I wish to share my time with Deputies Carey, Killeen and O'Connor.
Private Members' Business. - Third Level Education Charges: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Sullivan on Tuesday, 5 November 2002:
That Dáil Éireann:
condemns the decision of the Minister for Education and Science to impose an increase of 69% in the registration charge for third level students;
notes that the Higher Education Authority had sought only a 7% increase in registration charges, that as recently as 14 May his own Department was predicting an increase of just 6%, and that the huge increase was imposed as a direct consequence of the memo issued by the Minister for Finance demanding cuts;
considers the Minister's decision to introduce an unwarranted and unnecessary increase to be a Government cutback in education funding;
believes that the increase will create severe hardship for many students and their families and will further limit access to third level education;
demands the immediate reversal of the 69% registration charge increase;
strongly condemns the repeated threat by the Minister for Education and Science to reintroduce third level fees, a move which would be socially regressive and which would place further difficulties in the way of many students hoping to enter third level; and
calls on the Minister to implement, without further delay, the recommendations of the Report of the Action Group on Access to Third Level Education.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"commends the Government on its performance to date in achieving an expansion of third level education places, in significantly increasing investment in third level education, in progressing a range of targeted measures aimed at developing the capacity of higher education to meet wider social and economic needs, and in developing the range of targeted initiatives aimed at improving access to and reducing attrition rates within the third level sector; and
endorses the Government's objective to maximise the impact of public investment in third level education in terms of equitable participation and access from all sectors of society."
–(Minister for Education and Science).
Acting Chairman
That is agreed.
The context of this debate is important. The Minister for Education and Science has announced a review, the purpose of which is to ensure that the benefits of the substantial investment we make in the third level sector are maximised. I welcome the fact that the Minister has decided to conduct that review. Given the lapse of time since the free fees announcement was made by the then Minister for Education, it is timely there was a review of the overall provision in relation to financial investment in the third level sector.
One of the key objectives of the Government is to achieve greater access to third level education. I am sure, and it is clear from the debate, all Deputies share that objective, yet we have not secured it and are still a long way from doing so. This review is being carried out by officers at the Department of Education and Science and will cover a range of topics relating to schemes of student support, the level of maintenance grants, eligibility, income limits applying to grants and the free fees initiative. All these matters are properly within the scope of the review. I do not propose to predetermine the result of that review, but I welcome that good initiative. The evident idealism with which the Minister spoke on this subject last night underscores his commitment to making real progress on this issue.
Some of the issues relevant to this review will require external expertise. The Economic and Social Research Institute has been commissioned to carry out research on a number of the issues relevant to the review. Together with other reports, the reports of Professor Clancy were referred to in the course of this debate. That review is under way and I welcome the fact that it has been initiated. That is important.
In the context of this debate, it is important to consider what the OECD has said about what we are doing. The most recent OECD international study, Education at a Glance – 2002, points to the significant increase in expenditure per student at third level and higher education in the second half of the last decade. Ireland ranks second of the 27 OECD countries in terms of the increase achieved. That is a good record and one over which any Government could stand.
I appreciate that the Opposition has raised the question of the rather dramatic increase in the registration fee that took place last summer, but no speaker – Deputy O'Sullivan will have an opportunity to reply – has outlined an alternative area where the Minister for Education and Science could have effected the necessary revenue savings in his Vote. The measure adopted was in the nature of a revenue gathering exercise rather than a financial cut in the strict sense. There is no doubt it does bear hard and someone must accept that, but these decisions have to be taken by Ministers. This is one of the difficulties the Opposition parties faced in the recent general election. There was much discussion over the summer about what was or was not said by the outgoing Government parties, but I do not agree with all that comment. The Opposition parties, and perhaps the Labour Party under a new Leader, will have to examine their consciences as well because their promises bore no proportion to reality.
The Labour Party's policies were all costed.
Acting Chairman
The Minister of State is straying a little from the subject of the motion.
Mr. B. Lenihan: Any realistic economic assessment of the Labour Party's promises would make it clear that they bore no relationship to reality. Its health policy alone would have cost billions of pounds and inflated the cost of the health service way beyond the difficulties with which we already have to cope. Irish people are intelligent enough to make an assessment on these matters. They want real choices in their politics not contrived ones.
It would have been good if the Minister of State had told the truth before the election.
Acting Chairman
The Minister of State is straying from the subject of the motion.
Deputy O'Sullivan said that Professor Clancy's detailed research suggests that patterns are changing, that the children of those in the low to middle income bracket whose participation had been dropping are now attending third level in increasing numbers. If that research is borne out by the study under way, I would welcome that.
The device adopted by the then Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, could have secured the objective sought without providing free fees for everyone. If increased maintenance had been provided for students in those categories at that time, there would be an even greater number of them participating in higher education. The vote of the Labour Party had not increased dramatically as a result of that decision because a large section of the public remain deeply sceptical about its merits.
As an act of contrition, I accept we should not have abolished the rates in 1977. The Labour Party should examine its conscience on this decision, although I do not want that to be taken as a suggestion that I am advocating reversing the decision.
I do not take that conclusion from what the Minister of State said.
I will lay my cards on the table. When free fees were introduced by the then Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach, I thought it was a retrograde and regressive step and wrote in The Irish Times about the reasons I thought it was such. I thought, and still think, there are other ways of widening access to education which could be much more effective than the abolition of fees across the board.
This debate is about priorities, equity and justice. It is important that we have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on how we consider access to third level education can be widened and, probably by extension, access to first and second level education. I spent 30 years of my career working in first level education. Despite significant investment by the Government in third level education in recent years and despite my constituency having probably one of the most successful universities in the country, DCU, the level of participation in third level education in that constituency has dropped over the past five to eight years.
I was marginally involved in the first report produced by Patrick Clancy. Admittedly, we came from an extremely low base where participation rates were limited to the higher income groups. There has been a slight extension in participation rates, but there is no point in pretending there has been a great level of extension of participation of the lower income groups from areas of disadvantage in third level education. That cannot be achieved by the stroke of a pen.
A measure that has been probably the most effective in this context, to which all Governments contributed, including Deputy O'Sullivan's party, was the emphasis placed on post leaving certificate education. Those courses have been a step up to the platform of third level education, which many young people who do not come from a tradition of participating in third level education require. That emphasis has been successful and there has been a great expansion in the number of those courses. Students, on completing those courses, may apply for a one year certificate course, a two year diploma course or a degree course, but that takes time. Unfortunately, the abolition of fees did nothing to improve that ladder-form approach.
