I now call Deputy John Browne. The Deputy has ten minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Education Grants: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Jim Higgins on Tuesday, 14 December 1993:
That Dáil Éireann, in the light of repeated delays in processing of payments of higher education and ESF grants, calls on the Minister for Education to
—instruct all local authorities and vocational education committees to pay outstanding grants immediately; and
—issue the necessary sanction to all local authorities and vocational education committees to make grant application forms available to applicants in the month of April so that, in the future, processing can be completed and first payments made to all qualifying students on their commencing college.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann notes
—the improvements and extension of the Higher Education Grant Schemes,
—the increased number of students who are now eligible for the various grants schemes and
—the increased volume of activity in this area
and compliments the Minister for Education on the setting up of an expert advisory group to examine, among other matters, the administration of the grants schemes."
—(Minister for Education.)
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Ten minutes?
Has the Deputy a query on this matter?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I spoke last night for only one minute. I should have half an hour left.
If the Deputy proceeds I will sort out the problem.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I will be sharing my time with Deputy McGrath.
I understood that you were sharing your time with Deputy Keogh.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): No announcement was made about sharing time with anyone.
I will check the position for the Deputy.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): There is nothing to be checked — the Deputy sat down and I stood up and began my speech.
Tosach maith leath na hoibre. Ní raibh tosach maith agam aréir — ní raibh ach nóiméad amháin agam. Tá súil agam go mbeidh tosach maith agus críoch mhaith agam anocht nuair atá breis ama agam. Ach de réir mar atáimid ag dul ar aghaidh anois ní dóigh liom go mbeidh tús ná críoch mhaith agam.
I can understand why the Minister is not present in the House to night. Before the debate was adjourned last night I had started to quote from the final paragraph of her speech in which she stated:
I have attempted in my contribution to the debate on this motion to outline the major improvements which have been made in third level student support over the past 20 years and, more particularly, in recent years.
On a point of information, the Minister is dealing with the Estimates debate at present.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Bilocation would be very handy at times in this House. I do not like talking about the Minister behind her back, but I want to make the points I would have made last night if I had had the time and she was present in the House.
I am extremely disappointed that a young, able and new Minister would allow herself to be used like many previous Ministers, who may have been appointed because of the geographical location of their constituencies, etc., and accept an irrelevant amendment to a very clear motion. The Fine Gael motion clearly calls on the Minister for Finance to instruct all local authorities to pay outstanding grants to students immediately and to change the date for the issuing of application forms to April. The history of the higher education grant schemes given by the Minister was about as relevant as talking about Santa Claus to children. The amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with the motion. I cannot understand why an able Minister would accept an amendment formulated by a civil servant or adviser under which she outlined the history of the higher education grant schemes. I get depressed at times when I look at the way the Dáil works. I often wonder if we could score even two out of ten points in a study on the relevance of what we discuss in this House.
Why should any Minister propose an amendment which has no relevance to a serious motion? Perhaps the first part of the motion, which calls on the Minister to instruct all local authorities to pay outstanding grants immediately, could be amended by including the words "where all necessary forms are completed". That would be a justifiable amendment. The second part of the motion could be amended by substituting May, June or July for April. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister proposed an amendment which is totally irrelevant in terms of the motion.
The Government backbenchers who came into the House to give the Minister both vocal and moral support referred to pre-primary education and primary education during this debate on the late payment of higher education grants and the date for applications. How relevant are the Opposition parties and does it make any difference what kind of motion we put down? The amendment congratulates the Minister on setting up an advisory group, another subcommittee, to examine the administration of the grants scheme. Two previous Ministers for Education, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Séamus Brennan and Deputy Mary O'Rourke, both set up subcommittees to deal with the issue of third level grants. Yet the amendment congratulates the Minister on setting up yet another committee to deal with third level grants. Kieran Fitzgerald, who was captain of the Irish rugby team, would have asked the Minister where was her pride in moving an amendment which congratulated her on setting up a third committee to deal with third level grants. I am sorry that this new Minister is carrying on the old tradition where no Opposition motion is dealt with seriously by the Government.
This motion deals with a very serious matter. Students who have to pay for their accommodation from September but who do not receive their grants until December are left in a crisis. This is similar to the crisis in which substitute teachers who are not paid regularly find themselves. However, that is a matter for another day. Any Deputy or Minister who worked hard from September but who was not paid until December would certainly table a lot of parliamentary questions to the relevant Minister asking why he or she was not being paid.
It is important that the application forms for higher education grants be simplified to such an extent that there are no difficulties in regard to the details required. The excuse given last night for the late payment of grants was that different local authorities were waiting for additional information from students. It would be a pity if the complex nature of application forms were to cause problems in this area. May I ask the Chair to clarify the position in regard to the time at my disposal?
The Deputy has until 7.10 p.m.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): How was that decided?
Acting Chairman
According to my list, the Deputy has from 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I want to clarify the position. Deputy Keogh did not share her time with me last night. After she sat down I stood up to speak. Therefore, I assumed that I would have half an hour. There was no question of sharing time last night. I am very clear on that point.
Acting Chairman
There is a further slot for Fine Gael and the Technical Group between 7.40 p.m. and 8.10 p.m. According to my instructions the Deputy is due to conclude at 7.10 p.m.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I do not want to have an argument with you, but the officials know the position. I am either completely out of order in speaking now or I have more time——
Acting Chairman
I will ascertain the position from the officials.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): When I stood up last night to contribute I assumed I was entitled to half an hour. Nobody heard Deputy Keogh say she was sharing her time with me because she did not say that.
I presume there was agreement between the Whips.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I was called by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The Chair was in charge last night.
Acting Chairman
Unfortunately, I was not in the Chair last night. I was in another seat in this House. I presume the Ceann Comhairle was in charge last night. All I can do is follow the instructions in front of me, that is, Fine Gael had the 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m. slot. The Deputy had some time last night.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I had one minute only.
Acting Chairman
That would give the Deputy 11 minutes. It has been decided to give the Deputy the full time.
Generally the Progressive Democrats and the Technical Group share time with Fine Gael. Normally both parties have 20 minutes, but when the slot is 30 minutes they give the remaining ten minutes to a Fine Gael speaker.
Acting Chairman
That would give an extra 19 minutes for Fine Gael.
