real rate of inflation which third level students face when securing private rented accommodation. The increase amounts to 77p per week for those living away from home and 36p for those living at home. It is miserable and it means that the burden falls on the parents to support their children's education.

Some people can afford third level accommodation. They can also afford private health service and can be in the Blackrock Clinic within 48 hours. Yet those on medical cards can queue for 18 to 24 months while their hips deteriorate, their orthodontic treatment is not addressed or their knee joints remain out of place. It is time the Government addressed seriously the rate of maintenance grant and raised it in line with the real cost of living facing students.

It is also time to calculate grants on net as distinct from gross income. I have always been a critic of assessment schemes that work from gross income levels. There was a small movement to assess medical card entitlements on net incomes. The budget last year finally moved the family income supplement on to a net income calculation base. It is time the Government had the good sense to do the same for third level eligibility grants. If one is £100 over the eligibility limit one loses everything. There is no justice in that. A graduated eligibility limit should apply whereby if one was £100 over one would get 90 per cent of the grant and if one was, say, £1,500 over one would not be entitled to any grant. It is very unfair that those who have worked overtime are ineligible for maintenance grant for their sons or daughters.

Education has always been valued in Irish society and our educated population has been a major contributing factor to our recent economic success. It is vital that we continue to invest in education to maintain economic growth. The motion proposes a substantial package of reform, especially of the maintenance grant system. The reforms aim to ensure that children of low and middle income families can avail of third level education and can afford to stay in education until they attain their qualifications. In short, it is an investment in the future. The Minister knows we have a highly skilled, adaptable and qualified technology-based workforce which is the envy of the world. We must ensure all children from whatever background are given an opportunity. Education is a great leveller and transcends all economic classes and boundaries and gives people from my background an opportunity to gain equality. It is the one way to ensure equality is real and achievable and not imaginary. I urge the Minister to look at the points I raised positively in a constructive way. I am not making a major political issue but as someone who went through the system.

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. Martin)

May I share my time with Deputy Hanafin?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Foley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Martin

I move amendment No. 1:

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

Dáil Éireann notes the significant expansion in funding for further and higher education, particularly relating to the creation of extra places, and believes that:

– there is a need for increased dedicated student accommodation, and

– additional resources for student support should be targeted at increasing participation by the most disadvantaged groups.

I welcome this second opportunity in two weeks to discuss education during Private Members' time. In particular, I welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of third level provision support and accommodation.

Having been attacked by the Opposition last week for spending too much on third level, being attacked this evening for spending too little shows an admirable flexibility on behalf of the Opposition. I suspect that this creative approach again demonstrates that the Opposition recognises the success of this Government in the area of education generally.

It is a significant constraint within this House that there is no opportunity for the specific object of Opposition ire to respond at or close to the end of a debate such as this. Last week I would certainly have been eager to respond to the regrouped party line of the Opposition on Wednesday night. Those contributions demonstrated without doubt that the Opposition can give it but it cannot take it. It seems it believes that it is disreputable to expect it to be accountable for its actions in Government only a year and a half ago. It expects its record to be accepted as a tabula rasa. I assure the Opposition that we have no intention of being deflected by the sort of self-serving attacks which we heard last week.

The House should note that none of the substantive points which I made in my contribution were refuted. Instead, most Opposition contributions implicitly admitted their failures by calling events of less than two years ago ancient history. However, this did not include Deputy O'Sullivan, who was indignant that anyone could dare question the Labour Party's record. I reassure the Deputy that I was not attacking my predecessor. The education failures of the Rainbow Government should be laid at the door of the entire Government and not just the then Minister for Education.

It is interesting that we have moved from a debate on targeting educational disadvantage to one on expensive, untargeted and ill-thought out proposals. There are a number of specific areas included in the Labour Party's motion and I would like to address them all. Within this, we should take the opportunity to debate wider issues of participation in third level and the long-term requirements of the sector.

