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

First, I am disappointed that this is the conversation we are having this afternoon. The Labour Party had asked that we discuss special education. Nobody in the Opposition asked for this debate. We will not have an opportunity for another two weeks to discuss the fact that 270 children do not have a school place for September. Having said that, the issue we are discussing today is an important one.

Having listened to the discussion on "Morning Ireland" earlier today, I raise the outrageous situation facing people who have come here from all over the world to learn English. Our reputation has been tarnished by those who would abuse these people in such a disgraceful fashion by putting them in substandard accommodation in makeshift nightclubs and on disused sites. The country's reputation has taken something of a hammering in this regard. One young woman spoke on the radio about how she will tell everybody she knows in Brazil not to come to Ireland to learn English. It is important that the House deals robustly with this issue.

We all believe in the power of education and that it is the great leveller. I was a beneficiary of the free fees scheme, as it was known, in the mid-1990s. We no longer have anything like that system. Instead, we have gone backwards. The Minister and I have spoken before about his vision in this regard. He certainly has said all the right things and made all the right noises about bringing down costs for families when a child attends further or higher education. We often refer to the Cassells report. There is a section within the report that advocates the introduction of a capital assets test. When the Minister and I were in government together not so long so, abortion was the only issue that got members of his party in more of a flap than the idea of the potential introduction of a capital assets test for access to the full suite of grants for third level education. We identified individuals with €250,000 in their bank accounts who were able to get the full grant provision for their children. There was a scenario whereby if people could employ the services of an accountant, they could manage to muscle their way into the grant system, which is supposed to facilitate those who most need support to go to college. Of course, the proposal was never adopted because of the heavy lobbying by those who are quite powerful in political circles in Ireland. What is the Minister's view on the introduction of a capital assets test, as advocated for in the Cassells report?

It is depressing to hear the Tánaiste speak about tax cuts being the priority for him when it comes to the budgetary cycle. Are we not learning anything about the capacity of the State to do more to bring down the cost of living outside of the tax code? There are basic provisions across Europe and even on this island that people take for granted will be provided free at the point of access. Yes, they pay for them through their taxation system but there is no direct cost. We have spoken about free GP care, free schoolbooks, free third level education and affordable childcare. However, when it comes to the Tánaiste's interaction with the budgetary cycle, he cannot divorce himself from talking about tax cuts. It is utterly depressing. Collectively, the political system - or, more accurately, the Government - has thrown away €500 million. We are all talking about the point on which the Minister opened the debate, which is access for people with autism to third level institutions. There are many issues that are causing massive hurt and pain for people around the country.

All these significant issues are causing families distress, but the answer last October was to throw away €0.5 billion. The Tánaiste's idea is still to do something similar in this budgetary cycle, not understanding in any way the difference it would make to a family to have all these educational elements available for free or at least at a cost that would be much more affordable, as is the case across Europe.

It is often said that third level education is not everything, that we should not get so obsessed about it and that we should get rid of some of the stigmas attached to other forms of further and higher education. The Minister was correct when he said that. The people who always say this in forums like this or in the media, however, are people who have had a third level education. It is easy to say to a community that a third level education is not everything if one has been a beneficiary of it, passed through the system and has a lifestyle that benefited from that third level education.

I have several important points to put to the Minister. The recommendation in the Cassells report of a capital assets test is a hot political potato, but it is patently unfair that some people are getting grants who should not be. I refer also to the ambition to drive down the registration costs and the costs of attending college, which are forcing some families to make a choice between one of their children going to college or two of their children attending. Then there is the ambition we should have to return to where we were in the 1990s when I attended third level education. It should be free. We cannot accomplish that if the answer to every social ill from the leader of the Minister's party is a tax cut.

See this speech in context