Various legislative measures were introduced. The qualifications authority, the overarching body, allows people to access education, and that is an interesting approach, but to return to the nub of the issue, it would have been much more effective if the level of maintenance grants were significantly increased at the time fees were abolished. I have a row annually with the Minister for Education and Science about the paltry increase in the level of maintenance grants, which are wholly inadequate. I have a major difficulty with even the top-up scheme, the millennium scheme. One would nearly need to be on the poverty line to qualify for it. While this bits and pieces approach to education has improved bits and pieces of our education system, we have not been able to make a significant change in the way people participate in education.
I am delighted people from Dublin 4, Dublin 6, counties in the west, farming communities and the self-employed sector can participate in great numbers in third level education, and good luck to them. However, there is something inherently wrong when the son or daughter of a farm worker cannot obtain a maintenance grant while the farmer who owns the land can do so. There is also something wrong when the owner of a pub, with the aid of a helpful accountant, can manage to produce a set of accounts which allows his sons and daughters to qualify for maintenance grants while the children of a person in his or her employ cannot do so.
I hope that part of the ongoing review will be to consider issues such as the real causes of high drop-out levels. The University of Limerick, for example, has extremely high drop-out levels, as do some of the institutes of technology.
I commend the Minister on introducing the initiative aimed at considering how third level education is funded and how participation is availed of. I would be delighted if people did not have to pay registration fees. Unfortunately, however, the cake is only so big. At the end of the review, I hope we will have arrived at a more equitable approach in terms of the way funds are made available to the third level sector in order that a wider range of students can participate.
I also commend the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, for his commitment to address inequities in the education system and, in the context of this debate, to the development of the third level sector in an inclusive and equitable manner. It is clear from what Members on all sides have stated that there is a great deal of work to be done in this area and the Minister is right to address this matter early in his term of office.
Like Deputy Carey, I have a background in education. I am somewhat surprised at the extent to which the debate has focused on third level, as though it was a stand-alone entity which operated entirely independently of other sectors in education and of the public and private sectors of employment. That is unhelpful. It is good to acknowledge the extent to which any measure of success in education is predicated on a high standard at primary and second level. In addition to the difficulties which undoubtedly beset it, there are many successes in the area of education which need to be acknowledged. It is only fair to pay tribute to the role and commitment of teachers at the various levels for their contribution to education.
In the context of this debate, it is fair to say that rumours about the imminent re-introduction of fees at third level have caused concern to many parents. Some whose incomes are in the very modest €30,000 range have been convinced, by whatever means, that they will be obliged to pay full fees in respect of their sons and daughters in the near future. It is a salutary lesson that if some of those who succeeded in putting across that particular message had been as successful during the election, the composition of the House might be quite different. However, many people believe, quite wrongly, that they will be liable to pay €6,000 if their children are attending arts, law or business courses, €8,000 if they are pursuing science courses or €9,000 if they are studying engineering or medicine.
The Government will spend €360 million this year, including fees, on third level education. This figure obviously excludes the amount that will be spent in capital grants. There should be no question of parents of middle or lower income families being obliged to meet the cost of fees. I believe that the report the Minister has commissioned – the findings of which cannot be accurately foretold – will strongly put forward this view. However, it is difficult to argue with conviction that students who are children of extremely wealthy families should not have to pay some form of fees. In essence, that is the kernel of the debate. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Minister and, by extension, the House to ensure that the best value for money is extracted from the considerable investment in education at third level.
The area of private rented accommodation has not yet been touched on in the debate. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government today of the establishment of a voluntary mediation service under the Private Residential Tenancies Board. This service will be supportive, non-confrontational, confidential and speedy as opposed to the only avenue open to people heretofore, namely, the legal route, which tends to be expensive, slow and adversarial. The Minister did not make it clear in his speech, but I hope that service will be available to students and will be accessed by them.
Those of us who are parents of third level students will have found that there is a wide range in the standard of accommodation available and that quite a large proportion of student accommodation is at the lower end of the scale. The difficulties that beset students and, by extension, their parents cannot realistically be addressed through the legal system. I welcome the Minister's announcement today and I trust that the service will be of benefit to, and will be accessed by, students.
Part of the motion before us relates to registration charges in third level institutions. However, it is not widely known that students who are eligible for means tested student support are exempt from the €670 charge. Over 33% of university students are exempt on this front and almost 50% of those in the institutes of technology will not have to pay the charge.
It is fair to point out that investment in third level education has a considerable social and economic benefit. The Minister's review of the application of student support and free fees funding will recognise this. The review should also examine a range of third level funding and contribution models in Europe and beyond. We must face the fact that the resources available are finite and we need to commit ourselves to obtaining the best value for money.
The benefits to the State from the high rate of participation in third level education are also considerable. The report should focus on increasing participation within the parameters of available budgets and also on addressing the problems students quite frequently encounter when they discover, sometimes early in their first year or, on occasion, a little later, that the course in which they enrolled does not suit or is not the best choice for them. Some students have experienced enormous difficulties in changing to other courses and this is one of the areas it would be useful to examine and address.
The OECD report "Education at a Glance OECD Indicators 2002" places Ireland second of 27 countries in increased expenditure per student in tertiary education from the mid-1990s onwards. That is a creditable performance, even if many people would state that it is from a relatively low base. It is important that the Higher Education Authority has introduced targeted initiatives to address attrition rates – a major problem – participation rates and the quality of tuition within the sector. The latter is quite a vexed question but, in the context of the delivery of the kind of service to which we aspire, it cannot be avoided and must be addressed – in some instances, with the greatest of urgency.
The Government has enjoyed outstanding success in the area of participation in third level education. The number of full-time students increased to 126,000 in 2001 from 107,000 in 1996-97. That represents a 17% increase over four years. During that period, the enrolment of part-time students increased by 41%. Expenditure on third level has increased by 95% since 1998 and there have been some tremendous benefits as a result. The sector has focused on addressing the skills needs of the economy in various targeted areas such as ICT and health. A total of 1,500 students participated in the hugely impressive accelerated technician programmes in the institutes of technology. This has an immediate benefit, not just for the students, but also for the economy.
New investment has facilitated rapid development in the research infrastructure at third level and huge amounts, as the Minister outlined, have been expended in this area. It is an area that requires further commitment. There has been a substantial increase in investment in the science and technology fund, another area that requires our continued commitment.
