Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1998

Vol. 497 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Third Level Education: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Shea on Tuesday, 24 November 1998:
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.
Debate resumed on 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."
(Minister for Education and Science)

Mr. Hayes:

I wish to share my time with Deputy Richard Bruton.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Hayes:

I am glad to have an opportunity, however brief, to contribute to this debate. I want to speak on a specific aspect of the motion before the House. That aspect relates to student accommodation. It is clear that the problem relating to student accommodation has reached crisis point. Every August parents and students travel to Dublin, to Cork, to Galway looking for adequate, safe, secure accommodation for the academic year ahead. It is appalling that we face this crisis year in, year out. While successive Governments have increased the number of college places, which I welcome, we have not made adequate provision for student accommodation. I particularly congratulate the Union of Students in Ireland on the campaign they launched in September and October to highlight the crisis of student accommodation.

With imagination the Government could resolve this problem. I wish to put to the House this evening ways in which we could solve it. There are many large homes throughout Dublin which could be utilised by giving students the opportunity to stay there. There are many elderly people living in large residences with bedrooms not being used, but they will not take on students or any other tenants because they would lose their living alone allowance and other secondary benefits that they get. The Government should immediately look at that area. In particular, it needs to target tax benefits at people who take in fixed or low income groups as tenants. Many young people are struggling to pay monthly mortgages and they would be delighted to take in students for six or eight months if an incentive existed. However, such an incentive is not offered at present.

I ask the Government to consider the amount of State land around many third level colleges. An audit of this land should be carried out to find out whether it is possible to use it for student accommodation. It is a scandal that Ireland offers one of the lowest levels of student accommodation in Europe. If one goes to Northern Ireland or any other part of the European Union, one will see large amounts of on campus, residential accommodation. It is almost non-existent in the State and something should be done about it. I urge the House to support the motion. We should do everything in our power to increase the amount of student accommodation available.

I thank the Labour Party for tabling this timely motion. The hard fact which must be faced in relation to higher education is that higher education is only for the relatively privileged in society. Despite the fact that a rate of almost 50 per cent participation in third level has been achieved, it is still the case that people from the higher social groups are the predominant participants. For example, 87 per cent of the children of unskilled manual workers do not reach third level education in any shape or form. The contrasts between people on high and low incomes are startling.

The child of an unskilled manual background is 16 times more likely to leave school without sitting the leaving certificate, more than four times more likely not to get sufficient results in the leaving certificate to go to college and three times less likely to get to college even with sufficient qualifications. At every turn in the education system, children from more disadvantaged and lower income backgrounds are failing to get through. There is an onus on the House and particularly the Government to ask why that is the case.

A large part of it relates to the lack of a proper support structure for children from less wealthy families to get through the education system. The only support mechanism at third level is the higher education maintenance grant system. It has proved itself woefully inadequate in respect of those at the lowest level of income. The cost of participation at third level, even on the most conservative calculation, is £2,000 a year if one is living at home. Many people estimate that the cost is much higher, but even that figure is more than three times the maintenance grant. If one is living away from home, the minimum cost is £4,500. This is also almost three times the maintenance grant. There is a yawning gap between what the State provides and what it costs to send a student to college.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that families from lower income backgrounds do not consider third level participation as something for which they should hope or expect. We must remedy this and it is the priority, above all else, in the third level education system. It is fine for the Minister to pat himself on the back for introducing various schemes and research grants and making large investments in the third level sector. The sector is already well endowed in comparison to other European countries. Ireland spends more per student than any other country and we have a very good system. However, unfortunately, many students are not getting through because they cannot afford to be part of this well resourced system which has a high reputation. This must be addressed.

In recent years there has been a commitment to address the needs of disadvantaged people, but it has not gone beyond the drawing board. There was a commitment in the White Paper that 500 students from non-traditional backgrounds would go through the third level system each year, with the number increasing each year. However, the total to date is 80, which is well short of the target. The Minister appeared to seek praise last week for his announcement that he would spend £800,000 on assisting children from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into third level. That represents approximately 0.2 per cent of spending in third level and the Minister expected us to accept that he is making a genuine effort to address disadvantage in the third level sector. However, that is not the case. Students on low incomes cannot get accommodation or afford to buy books. They cannot afford bus fares. There is a need for a more radical consideration of this area.

Some people ridiculed my proposal that a youth education wage related to income should be paid to early school leavers and students in the early years of college. This is the way forward. If we want to address the issue of why people from lower income backgrounds are staying away from third level, we must think and act radically. Pussyfooting around with the schemes that are already in place will not make the necessary impact.

The colleges must also pull up their socks in this area. They have many innovative schemes, but they are still on a minor scale. The colleges have an obligation to address the needs of students from low income backgrounds. Compared to other European countries, Ireland is unique in having very few second chance or mature students at second or third levels. Those options are closed off in Ireland. However, mature students make up 50 per cent of the participants in many colleges in the UK, on which we are fond of pouring opprobrium from time to time. It has opened up the system and welcomed mature and second chance students. It has a much more inclusive approach to third level education and Ireland needs to consider it closely.

We also need to consider some of the very successful models developed by the partnership companies and to start mainstreaming pilot projects. Ireland is a great country for setting up pilot projects, but these initiatives never come of age although the Department says it will adopt them. In my area, the northside partnership has a tremendous scheme. The running cost is only £60,000 and it helps students with bus fares, the price of books and other small items, the things which make the difference between students being able to participate or not. Such schemes should be mainstreamed so students can access them. The hardship fund is rarely obtained. It is unsatisfactory because it is known to be difficult to secure and it is not administered through the community.

There is also a need to consider the issues surrounding the recognition of certification for access to third level. Proper access is not given to people who come through the voluntary and community adult education programmes. This aspect must be addressed. The huge problems at third level need to be dealt with and while the Minister is spending money in this area, his priorities are wrong.

I wish to share my time with Deputies O'Flynn, Pat Carey, Moynihan, Michael Ahern, McGuinness and Brian Lenihan.

I welcome the fact that the House is discussing education for the second week in a row in Private Members' time. However, last week some Opposition Deputies said capitation grants at primary level were too low and too much was being spent on third level education. This week the Government is being attacked for spending too little on third level. I hope more funding will be secured for third level because it is most important.

