Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 May 2022

Vol. 1022 No. 3

Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

Yesterday, I again raised with the Taoiseach the importance of the Government securing public ownership of the site on which the new national maternity hospital will be built. I also expressed my astonishment that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Health had made any substantial effort to convince St. Vincent's Healthcare Group to transfer that land to the State. Furthermore, I proposed that the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, should meet urgently with the board of that group to negotiate such a transfer. This clean, clear transaction would be the best outcome as it would ensure that we would have a public maternity hospital built on public land. That is what the Sinn Féin motion, which is to be voted on by the Dáil tonight, calls for. The Taoiseach stated that the Government will not oppose the motion, so can I take it that the Government's position is to secure State ownership of the land and that it will now engage in that high-level negotiation with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group to achieve this? That will be the position of the Dáil after tonight's vote and the Government should act on its instruction.

The public wants clarity, but the truth is that the Government has sown confusion, distrust and unease about its plan. We have had two weeks of a consultation that was not really a consultation at all. The Taoiseach said that he was open to changes and suggestions, but he ignored and pushed back all suggestions and went ahead with the original deal. He and the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, said they engaged with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group to secure State ownership of the land, but St. Vincent's Healthcare Group said they did not and the Taoiseach responded by saying that he did. The Sinn Féin motion articulates a clear call for public ownership of the site and it is now clear that the Government will, in effect, support that motion. Let us get the clarity that people want. State ownership of the site is the best way to safeguard an investment of almost €1 billion of taxpayers' money. It is also the best way to end conclusively any fear of residual religious dogma compromising the delivery of health services for women. I do not have to rehearse again the harrowing history that gives rise to such anxieties.

Everybody in the Dáil and beyond wants the new hospital built. We want and need a new era in maternity care for women in Ireland, and we should accept and acknowledge each other's bona fides in that regard. However, we must get this right. We have to get the best deal and the best arrangement to achieve that ambition. Ba cheart don Rialtas an rud ceart a dhéanamh anois. Ba cheart dóibh dul i dteagmháil le Grúpa Sláinte Naomh Uinseann chun an suíomh seo a fháil faoi úinéireacht an Stáit. The Sinn Féin motion this evening presents an opportunity for everyone to vote for the best approach. Given that the Taoiseach is not opposing the motion, will he commit to leading the Government in an engagement with St Vincent's Healthcare Group to secure this site in State ownership?

First, this has been an interesting debate. What has struck me are the attempts to sort of reverse the truth or to rename the truth and to make a declaration, which the Deputy has been making consistently, in the hope that it becomes the truth and develops into a new truism, which is that 300 years of a lease at €10 per year is somehow not ownership. It is ownership; it is public ownership. The Deputy is endeavouring to create the premise that somehow it is not full ownership. It is, and it is for most sensible people dealing with this area historically. That emerged in the committee, by the way. All the legal people with experience in the area of leasing, conveyancing and so forth accept that 300 years at €10 per year is ownership. The Deputy has created this false idea that there is some dramatic difference between 300 years of a lease for €10 per year and full outright ownership of the site. In my view, it is very false. The Deputy asked that we all accept each other's bona fides, although she then said that we are deliberately sowing confusion and doubt, which we are not doing. This deal represents a strengthening of the deal that was agreed through the mediation of Mr. Kieran Mulvey in 2017. This enhances it because what we sought was a strengthening and extension of the lease, which was originally 99 years with an option of 50 years in the Mulvey deal. It is now 300 years, so there is no issue with ownership. That is the first point.

The State's interest is guaranteed, and there is value for money in that.

No matter how long we think a hospital would last, it is safe enough to say if it has a lifespan of 300 years, it would be some hospital in terms of how it is going to get built. I want to nail this idea. In my view too, a lot of fog and confusion are being created around this. It does not hold water, and it has not held up to robust argument in the committee or throughout the past two weeks.