I am happy to listen to Deputy Browne, my constituency colleague. I would hate to see him victimised——
Acting Chairman
Does Deputy Browne wish to share his time with Deputy McGrath?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The only reason I am raising this matter is because of the principle involved. As I have said so often, the workings of the Dáil——
I presume all the time slots will be altered because of this decision.
Acting Chairman
Yes.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): There was no other speaker in the House last night when I stood up to speak and I was welcomed with open arms, so to speak.
I am delighted the Deputy is getting the extra time.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I know the Minister of State is delighted, and I am delighted also. How much time do I have left?
Acting Chairman
The Deputy had 19 minutes, ten of which are almost exhausted.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I will be brief as I want to share my time with Deputy McGrath.
A closing date of August or September for the submission of application forms for grants is ludicrous. I hope the Minister will take note of the proposal in our motion in that regard. If the application forms were made available to students in April they could be dealt with without any rush and the staff would be available in the offices to deal with them. I have been told that some students might not qualify for a grant — for example, they may not get the required number of honours in their leaving certificate, etc. If the applications were dealt with at an earlier date this would save much trouble later. The greatest difficulty is that the Department of Education will not send out the details of the higher education grant scheme until late August. For many years at county council level the practice has been to approve in July that year's applications for higher education grants. I proposed a motion at a meeting of Carlow County Council last year to refuse to approve the scheme in advance because of previous warnings given by us in this regard. Why can the details of the scheme not be issued in April? The variation is very little. If there is to be a change in the limit on parents the Department should ensure that these details are announced in April. We approved the applications in advance but no action can be taken because the details of the scheme are not available and Members who are involved in county councils will be aware of this problem.
I appeal to the Minister of State to ask the Minister for Education to issue details of the higher education grant scheme sooner than at present so that county councils will have adequate time to deal with applications. There is little point in applying for grants in April if the details are not available and the longer the delay in issuing details of the scheme, the longer the application will be delayed.
The duplication of the work of county councils and vocational education committees will be dealt with by another Deputy but it is a problem we could do without at the moment.
This motion is too serious to be side-tracked by an amendment which bears no relationship to the problem. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that students who are experiencing delays in decisions on their grant applications receive their grants as quickly as possible. In order to prevent delays occurring next year the application form should be simplified and there should be no demands on applicants to supply information they do not have. I realise the importance of providing all the necessary information but if that process is causing confusion it should be addressed.
Finally, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the application forms are sent out earlier than has been the case up to now because this is causing most problems. That can only be done if the details of the higher education grant scheme are circulated earlier rather than at the end of August as is the case now.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Bradford.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish to thank Deputy Browne for sharing his time with us. I welcome this debate on third level education. It is important that we examine our third level grants scheme in order to highlight the inadequacies that exist at present. Deputy Jim Higgins has done a good job in moving this motion which is worthy of support.
For some time third level grants have been a source of annoyance to people in the PAYE sector in particular because they have not been able to avail of them. The system is very inequitable in that many self-employed people can easily qualify for the grants but those in the PAYE sector receive no assistance to send their children to third level colleges.
A psychiatric nurse I met recently told me he had spent £52,000 in the past four years putting his children through third level education. Last year he received a partial grant for one of his children. That begs the question of why somebody like him should be expected to put his children through third level education against such odds. The system is inequitable and I support the work of the review group in this regard.
Has the Minister of State forgotten the promise made in the election a year ago by the then Minister for Education, Deputy Séamus Brennan, that Fianna Fáil, on returning to power, would grant free third level education to everybody? That idea seems to have been shelved and I wonder what the Minister's response will be to that. The Labour Party told the electorate that on returning to power it would have third level eligibility determined on net pay. Unfortunately, this has not come about either and I understand the Minister is quoted as saying that that idea was simply not practical and could not work. The Labour Party was able to make that claim in Opposition to win votes but yet it did not see it through. That party is bringing the political process into disrepute by making promises it could not fulfil. Despite that, the Fine Gael motion to give tax allowances to people who send their children to third level education was rejected by the two Government parties. That does not seem reasonable.
A problem was brought to my attention recently which the review group might investigate. Perhaps the Minister will relay it to that body. He will be aware that mature students over the age of 23 can qualify independently for grants to pursue third level education. I recently received a letter from an irate mature student who accepted a place in the Dublin Institute of Technology. He was advised by the institute that since he was a mature student he would qualify for a grant and as he was a native of Westmeath he should apply to the local vocational education committee. Following a number of telephone calls, and clarifications, he was told that because he was not residing in Westmeath on 1 October 1992 he did not qualify for a grant in County Westmeath. I accept that that is the regulation. The applicant was advised to apply to County Dublin vocational education committee for his grant which he did. Again, following a number of clarifications and telephone calls, his grant application was accepted and he was delighted to hear he would be approved for a grant. However, he received a shock when he was told that his maintenance grant for the year would be £582. That is not what he was expecting and it leaves him in an impossible position. As a mature student he was living in a flat and as he was living in Dublin for grant purposes the so-called adjacent rate of £582 applied. That is totally inadequate to cover that man attending a third level institution. There is a gross inequity in a system that allows that and it must be reviewed urgently.
If a student is to be an independent student, why give him this small adjacent rate which, I understand, is meant for students who are living at home and do not have the expense of accommodation. Surely it is more important in the case of independent students to take their place of abode and type of accommodation into account. The grant of £582 is totally insufficient and should be changed forthwith. I appeal to the Minister to take this up with the review group before it prepares its report.
I wish to refer to the processing of grants. There are two systems of processing, one is carried out by the county councils and the other by the vocational education committees. Both do a worthwhile job. This is certainly the case in my area but it seems strange that there should be two separate bodies processing third level education grants within a small area such as in Westmeath, which has a population of 63,000. I am sure there is no need for two bodies to be engaged in this.
There is also a certain amount of inequality within the system. There is no recoupment of the expenses of the local authority — in this case Westmeath County Council — by the Department of Education. For example, there is no recoupment of the interest that must be incurred by Westmeath County Council in paying those grants in advance because, as the Minister well knows, the relevant local authorities are recouped retrospectively. It is estimated in Westmeath County Council that it costs us in the region of £80,000 to administer third level grants annually. Let us take the example of our friends down the road in the vocational education committee whose total expenses, I understand, are recouped by the Department of Education. They can obtain something towards their administration costs and all other costs incurred by them are totally recoupable.