I welcome much of the Labour Party's motion which mentions net income for the eligibility limits for student maintenance grants. The Government has introduced a measure under which net income is used to determine eligibility for family income supplement. The previous Administration did nothing about that matter. I hope the Government will move towards using net income in this area.

The motion raises the issue of how means tests are carried out for various grants and benefits. If one applies for a medical card, one is allowed to include the cost of travelling to and from work as an expense. One cannot do this in the case of higher education grants. This is not mentioned in the motion. I know of many people in rural areas who have to travel up to 40 miles to and from work. Because of the failure of the previous Government to raise income eligibility thresholds in tandem with abolishing fees many students do not qualify for maintenance grants as their parents' income is £5, £10 or £20 above the limit. This issue should be addressed.

The availability of student accommodation is a serious issue. Increasing grants across the board is not the answer as those most in need would not be targeted. Deputy Hayes referred to the Bacon report on the housing crisis. The Government should consider commissioning a similar report on the private rental sector. The Union of Students in Ireland has raised the issue of a student housing association, a concept that works well in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the extension of maintenance grants to PLC students. About two thirds of the 20,000 students involved will benefit. An additional 8,000 third level places have been provided this year. Although many colleges have attracted private sector investment in college buildings, the NUI in Galway continues to use prefabricated buildings for lectures while there have been protests in the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology about the need for investment in facilities. The Government should consider this question.

I fully support the Minister in his approach to the motion. Like my colleagues, I would wish to introduce measures to make life easier and more affordable for students, including a substantial increase in maintenance grants, but I would also wish to wave a magic wand to resolve the crisis in student accommodation brought about by the tiger economy. As we are all aware, this cannot be done in one swift step, it can only be done on a phased basis. That is the path we must take.

We must strike a balance between our wish for major advances in education and the economic reality. The Minister has chosen to travel this road. This does not mean that he is unwilling to invest in education. He has made massive funds available since taking office. He has shown total dedication through his enormous work rate in meeting various challenges. His performance speaks for itself. It is without parallel.

The Minister has planned a massive injection of capital and allotted huge sums to ensure we are prepared to meet the challenges of the new millennium. Educational establishments have hailed his innovative approach to third level research and development programmes. He has honoured his commitment on PLC grants. Nobody can question his commitment to ensuring the disadvantaged are able to access third level institutions. He has undertaken to introduce a properly researched policy on student accommodation and hopes to be in a position to present initial proposals shortly. He has taken positive steps to ensure the eventual recommendations of the commission on the points system will be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity.

I am aware of the impact the Minister has made on the education scene in Cork city and county and throughout the country. He has given institute of technology status to that most respected of institutions, the former Cork Regional Technical College, which was bypassed by the previous Government in a shabby political manoeuvre which did not work.

The Minister has guaranteed the installation of modern technological equipment in schools throughout the country. He has made grants available to upgrade schools nationwide. There is evidence of this in my constituency. He has travelled far and wide and is known in schools and colleges throughout the country. His track record in identifying with those on the ground is second to none. I have seen him greeted by the youngest pupil and the most advanced third level student with equal enthusiasm. They know his face, respect and like him. I doubt if this could be said about any previous Minister for Education, except the late Donogh O'Malley. Those involved in the education system sing his praises.

In light of this I cannot understand the reasoning behind the motion. The Labour Party, and other members of the Opposition, should have the courage to say that the Minister is doing a superb job. Instead the Labour Party is seeking to come up with propositions to implement changes which it did not see fit to introduce when in office. Has it produced costings? It did nothing to support the USI on its proposals on grants when in office, rather it did the opposite by introducing a policy of grant limitation as well as registration changes. It now wants to abolish them. It did nothing to advance the concept of a central grants authority on which the Minister is working and for which the USI has campaigned.

Education was given a low priority by the previous Government. The Labour Party did nothing to address the issue of student accommodation. It now wants the Government to spend vast unspecified sums on accommodation without researching the most effective methods to curtail costs for students. Spending vast sums in this way will only serve to worsen the situation.

The conscience of the Labour Party has awoken. It always does in Opposition. It can, however, make one claim to consistency without blushing. It can always state that it adheres to the policy of the U-turn and double think.

I fully support the Minister's education policy and the programme he will deliver during the lifetime of the Government. I hope the House will do likewise.

I am glad the Labour Party has finally recognised the true costs for students attending third level. The barrier for many of those on low and middle incomes was never third level fees but the cost of trying to survive, accommodation, transport, books and equipment as well as a few pounds to participate in the rich social life of our colleges, clubs and societies. For students who come from less well-off families so-called free fees means nothing, they would have had their fees covered by a grant. Three years have elapsed since the so-called free fees initiative was introduced. There is no evidence that it has resulted in a single additional student from a disadvantaged background proceeding to third level.

I challenge Labour Party Members to defend the former Labour Minister's decision and to show where it has contributed to greater access to higher education. It remains the sad reality that if one comes from a higher professional background, one has a 90 per cent chance of going to college whereas if one comes from an unskilled, working class family one's chances are fewer than one in six.

When the former Labour Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, decided her priorities for third level she gave greater benefit to the son or daughter of a barrister or bank manager than a member of a family trapped by unemployment and poverty. She ignored the plight of PLC students and was forced to meet representatives of evening and part-time students only when she was defeated in a vote in the Seanad.

So-called free fees for undergraduates have meant that third level institutions have targeted postgraduates for additional income. In the past three years postgraduate fees have jumped by over one quarter, five times the rate of inflation. The former Labour Minister removed this source of income but failed to give enough to ensure colleges could support and develop a much needed research base. The Minister has introduced a much needed humanities research scholarship scheme and in recent days a budget of £180 million to develop research in higher education.

The former Labour Minister commissioned a report, the de Buitleir report, to look at student financial support. One would think that in examining this issue it would determine whether the levels of support were adequate and whether the thresholds at which someone qualifies should be improved but it did not. A colleague of those who have tried to take the high moral ground today specifically excluded those considerations.

