The last time the House was delayed in the morning was when the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, was Whip and the Government collapsed. Is the Taoiseach aware that thousands of students will march on Leinster House today because of cutbacks in third level allocations and facilities? The registration fee has increased by €80 to €750, the fees for junior and leaving certificate examinations have increased to €82 and €86, respectively, and there have been serious cutbacks in the level of facilities available to universities.

Does the Taoiseach not consider that job creation depends on innovation, patenting, design and research and development and that cutbacks in these areas are a blow to the future, particularly where young students are involved? Does he take into account the statement by the vice-president of the students' union in Trinity College that there is no point in attending a university with a substandard library? What does the Taoiseach propose to do about this situation given the outrage now felt in the third level sector?

Spending on third level education this year is about €1.4 billion and we have continued to put resources into the sector. Nearly every third level institute was a construction site in recent years, with new facilities, libraries, laboratories and auditoria being put up. The figures are there for everyone to see.

There was an issue regarding research and development. We have recently put an additional €25 million into the PRTLI programme, continuing the resources invested in it over the past three or four years. This programme is not only bringing back Irish researchers from abroad to work in research and development but also a substantial number of non-Irish researchers.

The resources allocated in the Books of Estimates last year and this year are tighter in this area. The Minister has been working with the sector to come to an agreement on its capital programme. I do not think Deputy Kenny would argue against the Minister giving priority to first level education in tighter times. The third level sector has done enormously well and is being well looked after. We now have something like 20,000 more people in third level education than in the past.

As regards the issue of fees and rates, there have been small increases in this area. We provide top class third level education at a low cost. The changes made over the past seven or eight years make the system very attractive for students, which is why the numbers are going up every year. I have met some of the groups which protest about different issues in third level. The library and other facilities put into our universities have been top class. Perhaps not every third level college has been done, but we should be proud of the facilities in most of them.

The Taoiseach's stated that most universities and institutes of technology have been like construction sites in recent years. The fact is that capital allocations and building grants are down by 47% for institutes of technology and 45% for universities. It limits what can be done. The Taoiseach referred to small increases. The third level registration fee is now €750, which is not a small amount of money.

Does the Taoiseach support Science Foundation Ireland's programme to contract a large number of PhD students to become involved in research, development and innovation in this country, which could become a magnet for investment from abroad? Corporations are willing to invest anywhere in the world and they could look at Ireland as a centre where brain power is the magnet to drive the future. The conduct of the Government in increasing charges and cutting back capital grants both in the institutes of technology and university sectors makes a mockery of its stated intention to make the country the leading knowledge-based centre within Europe over the next 20 years.

I do not accept what Deputy Kenny said. It is not a question of supporting Science Foundation Ireland; we set it up. We have turned it into a dynamic body which organises and maintains research at the highest level. It has brought back a large number of Irish graduates. The Science Foundation Ireland initiative is worth more than €500 million. The research and development programme is worth an additional €500 million. That is from a base of spending nothing for many years. We did not have a body, such as Science Foundation Ireland, and we did not spend anything on research and development.

Support for third level access programmes has increased from approximately €500,000 when I took over as Taoiseach to €26 million for the year coming to an end. We also have good schemes for people who suffer hardship. We have almost 20,000 additional students in full-time third level education and part-time enrolments have increased by more than 40%. The figures speak for themselves. We have had to put a higher proportion into first and second level education in more difficult times, but 44% of students do not have to pay any registration charges. The other charges are not excessive for the top class facilities provided to third level students.

I watched the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on the monitor yesterday as she giggled her way through Question Time. It was endearing unless one is a victim of her social welfare cuts. I understand her defence now is that she is making these cuts because there is abuse in the system. There are many abuses in our society. The one she posited of EU nationals coming here for what she called the "craic" for six months and then going into education at our expense is far fetched.

I want to raise the question of the budget supplement. It is a payment brokered by the Money Advice and Budgeting Service when repayments to a creditor leave a person with insufficient money for food, fuel or the other essentials of life. The cost is minuscule, but a person in despair because of debts which have accrued due to alcoholism in the home, other dysfunctional reasons or dire poverty was enabled through the services of MABS, which acted as a broker with a credit union or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, to make a payment to the creditor over a period of time and to get them out of poverty. The merits of the budget supplement are listed in a document from the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, which Deputy Howlin gave me. They include the following: the supplement breaks the cycle of poverty; it is a targeted, short-term payment reviewed and revised regularly and hence it does not become part of the income; it is a planned method of debt payment in partnership with the person who is in debt; and the expenditure is minuscule.