There have also been improvements in maintenance grants for disadvantaged students. The top-up fund and the hardship fund have had a favourable and positive impact on families that qualify for them. The recommendations brought forward by the action group appointed by Deputy Woods should be examined.
I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and Deputy O'Sullivan have often been present when I spoke previously and have heard me sketch the relationship between Tallaght and Limerick. I had not intended to speak about Tallaght tonight but it is important to point out that this issue is one of great importance in Tallaght, as in other towns, including those in Deputy Enright's constituency.
I live in Tallaght, the third largest population centre in the country, which has a large young population. Education is an important issue in my constituency. Ten years ago, after a strong local campaign, Tallaght secured its regional technical college, which has become the Institute of Technology, Tallaght. I spend a good deal of time in the college. I take every opportunity I can to visit it because I am extremely proud of it and its part in the infrastructure of the new town of Tallaght. I do not mean to sound patronising but it gives me the opportunity to discuss educational issues with the students, who come not only from Tallaght but from all areas of the country.
I wish to discuss access to colleges in Tallaght and elsewhere, particularly for people in disadvantaged communities. Sometimes politicians do not like to use the word "disadvantaged" and I do not wish to use it unfairly, but we must accept that major population centres like Tallaght still have areas of disadvantage. We need to convey the view that every young person is entitled to third level education. It is certainly as important an issue in my constituency as in any other. Through social inclusion policies and other initiatives by Government and State agencies we can ensure that as many young people as possible access third level education. That is as it should be.
Over the past decade I have watched the development of Tallaght IT with great pride. It now has 2,500 students. I recently attended Freshers' Day and, according to the local newspapers and one of the national newspapers, the students gave the politicians who visited a warm welcome. Some might even say it was hot, and that is fair enough. I am not afraid to talk to people who wish to raise issues of concern with public representatives and who want us, in turn, to raise them in the Dáil.
Students in Tallaght and elsewhere have told me that they wish to challenge the increase in registration fees. They want me and my colleagues, including, I am sure, Deputy Crowe, to bring to the attention of the Minister their concerns and their request that the Minister and his officials place more emphasis on the maintenance grant thresholds before any other increases are introduced. Registration fee increases from €396 to €670 should only be considered as part of a wider exercise that ensures the families who are supporting the education of their children can plan for these increases. More importantly, thresholds should be broadened to take account of the cost of living and the ability to pay.
I hope the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and his officials will understand the need to communicate in greater detail the reason these increases are necessary. Perhaps a value for money exercise in the areas where these increases will be spent would be worth considering to show the benefits that might derive to the students. The Minister will be aware that the 42% drop-out rate among IT students is not acceptable. It is also not acceptable that increases in fees should add to this number.
It is important that all politicians understand the worth and challenge of education. On 28 April 1926, Senator W. B. Yeats said in the Seanad that it is precisely because we are poor that we must spend money on education. Thank God, Ireland in 2002 is a different and, I hope, more positive place. I mean no disrespect to our ancestors. However, we should not lose the ideal that was highlighted on that day in April 1926. While Ireland is a different place, education is still important for our community.
I do not believe there should be cutbacks in spending on colleges. That is the message I bring from my constituency. I am proud to be a Fianna Fáil Deputy but I am not afraid to speak up on these issues because that is what my constituents sent me here to do. People in Tallaght, Firhouse, Greenhills, Templeogue and throughout my constituency want me, with my colleagues, to make a difference and to relay to the Government what is being said to us on the doorsteps. Ministers, including the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, are prepared to listen. Deputy O'Dea listens to his constituents just like I do to mine.
I hope that, arising from what is said in this debate, the Minister will understand the challenge before us and the need to respond to what people are saying in this regard. At the end of this Dáil, five years hence, I hope we will be able to look back and, whatever about other policy areas where there will, I hope, also be progress, we will be able to say with pride that we made a difference in education, we listened to the needs of our constituents in this regard and, where third level education is concerned, we promoted the ideal that any young person, regardless of background, who wants a third level education can get it. That is the challenge and I hope we will achieve it.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Gogarty, Twomey and Harkin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister said last night that he had finally agreed to implement a key recommendation of the action group on access to third level education, and I welcome that. He also pointed out that he had only been in office for a short time. This brief time in office has not stopped him implementing savage cutbacks to cover up the ever-increasing hole in the Minister for Finance's books.
Questions were put to the Minister last night but he ably ducked and dived and avoided giving a straight answer on this issue. He did not tell us where the money raised by the massive 70% increase in registration fees would be spent. He did not tell us how his desire to reintroduce fees sits with Deputy Harney's refusal to support that policy. Neither did he tell us how the Government plans to live up to its pledge to ensure the number of disadvantaged students participating in third level education will double over the next five years. One of his first acts as Minister was to cut €5 million from a scheme aimed at attracting socio-economically disadvantaged school leavers into third level education.
The introduction of free fees was not the solution the Government of the day presented it as being. It has done little for many of the young people attempting to enter university from some of the poorest parts of the State, although it has made it easier for some. It was a step in the right direction towards a fair and open system of education, but it cannot be the solution for tackling inequality in education. We need massive increases in State aid to bring student grants into line with levels of social welfare support. We also need sustained investment in access to education programmes and to start putting money into primary and secondary education.
In yesterday's debate, the Minister made the disturbing remark that higher education benefits the individual far more than society. How he can honestly believe that, while holding the Education brief, is beyond me. Society benefits from an educated citizenry. Others in yesterday's debate spoke of the benefits of an educated workforce earning more and thus paying more in taxes, but there are other benefits. Education has a measurable impact on crime rates as well as on the involvement of citizens in community work and in politics. Education gives people confidence and plays a key role in personal development. It broadens the horizons of students and, perhaps more than anything, benefits society at all levels.
The Minister also referred to the recent OECD report on education, demonstrating a great skill for selective quotation. He ignored the fact the OECD exposed the State's pupil-teacher ratio, both at primary and secondary levels, as being among the worst of the 27 countries surveyed. The OECD report noted that the Irish Exchequer invests far less per pupil than other countries. It is at primary and secondary level that the inequalities resulting in under-representation of working class young people in university are created. The Government has failed in this area.
The Minister has already cut €6 million from the proposed plans to reduce the school drop-out rate and a further €2 million from the second-level building programme. The effects of such decisions can be seen in my own constituency of Dublin South West where over half the adult population of west Tallaght left school at or before 15 years of age. This has had a knock-on effect on the current generation of young people.