Among other matters, the de Buitleir report recommended that eligibility should be based on net rather than gross income and that there should be a sliding scale of entitlement but these suggestions with other proposals aimed at speeding up payments were ignored by the Labour Party, Fine Gael and Democratic Left when in power. The Labour Party now regards them as part of a comprehensive package of emergency measures.

Student hardship and difficulties in finding accommodation did not arise when the former Labour Minister left office. One of her parting gestures was to increase the minimum third level grant by less than 2 per cent. She failed to include a student representative in the de Buitleir group and also resisted student requests that a representative be appointed to the Higher Education Authority. I am happy the Minster rectified the matter last year by appointing ex officio the president of the USI to the HEA. I understand the contribution made by the current president has been substantial.

Unlike his predecessor, the Minister is committed to student representation as of right at the highest levels of decision making in education. I challenge Deputy Quinn, a signatory to the motion, to explain why it refers to increasing grants and eligibility limits as emergency measures. When he was in a position to deliver on these issues as Minister for Finance he received a pre-budget submission from the National Youth Council of Ireland, the USI and students unions across the country urging him to increase grants. Indeed, even Labour Youth urged this course of action. Why did he do nothing to prevent the current difficulties?

When the Labour Party was in Government its method of addressing a combination of difficulties facing students was to introduce a £40 registration fee for each flat. Although this system has not worked it has forced some landlords and landladies out of the market, thus making accommodation more difficult to find. When the registration fee is paid the cost is invariably passed on to the tenant.

I accept that the third level grant is an insufficient amount on which to live. Unlike my colleagues opposite, I have known for some time of the financial difficulties that face many students. Anybody who listens to Tom Mitchell of Trinity College or Pat Clancy of UCD, or who reads his excellent reports, or sees how access programmes, such as the Ballymun initiative for third level education, the Limerick community based education initiative, the Trinity access project or the Outreach programmes of the National College of Ireland, work will know the problems and challenges to be faced and how they can be tackled and overcome.

The Minister has made tackling disadvantage in education one of his key priorities. The decision to extend the third level grants scheme to PLC students was long overdue and will benefit a significant majority of the 20,000 plus students taking those courses. The Minister has also increased the number of places in our universities and colleges and has ensured that northwest Dublin will now have——

Are copies of the Deputy's script being circulated?

I am using speaking notes. North-west Dublin will now have an institute of technology with a commitment to social inclusion. Ms Bhreathnach ignored the area in her anxiety to ensure an institute of technology for Dún Laoghaoire in her constitutency.

Prioritising access to education has always been a cornerstone of Fianna Fáil policy, from the establishment of the former regional technical colleges to the introduction of the grants scheme to its extension to PLC students. I am confident this will continue to be the case.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate and to speak on education for the second week running. The previous Government's introduction of free third level fees for all, from the very rich to those on the poverty line, was a mistake. A former Minister for Education in the 1950s who came from my home village said that the only way out of the depression of the 1950s was to educate young people. The availability of education to the less well off in our society and the encouragement we can give them is of vital importance because it will ensure they will get out of the poverty trap that their families, perhaps going back over previous generations, have been in.

The problem with student accommodation has been ongoing for longer than the past 18 months. When members of my family went to college the basic level of accommodation available to students was deplorable. Substandard accommodation was provided by landlords charging increasing rents. If the maintenance grant for third level colleges was to be increased in line with the motion it would only get into the hands of landlords. A balanced approach is required to ensure that any increase in the grant should be made in the right way as part of a planned strategy.

To judge by what has been said on Private Members' Business during this week and last week one would think that education was not given any recognition by the Government. Yet, it is the one area that has secured dramatic increases in funding over the past 18 months, which I welcome because we have neglected the education system for too long. It provides a foundation for every young person.

Over the past 18 months there have been major initiatives in education. The Minister has introduced major new ideas which he has acted upon. The Book of Estimates provides for an increase in IT expenditure, which is the way forward for education, be it primary, second level, third level or adult education. More resources have also been provided to primary schools, which have been neglected for so long.

The problem in most national schools, especially in my constituency, centres on large class sizes. This is most noticeable in the higher classes, from fourth class onwards, which often contain as many as 35 pupils. The Minister has undertaken to provide more resources and to regulate this area. I congratulate him for what he is doing and what he continues to do.

If we are to do something with maintenance grants it must be done on the basis of a proper co-ordinated report which will ensure that any increase in funding to students does not fall into the hands of those landlords who provide substandard accommodation.

I compliment the Labour Party on moving this motion because it gives us the opportunity to debate third level education, including funding by the Department and the accommodation issue. Given the record of the Minister, I doubt if many holes can be picked in the argument against the development of the whole area of education, and not only third level.

Many people involved in third level education throughout the country can be seen on a weekly basis catching buses and trains to return to the overcrowded urban centres where their colleges are located. We need to focus on and debate that problem. What strikes me is that so many of our young people must avail of transport and head back to overcrowded urban centres where very high rates are being charged for accommodation. This represents a loss of these young people to their local communities and also a loss of revenue to that community. It is a poor spend in terms of Government investment. The Government will have to look at trends emerging in the provision of third level education, particularly in relation to information technology.

During the debate on the Estimate today I highlighted the fact that outreach centres are being demanded by people in rural areas away from the urban centres where education is delivered at the moment. I would like to highlight a project in Carlow-Kilkenny where Kilkenny College, NUI Maynooth and the Carlow Institute of Technology have come together to provide a proper outreach facility in the college. Through NUI Maynooth it has linked up with Armagh and Queen's University and it provides various course. This project could be a pilot one if the Government in its wisdom decides to examine the case and take it on. It could easily become a pilot project funded by the Government whereby proper analysis may take place.

This project, which is up and running and is supported financially by local business people and the local authority with the support of the local community, is looking forward in terms of its development. It anticipates a spend of almost £0.5 million in terms of the provision of the proper infrastructure to deliver the courses in Kilkenny College. People who could not access a third level facility are now doing so in Kilkenny. People who in their earlier years found themselves marginalised and out of touch with education are now at a late age able and willing to come back into the education system, brush up on their skills and allow themselves to be introduced, through information technology, to the various courses they want to access. The success rate to date has been quite remarkable in so far as there is a take up of the courses.