The effect of what the Minister has done is to drive these people into the arms of money lenders and further into debt and to undermine the Money Advice and Budgeting Service. No amount of shaking of heads will change that.

We built up the Money Advice and Budgeting Service.

Allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude without interruption.

The Deputy did not fund it. We funded it.

The Minister should allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude.

It is the meanest, lowest and pettiest cut and there is no justification for it.

I also heard part of what the Minister for Social and Family Affairs said yesterday. She explained the various issues which arose. Anyone with a fair mind would have heard her identify areas within her Department out of €10.65 billion. Whatever additional funding is announced today in the budget, the social welfare budget will be at least close to €11 billion. That is an enormous amount of resources. The Minister has a responsibility not just to give away money, but to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent, managed and targeted correctly into schemes for which it was originally intended. The Minister has an obligation to do that. Out of the €10.65 billion, the Minister received an additional pre-budget amount of €355 million and she identified four or five areas where the schemes must be better dealt with.

Sixteen.

The Deputy mentioned the MABS supplement. A supplementary welfare allowance is given to recipients who have been supported by the Money Advice and Budgeting Service in brokering a deal with creditors.

I know what it is. Why did the Government stop it?

The Minister stated that she believed parts of that should be discontinued. The supplement has been a subsidy for creditors, mainly banks and lending institutions.

That is a disgrace.

That is outrageous.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

What about ESB bills?

The Taoiseach is out of touch.

The repayment schedule agreed with creditors in the future will be more realistic and not as onerous on the person with insufficient money to pay. It is currently reducted and the normal support services, such as the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, will not be affected by this measure. The Minister said yesterday that those who have a problem – the Department can easily identify them – will get an exceptional needs payment and that all those in receipt of that will not be affected.

One would be lucky to get one of those.

I do not know to what category Deputy Rabbitte is referring, but there is €9.9 million for the MABS payments this year. I do not know how the Deputy can say the scheme has been abolished when the Minister informed us yesterday that €9.9 million is available for payments. That seems to be a contradiction, but I believe the Minister.

I am in disbelief that the Taoiseach would try to defend what has happened. It has not been reducted, as the Taoiseach put it. It has been cut. What is the point in saying to a woman who is in despair because she cannot pay the ESB bill, the rent or a utility payment for an essential item in the home that there is €10.65 billion in social welfare? What is the point of using such global figures? The reason the Money Advice and Budgeting Service was established was to act as a broker for people in despair because of poverty or circumstances in the home to allow them to get assistance to arrange the management of their budget and to negotiate with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or the credit union.

We know that. We set it up and funded it.

The Minister should allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak.

When the Minister was in London looking for Joseph Murphy, Proinsias De Rossa set it up. The Minister did not find him.

I will be interested when the Deputy winds his way to the Mahon tribunal.

I ask the Minister to resume his seat.

When is the tribunal going to call the Deputy? I never took a penny, unlike some.

The Minister should resume his seat. Deputy Rabbitte, under Standing Orders only one subject may be raised. You cannot raise another topic and your minute of time has long since concluded. You must give way to the Taoiseach.

The Deputy was out of time before he was interrupted.

When will they call Deputy Rabbitte?

Deputy Stagg should resume his seat. The Chair has already dealt with disorder on the Government side.

To give an example—

Your time has long since concluded.

I was interrupted. I was not permitted to speak.

The Deputy had concluded before the interruptions started.

I was not permitted to speak. We were up trees again with Deputy Dermot Ahern.

We were not taking money.

Nor was I.

Will the Minister please desist? The Chair does not want to take more serious disciplinary action.

I want to give the Taoiseach the example. On the €500—

The Deputy has gone over his time.

May I finish my sentence? I am being interrupted.

The Chair is obliged to implement the Standing Order.

On the example of the €500, if the person had gone to a legal moneylender the repayments would be €750. If they had gone to the credit union, the repayments would be €521. That is the difference between a person being assisted through MABS and a person who has to go through a moneylender.

The Deputy has made his point. I ask him to conclude.