Years of sustained investment in education will be required even to begin to rectify the damage that decades of Government negligence have caused. In budgets introduced over the last five years, the Government has favoured the better off at the expense of the poor and the disadvantaged. Now that the state of the economy has begun to deteriorate, it seems the Government intends targeting the cutbacks at those who are most in need of support. This is clearest in the area of education. The Minister must realise that education is not the right area in which to cut corners in spending but the area in which to invest in the sure knowledge that benefits will be reaped across society as a result.
The Green Party condemns the recent 69% increase in registration fees and also roundly condemns any attempt to reintroduce additional fees through the back door. That is why I have tabled priority questions for the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, for reply next week. In addition, I have met with student bodies and have marched side by side with them in an attempt to get the message through to the Minister that there are other ways to examine this matter. I am happy to support this motion and will vote against the Government's smug amendment.
There are underlying issues at stake here which go beyond third level fees. The Green Party believes there should be no such fees but of equal importance is the need to fund education to a far greater extent than at present. An equitable method of financing such funding needs to be found. I have studied the Clancy report in some detail and the Minister is broadly correct when he says the abolition of fees by his Labour Party predecessor, Niamh Bhreathnach, did little of substance to increase participation by the less well off in third level education. All it did was subsidise the middle income PAYE earners and the upper classes without doing much to improve participation at third level by poorer students. The Labour Party would claim that such a development takes time to come about and that may well be the case. The Government is wrong, however, to say that bringing back fees above a certain level will benefit those who are less well off as clearly it will not. Targeted investment in the root cause of inequality is needed to tackle educational disadvantage. That is why I am so disappointed by the €36 million package of cutbacks, including the back-to-education initiative, the access and school building programmes, IT research, teacher training and recruitment. All of these are vital areas of education.
The Government should increase investment in education substantially. We are talking initially about investment in primary level, including breakfast and dinner clubs that would keep pupils from poorer areas interested in attending school long enough to reach second level. Second level incentives are also needed to bring about a cultural change together with additional investment so those belonging to certain socio-economic groups can benefit, even though thus far they may not have had an opportunity or been inclined to attend third level colleges. Extra investment is also required for the third level sector.
A lot may have been done, as Fianna Fáil said in its election manifesto, but clearly a hell of a lot more still needs to be done. It should be done now when the economy is going downhill. The investments we make now will allow us to reap the rewards when the economic cycle improves. Where should the increased revenue come from, however? Should one draw an arbitrary line and say those earning beyond a certain figure should pay third level fees? It would be difficult to do that because people on either side the threshold level always tend to suffer. With the registration fees increase, for example, those who are slightly above the threshold are working hard to make ends meet. It is not the best way because it puts pressure on those who are already struggling.
The Green Party believes the matter should be dealt with in a different way. We think the principle of free education is good and should be continued. During the past five years, however, the king and queen of voodoo economics – the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney – made sure that the gap between rich and poor increased. The Government's economic policies have benefited the highest earners and have done nothing to create extra funding for investment in education. In the current downturn caused by this Government's economic mismanagement, the fairest and most equitable way to raise funding is by increasing income tax. The Green Party favours an emphasis on environmentally sustainable taxes. Our finance spokesperson, Deputy Boyle, has called for reform of taxation with the introduction of a three-band system. The richest should be made to pay at the highest band. They are the ones who benefited when the economy was booming, so now when the economy is slowing down they have a moral obligation to finance the country's education and health care systems.
Increased investment in education is needed to ensure future generations will be able to meet the challenge of highly skilled and added-value work if we are to be successful when the economy turns around. Our suggestions include the abolition of tax breaks for fee-paying schools. Deputy Boyle has also called for an end to the special savings investment scheme, which is immoral. I am paying €254 into it, which I can afford, but I would not be sorry if the Minister for Finance abolished the scheme. Last but not least, a small income tax increase should be introduced and ringfenced for education. In that way we might be able to pay back what was robbed from the poor over the last five years of the Celtic tiger.
More investment in education is required and although the Minister for Education and Science is not present in the Chamber, I hope the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, will pass these sentiments on to him.
We must acknowledge that improvements have occurred in third level education over the past five years, but there is no room for complacency. The Minister was quick to point out these increases during the debate yesterday, including €24 million for third level access this year, €2.5 million last year on the special fund for students with disabilities and €7.49 million in respect of the 2001-02 academic year on the students assistance access fund. I hope these figures will be the new baseline for the Government's commitment to third level access. The anger from students and their parents about the doubling of the college registration fee is an expression of their fear that the cost of third level education will again become prohibitive for many families.
The Minister makes no secret of the fact that he is toying with the idea of reintroducing college fees because the projected increases in students from deprived backgrounds did not materialise and he is also expressing a concern with the drop-out rate in all third level institutes. Fees are not the only barrier to those from a deprived background. There is only one career guidance counsellor for every 200 students and early school leavers only get financial support if they are out of the system for two years. Many are lost to a lifetime of poor literacy.
The concept of a third level qualification is not expected by parents and students in those sectors of society traditionally under represented in third level institutes. Poor self esteem or a lack of confidence in their own abilities can be a significant barrier. We all have our educational weaknesses and strengths, and they are not often that easy to identify. I will give credit to the Minister and his predecessors for trying to improve this issue. In my constituency of Wexford at least ten primary and secondary schools need urgent attention, and I will explain the relevance of this at a later stage.
As somebody who paid £2,000 per year in college fees, and as a professional who will end up having to pay college fees for my own children if they are introduced, I have a vested interest in this debate. For the same reason, I know the review group on the application of student support and free fees will recommend the introduction of college fees.
My fear is the genuine commitment of the Government to the noble idea of social equality, which the Minister was so quick to highlight last night. In these leaner financial times, political expediency could see two scenarios develop with the reintroduction of college fees. The first is that we will return to the situation which pertained in my time in college, where third level was a luxury and many bright individuals, not necessarily from a deprived background, were deprived of a third level education. The second scenario is that any savings made by the reintroduction of fees will not be put back into education.
This brings me back to my earlier point about the primary and secondary schools in County Wexford and early school leavers. If there is a genuine commitment to reinvest savings in education and to direct investment towards schools and young people, then I could accept the reintroduction of college fees for those who can genuinely afford them. There is no need to waste money on the review group because this will be the outcome of it anyway.