I wonder why we should have that dual system. I can see the reason for the relevant local authorities continuing to process such applications, because their staffs will have built up a lot of expertise over the years; indeed, the staff of Westmeath County Council are particularly able in that respect. But why should the Department recoup one body and not another? It seems a very strange practice. Perhaps the Minister would let me have his observations on that matter.
The time has come for me to give way to my colleague, Deputy Bradford.
I thank my colleagues for their generosity in giving me a little of their time to enable me express my support for the motion before the House. Realistically, I suppose most of the political antennae are rightly elsewhere, today. However, in the general run of politics higher education grants usually are a fairly emotional subject affecting thousands of people nationwide. Very few other problems cause politicians as many difficulties as do these grants. Questions are raised about people's entitlement to them, delays in having them sanctioned and delays in their payment.
The motion tabled at least causes the matter to come before the Minister for discussions once again. We have stated our party's view on this issue on more than one occasion in this House. I hope that the Minister's advisory group will bring forward some proposals leading to more realistic circumstances surrounding the granting and payment of these grants.
Delays in their payment sometimes can result in students sitting their first year examinations without at that point knowing whether a grant has been sanctioned. Such delays are inexcusable. Most students in their first term should at least have had a decision given in relation to their application for a higher education grant. Indeed, in the majority of cases the hope would be that payment would already have issued. All of us public representatives have on our files details of applications going back to September and October last in respect of which decisions have not yet been taken. That is inexcusable. No student should have to wait so long for a decision to be taken on their application. In many cases it results in their having to obtain loans from financial institutions, which loans and their attendant high rates of interest would be unnecessary if only the administration of the scheme was improved. Admittedly, the staff of the relevant local authorities nationwide are doing their utmost to resolve the problem, but there are so many anomalies in the scheme that they need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
We must remember that at the end of the day there is little saving for the State in allowing the present system to continue since the delays in these payments do not result in any windfall for the Exchequer. Whenever a grant is sanctioned it must be paid, whether that be in the week following a student's entry into first year at college or 12 months later. The money still comes out of the State coffers. Therefore, it would be much better for all concerned if the money were paid at the earliest possible date.
The allegation of victimisation of PAYE worker parents needs to be addressed also. I heard some of my colleagues here this evening speak of the inequity, as they perceived it, of the higher education grants system from the point of view of applicants whose parents are PAYE workers. Certainly, such people can produce very transparent documentation, such as a P21, when an early decision is usually given. But under the present inadequate income limits many deserving applicants are deemed to be ineligible for grant aid. Many of these are forced to obtain student loans to take them through their years at college and, in a minority of cases, they are forced to forego their places in college because they simply cannot afford to pay the total cost.
It would be my hope that in her review the Minister would look more favourably at a more generous income limit which would take cognisance of the fact that the present system based on gross income does not allow people with even a reasonable level of income to obtain a higher education grant. That is one side of the equation. The other side of the equation, something about which I feel strongly, is the view abroad that every self-employed person and member of the farming community can obtain a higher education grant without any difficulty whatsoever, whereas nothing could be further from the truth.
I will give the Deputy a few figures presently.
Hopefully, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe will quote figures in respect of people still awaiting grants because those most need to be highlighted. Perhaps I may be allowed to make my point without interruption. In regard to the self-employed and farmers, it would be my hope that audited accounts would be accepted by the Revenue Commissioners as representing their true income and would suffice in regard to their applications for higher education grants. I am sure that many Members will be aware that many genuine expenses incurred by the self-employed, such as interest repayments, depreciation and so on, are not at present allowable in calculating income for higher education grant purposes — another anomaly needing to be addressed. On Monday last I saw the file of a person who had been declared to have absolutely no taxable income whatsoever, the Inspector of Taxes having been quite willing to certify that that person's income amounted to £4,000 or £5,000 per annum. But he was deemed to be ineligible for such a grant because his interest repayments last year, amounting to £20,000, had not been taken into account. They were simply added back to his income of £4,000 or £5,000 and he was told he had an income of some £24,000 or £25,000.
Depreciation and interest repayments make a huge difference to a large number of applicants, and that matter needs to be addressed. I make that point to refute the argument abroad — obviously we will hear something about it later — that all self-employed people and members of the farming community write or draw up their own accounts. That is far from being the truth. There are countless people nationwide who suffer on account of those two anomalies, the non-allowance of depreciation and interest repayments as an expense in calculating income for higher education grant purposes.
I should like to share my time with Deputies Hugh Byrne, Batt O'Keeffe and Micheál Martin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Seo díospóireacht eile atá an-tábhachtach, agus is am tábhachtach é ní amháin go bhfuil na fadhbanna againn ach taobh amuigh de sin b'fhéidir go bhfuilimid in ann cúpla pointe a chur os comhair an Aire mar gheall ar an expert group atá ann go fóill. Táimid uile ag obair sna dáilcheantair éagsúla agus tá a fhios againn na fadhbanna atá ann. B'fhéidir go mbeimid ábalta rud éigin a dhéanamh maidir leis sin.
Within the context of the Programme for Government, Fianna Fáil have given a commitment to ensuring wider access to third level education and a continued improvement in the students' support scheme. There have been significant improvements effected in the making available of such grants to students, most notably those to mature students. There is no doubt but that the increase of £2,000 per child in third level education did help many parents who had two or three children attending third-level institutions and who had been subjected to tremendous pressure.
There are many complaints in relation to eligibility for grant aid, the means test and the lateness of payments. I asked Donegal County Council how many applicants there were and when they were paid. Three hundred applications for higher education grants were received in Donegal County Council this year, of which 245 were approved. I commend the council in that almost 200 were paid by 29 October. That is an excellent record. A total of approximately 800 applications had to be dealt with by Donegal County Council this year, including new applications, renewals, etc. We are all aware of the problems we have to deal with in this regard.
In relation to means and income limits something will have to be done. A review for taxation purposes would certainly help the new poor. They are the people who are under pressure. They have to pay all kinds of bills, tax is deducted at source and they do not have recourse to any aid. I hope the Minister, within the expert group, will be allowed to deal with that matter.