That is on a figure of €500. Will the Taoiseach reverse that particular cut for people at the bottom rung of the ladder who are in dire circumstances and despair because of the poverty they are in through no fault of their own? That is why MABS was established by the then Minister, Proinsias De Rossa. It has been welcomed by backbenchers on all sides of the House who deal with this phenomenon. Why this Government wants to cut it is beyond belief.

The Deputy must give way to the Taoiseach. He cannot go on all morning. We cannot have a special Standing Order just for him.

He will not mention the trees again.

The Minister should allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

I will answer the two questions raised. Deputy Rabbitte says he does not know what I am talking about. The scheme and the supplement are currently not used by utilities; they are used by lending institutions. I am not making up that information, it has been supplied by the people who run the scheme.

It is not true.

Perhaps the people who run the scheme do not know how it works.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

They do know.

These are the people.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

I have a whole note on it here. I have already used the note and given the Deputies the facts, which are that the normal support service of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service will not be affected by the measure.

That is wrong.

They are twisting in the wind.

The Minister stated yesterday that the resources are there and are not used for utilities but are used for money lending organisations. The scheme is still there. If the Deputy has made any valid points about those who are on the end of the scale, the Minister has already clearly stated in the House that it will not affect those people, that there will be no problem and that there will be an exceptional needs payment at the end for those in receipt of it.

Do not mention special needs, as it would take a miracle.

They started this morning by saying it was abolished, even though I told them there was a budget of €9.9 million. Then I told them the scheme was not used for what they said, and they say that Deputy De Rossa set it up. I know what Deputy De Rossa did when he was the Minister. He gave the meanest, scroungiest, increase in the old age pension that was ever given.

It is regrettable that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has cast aspersions on the character of persons in the House before a tribunal established by this House has made any comment.

He has not.

The Ceann Comhairle should be seen to ensure fairness for every Member of the House. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who knows the rules on Leaders' Questions, should withdraw that remark until such time as the body established by this House does its business.

The Minister should be a man.

I am not aware of which remark the Deputy is referring to.

Will Deputy Rabbitte withdraw his remarks?

My question is for—

Before Deputy Sargent commences, I suggest for the benefit of Members of the House that if all Members obeyed the Standing Order relating to Leaders' Questions we would not have the arguments that we have had on the floor of the House this morning. They should confine themselves to one topic on which the Standing Order is quite specific. It allows a brief question on a matter of topical public importance to the leaders of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the designated leader of the Technical Group. No other topic is allowed and Deputies should not introduce other topics to the question, in which case we might not have the row we have had on the floor of the House this morning.

Will the Ceann Comhairle inform the Cabinet of that?

My question is of interest to Deputy Dermot Ahern.

Why is the Ceann Comhairle lecturing us about that?

I am not lecturing anybody. I am lecturing both sides.

We were all interrupted, yet the Ceann Comhairle lectures this side of the House. Why?

Deputy Rabbitte, the Chair is not lecturing anybody. The Chair is merely pointing out the Standing Order because this morning the Deputy himself went beyond the Standing Order by introducing a second matter.

I think it was the interruption from Deputy Dermot Ahern that was the problem.

On a point of order—

The Deputy cannot have a point of order on Deputy Sargent's question.

On a point of order, the understanding in this House is that the Ceann Comhairle is there to protect us as parliamentarians.

The Chair does that.

There was an unprovoked and unwarranted attack on another Member.

That is not a point of order. The Deputy will have to find another way.

You have not defended a Member of this House, as is your duty.

I hope the Ceann Comhairle will remind Deputy Ahern that it is inappropriate to windsurf in the Chamber, as he seems to be doing.

Or to sail close to the wind.

My question is of interest to every member of the Cabinet, but I put it to the Taoiseach. It relates to the announcement yesterday by the Fianna Fáil director of elections who informed us that he had set a date for the local and European elections for Friday, 11 June 2004. We acknowledge that there have been some efforts at reform of local government, among which is the ending of the dual mandate, which we welcome, and the formal recognition of local government in the Constitution, for all the good it does.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that there is one major element of reform that has not taken place, that being the need for a limit on spending for local election candidates? This is already in place for national and European candidates, as we know. Does the Taoiseach not understand that there is huge public outrage and cynicism as a result of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats buying the last general election with taxpayers' money, which is the perception?

And they are trying to buy the next one.

Stop.