The other key issue among the range of issues that were raised relates to what services will be provided in the new hospital and if there would be any religious ethos influencing the provision of such services. Again, there are cast-iron, watertight guarantees contained in the new hospital's constitution, in the operating licence from the HSE to the new hospital, in the Minister's golden share, which empowers the Minister to direct the directors of the new hospital to make sure that all legally permissible services are provided, with which they must legally comply. Those were legitimate concerns that were raised last year and prior to that in terms of whether there would be any potential to undermine the provision of such services through some religious influence or other. There are cast-iron, watertight legal guarantees provided in that respect. The guarantees are multilayered in terms of the various documents that underpin both the constitution of the hospital, the operating licence, and the activities.

The most powerful voice of all has been the voice of women involved in maternity care in this country. The national directors of midwifery across the length and breadth of the country have pleaded with the Government to get this hospital built. The director of midwifery at Holles Street and the assistant directors of midwifery have all pleaded with the Government to get this hospital built. The clinicians at Holles Street have all asked that we would now take the decision to build the new hospital. It was decided to build this hospital in 2013 and it is now 2022. We genuinely need to commence the construction phase of this hospital given all of the guarantees that are now in place.

Indeed it is time. That is nine long years. For a very long time women in midwifery, and all concerned in obstetrics and the care and provision of services for women, have been calling for proper investment in maternity services and health services for women. There is no great surprise in that. We all share that ambition. The hospital has to get built.

The only fog and confusion are what is generated by the Taoiseach. I asked him a question. We have a motion coming before the Dáil this evening, which is crystal clear. It sets out very clearly a call from the Oireachtas for full public ownership of the land. To be clear, by that I mean a clean transfer of ownership in perpetuity to the State of that site. I understand that the Government will support the motion, or at least it does not propose to vote against it. Therefore, I can only surmise that the Government accepts that the best outcome is full ownership in that manner. Given that the Government will support the motion, or at least will not oppose it, I ask the Taoiseach if he will act on the will of the Dáil and if he will engage with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group-----

I call on the Taoiseach to respond. We are over time.

-----to secure the ambition of that motion and the expressed will of the Dáil.

We have secured public ownership of the hospital. That is the point.

I understand the politics of the motion. I have been around now for a bit to understand the motivation behind Private Members' motions and the need to keep the Government under pressure. I fully understand that. We will deal with the motion in the manner that we as a Government see fit-----

By sitting on the fence.

-----just as you, equally, will put forward motions with a very clear political agenda behind them. We did not all come down on the last cloud. I am fully comfortable with what is happening this evening in respect of the Private Members' motion on this issue.

With sitting on the fence and not standing up for itself.

The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.

The more important point is that the fundamental issue of ownership has been dealt with-----

The Government is a laughing stock. It will not back itself tonight.

-----in terms of the 300-year-----

The Government is the laughing stock of the country.

With the greatest respect to Deputy Healy-Rae, when I spoke to him before the formation of the Government, his main request was that we would last five years and make no intention to undermine it in any shape or form.

I know that rankles. The biggest thing upsetting the Taoiseach now is that he knows I am right.

I am not a bit worried about Deputy Healy-Rae's faux bravado.

The Government is a laughing stock. It will not support its own stance tonight inside in the Dáil. It is ridiculous.

Deputy Healy-Rae knows where his bread is buttered at the end of the day when it comes to the longevity and lifespan of this particular Dáil.

Táimid thar am. Táim ag bogadh ar aghaidh go dtí-----

The more important point is the ownership issue has been dealt with and the guarantees are there.

Táimid thar am. Táim ag bogadh ar aghaidh go dtí an chéad cheist eile.

It has become clear, in particular in recent days, that the optimal solution to the issue of the national maternity hospital for both the Opposition and the Government is that of full public ownership - freehold ownership, not the conditional ownership represented by leasehold, however long it may be. I ask the Taoiseach again to take into account the clear and overwhelming majority of those of us in the Opposition who wish to see the hospital built on publicly owned land, who are concerned to see €1 billion of State money going into the building of a hospital on what will not ultimately be State-owned land, on land that is going to be held on a conditional ownership basis for the duration of that leasehold. That is the issue on which we have been focusing in the Labour Party, but also all of us across so many Opposition parties. I again ask that that might be taken into account, in particular if the Government is not proposing to contest the motion tonight.