There is no need for the Minister to lecture this side of the House about addressing the inherent inequalities, not only within the education system, but also in our health system. I hope the value for money report on education does not go the same way as the one on the health services seems to be going, which is basically nowhere. This Government will be expected to make difficult decisions in the next five years. Health and education are always prime targets for cutbacks and this must be resisted.
In the Minister's conclusion last night, he emphasised that this Government will continue to invest heavily in education, will continue to place a premium on our children's future and to give everybody an equal opportunity. In my conclusion, I wish the Minister well and I hope that he is genuinely concerned and that this increase in college registration fees is not the beginning of an unacceptable return to difficult days for students and their parents.
As a former teacher who, depending on the wishes of the people of Sligo-Leitrim, may some day return to that fine profession, I have a particular interest in this issue and other education related issues.
The recent decision to impose an increase of 69% in the registration charges for third level students is a retrograde step. The Higher Education Authority only sought a 7% increase in registration charges and the extra 62% simply seems to be a cutback in funding in the education sector because there does not seem to be any benefit, either to students or to the education system itself, because of the increased costs.
Given the fact that the announcement came towards the end of the summer and that parents and students were not prepared for it, this has caused considerable concern for some and considerable hardship for others. A huge increase in registration charges, without any warning or rationale other than in the context of Government cutbacks, is an extremely worrying development and casts a cloud of uncertainty over parents and students who are planning their financial outlay for third level for this and future years. When people add the Minister's comments about the possible reintroduction of third level fees, they find themselves in an impossible position.
Parents who must maintain strict control of their outgoings will be seriously discriminated against by the reintroduction of third level fees. As the Minister and others are well aware, the current cost for those who have to live away from home to attend third level is in the region of about €10,000 per annum when one has regard to the cost of accommodation, food, registration, books, travel, etc. If two students from the same family are involved, the burden on parents is significant.
However, like many issues, this matter is not totally black and white. The fact that the children of those well able to pay fees are being unnecessarily subsidised by the taxpayer is something which merits examination. It should not be beyond the ability of the Minister and his Department to evaluate and separate out those whose incomes are well capable of excluding them from free fees. However, in so doing the Minister would need to set income thresholds at a sufficiently high level to ensure that only those who can afford to pay end up doing so. Unfortunately there is a long tradition in this country of setting qualifying limits far too low and squeezing compliant lower and middle income taxpayers. This creates anger and resentment, and rightly so. However, in the case of third level fees it will also have the effect of ensuring that many students from middle and lower middle income groups will not be able to access third level education immediately after completing second level education. I cannot believe that this would be the intention of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey. He has said that taxpayers should not have to subsidise his children's education and I agree with this sentiment, but can he guarantee that if he reintroduces third level fees the income threshold will be as high as a Cabinet Minister's salary?
If the Minister is determined to reintroduce third level fees I would ask him to keep the following in mind: setting income thresholds at a sufficiently high level so that access to third level is, and is seen to be, equitable and fair; considering a tax allowance for third level education costs; taking into consideration the fact that those from rural areas or, indeed, some urban areas must pay accommodation costs and that this adds to the financial burden; looking at some type of sliding scale fees so that those who are just on, or over, the limits do not end up being badly caught; and taking into account if other members of the family are paying third level fees.
I will abstain on this motion. I agree with 90% of it but the fact that those well able to pay continue to benefit means I have some reservations about the motion. Finally, I ask the Minister to ensure that if any funds are saved, they would be used in the grossly under-funded primary and secondary levels in areas such as remedial and resource teachers and to ensure that intervention takes place at the earliest possible stage in the education system.
I wish to share my time with my colleagues, Deputies Moynihan-Cronin, Lynch and Costello.
As one of the first of the school bus brigade and one of the first from my national school to go to university, I have a particular interest in this debate. I come from a working class family, the eldest of ten. At the time the grant was worth £7 a week and without the help of my own family I would never have survived. I am surprised at Deputy Harkin. One cannot have an each way bet on this issue. One is either for it or against it.
My view is clear. Despite coming from that working class background I led the campaign to get rid of tuition fees once and for all. I saw the rich convenanting to one another. Do we want to bring back third level fees to allow them to do the same again? The covenant scheme cost the State £37,000 in the mid-1990s when we abolished fees and opened third level education to everybody. The abolition of fees did not merely help people who had incomes of £100,000. It covered people working in the ESB, Bord na Móna and county councils who, if their overtime payments put them £10 over the limit were ineligible for third level grants. These people were unable to covenant to anyone.
I am in favour of the abolition of third level fees even though I come from a working class background. Of course we must improve access to higher education for people from backgrounds like mine. The Labour Party got damn all thanks for the abolition of third level fees. The Minister who took the action lost her seat in the following election. So much for gratitude. I still believe, however, it was the right decision.
We did not intend to reduce capital gains tax for the rich. We intended to use that money to finance decent maintenance grants for third level students. In our education document we said the basic maintenance grant should be the equivalent of the minimum social welfare payment, approximately €130. I make no apology for what the Labour Party did. We did not expect a huge influx of students from a background similar to mine. The abolition of fees simply gave them the chance to get into the system. Equality is important. The rich were being subsidised by being allowed to covenant from one to the other. Any hint that the Government intends to re-introduce college fees should be greeted with extreme opposition. It is only another finance saving mechanism. The money saved will not go towards improving education at the lower or remedial levels.
We abolished third level fees in the mid-1990s and we continue to support this policy as a fundamental principle. Any attempt by the Government to re-introduce fees as a short-term solution for the mess it has made of a golden opportunity is one of the most short-sighted policies of any Administration. Consistent efforts to open up the university sector have increased from 20% in 1980 to 50% at present the number of students progressing to third level education. More remains to be done but a return of fees would wipe out the progress we have made. I have a young relative who, as soon as he heard of the possibility of a return of fees, said he could not go to university.
The registration fee of €700 signifies that fees are already on their way back. That is a huge amount of money for families of people working in county council jobs. I know fathers who worked overtime and mothers who worked in cleaning jobs, only to find that every penny they earned was counted and their grant applications were not successful. The income limits for maintenance grants must be lifted and access to third level education made real and meaningful. The present system is one of divide and conquer. The income level is set at €28,000 and raised by a measly €2,500 if there is a second child. One would not feed a snipe on that amount of money.
Instead of looking after their wealthy friends the Government could raise money by bringing back windfall taxes on re-zoned land. Capital gains tax should be increased and the money should be spent on giving ordinary working class people a chance. Income is taxed at 42%, while capital gains is taxed at 20%.