The launch of the modular BA in local and community studies in autumn 1997 attracted 50 mature students. A second cycle of students was recruited in 1998. The diploma in youth and community work, a three year professional training programme, was launched in January 1998 with an enrolment of 16 students. No State money is being utilised and yet both Carlow Institute of Technology and NUI Maynooth are contributing to the success story which this project now is. I ask, and have done before during debates in the House, that the Department take serious stock of what is happening in Kilkenny, use it as a pilot project and fund it. The moneys required are small in terms of the success a local community is having in providing a third level facility.

As regards information technology, the country is now gearing itself up to get involved in e-commerce. This is a unique opportunity to include an institute of technology funded by the Government. This would give value for money and at the same time establish a reasonable base for a third facility as an outreach centre. I commend the Minister on what he has done but there are other areas which we could examine and where the country and the education system can benefit.

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on this important issue. As we are all aware, education is the rock on which this country has developed. It is essential that all levels of the education system are funded properly so that our young people will be taught properly and will receive the necessary education to ensure the continued growth of our economy. I notice from the Labour Party motion that we are not spending enough money on third level education. Last week some Members complained that too much money was being spent on third level education as against the other levels.

That was a Fianna Fáil Member.

That was last week.

It is not unusual for Members of the Opposition to change their tune week in week out. If we look at what has happened since the Minister and Minister of State came into office——

Absolutely nothing.

——we will note there has been more growth in every sector of the education field than in the previous five years. In the past year and a half more than £600 million has been invested in capital funding which is a significant amount. It is due to the third level sector and I hope the Minister will continue that growth over the next few years. There has been fine and badly needed development at Cork Institute of Technology. Up to 15,000 or 16,000 students attend that college which was built for approximately 5,000 students but over the years, there was no real development of the facilities available there.

We should widely acknowledge the investment announced in research and development. The growth of areas such as information technology, chemistry and so on depends on research and development. If we do not provide resources to the colleges to produce students with qualifications to carry out research and development, companies like Siemens and Philips will send our students to other countries and will utilise their abilities there, which happened in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The £180 million voted for research and development will ensure the best of our graduates stay at home where they will use their qualifications in the Irish economy, which will ensure the economy remains in the excellent state it is now in.

May I share my time with Deputies Browne, Gilmore and Deenihan?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is a pity the Minister was not present to hear the extraordinary praise heaped on him in the past hour. Nobody in Irish history has been praised more except perhaps Daniel O'Connell although even he had an occasional detractor. It is said that people faint at the sound of the Minister's name in every part of the country.

With the greatest respect to the speeches I heard, this motion is about an issue which is very current and urgent. The motion refers to the crisis about which we speak — the recent accommodation crisis and the rapidly escalating costs. I will introduce a note of bathos by saying that I live in a university city. I know how practical it is for landlords who are now charging per person instead of renting houses to students. In every shop in my locality you can see that the price per person has gone through the roof.

I listened carefully to the speeches. I believe that third level education at a university or any institution is about more than facilitating growth in the economy. I was a university teacher for 23 years and the deterioration in the quality of third level life is one of the things which disappoints me most at present. Even those who are involved in clubs and societies are having great difficulty in finding people to attend. As I said, I was a teacher for over 20 years before the enormous expansion of the bus services which now bring people home from third level institutions, mostly for economic reasons.

I live now in a city where the students are being exploited right, left and centre in relation to accommodation costs. All the puffing up of the reputation of the local TD and favourite Minister will not answer the question that the housing crisis has knocked onto the rental sector which has in turn knocked onto the cost of students putting a roof over their heads. That is what this motion is about. It is not about relative reputations — wonderful dear Micheál and big bad Niamh — it is about the cost of living for students. The motion indicates how this might be addressed by making specific proposals in relation to grant increases.

The parties in Government will have to decide whether they want to reintroduce fees and whether they are in favour of free education. If you look at the qualifications for the average job now, the labour market is looking for people qualified at third level. That means that the formation of possibilities or prospects for full participation in society is dependent more and more on satisfactory completion of that particular level. If we are talking about making it possible for people to complete their education, we must talk about that.

We also have to talk, perhaps on another day, about the neo-utilitarianism, which I reject, subscribed to by many third level authorities. A person is entitled to a third level education beyond the narrow needs and possibilities of the economy of the day. One could take all this wind about research and development and say that unless you have the capacity for creating the basic skills in relation to the sciences, culture and the arts, you will not have the flexibility to be able to move through the opportunities which will be thrown up in the future.

The nub of this motion is the deterioration in the capacity of students to live, particularly due to the accommodation crisis. On 22 October in a Dáil reply, the Minister, Deputy Martin, the successor of Parnell and O'Connell, admitted that his Department had "not carried out research into the cost of maintaining a student at a third level college". It ill behoves the large band of followers who are supporting their hero to come in this afternoon and say that he is the greatest thing to hit the island since the arrival of St. Patrick, given that he told us on 22 October that his Department had not carried out research into the cost of maintaining a student at a third level college. Maybe he is too busy picking up the bodies of those who have fainted at his arrival at the different institutions around the country.

In real terms the value of third level grants has decreased in purchasing power. This titan of education gave a grant increase of 77p per week and students on an adjacent grant received 36p per week. I am sure they have been going wild on it ever since it was announced.

It is extremely important that we try to deal with this matter reasonably. The housing crisis did not manifest itself until recently. I want to be fair to both Governments of which I was a member. It would be ridiculous not to acknowledge that what has happened in housing has knocked onto the public and private rental sector, particularly where it affects students. That was manifested in autumn in every place where third level students were seeking accommodation.

This brings us to the issue of the grant. Let us have consensus in relation to the tiered structure of the grant as a desirable reform of what it is at present. Instead of receiving 100 per cent and 50 per cent, there could be a graduated structure of 25 per cent and 75 per cent added as tiers of qualification. I thought until this afternoon that there was agreement on the desirability of net rather than gross income being used as the criterion for qualification, in so far as it so clearly discriminates against those whose every pound of gross earnings is taxed and declared, but obviously that is not the case.