I refer again to the context for the maternity hospital, and to the point so many of us have made in the debates in recent days and weeks, that for far too long the State has invested so much public money into the building of schools and hospitals on land and sites not owned by the State, but rather that are owned in many cases by religious orders or by their proxies or successor companies. That lack of State investment over many years has failed so many people, in particular women and children.

I wish to raise in particular an issue that was brought to light last night on RTÉ's "Prime Time" about the failure of the State to provide adequate services and supports for children with autism. We heard last night about the challenges facing Gillian and Darren Milne, who have fought year after year for their twin sons, Ryan and Kyle, to get access to appropriate places in a special school. Last night was the second time in a number of years that their battle has been covered on "Prime Time".

The Taoiseach raised the case on Leaders' Questions nearly three years ago, in September 2019 and the then Taoiseach said the case of the Milne children was under consideration by the Minister for Education. The boys were then eight and now they are 11 and still awaiting an appropriate place. The parents are really struggling, as so many parents are. This is a huge issue across my constituency in Dublin Bay South. Miriam Kenny from Involve Autism was on "Morning Ireland" this morning speaking about the struggles so many parents in Dublin face. This is a countrywide issue and everywhere we go, we hear about the difficulties with accessing places for children with autism.

I am conscious that the Minister of State, Deputy Madigan, did speak on the radio this morning about her new forecasting model, which will enable better long-term planning to ensure there will be adequate places available for children with autism. However, we have not seen any real indication of movement on that, nor did we hear any indication of the extent of the need, the number of children waiting on places. It is very welcome that the Minister of State has said she has had no option but to issue section 37A notices to schools and that she intends to follow up on that, but there is no indication as to when that will be done or how many places it will generate. I ask the Taoiseach for more clarity on what will be done for children in this position.

I will deal with the issue on which the Deputy has focused in Leaders' Questions. I have dealt enough with the hospital today. I watched that programme. It is not good enough. The State has failed the Milne family, and Ryan and Kyle in particular, in terms of providing a proper, comprehensive education for the children that would be appropriate to their complex needs. They have applied to two schools and been refused.

This morning I spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Madigan. I also spoke to the recently appointed CEO of the National Council for Special Education and the assistant secretary in the Department of Education. All are possessed with the need that this does not happen again. In the past two years there has been significant expansion of special school places, but new special schools were also created. There are three new schools, two already established and a further one to be established - two in Cork and one in Dublin. Apparently, it is the first time in more than a decade that new special schools have been established.

I apologise to the Milne family on behalf of the Government, because it simply is not good enough. I do not stand over this. There is an absence of proactivity in the system. The people to whom I spoke today are all possessed with getting this right. There are a number of things that we need to do. The Minister of State first of all has been working on expanding capacities within existing special schools, some of which are running out of space. Some are saying that they cannot take additional students. The other action is to create new schools. My own view is that we must bring in the education and training boards, ETBs, more and more to establish new special schools in their areas of jurisdiction. From the State’s perspective, into the future the ETBs will now take a lead in providing special schools. I know that National Council for Special Education, NCSE, will be in touch with the City of Dublin ETB in relation to that. That is what happened last year. Existing organisations have provided over the years and they will continue to do so. However, we need to broaden capacity.

In the immediate short term, the Department and the Minister of State are looking at those existing schools to which applications have been made and whether additional space can be created elsewhere in order to facilitate the children who are without places.

We also need stronger legislation. No longer can it be an option for schools to say, “We are not taking in children with special needs”. Some years ago, the House brought in amendments to section 37A of the Education Act. These are not strong enough in my view. They are too bureaucratic. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act needs to be reviewed. The Education (Admission to Schools) Act 2018 needs to be reviewed, in my view, as does the Education Act 1998. There is a collective responsibility on all schools to take children with special needs.

I thank the Taoiseach for his full response. I am sure the apology will be very much welcomed by those who have been so badly failed. The Taoiseach speaks of an absence of proactivity and the need for stronger legislation. Yet clearly, there is a responsibility on the Government to take those proactive steps and to deliver the amendments to legislation that are needed. This is not just about the provision of special schools. It is also about providing adequate supports for children in mainstream schools.