In County Donegal many students apply under the UCAS system — the Northern Ireland system — in November and December and under the CAS system in January. I ask the Minister to ensure that the list of the approved colleges and courses for the forthcoming session should be finalised before Christmas each year so that students and parents can make an informed choice. We have tremendous career guidance teachers but students cannot always make the right decision and are not always aware of what courses are approved. We have enormous problems from August to November when people apply for a grant for a course which is not approved. It is then too late to change. If parents were given a list of approved courses it would go a long way towards improving decision-making by students and parents.
Maintenance allowances should be approved for any course in an approved college in Northern Ireland, subject to the entry requirements and the awards of the college being of equivalent standard to those in the Republic. There are too many problems with colleges and private institutions in Northern Ireland who do not have approved certification lobbying and trying to get students to come from the Republic to keep up their numbers. If there were equivalent standards I would see merit in working with them.
The students' support scheme should be extended to England, Scotland and Wales. I realise it is very expensive and I appreciate that some £84 million was made available in 1993. That is an astronomical amount of money for third level education grants. If the students cannot get places here we will have to seek additional places or help them to go to other institutions.
I am not long out of college and I regret the fact that the points system has got totally out of hand. One is now expected to have seven or eight honours to do a B. Comm. That is not on. A genius could do a B. Comm. but may not make a brilliant accountant or a good commerce teacher. I ask the Minister to keep a keen eye on the points system because we are putting tremendous pressure on students to perform very well in the leaving certificate. That is not a bad idea but we are putting undue stress on them. It is very disappointing for those who would like to undertake a particular course but cannot achieve the required number of points, yet can go to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and do that course. That is not fair. We should do something about providing additional places in this country.
I should like to make two other points. I see merit in a single authority for grant aid. There is too much confusion in this regard. We made great progress with the dual application form but I see a need for a single authority.
There is one other matter which is outside the range of the motion but perhaps the Minister would deal with it. It is totally unfair of colleges and universities to insist that they have a letter of approval from a county council or a vocational education committee before they can register. Every student who is accepted in a college should be accepted at registration and the technicalities can be dealt with later. This system is unfair as students cannot use the library and are lost when starting in college. University College Galway is the only college that allows everybody to register and they deal with the technicalities afterwards. Perhaps the Minister would take that issue on board.
Recoupment of expenditure to local authorities is on an annual basis. In the context of this debate perhaps we could examine the question of recoupment on a quarterly basis. Most county councils cannot afford to carry the overdraft facilities. While we have made some progress, more is required. I do not see the need for a division in this House because most of us have the same agenda which is to support third level education. Many changes could be made quickly without necessitating huge expenditure.
Mr. Byrne
It is a great pleasure for me to speak in this House on this historic day. At present, about 80,000 of our young people are in third level education, which is a rapidly growing sector. By the end of the century there will be over 100,000 in third level education. Up to now the greatest strain on our resources has been on the primary sector but increasingly the strain will be on resources at second and third level. There have been increases in all third level sectors. The regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology have expanded rapidly. Since 1980 student numbers there have increased from 10,500 to 31,000.
This increased pressure on higher education resources is against the background of increased spending in education. As a nation we have allocated 19 per cent of Government spending to education. This compares with 13.2 per cent in 1965. Times have changed. It is fair comment that we have changed with them. As many more places for students have been provided, so has support for these students.
Wexford County Council, of which I am a member, and County Wexford vocational education committee, of which I am also a member, have a proud record in that very few, if any, demands are being made on the public representatives at this stage to have grants paid. I do not dispute that more should be done but, given our total pool of resources, we are doing as much as we possibly can.
Particular gains have been made in relation to support for mature students. Any mature student who gets a third level place is deemed to qualify for a grant. The ridiculous situation where mature students were means tested on their parents' income has been done away with. Of significance too was the increase in income eligibility limits for third level grants. This has brought into the grants system many middle income and farming families who were previously excluded. It should also be noted that maintenance grants were increased, as were fee grants. This year 46,000 students are being supported in one way or another from public moneys. That figure compares with only 12,000 in 1982. The sum of £84 million this year compares with £75 million and represents a 12 per cent increase. I challenge the Fine Gael spokesperson, Deputy Higgins, to state whether Fine Gael in Government ever gave a 12 per cent increase in the student grant to support students and their hard pressed families. He knows his party's record in Government was lamentable. He knows also that his position on this issue is opportunistic. If this is the best use the Fine Gael Party can make of Private Members' time it is not fit to be the official Opposition.
In the motion they call for payments to be made to qualifying students on commencing college. This must be examined very carefully because, as we all know, some students leave college very shortly after commencing. In instances such as this does Deputy Higgins propose to recoup the moneys paid? That question must be asked. Scoring own goals and exposing himself to ridicule is not the function of the Deputy, as the Opposition is supposed to embarrass the Government and not itself. I wonder if Deputy Higgins consulted with his colleague, Deputy Yates, the spokesman on finance, on how Fine Gael proposes to finance the increases suggested. When one considers that the Leader of the Fine Gael Party did not consult Deputy Yates on the tax amnesty, I suppose the Deputy could be excused.
The Minister has recently set up an expert advisory group that will, among other things, make recommendations for the most effective administration of the grant schemes. This is certainly to be welcomed. Everyone accepts that there is room for improvement in the delivery of student grants. I welcome the Minister's commitment to making major improvements in this area. Administration is not primarily an educational matter but we should have the political courage to acknowledge that it is an example of a wider problem of productivity and efficiency in the public sector.
The Department of Education uses 19 per cent of our public resources. Dáil Éireann has a duty to ensure that none of the scarce resources is wasted in any way. I commend the amended motion to the House. I congratulate the Minister and I commend her and the Minister of State at her Department for the many necessary initiatives that have been taken. In the recent past I had a difficulty but I found her good office most acceptable. When one approaches the ministerial office one can run up against a stone wall but in this instance commonsense prevailed. I compliment both Ministers on this. I hope the spirit of their initiatives in the area of third level education grants will extend to those two prestigious institutions of learning already mentioned.
I welcome the opportunity to put on record the ongoing commitment of the Fianna Fáil Party to higher education. Part and parcel of that commitment is to ensure that more and more young people gain access to third level education. Our record speaks for itself. As Deputy Byrne mentioned, half of the total intake of students are in receipt of third level grants and this is testimony to the fact that Fianna Fáil has done its work on access to educational opportunities at third level.