I want to argue against something which is pernicious and ill serves us as a country that makes statements about the quality of our education. We do not have to set excellence, provision or inclusion at one level in competition with another. The suggestion that the most effective way of eliminating disadvantage is by investing at pre-primary and primary level is not contested by me or anyone else in the Labour Party, but it is outrageous that those students who have made it to third level are driven into conditions of bad shelter, unable to afford accommodation, in order to satisfy the funding requirements of the other levels of education. Setting education up as a war among the poorest is outrageous. The argument is that the much vaunted performance of the economy would not be possible without those who have often undergone their education at great personal cost. The surpluses of the economy should adequately fund education. The argument that education should now be satisfactory and for life very much includes third level. The surpluses exist and there is an opportunity to do what is demanded in this motion without indulging in the politics of envy.

As someone who represents a constituency where third level institutions are located, where I see students regularly in connection with the accommodation in which they are forced to live, I am appalled that those who own accommodation have been so exploitative of the students' position. The big change in Galway this year was that instead of houses being available to rent to groups of students, they are now advertised to rent on a per capita basis.

The Minister has arrived, hallelujah. I will now conclude to facilitate my two colleagues but I am sure there will be an opportunity for the hymn of praise to resume with the Minister present to hear it. In the meantime I urge those who are in any way interested in student life and accommodation to accept this motion for what it is, a request for an overdue reform of maintenance grants for students.

Listening to Deputy Ahern it struck me that accountants play a prominent role in this Government. The bottom line for the Government seems to be a crass cost effective benefit rather than looking at the overall problems in education and the economy.

Unlike the Fianna Fáil speakers, I am not at all impressed with the record of the Minister for Education and Science. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, on his recent initiative in adult education which is both timely and welcome. If, however, we look back over the past 18 months, the Minister, Deputy Martin, has blatantly failed to deliver on any of the promises made by his party and the Progressive Democrats Party in An Action Programme for the Millennium. We are still campaigning for a widespread pre-school system. We hope the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, will make some helpful remarks on that area next week. In the primary sector, despite all the Minister's promises, we still have grossly overcrowded classrooms, leaking roofs and bad accommodation in many areas 18 months later.

The Deputy has some nerve to talk about bad accommodation.

My trade union is bitterly disappointed with the progress the Minister has made over the past 18 months in addressing some of the key problems in the secondary sector. I complimented him in the past on the IT programme, on which I understand he, the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister Mr. Blair will take a ceremonial step tomorrow. However, in general terms, it has been a litany of broken promises.

While some Members last night sought to denigrate the remarkable achievements of the Minister's predecessor, the former Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, who can be fairly compared to Donogh O'Malley in terms of her contribution to the development of education, the harsh reality is that the Minister has failed third level education, as he has failed every other sector. He may be a Teflon Minister, but as the months pass more and more people in the education field are beginning to see he is a prisoner of vested interests, which was illustrated in his feeble Bill which this House recently passed.

I compliment my colleague, Deputy O'Shea, on tabling this very timely motion. As a former teacher and the Labour Party spokesperson on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I am always deeply conscious of the link between education and employment growth. Many factors have contributed to our excellent economic performance in recent years, but most people agree that chief among these is our highly educated workforce. For both inward investors and our indigenous industries, the availability of a skilled, flexible and innovative workforce is a key element in maintaining current investment levels.

However, one of the key factors that might limit that growth in coming years is the shortage of labour in certain areas. The problem has been identified, not just by Members of this House but by many outside commentators, as a key area of concern. Investing in education, particularly third level education in both the university and institute of technology sectors, is vitally important and will become more so over the coming years.

Given this background, I fully support the motion. The expansion of our third level sector and the introduction of free fees has opened up the prospect of third level education to the children of many working class people. While there are still major problems regarding students from disadvantaged areas accessing third level, to which I will return later, it is fair to say that far more students of this generation whose parents are ordinary taxpayers have secured a third level qualification than ever before. The vast majority of these students rely on the grant system to contribute to their maintenance in college. The motion proposes a radical transformation and improvement of this system to take account of the real costs involved in attending third level.

One of the major costs of third level education is, as my colleague said earlier, the renting of accommodation for the 36 weeks of the academic year. The spiralling cost of housing in Dublin has had a huge inflationary impact on the private rented accommodation sector. People who, up until now, would have sought to purchase a home are now priced out of the market. As has been said before in the House, a couple who are both earning the average industrial wage, or above it, cannot secure a mortgage to buy a house. These people, who would have traditionally moved out of the rented sector, have now no option but to remain renting.

In addition to this demand factor, the changes introduced on foot of the Bacon report and the scandalous slashing of capital gains tax in the last budget have encouraged investors to leave the rental market, thereby reducing supply. This situation has led to a surge in the price of rental accommodation. This was the situation which greeted tens of thousands of students who returned to our university and institute of technology cities and towns last autumn.

While the situation in Dublin is the one most familiar to me, I know this problem affects other large towns and cities with large educational institutions. We are chiefly conscious in Dublin of DCU, UCD, TCD and St. Patrick's. However, there is a dire situation all across Ireland which is getting worse. There is a serious problem in the Dublin rental sector which cannot cope with the present demand and the influx of students every autumn creates further problems.

It is vital that we examine both our capital investment programme and our tax system to facilitate the building of on-campus accommodation in colleges across the country, as the motion states. For example, it is possible to allow developers a tax relief on income from new rental units constructed on college lands for a period of years until the initial cost of the construction is recouped. The accommodation could then revert to the college which would have the benefit of the future income. There is also a strong case to be made for providing capital grants to colleges to assist in the construction of on-campus accommodation.

Beyond the question of accommodation, this motion also seeks to reform and improve the system of third level maintenance grants. One of the most important of these is the need for us to move from a system of calculating grant eligibility from gross income to net income. I have dealt with many problems related to this area, particularly for families whose incomes tend to vary but had a good year which disqualified their children for grants. This welcome move has applied to family income supplement since the last budget, which is now based on net income, and should be extended to third level maintenance grants.