Deputies will be aware that the last Government chose specifically to reject the principal recommendation of the Review Group on Student Support concerning third level maintenance grants. The group, under the chairmanship of Donal de Buitléir, proposed that extra funding should be directed in the first instance at improving grants. Instead of implementing this, it was decided to concentrate all funding on the abolition of undergraduate fees. This was certainly a very significant decision, although attempts to compare it with the great expansions in education initiated by Donogh O'Malley and Fianna Fáil were laughable.

When this abolition was announced we were all informed that the decision would, if I may quote the Labour Party, "throw open the gates of higher education to the underprivileged". This was an initiative which was directly targeted at helping the middle and higher income earners who then paid fees, as opposed to the roughly 50 per cent who had them paid by the State. Allowing for the under-representation of poorer families in higher education, by definition this was an initiative which would very specifically target resources at the better off sections of society.

Perhaps the most ingenious argument used at the time was that, although it was admitted that poorer families would gain nothing by the initiative, it would increase participation through the psychological effects of feeling that third level was now somehow more accessible. This fundamentally ignored the realities of economic and educational disadvantage and has proven as empty as it sounded in the first place.

What is incredible is that many grant holders and, therefore, by definition those more in need, actually lost money because of so-called free fees. It was estimated at the time that grant holders could lose between £235 and £280 each because of the removal of covenants. This conscious cutback in support available to grant holders makes Labour's new love-bombing of students on grants more than a bit surprising.

Participation in higher education by poorer families has not and will not increase because of this decision. I have said it before and will say it again: this decision has not helped a single child from the most disadvantaged groups in our society to attend a higher education institution. This conclusion is absolutely incontrovertible. I will later outline in more detail my views on how we can address under-representation, but it is enough to say at this point that I believe that diversity and appropriateness of provision and targeted interventions are the key and these form the core of this Government's approach to the sector.

It is estimated that next year the overall cost of meeting tuition fees in third level will be £140 million. There is absolutely no doubt that this has, heretofore, significantly constrained the ability of my Department to obtain further funding for targeted interventions. The year 1995 marked a dramatic discontinuity from policies initiated post-1989 and, in particular, saw the brakes being applied to spending in many other areas of education. I see no other explanation for the proposal in 1997, when the phase out of fees began to be a significant force, to freeze school funding and cut primary teacher numbers.

These concerns were voiced in the press by Democratic Left at the time of the so-called free fees initiative. Labour's new partners opposed the abolition of fees it seems because it would be regressive and undermine the ability of the system to properly expand access. I look forward to it outlining its current views on this matter and whether or not it will endeavour to have the Labour Party reverse its decision once it is firmly within its welcoming bosom.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked me last week to expand on my statement that, while I believe the decision was flawed, I do not believe it should be reversed. This is quite simple, the opportunity cost at the time could not justify the decision as has been clearly demonstrated since. However, there are many in middle-income families who have benefited from the decision and rely on it. The de Buitléir proposals at the time would, in all probability, have helped this group, but I do not believe that a system could be found to address their needs were the fees to be reintroduced.

Perhaps more significantly, we now have a Minister for Finance who recognises the need to invest in other areas of education as well. With the largest ever increase in primary funding and significant extra funding in a range of areas, this Government has demonstrated that it will make sure that other sectors are not held back because of this one decision. As such, this Government is dealing with the principal negative effect of the initiative.

The motion before the House proposes the abolition of the student registration charge. This represents a remarkable change of mind on behalf of the Labour Party seeing as it is the originator of the charge in the first place.

It may help if I remind the House that the charge was created at the time of the abolition of fees in order to specifically cover the cost of exams, student services and registration. Originally set at £150, it was said at the time of its introduction by the then Government that it would be reviewed again after two years. When I took up office, the two years were up and I received many representations from institutions to say that the cost of these services was, in fact, on average about £400 per pupil per year. In light of this, I agreed that they could increase the charge by £100. This was followed by a further 4 per cent increase this year in line with the general rise in fees. I listened to the proposal put forward by Deputy O'Shea and it seems his proposal would result in a further increase of £140 to the existing charge given the definitions and criteria he outlined. The House will appreciate that fees still exist and still rise every year, it is just that the State now pays them all.