The Fine Gael motion calls on the vocational education committees and local authorities to pay the grants. While that is ideal it does not take account of the realities on the ground and I can illustrate this. I understand that UCC in early November provided a list of its students to Cork County vocational education committee and to Cork County Council but UCD did not provide its list of students until late November and therein lies the dilemma. How can the local authority pay out third level grants if the institution concerned has not provided the information on students? We need to look again at the application forms for third level grants and design a form which includes a special section which would indicate that one is an applicant for a grant and a further section that can be sent off immediately which indicates in fact that one has been awarded a grant. That would help people operating the scheme in the local authorities. Certainly those to whom I have spoken consider the format of the form leaves a great deal to be desired and needs further improvement. It is also fair to say that applications that have not been fully completed are returned in dribs and drabs to the local authority. They have to be sent out again to be completed.
I think this is a timely motion because there is not a great difference in Members' attitudes to higher education grants. Obviously, I welcome the setting up of the expert advisory committee and I am glad they will report to the Minister before the end of the year. If one examines the available statistics one certainly concludes there are inequities in the system, for instance in Cork County Council the children of "poor farmers" got 27 per cent of the total number of grants awarded last year; students whose parents are in the PAYE sector were fortunate to get 25 per cent of the grants and, believe it or not, the children of the unemployed got 25 per cent also, 2 per cent below the farming community. Obviously those statistics give rise to a number of questions. There is a perception that the self-employed are getting "away with murder." Is it possible to overhaul the system and make it more transparent?
Last year we spent £84 million of public money on education and I have no difficulty in asking the Minister to make public the beneficiaries of education grants. What is wrong with that? Is there any reason why an elected member of a local authority should not be made aware of those in receipt of grants right around the county? I cannot see any difficulty with that because we are responsible for the expenditure of public money. I raised this issue at Cork County Council but the motion was defeated on the basis that it could cause difficulties in the implementation of the Data Protection Act. Perhaps the Minister might address that issue.
I foresee that the funding of higher education grants will be a major difficulty in the future. The projected number of students for the year 2005 is 122,000 third level students and funding will then be a major issue. We need to reform the system to ensure that it is fair and equitable. There is a perception that the system is not as fair as it should be. In introducing the reforms of the third level grant system, the then Minister for Education, Deputy Séamus Brennan, enabled many young people to go to college who heretofore would have been unable to do so. He has made a major contribution. He is an unsung hero.
With your permission, Sir, I wish to hand over to my colleague, Deputy Martin.
With your permission, Sir, I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Cuív.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am somewhat disappointed by this motion. It is a very conservative motion in that it envisages changes and reforms in the context of the existing system. I appeal to the Minister and to the expert advisory group to have a fundamental review of the whole system. Local authorities should not be the bodies to administer the higher education grants system. It should be administered by the vocational education committees or processed within third level institutions. That fundamental decision should be taken by the Minister and I appeal to her to accelerate the timetable towards such change. I am not casting any aspersions on the capacity or efficiency of local government because in many ways local government staff are extremely efficient and effective in dealing with the system. Their problem relates to the huge volume of work. It is clear that local authorities want to rid themselves of this burden because the recoupment of the money required to administer the scheme is only paid to the local authority 12 months later. In Cork Corporation last year it cost the local authority £350,000 on interest alone to administer the scheme although we are very hard pressed for cash. It makes sense that the administration of this scheme should be in the context of education institutions.
The existing scheme discriminates against the PAYE sector. There have been significant improvements in recent years, in the increase of the threshold limits and so on, but the figures still show that the PAYE sector suffers in terms of the allocation of third level grants. Everybody attending third level institutions should receive some form of financial support. The ESF grants were not means-tested for many years although I know that has changed to some degree. Given the fact that the self-employed have their own regulatory system in terms of tax returns, as do the farming community, and given that the PAYE sector have no choice, any grant system based on the present taxation system will inevitably discriminate against the PAYE sector.
A number of anomalies in the system needs to be eliminated. Families with three members attending third level institutions do not receive grant assistance because, the first student went in 1991. Because the changes which took place are only effective from the date of their introduction many students who did the leaving certificate prior to the introduction of these improvements still do not benefit from them. These anomalies should be dealt with effectively. I appeal to the Minister to introduce a more streamlined simplified system. In fairness, the Minister mentioned that in her speech.
We have had significant problems this year in the payment of grants to students. In many ways we are victims of our success as evidenced by the increased participation in third level education. The significant increase in the numbers attending third level institutions will continue to the end of the decade and into the next century. We should urge all students participating in second level education to engage in some form of further education and we must put in place a financial structure to support such a process.
Post-leaving certificate courses have developed as a new tier of third level education throughout the country. We in Cork have over 3,500 students attending the College of Commerce, Scoil Stiofáin Naofa and Scoil Eoin Naofa using an exciting and innovative curriculum dealing with tourism, heritage, childcare and so on, courses which are accredited with outside institutions but which need a national recognition system along with funding. Most of these students are not in receipt of funding and they require support.
I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I thank the mover of the motion in that he has given us an opportunity to make interim comments on a changing situation.
Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Thógfadh an méid atá le rá agam níos mó ná trí nóiméad go leith ach dearfaidh mé an oiread agus is féidir.
Ar dtús, cuirim fáilte roimh roinnt de na rudaí a hairíodh, cuir i gcás, méadú na dteorainneacha ioncaim, aitheantas do theaghlaigh go bhfuil níos ná duine amháin ag freastal ar an gcoláiste ag an am céanna; bunú an ghrúpa speisialta comhairleoirí le scrúdú a dhéanamh, i measc rudaí eile, ar riaradh scéim na ndeontas.
I welcome the oportunity to speak on this subject and I welcome the setting up of the special advisory group to examine the administration of the grant scheme. I look forward to the proposals. There is a need for radical reform in the administration of these schemes in order to achieve equity. Rather than having an absolute cut off point in going from eligibility for full fees or maintenance to eligibility for half fees or maintenance and then to no fees and no maintenance, there should be a gradual decrease in eligibility as income increases. That would ensure that a person would not lose valuable grants because they earned £50 or £100 over an arbitrary income limit. Arbitrary income limits are the curse of this country.