The issue of SNA allocation in particular has been difficult and problematic for many schools. My colleague, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, raised this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy Madigan, last Thursday. He was seeking clarity on when the allocation of special needs assistants will be made. Just as with the section 37A notices, it is simply not good enough for schools, and especially for parents and children, to have to wait until the eleventh hour to hear whether an SNA allocation has been made or if a section 37A notice has been issued. There is a lack of forward planning and a lack of availability, particularly for secondary school places. We are seeing a pinch there for so many parents and children.

The absence of proactivity is the responsibility of the Government. I agree with the Taoiseach that there has been an absence of proactivity, but we need to see proactivity from the Government on this, in the interests of children.

The Government is proactive on this. The NCSE is very focused on the current legislative framework and on this on an operational level. Under the Acts that I have mentioned, very often the onus is put on the parents to seek to places. In my view, the system should be seeking the places for the child. That is the fundamental change that must occur. That requires an automatic response from the State whereby, when children with complex needs require provision, the State goes and finds the place for them. This is opposed to what is done at the moment, which is to say to the parents that they must apply to four or five schools in an area. This is not a question of resources. Some 25% of the Department's budget, correctly, is spent on special education. The sum is over €2 billion. This is an issue of matching the resources to the needs in given geographic locations and areas.

This is also a matter of everybody playing their role. The NCSE and the Department have had to engage with certain schools in the past month. These were schools that had special classes built. They have had to say, “You must take in children”. It is not on any more.

The Taoiseach’s time is up.

We talk about inclusivity, and the Acts provide for that.

I will finally say that there are approximately 19,000 SNAs in our schools at the moment.

The Taoiseach’s time is up.

We have created 918 new teaching posts alone. This is an issue of-----

What about the planning?

-----organisation, planning and so on.

This morning, I visited the picket line of medical scientists at Tallaght University Hospital. They are among the more than 2,000 members of the Medical Laboratory Scientists Association, MLSA, who are on strike today. By the way, the public support for them and the support from patients were quite overwhelming. These are the hidden heroes of our health service. They are the people who process test samples for Covid-19, who do blood tests and who test urine and stool samples. They have been under intense pressure during the Covid-19 crisis. Many of them are now suffering burnout as a result of problems with recruitment and retention, which mean that one in five medical scientist places are currently unfilled.

Their work is vital for modern medical treatment. The medical services that we all rely on depend on them being there and on them carrying out their specialised work. However, the Government, in its mistreatment of these workers, has brought us to the point of a serious crisis. Over 10,000 outpatient appointments were cancelled today as a result.

These hidden heroes are shamefully paid 8% less than clinical biochemists, who do a very similar job. Pay parity was recommended back in 2001 by an expert group. That was accepted by the HSE and the Department of Health. Yet, more than two decades on, it has not been implemented. The workers described to me a situation whereby laboratory aides have a starting salary that is higher than that of medical scientists. Therefore, there is a situation where many people start over the summer as laboratory aides, because they cannot then start as medical scientists. They then have to take a pay cut in order to become the more highly qualified medical scientists.

Now, like most workers across the country, they are feeling the impact of the cost-of-living crisis. Their rent is going up, their electricity costs are going up, their petrol or diesel costs are going up but yet, their wages are not going up. Enough is enough for them. They need action on pay parity in order that they can survive. They need action to fill the one in five medical scientist positions that are unfilled as a result of the underinvestment into our health service.

The strength of anger and of feeling of these workers was demonstrated by the vote in favour of industrial action last November, when they voted 98% in favour of action. They were due to strike in March but postponed that to facilitate further negotiations. There was, however, no meaningful offer from the HSE. Now they have no choice but to go ahead with strike action today. If there are not meaningful negotiations, they will go ahead with two days of strike action next week and with three days the following week. They are looking for the Taoiseach to intervene, to direct the HSE to sit down with the workers’ representatives and agree to grant pay parity and to fill the unfilled posts.

As I did yesterday, I again take the opportunity to recognise the hugely important and vital work carried out by medical scientists, as well as their role in respect of the functioning of our health service. They are dedicated, professional and highly committed and have been so for many years. This was particularly the case during the pandemic.