We must not be afraid to stand left of centre in this debate. There is a clear choice. We must be for giving people a chance or not. I am certainly in favour of giving working class people a chance. If they are given opportunities they will take them. The Government must increase maintenance grants to a realistic level and let us get on with the debate on education.
I am delighted to take part in this debate, which is one of the most important I have participated in since the last election.
I could not believe my ears when I heard the announcement during the summer that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, was increasing third level registration fees. When I was going to school one could pick out of a first year class who would go to university. It depended not on the marks but on the wallet. After all the battles this party has been through to make third level education equitable, the Minister is taking us back down the road of giving the rich every facility while throwing others on the heap. I will lie on the ground in Kildare Street and let the Minister roll over me before he will do this.
I know people who went to school with me and who were extremely intelligent but were deprived of the opportunity to go to university because their parents were £100 or £200 over the grant level. I know a family who struggled to put one child through university but whose four other children could not get the same opportunity. I hope those who are sitting in this House – many of whom went to school at the same time I did and saw the difficulties students faced – will not support the re-introduction of third level fees. I was delighted to hear Deputy O'Connor say he would oppose the re-introduction of third level fees. I hope he will support our motion in tonight's vote.
We must decide whether third level is as much a part of our education system as primary and secondary education. I know my policy and the policy of the Labour Party in that regard. The Labour Party believes that primary, secondary and third level education should be universally accessible. I want the Minister to outline his position on this issue. The Government is all over the place. The Minister says one thing, the Taoiseach says something else and the Tánaiste says something else again.
Workers such as gardaí and teachers who pay PAYE and struggle to put a roof over their heads will not be able to cope with paying third level fees. The Union of Students in Ireland has calculated the cost of going to college for a student living away from home at €7,500 per year. The increase in the registration fees and the threat to re-introduce fees could bring that figure to €12,500. The cost for a four year undergraduate degree would be €50,000, or €100,000 for two children. Can the Minister tell me from where ordinary PAYE workers will get that amount of money to educate their children? Their children will not be educated. We will go back to the situation in the 1950s and 1960s when the privileged had the opportunity to go to university and the underprivileged did not.
The Minister must get off the fence and tell the people what he proposes to do. There are students studying for their leaving certificate whose parents do not know where they stand. They need to work overtime but they are afraid it may put them over the limit for the third level grant. The Minister must outline his policy on third level education, get off the fence and support students.
I was reading through the various press cuttings about what the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have been saying about the reintroduction of third level fees in recent months. If one were to read those press cuttings, one would notice that the Minister comes across as someone who is a champion of the poor. He wants to reintroduce third level fees so the poor unfortunates who cannot afford to pay fees right now can get a leg up and those who can afford to pay will pay. That seems a very reasonable argument to make. Most would be taken in by it but if the Minister was genuinely concerned about those who cannot afford to pay third level fees, he would not have allowed the increase that he has allowed. As Deputy Penrose rightly says, almost €700 in registration fees is an enormous amount of money for some families. Therefore, the Minister is not concerned about the less well off.
One should consider that the children who started school in 1994 when the abolition of third level fees took place, whether they started at four or five, are now, on average, between 13 and 14 and in secondary school. Therefore, we have not seen what can happen in respect of the abolition of third level fees because that generation of schoolgoers has not come through yet.
It was never entirely a matter of abolishing third level fees to ensure that people who could not afford it up to this point reached third level education. It was also about Breaking the Cycle, Early Start and all the other measures that were introduced at primary level to ensure that the children who did not have the opportunities would have the encouragement and, at the end of secondary school, the opportunity of third level education and that it would not be an economic choice.
If the Minister accepts that third level education is now part of the overall education system then he must surely accept that, just as we do not ask people to pay for primary school, we should not ask them to pay for third level. If one believes in the concept of paying third level fees, one must surely see nothing wrong with the concept of paying for primary school.
We have all been heard tonight saying we have a particular interest in this matter for one reason or other, whether it is because of our background, our children or our constituencies. However, we all have an interest in it. We have a real interest in ensuring that we have a well educated population in the future that can serve this country well. If the Minister were truly interested in making the very wealthy pay for third level education when their children require it, there is a mechanism for this in place already – it is called taxation and it is what we all pay.
Unfortunately, we have a Government that cries crocodile tears over the less well off in third level education, but still continues to tax the rich less severely than it taxes the rest of us. It is not sustainable that one can say this to a generation of children that we have allowed to believe that third level education is available to them when they finish secondary school. This is the first generation, because of this system, to depend on where the Minister sets the level in the determination of whether they can attend. I would have thought, like the IFI workers being locked out of their jobs, that the days of the scholarship boy and girl were long gone, but it seems we are about to return to them. It is an absolute disgrace to be discussing this in this day and age.
If the Minister wants to raise taxes, there are plenty of avenues for him to go down and plenty of people who can well afford to pay even if they do not have children at third level. The notion of contributing to a common fund to allow the country to continue, whether in health or education, does not just exist for the little people, but for everyone. I appeal to the Minister not to take this retrograde step, to allow the process to continue and to continue to put additional money into primary level.
What the Minister has done since he became Minister was make a statement saying that he would be the champion of all those who do not have access to third level education and other areas of education and that he would deal specifically with those who are less well off, people in disadvantaged areas, to ensure that education became accessible to all. Those were his words but his actions were the opposite. On the one hand, he spoke of access but on the other hand he restricted it. He introduced cutbacks right across the board, the most dramatic of which was the 69% increase in registration fees. This surprised his Department, which was totally flabbergasted at the increase, as it surprised the heads of the universities. However, the Minister advocated the increase as a desirable one.
In effect, the increase was a cutback like the other measures in relation to the cutback on access programmes, back to school initiatives, IT, teacher training and so on. In the lead-up to the Nice referendum he was disowned by the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach and he was quiet for a little while, but as soon as the referendum was over he was mouthing the same intentions.
It seems the Minister is simply introducing cutbacks on behalf of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, rather than putting forward any thought-out policy in respect of education. That is why I am so critical of the Minister. We have blatant hypocrisy on his part. He is saying one thing and doing another. If he is really interested in providing access to third level education he has all he needs before him.
The report of the acting group on access to third level education, which was sought by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Woods, and was published in 2001, has everything he requires. The review he is talking about has been completed, but his predecessor presented that review in the context of the abolition of third level fees. That review involved consultation with all the groups and bodies concerned with access to third level education. They have come out with a blueprint, a key document whereby we can now put resources where they are most needed to ensure access is extended.