The impact of the increase has been to provide a sounder and more secure funding base for the services covered. I am concerned, and I share those of Members, that progress on implementing a more fully transparent system has been too slow and I have asked students to supply information where difficulties have arisen. I remind the House that this increase has fallen heaviest on my Department, as it pays the charge on behalf of roughly 50 per cent of students.

The last Government's attachment to the charge was underlined by the specific inclusion of a provision in the Universities Act to allow the charge. On a number of occasions the Opposition, and certain student leaders, have sought to present the increases as, in some way, the reintroduction of fees by the backdoor; this is nonsense. Undergraduate fees would now run at roughly £2,000 per student, if still in place. I assure the House that were they to come back, which they will not, it would be through the front door following a full and honest public debate about third level. This charge is not paid by roughly 50 per cent of students who receive higher education grants and, therefore, its abolition would benefit only the better off sections of society. At a cost of £12 million, it seems that the inescapable conclusion from this motion is that the Labour Party is again willing to prioritise the interests of the better off at the expense of others seeking access to education.

The motion before the House calls for a range of increases in the student grants scheme. The total list of measures to which the Leader of the Labour Party signed up on the back of a truck in Molesworth Street would amount to more than £100 million a year. Grants are paid to roughly 50 per cent of students attending higher education. As such it could not be described as a targeted measure aimed at helping the poorest of students. We should aim to increase the income available to students in need but, because of finite resources, we must have priorities and must target those most in need.

The policy I have followed is to increase payments in line with inflation and increase income limits in line with the average industrial wage. While the Labour Party now finds this inadequate, I would remind it that this is another policy initiated by it. While de Buitléir recommended some of the changes proposed in this motion, they were rejected by the Labour Party in Government. Because of this, I find tonight's protestations of concern difficult to take seriously.

As my party indicated in Opposition, and as the current Opposition rightly points out, it is our belief that significant improvements in the grants scheme are required. As we pointed out in the relevant discussion document, we also believe in prioritising and that it is reasonable to deliver things across the lifetime of a Government. It is my intention to first seek to deal with the more significant anomalies or disincentives in the grants scheme before dealing with the more general issue of levels.

The Opposition has not pointed out this evening that we are already implementing our largest single pledge relating to grants by introducing grants for post-leaving certificate students. Estimated to cost almost £16 million next year, these grants will benefit students often from the most modest backgrounds who were for so long neglected by the Opposition. Even though it was included in the Rainbow Coalition's Programme for Government, PLC students were not given grants and were forgotten as others benefited from the largesse being spread around. Continuing this policy, tonight's motion again ignores PLC students, perhaps out of a sense of guilt.

This new grants scheme has involved very complex administrative arrangements and the first payments have been delayed but I assure the House that my officials are doing all they can to ensure that the first payments are issued as soon as possible, I hope within the next six weeks.

The administration of the overall grants scheme needs attention. I accept the various recommendations of de Buitléir and I am persuaded by the need to move toward a central grants authority with flexible methods of payment. This is proving significantly more complicated than I first expected. In the meantime, I have addressed one of the ongoing problems with the scheme, the problems caused by paying local authorities in arrears. Because of my move on this, grants have been paid significantly earlier this term.

I accept that students in many parts of the State are experiencing difficulties in finding good, affordable accommodation and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the issue. This is a subset of the wider housing squeeze which has been growing in recent years. As income levels rise, and demand for accommodation rises, students are left competing with people who have greater spending power.

Because of this, an across the board increase in direct grants would have little direct impact on helping students to compete in the rented accommodation sector. Grants are paid to roughly 50 per cent of students, only some of whom are affected by what is happening to rents. Increasing grants for all is not a measure targeted at the students in need. What is described in the motion as an emergency package is a knee-jerk package which at great expense would leave the problem unresolved.