There is a long-standing concern. The Medical Laboratory Scientists Association has had an ongoing long-term concern in relation to pay and career structure of the medical scientist grade. They want pay parity between medical scientists and clinical biochemists. The health sector management has been engaging with the MLSA regarding these issues under the existing public service agreement.

As I said, the public service agreement group, which is comprised of union and Civil Service representatives and which has an independent chair, met on 11 May to consider the matter. They recommended that the matter be immediately referred to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and that industrial peace be maintained in the meantime. There was engagement between the parties yesterday at the WRC. I believe the parties should continue at the WRC. Ultimately, industrial disputes of this kind have to be resolved through the existing labour and industrial relations mechanisms. That is the most effective way to do this, because there are implications and there are always consequences and relativities. These issues are never simple or straightforward in industrial relations terms, particularly within the health service. This potentially has further, wider repercussions.

All those issues have to be teased through and worked through. The most important forum in which to do that is the WRC or whatever forum within the industrial relations machinery is optimal for the resolution of this particular dispute. I hope that while talks are continuing, the strike action could be lifted because such action will and does impact on patients. Of that there is no doubt, given the central and very important role medical scientists perform in our health service.

The Taoiseach described this as a long-standing issue. For workers suffering because of low pay, 21 years is very long-standing when we have an expert group recommendation that is simply not being implemented. There has been a passing of the buck throughout this whole process. When the MLSA negotiate with the HSE, the HSE states the problem is it cannot get the money from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but that Department is not in the room at the WRC, for example. If the Taoiseach is pointing to the WRC, does he not agree the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform should be in the room at the WRC for the negotiations? It is the one that is or is not doling out the money, as the case may be.

I urge the Taoiseach not to also pass the buck. Ultimately, he is the Taoiseach; the Head of Government. It is a very simple issue in terms of pay parity. It is an issue that has been recognised by the expert group, whose recommendation the HSE and the Department of Health agreed to implement. The Taoiseach should send a direction to the HSE and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform saying we will address these workers' very legitimate concern, especially in the context of the cost-of-living crisis, the fact they are owed an 8% pay rise and, as inflation is now at 8%, that this is the very least they need. If the Government does not act, the Taoiseach has the responsibility. By just asking workers to lift the strike action - when they did that previously meaningful negotiations did not result - the Government will be responsible for the disruption of tens of thousands of outpatient appointments next week and even more the following week.

As I said, the most effective way to resolve this issue is through the labour relations machinery and industrial relations machinery of the State. It is the most effective way to resolve all disputes of this kind and, ultimately, the only way to do it. That is understood and accepted across all the social partners in respect of disputes in the public and private sectors. As I said, there was engagement between the parties at the WRC yesterday. It is important those talks continue and the existing industrial relations machinery is fully utilised because that is the ultimate way of ensuring we can get a resolution to this.

Does the Taoiseach agree the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform should be present at the WRC?

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is not present in the room at every dispute that occurs.

It is when disputes get settled.

Obviously, as the Department representing the taxpayer and everybody, it is always there as an influence. We know that but the bottom line is there is always tick-tacking and-----

It should be in the room.

-----things do not happen in isolation. The Deputy knows that. As a trade unionist, she knows how-----

It will not be resolved until the Department is in the room, with respect.

I wish to raise some concerns I have around the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grant scheme for third level students. I do this, however, while acknowledging the good work the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, has done and the fact he has initiated some much-needed reform in this area, particularly around the regulations to increase the maintenance grant by €200 and to increase the income threshold for the standard rate of grant by €1,000. That is certainly welcome, but my concern relates specifically to the fact that despite the steering group review of the SUSI scheme and the Minister's action, the income threshold for student holiday earnings has remained capped at the totally unacceptable level of €4,500.

I raised the need to increase this earnings limit as part of my submission to the steering group last March. I was hopeful, along with others, such as the Union of Students in Ireland, this limit would be changed. Indeed, the last time the level of holiday earnings income was increased was in 2016, when the cap rose from €3,809 to €4,500. Since that time, students and the majority of people in this State, have faced massive and unsustainable levels of rent hikes, travel expenses and food price increases yet, despite all of this, the cap on earnings students can generate for themselves remains at the same level almost seven years on. That is totally unacceptable. The fact it did not change as part of the recent regulations the Minister, Deputy Harris, signed off on was certainly a lost opportunity and one that needs to be addressed and looked at again.