We need to ensure this country has a fair taxation system. A fair taxation system produces a fair society, and a fair society will ensure that certain fundamental services are provided for all citizens. No service is more fundamental than providing young people with education. It gives them freedom to be independent citizens. That is the road we should be going down.
There should be access to tuition at all levels. We feel it should be extended to pre-school education. We should retain it at primary level. At second level it was introduced by Fianna Fáil and everybody on this side of the House supported it. The Labour Party will fight to ensure that what it introduced in 1996 – access to third level education – will be retained, but we want to go a step further and have second-chance education for those who did not have a chance prior to free second level education in the old days. They should also get their chance as adult and mature students.
The Minister should hear loudly and clearly that we will not accept any change in the status of the measure that was proposed by the Labour Party in 1996 in respect of free tuition for all citizens.
This debate has been instructive in providing an insight into the respective positions of the parties on issues of fundamental principle concerned with the administration of public policy. The Minister rightly identified the issue of inequitable access to third level education as one that should exercise those with an interest in social justice and a concern for ensuring the human capital potential of the economy is maximised to the benefit of all. How the public resources available for student support can be put to best effect in achieving that objective is an issue this Government wants to explore.
It is remarkable that this willingness to ask the hard questions concerning the impact and effectiveness of the administration of public funds and the outcome of public policy is one the Opposition would like us to shy away from. I was under the impression that the job of the Opposition was to engender debate and critical analysis, not to defend the status quo and attack the very concept of reviewing well worn policies that may not be meeting their objectives.
The review the Minister has initiated into the use of student support funding, including free fees, is important and timely, coming seven years after the introduction of free fees and given the lack of progress that has been achieved in the meantime in meeting the stated objective of that initiative. All of us engaged in this debate agree that meaningful progress has not been made in achieving equitable rates of participation in higher education among the more disadvantaged sectors. That is not a party political statement: it is a straightforward recognition of a policy failure of successive Governments. In initiating this review, the Minister and the Government are seeking to point the way to better, more effective, policy options, rather than seeking refuge in the comfortable option of pretending these problems do not exist or avoiding at all costs the possibility of upsetting particular interests in society.
In seeking this better way, the Government does so on the back of five years of unprecedented commitment to the development of education at all levels and to seeking to address the fundamentals of educational disadvantage. Between 1997 and 2002 global day-to-day spending on education increased by 87% while capital investment in the educational infrastructure has increased almost fourfold under this Government. An additional 3,450 teaching posts at primary level have been created, including almost 1,500 resource teachers for special needs. Capitation funding at primary level has been increased by 80% and a targeted fund of €36 million has been put in place to address the needs of disadvantaged children across 2,276 primary schools. There has been a huge expansion in the numbers of post-primary teachers with a significant fall in the pupil-teacher ratio from 18:1 to 14:1. There has been a massive expansion in the third level sector with 19,000 new full-time places, an increase in part-time enrolment of 41% and a six-fold increase in current spending for research. Support for access programmes at third level increased from €500,000 in 1997 to €24 million this year, an increase of 4,700%. A new top-up maintenance grant for disadvantaged students has been introduced and the income threshold for grant qualification has been raised by 32%.
Achievements in my areas of responsibility include an allocation of €25 million to youth work initiatives this year, providing for an extension of the Youthwork and Youthreach programmes. This is a 38% increase in the funding available in 1997. Youth work has been placed on a statutory basis with the enactment of the Youth Work Act, 2001, and the phased implementation of the Act has already commenced. This Act is the culmination of a comprehensive process of consultation and addresses the needs of the voluntary sector in a detailed manner as well as catering for the needs of those charged with the implementation of the new structures. It is intended that the national youth work development plan will be implemented alongside the Youth Work Act.
In September 2002, I launched the Code of Good Practice: Child Protection for the Youth Work Sector. In adult education, which is very important, the White Paper, Learning for Life, was launched in 2000. Investment in this area has increased 16-fold in the last five years. The back to education initiative is the second priority of the White Paper. It will start this year with 6,000 new places at a cost of €6.31 million. Within the further education sector there had been no guidance service for participants in adult literacy, VTOS, adult and community education programmes up to 1999. That has now been addressed. Unfortunately, I do not have time to address the many other issues involved in this debate. My concern has been to demonstrate the manifest commitment of the Government to improve and develop the education system on the basis of equality and social inclusion.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Rabbitte.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan and other contributors to this important debate. I do not have anything against the Minister of State, but I have just listened to the most excruciating example of the Government's approach to education, one that is mean-minded, short-sighted and woolly in its thinking. It is incredible that Fianna Fáil has sunk to this level when one considers the party's great tradition and record in this area, when it understood the value the people put on education.
However, its approach today is typical of the party's right-wing bias we have seen since the general election. The first targets were the poor of the Third World with the ODA cuts. Education fees were hugely increased to the amazement of all, including the college authorities. Those seeking health care were then hit with charges in accident and emergency departments. ODA, education and health were the Government's targets, after it spent money like it was going out of fashion in an attempt to win votes in the general election.
Education is perhaps the most crucial area in terms of securing our social and economic future. That was understood by Donough O'Malley. The legislation he introduced was among the most progressive of any Minister in the history of the State. He made a political choice. People would have understood if he had argued in favour of means testing for free second level education due to the lack of resources in making it universally accessible. However, he chose to deliver a universal system, unprecedented in this country, so that everybody could have access to free second level education regardless of their parents' income. It was an enlightened view, but there was a hard headed approach behind it.
In view of decisions made by Donough O'Malley and others we were able to have a tiger economy that is an extraordinary example of the role of education in economic success. Now the inheritors of this legacy, the current Fianna Fáil Ministers, want to roll back on it. Niamh Bhreathnach built on the progress that was made by further developing the principle of universal access. It makes practical sense when it is considered that when Donough O'Malley introduced free second level education a leaving certificate opened doors and enabled people to have access to good, well paid jobs. Nowadays a primary degree is required to access similar employment. We must recognise this parallel.
We cannot go backwards. We all know there is inequality in education and that it must be ensured that resources and funding directed to the education system are also used to support families, both when children are small and when they are at third level. However, that is not the approach taken by Fianna Fáil. It is taking a reactionary and conservative view and is concerned with rolling back people's rights. I am glad to hear the strong voices in the Labour Party that will ensure this does not happen.