It is unreal to calculate a grant from a gross income base. Net income, after the payment of tax, PRSI and levies, is the disposable income on which a family survives. It is from these resources that a family supports its children at third level education and a system of grant assistance should acknowledge this.

This motion also calls for an increase in the level of grant assistance available under the scheme. As my colleague pointed out, this increase is needed to meet the rising accommodation costs facing students. This year's increase of 1.7 per cent does not come near acknowledging the real costs facing third level students. My colleague, Deputy O'Shea, pointed out last night that the Department has not carried out even basic research on this matter.

The motion calls for a more equitable and rational geographical distribution of student numbers throughout the State. I represent my home area of the postal district of Dublin 17, which has the lowest third level participation rate in the country. Another area of low participation is Dublin 10 on the west side. Over the past 18 months I have seen no effort by the Minister, Deputy Martin, to address this.

In the last Government the then Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, launched the early start programme and programmes such as Excel and Challenger to encourage children in those areas to complete second level and to move to third level. I raised this matter in an Adjournment debate when I asked the Minister to consider supporting programmes which would fast track highly motivated children from very low income families through the primary and secondary systems and on to third level. I appeal to the Minister to look at those programmes to see how they could be used to get people into third level and to keep them there. I urge him to adopt the full motion.

I support the motion and compliment Deputy O'Shea on tabling it. There are a number of matters the Minister needs to accept.

First, the maximum student grant of £1,624, which works out at £31 per week over a full year, is not sufficient for a student to live on. The basic position is that no student can live on a student grant.

Second, the income limit for qualifying for a student grant is too low at £17,740. A parent earning £18,000, £19,000, £20,000 or even £25,000 a year is not in a position to finance a student through college.

The third matter which must be acknowledged is that the financial position facing students this year is worse than in any previous year, largely as a result of the huge escalation in the cost and shortage of accommodation. The types of private accommodation which were traditionally available to students are disappearing because owners are availing of the buoyant property market and the increase in prices to sell such property. There is a shortage of student accommodation and a huge increase in prices.

There is a need for emergency measures this year to provide student support and to recognise the increased cost of accommodation.

It must be acknowledged that the poorer one is, the less chance one has of participating in third level education. There has been a great deal of discussion on participation rates in third level education and underlying causes. It must be acknowledged that participation rates are not entirely due to the availability or level of student grants. A 15 or 16 year old who has just completed his or her junior certificate can choose to pursue a route to take them to a good leaving certificate and entry to third level. In so doing, the student commits himself or herself to seven or eight years living in penury, postponing earnings and depending on their parents or on small State grants. It is no wonder that children from poorer backgrounds in which there is less support from an educational point of view choose a route which enables them to take up employment, perhaps on a part-time basis initially, while they are still at school. Their educational commitment is diluted during that period and consequently, by the time they reach leaving certificate level — if they do so at all, they are faced with the prospect of a meagre student grant which combines with other factors to discourage them from continuing their education.

It is absurd that someone of 18 years of age is paid £67 per week unemployment assistance whereas someone who commits himself or herself to a course of study ends up being paid less than half that amount in a student grant. There is a need for immediate measures — as outlined in the motion before the House — to tackle the immediate problems of student support and student grants. There is also a necessity to take a fundamental look at the entire issue of student support. The student grant system, as we know it, has been in existence for the past 30 years. It is time to move towards a system of student support which treats the student as an individual, independent citizen rather than someone dependent on his or her parents. Such a system would acknowledge that in a knowledge-based economy and information society, the provision of third level education is an economic investment and that participants in such a system need to be funded and supported. We must also recognise that third level education is no longer something which occurs between the ages of 18 and 22. In the kind of economy in which we currently live, people will have to return to education again and again. A system of student support must be put in place not merely for those currently deemed to be dependants of their parents but for those who will, over the entire course of their working lives, have to return to education on an ongoing basis. A new approach is required to this type of support, based on what is essentially a different relationship between the student as citizen and the State, a system which recognises there are periods over the course of students' lives when they will be in a position to contribute to the State through taxation and so on and that there are others where they will require State support. I urge the Minister to take immediate action to deal with the problems addressed in the terms of the motion and to undertake a fundamental review of the entire system of student support and the approach to it.

We all agree that the spiralling cost of accommodation is making it almost impossible for rural students to attend college in Dublin and other cities. Last week, I met a constituent in Kerry who was attending college in Dublin but had to abandon the course of study as his parents could not afford to pay the accommodation costs. The student in question was one of three in the family attending college and is currently working in a factory in Tralee.

The Minister has heard why he should support the Labour Party motion. I would remind him of the promises he made prior to entering Government — I obtained the information from Fianna Fáil's website. The Minister promised a gradual increase in the current level of maintenance grants as resources permitted and a rise in the qualifying income limits which he deemed too low in 1997. He promised to set up an independent and regular appeals procedure for students who felt they had been unfairly disqualified from receiving a grant and to introduce new arrangements to deal with grant applications which were marginally above the means threshold — he has not delivered on any of these measures. He promised to introduce a system of tax reliefs for post-graduate students and to ensure that larger families would benefit more from the grants system than they currently do. He promised to improve provisions for post-graduate students and to provide tax incentives to the private sector, in partnership with third level institutions, to provide high standard capital accommodation for students where possible. He gave a commitment to introduce tax reliefs to assist post-graduate, mature, second chance and part-time students who wished to attend third level institutions. A commitment was given that where mature students over the age of 23 years returned to third level on a full-time basis, they would be means tested on their own incomes, not that of their parents, regardless of residence. That has not happened and is creating major difficulties. The Minister also pointed out that Fianna Fáil believed that part-time students should be permitted to qualify for means-tested grants on a proportionate basis. That has not been delivered on. The Minister also promised to introduce an enhanced level of grant for mature students from low income backgrounds on a basis similar to that previously recommended for school leavers from low income backgrounds. The Minister made many promises which have not been fulfilled. He has major commitments to honour and currently has the resources to honour them.

