Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate my colleague Deputy Nash on putting forward the motion. We did not just start talking about the cost of living today or yesterday. In every budget proposal the Labour Party has put forward in recent years, we have chosen direct State intervention instead of tax cuts because we believe in that. The Minister of State, the Government and the Tánaiste in particular will point to the €500 million worth of tax cuts they have put forward as some kind of cost-of-living intervention but they will not make the difference. What my party colleagues and I have spoken about consistently in the context of education relates to trying to put to bed this lie about free education. The Government decided to give back €500 million last year in its budget. Many of those tax cuts were for people who do not really need them. If the Government had taken €40 million, it would have been able to make every schoolbook in this country free for good, at both primary and secondary level, just as is the case in Northern Ireland. Families do not pay for schoolbooks in Northern Ireland because the state intervenes and provides them for free, yet here, parents every September have to scramble around with schoolbook lists to try to purchase books for their children. Imagine a genuine republic that said to its parents and children that their schoolbooks for their education will be free, just like in Northern Ireland, but the Government did not do that. It gave tax cuts instead.

As for voluntary contributions in the school sector, effectively fees, I have proposed legislation that would ban them. The school managers will say that, in order to properly finance the replacement funding, we would need about €46 million. If that is the case, let us do that. Let us make the State intervene and ensure no school will ever again have to ask for a voluntary contribution, because it is not voluntary. Parents feel as though they have to pay it. That is another positive State intervention that could be made instead of a tax cut.

As my colleague Deputy Sherlock stated in the context of rising energy costs, about one third of the cost of running a school relates to energy costs, and that proportion will increase, not least because of the rising cost of energy but also because the windows are all open and the children are freezing. Of course, the energy bills will increase and that will be passed on to parents again, whether by a voluntary contribution or a fundraiser. Is there not something repulsive about a school community having to raise money to keep a school going? Is there not something pathetic about that in a republic? Parents have all these conversations with their school about money, and parents who are feeling the squeeze are then less likely to come to the school gate, to hang around or to attend school events or a parent-teacher meeting in case they will be asked for money, whether that is book money, the voluntary contribution or a payment for this or that event.

Let me explode the Minister of State's brain for a second. Imagine a genuinely free education system which the Government would prioritise over a tax cut for those who do not really need it.

What motivates me and our party is the fundamental difference between what the Government is trying to achieve and the rhetoric it comes out with, and the day-to-day lives people are living and the vision we would have as to how a genuine social democratic country with State intervention would make people’s lives better rather than telling them they are on their own. We tell them to buy their schoolbooks and expensive school uniforms. We put them under compulsion to pay for a voluntary contribution and make them feel under compulsion to go to a school fundraiser to pay for the energy bill. We are not just saying this today or yesterday or because of this motion. We have been saying this every year in every budget proposal that is put forward by my colleague Deputy Nash. That is the difference. When it comes to the hard choice between tax cuts and direct State intervention, the Labour Party believes in State intervention to genuinely tackle the cost of living and education, which should be free.

See this speech in context