The core need is to increase the availability of dedicated student housing with a resultant release of pressure on the rented sector. In Dublin there are almost 3,000 student residences. These have been developed since the late 1980s through a series of self-financing initiatives. My officials have held discussions with colleges on this issue and we have signalled our willingness to assist further significant student housing developments. I hope we will be in a position to announce some movement on this shortly. At this stage direct State aid is not required, though tax relief is likely to play a role.

This is not a problem which has arisen overnight. Accommodation is something which, by necessity, cannot be dealt with on a short-term basis. It is noticeable that the Labour Party's manifesto for the last election did not even mention student accommodation. In this context, the House will forgive me if I reject the scatter-gun proposal contained in the motion and look instead to the policy which I have outlined.

The feedback we have received from the Higher Education Authority and the colleges is that the problem is concentrated in the Dublin area and is not as acute in the locations of other colleges. There are 7,000 college residence places provided at the moment by various colleges including the colleges of education. Limerick and Cork are doing well with 1,700 places, while UCD has 1,472 places. However, we need to do more, particularly in Dublin.

The motion proposes a review of policy concerning what is termed the "more equitable and rational distribution of student numbers throughout the State.". In general terms I agree with the idea that we should have a balanced spread of provision through our higher education institutions. This said, I do not see the potential for redistributing places or disproportionately concentrating future expansions.

Students coming to Dublin place pressure on the rented sector in the city, but it is not credible to duplicate the provision in its colleges throughout the State. It would be inefficient and damaging to quality to adopt the "one for everybody in the audience" approach implicit in the motion. In addition, Dublin contains the areas with the lowest participation in third level in the State. It is therefore essential that we increase places in Dublin, particularly at sub-degree level. It is a matter of some considerable concern to me that it has proved so difficult over the last year to create extra sub-degree places in key areas in Dublin.

The Government is absolutely committed to making sure colleges throughout the State are given the opportunity to grow. That is why we have initiated the largest ever third level building programme through the Education Technology Investment Fund. As a result more students will have the opportunity to study in high quality facilities in their home regions if they wish to do so. We have already increased the number of third level places by more than 8,000. Apprenticeship places now stand at 5,500 and in the PLC sector we have increased the numbers by 5,000. That is real access.

The Government has already implemented its most expensive commitment on grants and will, as resources permit, make further improvements. This said, we are determined to target resources on the issue of broadening and deepening participation in further and higher education. We are committed to targeting the most disadvantaged groups with the key areas being summed up as access, diversity and progression.

The promotion of access must deal with tackling disincentives of tradition and support. In particular, colleges must reach out and additional support should be available where it is needed. Between direct funding from my Department, and indirect funding from the HEA, almost £900,000 is being spent on this area in the current year. I hope to go significantly beyond this next year. As part of this I want to deal with the issue of retention in certain parts of the system which seems to relate to background in many cases. We have already initiated research on the area of attrition and we will have a significant initiative to announce to deal with attrition in third level education.

A diversity of provision is also essential to expand access. It is not good enough to concentrate on the supposed high status degree level courses. A system which is to have any credibility must have a balance and the opportunities provided by any sub-degree level courses are a critical part of any effective plan to promote participation. I see this sector expanding and will not tolerate any attempt to undermine it.

I would like to direct the House to a shining example of the benefits of diversity of provision — the National Certificate in Manufacturing Technology. This course has already provided 300 people, many of whom are second chance students, with the opportunity to access, through a non-standard route, innovative education and training on the way to a well paid job. A further 500 places will be available in institutes of technology in January.

Similarly, the long neglected, much promised and unfunded institute of technology in Blanchardstown will make a major contribution to expanding access and diversity. The £20 million provided for the first development phase of the institute is in place and is a concrete demonstration of a Government which is delivering in comparison to the last Government which, like a mountain goat, had a loud cry but little wool.