We should look at the possibility of taking mortgage interest payments into account when assessing income. The reason why farmers, for instance, can maintain higher living standards than PAYE people is that many of them do not have high mortgage repayments. A simple way of balancing things would be to allow mortgage repayments to be taken into account. Perhaps the tax system needs to be reformed to redress the balance vis-à-vis the PAYE sector and the self-employed. I have come across cases in which it has been shown that the tax system is stacked against the self-employed person. The system does not allow for capital write-offs or capital payments in cash or for interest payments. A person with an actual income of £3,000 a year who declared interest payments and capital payments that had to be made was deemed ineligible for third level grants.
We need also to review the system with regard to once-off payments. Somebody who inherits £10,000 can be refused a grant because he inherited the money in the wrong year. We must look, too, at the treatment of a person who is under 23, is married and applies for a grant. Such a person is assessed on his parent's income and not on the income of the husband and wife. That is nonsense in this day and age.
We need radical reform of the administration of the scheme. Either the vocational education committee, the local authority or the CAO should process all grant applications and it should be possible to start processing the grants in advance of leaving certificate results. Means-testing could be carried out in the summer. In my experience the greatest cause of delays relates to means-testing due to people being delayed in getting their tax affairs in order. If this process was started in early summer, affairs would be in order by the time students go to college.
I want to take this opportunity to raise the scandal of the very large deposits being sought by some third level institutions, particularly universities, who are seeking deposits of £900 for intending students two months in advance of courses starting.
The Deputy should join Democratic Left.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy must resume his seat, his time is exhausted.
This is a money making racket by the universities and I call on the Minister to take action to ensure that all third level colleges seek a nominal registration fee. If some colleges can do that, they all can. This is an importanmt issue which should be tackled once and for all.
There are two issues in relation to the question of funding which must be addressed, first, the manner in which the current system operates and, second, the fundamental question of access to third level education. I am sure most Members will agree that the number of parents attending constituency clinics with problems in relation to third level grants for their children has increased greatly. Those people are entitled to grants; they are not looking for something to which they are not entitled, but they cannot get them when required. That is a cause of great concern and a nuisance for people. The failure of the Government to operate a sufficiently flexible system which informs the public at an early date is the subject of much justified criticism. From my experience local authorities, as far as practicable, process grants as quickly as possible, the time constraints under which they operate being frequently outside their control. However, some local authorities use an approach which is absolutely inexcusable. For example, in some cases they hold up or interfere with grants to which students are entitled because their parents have not paid their service charges. That should be made illegal. What the parents do should be of no concern to the local authority and should not have a bearing on a student's entitlement to a grant. A student has no power over the manner in which his or her parents pay their service charges.
The Department of Education has responsibility to resolve the difficulties being experienced in respect of third level grants and I welcome the movement in that regard. At present a ping-pong game is taking place in that the local authorities blame the Department and the Department blames the local authority, but at the end of the day it is the student who suffers. There is a need for transparency in this area; people should know exactly what is happening. If they cannot receive a grant quickly they should be told why and what redress they have. People are going around in circles, from one body to another, in an effort to get satisfaction. We should not underestimate the hardship and misery caused by late grant payments. It frequently means parents going into debt and puts students under unnecessary pressure in regard to whether they should take up courses.
It also means that students must go without educational necessities and renege on rent payments and other financial commitments at a time when they are very often under enough pressure because of taking up new courses and moving to a new environment. If the money they require has not come through the system it adds to their stress and difficulties. I am aware of a local authority who has yet to pay a grant to a student attending Maynooth who will shortly be commencing second term. This is an urgent problem and I am glad it was raised by Fine Gael in Private Members' Time. It deserves much consideration.
There has been much talk about introducing a free fee scheme for third level education and that should be pursued. Irish students are an exception in the EU in regard to grant payments. The strongest argument against the introduction of free fees centres is on the principle of fair distribution of resources or the attitude that they should pay if they can afford it. In reality those who would derive most benefit from free fees would be middle income earners in the PAYE sector. I am sure those on the Government side recognise that that group are the ones losing out in that regard.
Presumptions are made about families that are no longer tenable in all cases, namely, that the parental home is also the residence of the student and that parents will subsidise and help their offspring during his or her time at college. We are all aware of cases, whether through estrangement, marital breakdown, alcoholism or whatever, where students do not have that type of support and assistance, but yet may have the ambition to attend third level education. Such persons may not have the normal family supports that others enjoy. We should not ignore their plight. We should consider introducing localised grant and financial assistance appeal bodies which would consider individual cases and make a decision on grant eligibility. In that way, the factors surrounding students might have some bearing. The restriction in respect of the 15 mile limit sets an arbitrary line, whereas in reality every family's requirements are different. The rigid regulations in regard to, for example, the means test and 15 mile limit do not take account of the manner in which some families are burdened with individual problems which are not the norm for every family.
Let us take the example of students with children. I am struck by the number of lone parents with a child of one or two years who are determined to take up third level education. Such lone parents increasingly get a great deal of flak and criticism and are frequently branded as spongers and irresponsible people who should not receive any money from the State. Those trying to break out of that trap are the ones finding it most difficult. It must be recognised that lone parents are frequently literally alone. In some cases because they have a child they cannot live at home and they do not have the support to care for themselves and their child and go on to third level education which would release them from the depedency trap and enable them get employment or create employment for themselves. That is a real phenomenon and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. We should encourage such young women in particular to create a life for themselves and their child through taking up third level education if they have the intelligence to do so. In the long term that would mean they would not be dependent on the State.
There is a cost to third level education which has nothing to do with fees or travel; it concerns the daily existence associated with having a young person who is not contributing at home. Everybody who has teenage children is aware that they cost money, and this is an additional cost which some families cannot afford. Those who fare worst are the unemployed. It is ludicrous to expect a family who cannot even make ends meet to spend more than one-third of their annual income educating one of their offspring. It is small wonder that those from unemployment backgrounds should be so under-represented in third level education. How often has the point been made that it is important for parents to instill in their offspring the belief that they can go to college? Whenever ideas on improving participation in third level education among lower income groups are exchanged that opinion is usually expressed. Their is a basis for believing that parents who have not gone to college are less likely to encourage their children to do so. However, a fundamental question remains unanswered. Even if a positive attitude towards an ability to attend college exists, at the end of the day affordability will be the main barrier. If people cannot afford to pay college bills, no amount of encouragement would change the position.
From 1984 to 1990 there was an overall reduction in the numbers of students attending college from unskilled manual, semi skilled manual, intermediate non-manual and agricultural workers. That is a matter of great concern. I am aware of the argument about who will pay for a free system that will enable more people take up third level education.