I asked the Minister, in a recent parliamentary question following his announcement, if he would reconsider the decision to leave the cap at €4,500 for student holiday earnings. He ruled this out by replying, "Any .. further increase [to the holiday earnings] threshold must be considered in the context of not adversely impacting upon retention rates [and] the student’s ability to primarily focus on successfully completing his [or] her studies." I respectfully suggest it is precisely this rigid inflexibility around student earnings that is creating the difficulties in retention and the ability of students to successfully complete their courses. In other words, a cap that is apparently designed to keep students in college or third level is now acting as a direct disincentive and a barrier to graduation. This is also having an impact on the retail and hospitality sectors, which cannot source students to do work because students cannot take on the number of hours they need.

I specifically request that the Government and the Minister immediately re-examine section 22(5)(b) of the Student Grant Scheme 2021 with a view to increasing the maximum earning caps from €4,500, even if that occurs on an incremental level equivalent to the increase that took place in 2016.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As she said, she has made a submission in respect of it to the group looking at reform of the SUSI scheme. As she said, at the last budget, the Government took a number of decisions to improve the student grant scheme, in particular the increase to all student grant maintenance payments, including the special rate of grant of €200 per year, which will benefit all students entitled to receive a maintenance grant. The income threshold to qualify for the standard rate of student grant increased to €1,000 and the qualifying distance criterion, which is an important one, for students to qualify for the non-adjacent rate of grant will be reduced from 45 km to 30 km. These were all positive measures the Government took on the last occasion. It also provided additional funding to the student assistance fund for students eligible for higher education institutions who were experiencing financial difficulties in college. That fund can be very useful to students who are in particular difficulties financially, in supporting students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and in providing emergency financial support. In the 2021-22 academic year, that fund is now €18.5 million, which is quite substantial.

The Exchequer contributes approximately €340 million to meeting tuition fee costs of eligible undergraduate students in higher education and spends €365 million on student grant supports via SUSI. In addition, the Exchequer pays the student contribution of €3,000 per annum, in full or part, for circa 66,000 students. That said, we are anxious to do more, especially on the student support side and the SUSI grant size. We will, in the context of the next budget, examine what more can be done to improve access to student grants and the various criteria governing the SUSI scheme. We will examine some of the suggestions the Deputy made in the context of the Estimates for the subsequent academic year beyond the next budget. That is the context in which this will be looked at.

The Deputy made reasonable points. On what the Minister, Deputy Harris, said, there is a balance to be struck, to be fair, in maintaining focus on study and so on.

Equally, however, the threshold is perhaps an area that can be examined into the future in terms of the earnings cap of €4,500. We will certainly examine that.

The real problem is that the cap of €4,500 relating to student earnings is extremely low. There is inflation and people are struggling to cope with the cost of living. Students are no different. We have spiralling rent costs, as I have already outlined. It would make sense to do something that would act as an incentive to ensure that we invest in students in this country and that there would not be a situation whereby they are emigrating because they are being forced to leave education here. Unfortunately, the student earning cap is a barrier that forces many students out of third level education because they just cannot pay for accommodation or meet different cost-of-living requirements. I ask that perhaps this be looked at. We could increase it incrementally over time. That could be done or started in budget 2023. I accept that it will not be possible to increase it to the rate we would like it to be at all at once. However, it needs to be seriously considered in the context of budget 2023, particularly as we are failing our students. Our brightest and best are being forced to drop out of education.

There is significant investment in third level education by the Government. Participation rates continue to increase. We have perhaps one of the highest participation rates in third level education across the European Union and we have one of the highest completion rates for second level.

The first priority has to be to make sure that our third level institutions have adequate core funding to ensure a quality education for all those who access third level. There is a gap there, which was shown in the recent report the Minister received. There is a significant gap in terms of what the universities and the institutes of technology require. We need to narrow that gap in terms of core funding in our third level institutions.

Second, we need to reform the student grant scheme, as we can and if resources permit, in the context of ensuring access, especially for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. In particular, postgraduate education needs to be made more accessible from a cost perspective.

Barr
Roinn