Ensuring progression between levels is also a key to expanding participation. The low level of progression at the moment is simply unacceptable and I have said on many occasions that I expect institutions to join the effort to expand its operation. The qualifications Bill, which I will be publishing shortly, will be an important part of guaranteeing routes of progression through further and higher education, which is essential for students suffering educational disadvantage.

The problems pointed to in the motion are important and need to be addressed. This said, the broad scale, untargeted approach to solving the problems is simply not credible. The net effect of the proposals would be to spend many millions of pounds on once again using limited resources and not helping those most in need. The empty opportunism of the Labour Party is not just to be found in its radical change of position, but in the fact that it is actually calling for the abandonment of policies which it introduced in the first place. It was the Labour Party which created and enshrined in law the registration charge it now wants to abolish, it was the Labour

Party which decided to confine grants and income thresholds to limited increases but now wants huge increases, and it was the Labour Party which failed to mention student accommodation in its last manifesto but now wants it to be a priority.

We need a balanced approach which targets funding at those most in need and deals with the real issue of accommodation in an effective manner. I am already working with colleges to expand access and address the accommodation issue. This is the most credible and progressive way to address the concerns of those most in need.

Ms Hanafin

Tá áthas orm an deis seo a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo, Oideachas, dhá sheachtain i ndiaidh a chéile. Sé an fáth go bhfuil áthas orm ná go gcreidim go láidir i bpolasaí an Rialtais sa mhéid atá á dhéanamh acu faoi láthair i ngach gné den oideachas agus go háirithe sa tríú leibhéal.

Admitting that the prosperity of our country has been based on economic success and that as many as possible throughout the country should benefit from education, our focus should be on those who can gain access to education at all levels rather than, as we are doing this week, focusing on those who already have access to education. It strikes me, having spent last week talking about the very important issue of disadvantage, how quickly the Opposition forgets that and just concentrates on those who have overcome their difficulties and gained access to third level education.

Undoubtedly a problem still exists. Someone from a higher professional background is seven times more likely to go to college than someone from an unskilled manual background. We accept that, as do all the colleges. At a recent graduation ceremony in DCU, the president, Dr. Danny O'Hare, said we should be aiming for a situation where the proportion of young people going to university shall be exactly the same, irrespective of their background. To accept anything less than this absolute equality would be institutionalised disadvantage and would make it permanent.

The record of this Government to date is to ensure we are not institutionalising disadvantage or making it permanent. We are ensuring that people who would never have dreamt of third level education are not being left stuck at the first and second levels but are getting the access and opportunity to break out. The colleges are making a small effort in this regard but are not doing enough. I commend the Ballymun BITE programme. UCD has been working hand in hand with the Southside Partnership, in my constituency, and Trinity College, Dublin, has a south inner city sponsorship programme. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is needed to make these people feel comfortable in attending third level education. The emphasis of the Government on ensuring resources are spent on first and second levels will mean that all people will feel that third level is the natural progression for them.

Giving students grants to spend on accommodation will not lance the boil. The real problem is the lack of accommodation, which is a wider issue that has been discussed many times in this House. There are 70,000 accommodation units in the private sector. Competition from a wide range of people in the commercial field means there is a general accommodation shortage, even before 30,000 students begin to hit the city of Dublin at the end of September.

There is a number of ways to help students in this regard. Colleges used to have very active and efficient accommodation officers who worked to facilitate students but who now do not offer the level of service they could for off campus accommodation. Students are forced to pay professional bodies £40 or £45 to look at accommodation lists. An accommodation officer, with the backing and authority of the college, could encourage landlords willing to rent to students to register with them, whereas they might be unwilling to register with a commercial body.