There is one sector in society which benefits enormously, that is the business and commercial sector. This sector benefits automatically and it would be no harm if it was asked to pay in some way. There is no reason this could not be done if there was the political will to do so. Many poor and unemployed people could thus be liberated and enabled to realise their full potential.
Donogh O'Malley opened the door to second level education because he found himself in a position where he could make a difference. He transformed the position in relation to the right of access to second level education regardless of a person's background. We need to move on and do the same in regard to third level education. We need to open the door for those who cannot afford to attend third level education courses but who have the right to equal access along with the better off.
Deputy McManus mentioned that the payment of grants was being held up due to the non-payment of service charges by parents. The actual position is that that provision was removed in the 1993 scheme.
I thank Deputy Higgins and all other speakers for their contributions to this debate. I acknowledge that many constructive suggestions were made which deserve favourable consideration. Many of those suggestions would find favour with me, having been a member of a local authority for 18 years and of a higher education grants committee.
I reiterate, on behalf of the Government, that we are committed to the development of a reformed and comprehensive student support system for students at third level. This is in accordance with the commitment in the Programme for Government, in the interest of justice and equity, to widen acces to third level education generally and to remove barriers to access that may exist at present for certain disadvantaged groups.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is giving careful consideration to the report of the expert advisory group and that she intends to publish the report by February next at the latest. I look forward with interest to the recommendations of the group as it comprised acknowledged experts on the following important issues in the student grants system: the question of the definition of income for tax purposes; participation rates by different socio-economic groups in higher education and the significant role that improved access to higher education can play in combating disadvantage for both individuals and communities.
I also welcome the Minister's commitment to continued urgent action with a view to putting in place simpler and more efficient organisational arrangements for the delivery of the grants service to students. While I acknowledge that solid progress was made in that regard in 1993 I, in common with Deputies on all sides of this House, am well aware of the difficulties still being experienced by students and parents in this area. This has also been highlighted in the media. I welcome the fact that the Minister has made it her major priority for 1994 to ensure that the specimen scheme and related documentation issue on or before 1 May so as to provide students with a more timely and enhanced service, including earlier payment of grants.
The Minister rightly identified the extremely cumbersome nature of the present system as the source of the problem. The fact is that three separate schemes developed on a largely ad hoc basis over a considerable period of time. There is an unbelievably large number of bodies involved in administering the schemes and this has, undoubtedly, contributed to inefficiency and confusion. Clearly, an operation of this size and complexity must be reformed in a systematic and coherent way and the report of the expert advisory group will provide the basis on which to do this.
I want to respond briefly on some of the issues raised by Opposition speakers. On the question of the late issue of the 1993 scheme documentation, I would accept that the comparatively late issue this year may have contributed in some instances to delays in grant payments. This was, unfortunately, a consequence of the major revamping which took place of the documentation relating to the schemes.
Reference was made to the complexity of the 1993 application form and notes. They are daunting documents, but we must remember that the complexity of these documents is largely unavoidable and arises in no small measure from the conditions of the scheme in relation to what is defined as reckonable income for grant purposes.
Deputies will be aware that there had been a perception for many years that persons were obtaining grants who should not in equity be receiving them. This point was made several times tonight. As a result there has been persistent pressure for the introduction of more transparency and equity in income assessment procedures.
More rigorous procedures linked to the tax assessment process and with greater involvement of the Revenue Commissioners to ensure a full return of income from all sources were put in place in 1993. As experience had shown that there were many combinations of income sources, all possible sources had to be provided for in a comprehensive application form.
We know that the new application form was excellent in 1993 because local authorities and vocational education committees have told us so. In previous years forms had to be returned to applicants with income queries two, three or even four times. This was not, generally speaking, a problem in 1993.
Reference was also made to the very detailed nature of the application form notes and the checklist of 42 items. Of the 27 items with notes, all but five items are related to aspects of reckonable income for means-testing purposes. Most of the reckonable income notes concern the self-employed only whose income affairs are generally dealt with by professional accountants. Accordingly, specialist information of an accounting nature is included with the object of assisting accountants preparing grant applications from the self-employed. Despite adverse media reaction to those notes, local authorities and vocational education committees have found that they solved many problems for them in 1993. Similarly, the checklist is set out clearly as a full listing covering all circumstances — nobody suggested that all items arise in any one single case.
On the positive side, therefore, as regards 1993 the feedback which the Department received from local authorities and vocational education committees on the revamped 1993 documentation was that overall it certainly speeded up the processing of grant applications.
As regards the timing of grant payments, the suggestion was also made that the students themselves and their needs were regarded as being of minor importance. I want to refute that suggestion, even though I accept that the standard of service falls far short of what is desirable. As the Minister indicated, we are working to have the standard of service improved as a matter of urgency. This will be achieved.
A number of other matters were raised and these have been noted. In conclusion. I welcome the major improvements implemented in the student support system in 1992 and 1993. I would not deny, however, that much more needs to be done. I also welcome the Minister's commitment to continue this process as a priority in 1994.
The fact that 14 Deputies, apart from the Minister and Minister of State, contributed to this debate shows the importance that Members on all sides of the House attach to this matter. I thank them for their contributions.
Deputy Ahearn highlighted the need to recoup the amount due to local authorities earlier and cited as an example her own local authority in South Tipperary which had to pay £100,000 in interest. Deputies Broughan and Costello showed their versatility by rambling into the area of first and second level education. However, they proved to be good spear carriers for the Minister.
Deputy Keogh offered the full support of the Progressive Democrats and highlighted the anomalies in the system. Deputies Browne and McGrath showed, because of the fact that regional technical colleges are located in their constituencies, that they are sensitive to the needs of students. Deputy McGrath argued the case for farmers but I should make the point that we wish to level the playing pitch for everybody.
Deputy Coughlan mentioned that there was a need to increase the thresholds. The point we are trying to make is, because there are anomalies and inequities in the system, no matter how much we increase the thresholds it will not work as the scheme is based on gross rather than net income. Mortgage repayments and medical bills are not taken into account. Increasing the thresholds will not solve the problem. I agree that we should extend the maintenance grants scheme to cover students overseas. Indeed, four months ago Fine Gael tabled a motion in this House but the opposite side of the House voted against it.