Three years ago when the Rainbow Government was in power, it delivered on the issue of fees. The present Minister has not delivered on anything substantial to maintain people in third level institutions. He has provided extra funding for some resources and now has a unique opportunity to deliver for third level students and ensure that those from low income families and families in receipt of social welfare payments will have a chance of third level education. The Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Government are depriving many young people, such as the young person I met in Tralee, of the opportunity to attend third level. He should bear that in mind.

Nobody doubts that the issues referred to in the motion before the House are real. However, the solutions proposed are untargeted, ineffective, unfocused and, at the most charitable interpretation, absurd. They bring a whole new meaning to the time honoured phrase "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut".

Nobody disputes the difficulties faced by students seeking accommodation in the private rented sector. We are all aware that this is part of a wider housing problem. In this regard, the Minister for Education and Science has indicated the Government's willingness to assist further significant student housing developments and hopes to be able to make an announcement on the matter in the near future. There is no doubt that increasing the provision of dedicated student housing is the key to solving this problem. I simply cannot accept — nor could anyone with a grain of wit accept — that increasing grants for all students, irrespective of the circumstances of the recipient, would assist in any meaningful way.

If one considers the unhappy history of the health board subvention system, I put it to the Labour Party and other Members of the Opposition that such an approach would probably lead to increased rents with no improvement in the relative position of students. The latest available statistical data from the Higher Education Authority on student residences relate to 1995-6. It reveals that 45 per cent of students in the university sector live at home. In addition, many other students are either in decent affordable accommodation or attending college in an area without a significant accommodation squeeze. Therefore, the proposed response to employ a substantial increase across the board in the level of student grants would not only have a significant price tag but would also fail to target resources at students genuinely facing accommodation difficulties of the sort dealt with in the motion.

There are just over 7,000 student residences, 3,000 of which are in Dublin where accommodation problems are most acute. However, the availability of tax incentives in the past had a very positive impact on the provision of student residences. For example, the University of Limerick built almost 950 student residences between 1988 and 1996.

Another priority for the Government is improving participation in further and higher education. Positive action is required to tackle disadvantaged access and we believe that targeted approaches rather than scattergun responses are required. Indeed, the Labour Party initiative favours the middle and higher income groups, although nobody should be too surprised by this given the party's history in education matters. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan outlined the party's belief in equality and access of opportunity — the Deputy is great for talking about equality. However, the Government, unlike that in which the Labour Party was a member, has delivered on its commitment to provide equitable support for PLC students who were forgotten by the Labour Party when in Government and who have been forgotten in the drafting of the motion.

On the one hand the Labour Party is advocating the need for student support services while at the same time it is calling for the abolition of the student registration fee. This is another example of the scattergun approach which will do nothing for the most disadvantaged. The effect of its abolition at a cost to the taxpayer of £12 million would be to relatively improve the position of higher income groups while potentially undermining funding for valuable services.

The House should be reminded that the Government accepts the argument that levels of maintenance grants are not generous by any standards. However, we believe it is imperative we use available resources to tackle the issues facing students who are most in need.

It is with some sadness that I rise to speak on behalf of my party, and I welcome the support of Democratic Left and Fine Gael. If Donogh O'Malley, a former Fianna Fáil Deputy for Limerick, the constituency the Minister of State represents, adopted the philosophy which has just been enunciated, he would never have introduced the universal abolition of second level fees.

That is simply not true.

The Minister has missed the point, but that does not surprise me. Fianna Fáil is now talking about targeting and selectivity, a complete repudiation of the principle of universality which the British Government applied to primary education, which Donogh O'Malley, an icon of the Fianna Fáil Party, introduced in relation to second level and which we unashamedly introduced at third level.

You did not.

We did. We abolished fees.

The second level reforms were about places. The Government of which the Deputy was a member did not create one additional place.

We abolished fees. If the boy Minister and the half boy Minister of State wish to interrupt me than I will engage them. Access to education concerns a principle and a value, something Fianna Fáil may have difficulty in understanding. It is not just about places or the number of classrooms, but the right to be in whatever places exist irrespective of family income. It is about the right to be there irrespective of income.

If there is a place.

We are not talking about some half baked aristocracy, but about the right of every citizen to be there if they qualify. It is then one can talk about the availability of places. When we introduced the abolition of fees in third level we were addressing a principle and a value which Fianna Fáil through Donogh O'Malley addressed wonderfully in the 1960s. The well-to-do middle classes were ripping off the tax system through tax covenants. Tax covenants of the order of £3 million from the turn of the century had applied to a small category of people. In 1993-4, when we were in Government with Fianna Fáil, we noticed a sudden escalation in the tax foregone on covenants which rose exponentially from between £3 million and £4 million to £38 million. In middle class suburbs in my constituency and elsewhere there were back to back covenants, where the 5 per cent did not apply. Who was able to apply? The answer is the fat cats and the rich people who had the income to write unlimited cheques for their neighbours and their neighbours' children, while the people who lost out were the children of creamery workers and others who barely qualified for a grant or who were £3 or £4 over the threshold on the basis of PAYE.

We killed two things with the one stone, namely, the denial of the principle of universal access in relation to fees, perhaps the last country in the EU to do so. Greece, Portugal and Spain, which are poorer than Ireland, had no university fees for those who qualified for entry. We were the last country in the EU to get rid of fees. We also closed a middle class tax loophole for which I make no apology.

I challenge the young, strident and ambitious Minister for Education and Science — good luck to him — to come clean on where he stands on university fees. Is he in favour of their reintroduction? That is not clear. If equity means anything then grants should be assessed on the net income of a household. There has been a scandal in the past——

The Deputy was Minister for Finance for three years.

I did not have £1,000 million to bank.

The Deputy should have abolished tax covenants.

There should be no further interruptions.

The truth hurts. When one is as ambitious as the Minister for Education and Science the truth hurts very much.

I am not at all ambitious.

We heard the Minister's disclaimers. The Taoiseach should walk with his back close to the wall.

Many people in the Deputy's party should walk with their backs to the wall.

Who? Will the Minister permit me to make a speech? This is a debating Chamber and I am addressing the points which have been made.

The Deputy can give it but he cannot take it.

I will take anything the Minister wishes to give. What does he wish to say to me?

There should be no interruptions.