Perhaps a partnership could develop between old age pensioners living alone and students, particularly first year students in Dublin. I raised this matter before and received considerable support from both students and the elderly, including members of the parliament for the aged. Old people living alone often feel insecure and worried about their safety and students are unable to find accommodation. Ne'er the twain met in the past but perhaps there is an opportunity for a college accommodation officer to match the two and to ensure both can benefit at a reasonable rate. The important issue, which the Minister for Education and Science might take up with his colleagues, is that the pensioner would not lose their living alone allowance and associated benefits.

The Minister raised the issue of a proper building programme to be undertaken by the colleges themselves or in conjunction with private sponsorship, which would undoubtedly help the situation. In the 1970s and 1980s 30 per cent of Trinity College, Dublin, students lived on campus. Now in the 1990s, because of increased student numbers, only 10 per cent of students can live on campus. However, that college, in common with other colleges in Dublin, where the main accommodation problem exists, has built a new pharmacy building, a new dental school and a new material science building. There has been a vast building programme in UCD, including the O'Reilly hall.

The colleges should use some of their land to build accommodation. If it is possible to provide a Smurfit graduate business school on prime land or the O'Reilly function hall with support from the private sector, why can the private sector and the State, local authorities and colleges, not work together to provide student accommodation, perhaps based on the Carnegie model which provided libraries throughout the country? Giving a grant to a student will only benefit that one student; providing accommodation will ensure that future generations can benefit. There will be no incentive for landlords to decrease the cost of rent as long as students are given more and more money. There should be a separate landlord registration for those who are willing to rent accommodation to students. Students only want short leases for 36 weeks of the year. This would benefit both students and landlords, who are sometimes afraid of the outer bodies.

The key issues are access to third level accommodation, a building programme instituted by the colleges and the State and more outreach courses, based, for example, on the model of The National University of Ireland Maynooth in the outreach campus in Kilkenny, so that everyone does not have to come to Dublin for their education.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Naughten is sharing time with Deputies Crawford, Neville, Stanton and Kenny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Naughten

I support the motion. Student accommodation in our major towns and cities has reached crisis point, no more so than in Dublin, a city which accounts for 60 per cent of the total student intake at third level. In recent years, the number of college places has increased by 10,000 and the Government is set to make more places available over the coming years. However, over the same period, there has been a substantial decrease in the amount of affordable accommodation, a situation which has been accelerated by the measures implemented by the Government earlier this year on foot of the Bacon report. A number of media stories have highlighted the current situation regarding accommodation. There have been reports of students sleeping rough and of a German science student sleeping in a tent on the N4.

In Dublin, the average cost per week for a bedsit is £50, a one bedroomed flat costs approximately £100 and a two bedroomed flat approximately £150. Rents in the capital have increased by approximately 20 per cent in the past 12 months; at the same time the Minister has increased maintenance grants by a paltry 1.7 per cent to bring them up to £45.90 per week. This grant does not even pay for rent, never mind ESB, gas and food bills and the cost of college materials which average out at approximately £60 per week.

How are students surviving with these overheads? Many students miss out on meals to save money. A USI survey reveals that almost 50 per cent of students skip breakfast at least twice a week. Many students attempt to reduce the cost of accommodation by moving into grotty and damp basement flats or by increasing the capacity of a flat. I am aware of a case where a student sleeps on a couch in a bedsit in which two other people share a double bed. The students pay £30 each per week for this accommodation. One would think students were living in shanty towns in a Third World country rather than in the capital of the tiger economy.

Some students are being forced to refuse college places in Dublin and avail of courses in which they are less interested in order to remain nearer home. Direct intervention is urgently required to provide students with viable housing options. The amount of campus accommodation available in Ireland is minuscule compared to other EU countries. A massive building programme is required in the third level sector using public and private funding. I welcome the Minister's commitment and I hope he delivers on it. Any tax designation which would seriously question the use of tax relief as a method of funding this type of accommodation will be questioned by the EU. Perhaps a scheme could be considered whereby elderly people would be entitled to take in students at a fixed rent without their pension entitlements being affected. I hope Deputy Hanafin will encourage the Minister to ensure these suggestions are implemented.