Deputy Byrne asked where would the money come from. There is no money involved; it involves a simple administrative procedure whereby the calendar would be rolled back by four months and the forms would be sent out on time. It is obvious that the Deputy did not read the text of the motion.
Deputy Batt O'Keeffe made an extremely good contribution in which he highlighted the need for equity in relation to certain socio-economic groupings. This point was also made by Deputy McManus. The figures published yesterday show that the PAYE sector is very heavily discriminated against.
Deputy Martin accused Fine Gael of being over-conservative in drafting the motion. It was a clear simple prescriptive motion which means much to thousands of students. The motion is before the House for consideration. When we produced radical proposals to ease the burden on the PAYE sector, Deputy Martin was one of the first to vote against them. He adopted a similar attitude in relation to the ESF grants, the income tax allowance and the anomalies in the PAYE sector. He and his colleagues voted against them.
Ba mhaith liom aontú leis an Teachta Éamon Ó Cuív agus aontaím go hiomlán gur thug an t-iar Aire Séamus Brennan a lán feabhais isteach go mór mhór ó thaobh teorainneacha ioncaim ach ag an am céanna ní dhearna sé morán athruithe.
I wish to thank Deputy McManus for her short but extremely comprehensive treatment of the motion and for her support. I wish to thank the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, for agreeing to the changes proposed in the Fine Gael motion. We asked the Minister to ensure that all local authorities and vocational education committees make the higher education grant application form available from the month of April so that in future processing can be completed and first payments made to all qualifying students without exception on the commencement of college. In her response to the motion last night the Minister relented. She said: "My major priority for 1994 in relation to the administration arrangements will be to ensure that the specimen scheme and related documentation issue on or before 1 May to ensure a more timely and enhanced service is made available to students and that grant payments, as a result, will issue in good time." That is what we sought in our Private Members' motion and that is what we now propose. We will not argue about the fact that "before 1 May" actually means April which is what the motion seeks.
It has to be in April, Minister.
Had the Minister accepted the motion in toto and resisted the temptation to table a rather bland amendment, the entire affair could have been agreed and wrapped up last night and the Minister would have been free to go to the Labour Party Christmas party earlier. As we demonstrated last night, it is a simple workable prescription to streamline the administration of the higher education grants scheme, to speed up payment and ensure that much of the hardship that is part and parcel of a student's life, waiting weeks on end for the first cheque to arrive, is eliminated.
There is now no reason application forms should not be processed and finalised by September. Each student should know whether he or she is eligible for a grant and payments of first instalments should be made to each student within the first week or two of commencement of college.
We have been pressing for an overhaul of the higher education grants scheme for the past three years. Last night the Minister advised the House that she has been in possession of the report from the expert advisory group for a number of weeks and that the report will be published in February together with recommendations for change. The changes will have to be major and far reaching. Unless they root out the basic inequities and injustices of the current higher education grants scheme the exercise will have been futile.
I received a letter from a lady in Tipperary, the Minister's constituency, who has three children. Her husband had an income of £18,000 a year when the first child entered university three years ago. He was over the income limit to qualify for a grant and had to fork out full fees and maintenance which cost just under £5,000. When their second child sat for the leaving certificate two years ago he was still outside the income threshold. In order to send this child to college the mother had to return to work. She earns £8,000 per annum bringing the total family income to £26,000. To any independent observer that looks like a nice substantial sum, that is, until one looks at a breakdown of the income. Income tax in this case amounts to £5,300 which leaves £20,700; PRSI and levies amount to £1,200 leaving £19,500 and the £40,000 mortgage on their home costs £4,100 a year to service. That reduces the £26,000 to £15,400. The couple then face the real "biggy", £8,700 for college fees — and that is a conservative figure — and maintaining two children in college. The £26,000 has, at this stage, dwindled to a mere £6,700. The couple do not qualify for a medical card because, like so many other entitlements, eligibility for medical cards is based on gross rather than net income. They have to settle for the lowest level of cover in the VHI, Plan A, which costs £463.33. The gross income of £26,000 is now down to a net figure of £6,237. One does not need to be a mathematician or use a calculator to see that that amounts to a mere £119.94 per week. In five major swoops the £26,000 has whittled away to a bare subsistence level of existence. One could not exist on that income. That is the lot of thousands of middle income families today.
This family, with an income of £26,000 from the husband and wife going out to work on a daily basis in order to educate their children, would be better off on the dole. On unemployment assistance they would not have to work and would receive £123.10 per week. By going out to work they are losing £3.16 a week. Indeed, they are losing more because if they were on unemployment assistance they would qualify for full medical cover under the medical card scheme; they would get a free fuel allowance of £5 a week during the winter months; the children at primary school would qualify for the footwear and clothing allowance and, most important of all, they would qualify for full fees and full maintenance at third level.
As was pointed out, this system is riddled with inequities and anomalies. It was not today or yesterday that they occurred. Last night the Minister almost went back to the Battle of the Boyne telling us about the evolution of the higher education grant scheme. It is amazing that as the scheme evolved, instead of the anomalies being ironed out, they became more ingrained as various rules and regulations were added on an ad hoc basis. Changes have taken place but these are minor and were carried out mainly on the fringes of the scheme. The root and branch reform has not taken place. It will have to. That is why we hope that when this advisory group reports, there will be a total review of the scheme. Unless this happens the whole exercise will have been in vain.
What comes across forcibly in this letter, and in numerous other letters received, is that jobs are being held down by people who would gladly forego them but they simply cannot afford to do so. They must go out to work to educate their children. The lady who wrote this letter readily admits that the only reason she goes out to work is to put their children through college. She would have stayed at home otherwise. There are hundreds of people who would long since have retired but they must continue working beyond normal retirement age to pay back the money borrowed remortgaging their houses to educate their children. Additional jobs are lost because parents who normally would not bother are forced to work overtime in order to educate their children.
I welcome the Minister's announcement that she has accepted our proposal and there will be general acclaim for it, but I regret she did not follow the example given two weeks ago by her colleague, Minister Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, in accepting a Fine Gael Bill in toto in this House. Last night and tonight was another test of Labour's so-called adherence to openness, transparency and receptivity but, then, these buzz-words are fast becoming mere memories. I thank Members who contributed and promised their support.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calley, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gallagher(Donegal South West) and Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly); Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Boylan.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.