Fianna Fáil spent €3.5 million in the three months before the election was even called. Is it not obvious that the absence of any limits for the local election gives a carte blanche to speculators to bankroll their chosen candidates in the hope and expectation that once elected they can propose whatever hugely profitable rezoning they wish, regardless of good planning and the burden created on local communities? Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is time to carry out a simple but useful piece of work by putting a limit on local election candidate spending to avoid a repeat of the sort of outrageous spending that has taken place and has resulted in the kind of tribunals that the Minister, Deputy Ahern, is so interested in, such as the Mahon tribunal?

The Deputy's time is concluded.

I welcome Deputy Sargent's support for the reforms we have implemented, which have been enormously successful.

The Government should finish the job.

The position on funding is that every candidate in—

The Government will create more Mr. Insatiables this year.

Sorry, Deputy, you are not the leader of your party.

He never will be.

Not yet, a Cheann Comhairle.

Aspiring candidates for leadership may not participate in this debate.

Deputy Sargent had better watch his back.

I thank the Deputy for his advice.

It was the Deputy who interrupted. He cannot have it both ways.

We will be gentle.

If the Deputies want an answer they should have the manners to listen.

I asked whether the question was in order, a Cheann Comhairle.

A Cheann Comhairle, I was only following your ruling under Standing Orders. Candidates must document and give a full account of all spending. In the last local elections the average expenditure after full checking was about €2,700.

Colm McGrath spent €16,000.

There was no evidence whatsoever that local election candidates of any party, anywhere in the country, abused the system. Under the law they must document and give full receipts for all their expenditure. To use the administrative system for local elections, in which there are thousands of candidates, would not be possible, nor is it necessary. Candidates must give full accounts and there are many people watching what they do. That is what happened at the last local elections. The average figure spent was less than €1,000. The required mechanisms are in place. I do not believe Deputy Sargent's contention that local election candidates who work hard for their communities for little payment, regardless of what party they represent, are in the business of falling into the hands of developers.

It happens.

In fact—

What about the Mr. Insatiables?

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

There is much evidence that candidates keep away from many of these decisions even when it would be better for them to get involved. There is no evidence of a need for a huge bureaucratic system such as the Deputy suggests.

Was the Flood tribunal a fiction?

I wonder whether the Taoiseach has learnt anything from the tribunals, not to mention his career in politics to date. Is it not the case that one Fianna Fáil candidate, whom we can identify, recorded an election expenditure of zero? I am not sure about the requirement to declare the total amount spent. We need to do more work on this.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, has the Midas touch of political fundraising. His Waterford constituency, a four-seater, has an election spending limit of €31,743 per candidate, yet he raised €34,722. There is a clear relationship between one's political decision-making ability and fundraising. This took place after the former Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, increased the limits in the Electoral Act 1997 by 50%. Has the Taoiseach learnt nothing from the tribunals, regardless of what he says and given his laudable faith in human nature? Did Colm McGrath, then of Fianna Fáil, not spend €16,000? What about Liam Lawlor, Ray Burke and the various Mr. Insatiables we have yet to discover? Will the Taoiseach not learn from these lessons and put a limit on local election spending? Currently, people can spend not €31,000 but €310,000 if they wish, or if developer friends want to give them the money in advance for favours to be rendered in the future.

The Deputy has made his point.

Is it not the case that we need to take action and limit the spending of local election candidates?

Hear, hear.

I imagine it would take €310,000 in Dublin City Council.

The Deputy is now trying to give the impression that there is no law and no change.

There is no change.

There is no cap.

The relevant law is the Electoral Act 2001, which introduced a number of new requirements for candidates. Every candidate must open an election account which is available for scrutiny and an account for political donations of greater than €127 – any candidate in the next local election who receives a donation of more than €127 must have a political donation account – there is a ban on the receipt of prohibited donations and a requirement for successful candidates to submit an annual donation statement to the local authority. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will shortly introduce regulations to bring these provisions into effect in advance of next year's local elections. It is hardly credible to say that under that law—

Why does the Minister not put a cap on spending?

The Government did not bring in a law, there is no law.

It is law and this issue was discussed. It is the old story – we bring in a law, regulations or rules and then people want something else.

There is no law.

Please allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

It is very clear what a person can do.

It is a simple matter.

It is a simple matter. A person must have an account, there is a cap on what he or she can accept as a donation and donations must be recorded.

There is no limit.

If somebody wants to commit fraud it does not matter what we do, but the law and the regulations are there and there is also a means of audit.

There is no law on capping.