A radical overhaul of maintenance grants is necessary. These must be increased in line with accommodation and other costs. The current income limits must be reassessed. Students are a long-term investment in ensuring our economy continues to develop in the future.

Accommodation officers, funded by the various student unions, are available in third level colleges but that is equivalent to putting one's finger in a hole in a dam. The Government has not done anything to address the problems faced by students on a daily basis and the Bacon report has only served to compound the problem.

Mr. Crawford

Everyone has a right to third level education which in the long-term gives the possibility of full-time employment. Access to colleges in Northern Ireland and the UK fee-free was a great benefit to the Border area but it is no longer available to us. I was amused at the Minister disclaiming any involvement in doing away with free fees. When that occurred, the Fine Gael Party was in Government and one of the Minister's colleagues claimed the abolition of free fees was being forced on the Rainbow Government by the EU.

I welcome the provision of grants towards PLCs. County Monaghan has the third lowest level of take up of third level education, according to the de Buitléir report. In many cases, children come from low to middle income farm families and families of factory workers in the food and furniture industry. There is no major third level college available to which students could commute on a daily basis.

MIFFET, which is run under the VEC, offers the only available post leaving certificate courses and 130 to 150 full-time students participate in that. Yet, no funds seem to be available to the VEC to purchase accommodation in St. Davnet's complex. A commitment must be given to extend accommodation for first and second year students, linked up with regional technical colleges and universities, if we are to overcome problems in this area.

I will outline an example of the need for the Minister to take account of the motion before the House. I refer to the case of the second child in a family of six children whose parents are small farmers in receipt of social welfare. The student pays £55 per week for bed and breakfast and £2 per day for bus travel in addition to paying for food. Her weekend return bus fare costs £7, books cost as much as £45 each and she must also pay a registration fee of approximately £400. The total grant she receives is £1,624, out of which she must also buy clothes. She would like to attend the Christmas ball, tickets for which cost £25. If she did not attend college and remained at home or lived in a flat in her local town, she would cost the State £3,400 in social welfare payments and £1,800 in rent allowance. She had to get a loan last Saturday as the money she had received to date was spent.

We must implement a sliding scale to accommodate those who, for one reason or another, fall outside of current structures. I am aware of someone who was forced to work overtime in his job in the emergency services as a result of which his family became ineligible for any grant payments. Allowances must be made for self-employed people. I urge the Minister to take account of the motion. If he does not, the remaining four members of the girl's family will not have an opportunity to avail of third level education.

Mr. Neville

I support the motion on the need to review higher education grants immediately. Students and parents from low and middle income families are facing severe difficulties and stresses in providing funds for third level education which have been caused by the rapidly increasing cost of accommodation. There is an emergency in this area and immediate measures must be taken to alleviate the crisis. There is an urgent need to substantially increase the eligibility limits for students' maintenance grants; eligibility should be calculated on net rather than gross income as is currently the case. The Minister for Education and Science increased maintenance grants by 77p per week for a student living away from home and by 36p per week for a student living at home. It is the understatement of the year to say this is inadequate. To say it is an insult is nearer to a realistic description of current circumstances. The Minister should introduce a graduated system of entitlement to maintenance grants, with a substantial increase in the size of the maximum grant available.

The USI's poverty survey of 1997-8 showed the average expenditure for students living away from home is £466.24 per month. Accommodation costs have jumped from an average of £120.19 per month in 1995-6 to £220 per month in 1998. This indicates a monthly increase of £100 for rented accommodation while the Minister has provided an increase of 77p per week. Of those surveyed, 74 per cent said the rent did not include the cost of utilities. Despite the introduction of the 1993 regulations on housing and private rented accommodation, only 34 per cent of students had a rent book while 10 per cent did not know their landlord's name.