I thank my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, for moving this motion and for the support of the motion by my colleagues on the Opposition benches in the Fine Gael Party, the Green Party, Sinn Féin and a number of Independent Deputies. I heard the contributions of Deputies Harkin and Twomey. I wish to thank my Fianna Fáil constituency colleague, Deputy O'Connor, who also supported it. He reminds me of the corncrake in that I could hear him but I could not see which side of the fence he was on. As Deputy Breeda Moynihan-Cronin said, the issue for Deputy O'Connor now is if he will go into the lobby with us in support of this motion.
Deputy O'Sullivan took some time to persuade me of the merits of this motion because since he became a Minister, Deputy Dempsey has behaved somewhat like a boy in the playground with a kite. In his ministerial career he has flown more kites than an entire playground of school boys. Apparently, on this occasion, incredible as it may appear, he is serious about wanting to reintroduce fees. I find that difficult to believe. The arguments that were advanced by Deputies O'Sullivan, Burton and Upton in terms of the Minister's action in grossly inflating the level of registration charges, and the likely consequences of a decision to reintroduce free fees on an argument of equity and resource constraint, is difficult to believe.
I wish to deal, in particular, with a number of points made by the Minister in his reply to the Labour Party advocates of the motion. The first of these is the equity issue in the context of the increased earning power of graduates vis-à-vis non-graduates. On this aspect of the equity issue the Minister contended that: “Higher education benefits the individual far more than society”. In the course of his address he introduced the ESRI report, Living in Ireland Survey, and an OECD report, Education at a Glance, to show that the earning power of graduates compared with non-graduates is immensely different. I do not think anyone in this House disputes that. There is nothing new about the fact that, on average, the earnings of graduates are, generally speaking, higher than non-graduates. The point is that it is wrong to contend that the results show that the returns on third level investment are entirely or largely captured by individuals as opposed to society or the State. There are returns which accrue to society, the State and the Exchequer as well as to the individual. Society is enriched in a variety of ways, some of them perhaps difficult if not impossible to measure, by the existence within the population of a large and growing cohort of graduates.
The economy gains in that Ireland's attractiveness to foreign investment is increased and the capacity of domestic industry to compete is enhanced through the effect of investment in third level education on the stock of human capital. The Exchequer gains through the increased tax yield, whether income tax or indirect taxes, compared with what it would otherwise be if, for example, we had no graduates. It is nonsense to say on the basis of studies that appear to concern themselves with attempting some quantification of the earnings premium that goes with higher qualification, that the premium represents the entire or most of the gain from the investment behind it. The Minister knows this because he acknowledged at an earlier point in his speech that there are wider gains. He talked of the increased expenditure over the past five years and critically, that:
The manifestation of this increased investment can be seen on a number of fronts. The capacity of the sector to meet the skill needs of the economy has been developed through substantial targeted funding to provide new places in areas of identified need, such as ICT and health skills.
There are also returns on the investment that accrue to the corporate sector; profits, exports and growth are higher than they would otherwise be, yet the Minister is not arguing for an increase in corporation tax to capture for the Exchequer and society an increased share of this corporate benefit or gain.
Second, the Minister either misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents Deputy O'Sullivan in respect of the question of the number of years that it is likely to take for the full effect of the free fees initiative to work its way through. He stated that to argue that it will take several years for this psychological impact to take effect, "simply does not impress." The problem is not a psychological one and Labour Party Deputies did not argue that. The point made was that the problem of access starts at a much earlier age than 17 or 18 and so it does take time for the free fees initiative to achieve its full effect. From this point of view it also requires significant and intensive interventions in primary and secondary education if free fees are to work to the fullest effect.
Trees take time to grow to maturity but this Government is either climbing them or cutting them down. The reality appears to be that the picture regarding equality of access and the impact of free fees is somewhat like the curate's egg, good in parts. Some significant improvements have been identified by researchers, but as the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, would say, more needs to be done.
Whatever is to be done, the reintroduction of fees, or allowing for massive inflation in registration charges – effectively the reintroduction of fees by the back door – is not the answer. There is no single answer although there is currently a singular problem.
No single answer is possible in response to what is a multifaceted problem. It calls for interventions at all stages of the education system, primary, secondary and third level. We need initiatives such as Breaking the Cycle, introduced by a former Minister for Education, Niamh Breathnach, and we need them mainstreamed. We need to address early leaving and non-completion in the secondary school system. We also need to tackle some serious problems in third level institutions. For example, just a couple of hundred metres down the road from this Chamber, an institution which has existed for the past 500 years or so effectively closes down at tea time and does not provide night courses for the immediate catchment area. The nearest education institute to me is the Tallaght Institute of Technology which is about seven years old and which already has more night students than Trinity College has put through its books in the past ten years.
The Minister referred in his speech to: "the plain facts that continue to present in relation to rates of higher education participation among the lower socio-economic groups." He also stated: "The progress we have made in this area has been painfully slow and has not had the meaningful impact I want to see on the basic inequity that has persisted under successive Governments." There is a lot of truth in that but the problem is that, in the first instance, the mess that the Minister for Finance has overseen in the management of the nation's finances is the real reason for the Minister advancing the bogus argument that he is doing this in the interests of equity and equality of opportunity. He is doing nothing of the kind. He has cut back on critical interventions. He has effectively begun the reintroduction of college fees through inflationary increases in registration charges, which are a nonsense anyway. He is now apparently quite serious about reintroducing fees and bringing in means testing.
A few years ago, before Niamh Breathnach's initiative, I recall being approached in my clinic by a man from County Kildare in the neighbouring constituency. He was a farm manager whose child was in the same class as the offspring of the farm owner. He found to his horror that he had exceeded the threshold of eligibility for a grant by a couple of hundred pounds. To his further horror he found that while his child was disqualified, the farm owner qualified. Under the concept of reckonable income, the farm owner could plan his affairs in such a fashion that he bought a combine harvester in the year that Natasha did the leaving certificate but the farm manager had no such facility open to him. That is the kind of inequity to which the Minister wants to return. I hope he is back at his favourite game of flying kites. He seems to be fascinated by them and not dimmed in the slightest by the fact that most of his previous kites have been shot down.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Callanan, Joe.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John. |
Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian. Lenihan, Conor. |
Tá–continued
|
McCreevy, Charlie.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Donovan, Denis. |
O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Blaney, Niall.Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Hogan, Phil.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny. |
McGrath, Finian.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Callanan, Joe.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle. |
Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe. Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Tá–continued
|
Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie. |
O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Hogan, Phil.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic. |
McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.