The Deputy was Minister for Finance for three years and did not address the issue.

That is not true. In the three budgets I introduced, in the time available to me and given the background which existed, we did more than was previously done in relation to third level education. The abolition of fees was the first phase. We also made provision for capital infrastructural investment in third level education and we went on to do more. However, I am not here to argue my record but rather to talk about what can be done now against a background of a surplus of £1,000 million.

I wish to talk about accommodation. I understand the young Minister for Education and Science, who is filled with the wisdom of 17 months in office, accused me of making a declaration of commitment off the back of a lorry. There was a debate in my parliamentary party and we agreed the motion in the name of all members of the parliamentary party which was deferred to take account of an all-party Opposition motion relating to a health issue. We contacted people with whom we were in discussion to inform them of this development. This is not some recent conversion. My commitment to student politics and rights goes back some time, I suspect a little longer than the Minister's.

The Minister was in the cradle.

I wish to address the constitutional issue of collective responsibility in terms of education. Is the smug and well equipped Minister for Education and Science aware that while he sits opposite, comfortable in the knowledge that he is the heir and dauphin of this party, his colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, has acquiesced in the demolition of a student hostel comprising 250 bedrooms at St. Vincent's Hospital in Dublin 4, less than two kilometres from Belfield? Is he aware that, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Health and Children said they had no function in allowing an edifice which contains that amount of accommodation, built with taxpayers' money, to be demolished to make way not for an operating theatre, a ward, a special clinic or some unique research facility for medicine but for a car park? The Minister and the Minister of State have acquiesced in the proposed demolition of student accommodation — nurses' homes no longer required in St. Vincent's Hospital — on a bus route, a short distance from the largest single education campus in the country, Belfield. That hostel could provide scarce and necessary accommodation for students who need it and cannot get it.

I welcome the probability that the Government will introduce in next week's budget tax concessions for the provision of accommodation on residential campuses. I hope the terms are enhanced to encourage the private sector to invest in such accommodation and that the Minister and the Department will facilitate, rather than obstruct, that type of accommodation. However, it does not go far enough. I remind the Minister that his colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, has not given direction to any local authority to ensure landlords who own private accommodation are registered so that minimum standards can be enforced. Only 20 per cent of all the rented accommodation, approximately 100,000 units, is registered. If resources were made available and local authorities got an instruction from the Minister's colleague, who shares collective responsibility, to ensure that that accommodation was properly registered, the rack-renting, the exploitation, the ripping off, the black economy and the cash in the hand without a rent book — which goes on all the time for students — would be ended. It would not affect supply. It would ensure many students would not live in fire traps, that young people would live in accommodation complying with minimum standards, and it would ensure the Revenue Commissioners get their take of tax on the rent paid. Why is that not being done?

I salute the Minister who finally got into the Cabinet, having spent four and a half years attacking his predecessor, virulently and without any objectivity when on this side. Given that he has reached the golden shore of collective Cabinet responsibility, I invite him to exercise some of it. First and foremost, he should come clean on his attitude to fees and stop equivocating on what we did when in Opposition. If the Minister wishes to undo the universality of the abolition of university fees, he should tell us and the students before 11 June.

This is wonderful language.

I share with the Minister the desire to increase the number of places. We started on that road and I encourage him to go further. It is a long road and 17 months is a short time. The Minister should not count his chickens.

I certainly am not.

A career of political achievement in 17 months is a short one. In relation to accommodation I suggest the Minister look at the real problems mentioned by Deputy Deenihan where some students have had to go home because they cannot afford to be housed and study at the same time, given what is happening in the housing market. The Bacon report does absolutely nothing to address the issues of supply for young single adults, typically and classically, students. We are offering one specific proposal, that the Minister ask the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, to get in touch with St. Vincent's Hospital and ask them not to demolish 250 bedrooms for at least four years. I presume the Minister can do that. Those rooms were built by the taxpayer, those in the Gallery, ourselves and the ushers and they want to demolish them for a car park. If government means anything all the Minister has to do is ask the Minister for Health and Children to get in touch with the board and say that the money for the building of the operating theatres and the wards will be provided but the car park does not kick in for four years, until the housing crisis is over. The Minister is a powerful man and he knows it. I think he can do it.

He is not being asked to change the law or to provide a single penny. The Minister's effectiveness and his commitment to student accommodation has got a real test — either he delivers or he does not. Does he not speak with the Minister for Health and Children, another young tiger in the Cabinet?

The Deputy seems to be obsessed with the aspirations of the Fianna Fáil members of the Cabinet.

I am obsessed with the vitriol which the Minister poured on Niamh Bhreathnach week after week, without the slightest understanding for what she was achieving. His innocence combined with ambition was so overweening that I had to say to him on one occasion when I took the Order of Business — I can still recall the words I used — that when he has the experience to which his manifest ambition so clearly aspires, he will perhaps understand some of the difficulties she was experiencing. I am asking the Minister to cash that chip, convince the Minister for Health and Children——

I already have.

——not to knock it down. That is not the situation as I know it and that is not the situation as the board of St. Vincent's know it. If the Minister wants to use what he has put on the record in saying he has already convinced the Minister for Health and Children——

I am talking about the commitment and the record of the Government in the past 17 months.

Let the record show that the Mini-vinced the Minister for Health and Children that the hostel in St. Vincent's will not be demolished.

I have many witnesses. Let the record stand.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 69.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • McGennis, Marian.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Martin, Mícheál.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Moffatt, Thomas.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • O'Flynn, Noel.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Ellis, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Gildea, Thomas.
  • Wade, Eddie.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Gilmore, Éamon.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Broughan, Thomas.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Michael.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghin.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Reynolds, Gerard.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Sheehan, Patrick.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Barrett.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 68.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • McGennis, Marian.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Martin, Mícheál.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Moffatt, Thomas.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • O'Flynn, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Ellis, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Gildea, Thomas.
  • Wade, Eddie.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Broughan, Thomas.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Gilmore, Éamon.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Cosgrave, Michael.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • Penrose, William.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • Perry, John.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Reynolds, Gerard.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Sheehan, Patrick.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghin.
  • Stanton, David.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Barrett.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share