I support the demands the USI is making on the Minister. I support the immediate and full implementation of the 1993 housing legislation in the context of a workable system for tenants. There should be an immediate investigation into the effectiveness of providing tax incentives for landlords offering accommodation on a short-term basis for those in need of speciality houses, such as students, particularly students with special requirements, including student parents and students with disabilities. There should be capital investment in on campus accommodation for students. In this context there should be a joint initiative between the Departments of the Environment and Local Government and Education and Science providing financial aid to institutes of education for the development of on campus accommodation with adequate provision being made for students with disabilities and student parents. USI would like to see the Department of Education and Science taking the lead in this initiative.

Funding should be provided for a feasibility study into the establishment of a student housing association and, pending the results, investment in the establishment of such a body. The USI also asks for investigation into the viability of allowing the elderly accommodate students during the academic year without losing benefits such as living alone allowance. We now know where Deputy Hanafin got her information.

Mr. Stanton

The motion is timely. I was disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Education and Science who seems to be living in a time warp. This is his second time to come to the House and castigate what happened two years ago. The failure of the Government to deal with a range of issues, including housing, health, traffic, crime, agriculture and education, is a failure to manage the booming economy it took over from the Fine Gael-led Government. The Government has failed and is unable to manage the economy. It is necessary to manage in good times — one cannot sit back and hope everything will be all right, as the Government is doing.

We know that the failure on the part of the Government to manage the housing crisis has led to a massive increase in the cost of accommodation. It is necessary to prove one is poor before one receives a grant. This means a person must have little or no income before getting a grant. As an aside I wish to point out that the forms issued by the Department are in need of updating, something the Minister might take on board. They are complicated, complex and off putting. Those who prove they are poor may get a grant. I have been in houses where both parents have to work in order to make ends meet. Because they both work they are over the income threshold and no grant is given. I maintain such households are poor.

The motion calls for an increase in the eligibility levels for grants. Those who are poor and get a grant have little or no money. In Cork accommodation costs a minimum of £40 per week, which absorbs the entire grant. Having proved one has no money in order to get the grant, what does one live on? There is nothing left to buy food, books, pay ESB and gas bills, etc., and perhaps have some kind of a life. If a student's family has money to pay for these living expenses then they will not receive the grant in the first place. Therefore a paradox exists and the motion attempts to address it.

Mr. Treacy

Over half of all third level students receive grants.

Mr. Stanton

The Minister is interrupting because what I am saying is hitting home. I am glad he has finally woken up and is listening, something which is good.

The issue of distance must also be examined in the context of two people living 200 yards from each other but only one getting a grant. There is something wrong when this happens, and a graduated scale is necessary.

Mr. Kenny

The sore point refers to those students who go to university and third level institutions with no previous contact with cities such as Dublin. There are people from the country who have acquired apartments in Dublin — some have acquired multiple apartments — thereby ensuring their children are looked after. There are also people who have contact, including friends, acquaintances, etc., who either have apartments, flats or access to flats or friends where they can stay. The problem lies with those who never have had previous contact with the city in that way. They are at the mercy of and are exposed to the rip-off merchants in what has become rip-off city.

Students from many parts of the country lose the first quarter of the academic year traipsing around the city night after night looking for accommodation, often dingy, damp, dirty, filthy, vermin ridden bedsits which should be condemned and bulldozed into eternity. It is not beyond the competence or imagination of Government to ensure the construction industry, in conjunction with the universities, the third level institutions and the Department of Finance, builds county dormitories or introduces county accommodation systems thereby solving the accommodation problems of the section of students who do not have access to friends, acquaintances or apartments.

This matter concerns the future. On Saturday night the Taoiseach referred to the world class education system in Ireland. That may be so, but the back-up facility to make it world class and to draw on the imagination and ability of students is not helped by allowing them live in damp, dank, filthy accommodation for which they are charged rip-off prices by rip-off merchants. The Minister, even if he does nothing else, should ensure the problem is sorted out once and for all.

Debate adjourned.