I also call for a debate on the Cassells report. Although only three options are laid out, we need to have a discussion. The future of education is one of the most significant issues we will discuss in the next few years. We need to talk about investing in our future, young people and lifelong learning. The narrative yesterday was heavily based on talk about income-contingent loans. I was saddened by this because when one looks at the figures attached to free education and loans, there is only a 0.2% difference in GDP over the course of around 15 years to fund either one; therefore, both come with a huge cost, yet people seem to be fearful of the idea of free education.

On free education, it was being said yesterday in different media outlets that it had failed, as there had been no influx of people from minority or working class backgrounds to third level education just because there had been free fees. However, it was not the idea of free fees that had failed, rather we had failed to address the years of oppression and inequality for minority groups that had acted as a barrier to them in even realising there were free fees or that college was an option for them. I fully back the idea of free education. I know what it has given me. If it had been necessary for me to take out an income-contingent loan or if I had had to pay for my education, I would not be in the position I am in. Education is much about more than just filling a skills gap or creating new technologies. It is about providing opportunity, choice, freedom and for our future. As a result of free education, my children will now go on to third level education. That changes the trend for the generations who come behind us.

Leading up to the general election, every party in this House, bar Fine Gael, spoke about its stance on fees.

Every party committed to not supporting an increase in fees. I would like to remind those who supported that policy that if we were ever to advocate for the third option, it would involve fees at a later date - there is no point trying to call it anything else. It is really important for us to have this debate before the summer recess.

College courses will resume in September and October. It is a shame that the report does not address their financial position. As somebody who has sat on the finance board of Trinity College Dublin for the past year, I know that the majority of colleges are working with a deficit, bar UCD which has generated significant income from postgraduate courses. Perhaps it is time for the university sector not to be afraid to acknowledge the deficits. They have not done so to date because their rankings are falling and they do not want to put off international students. They are afraid to say how bad things are in the sector. I ask the Leader to consider having a debate on the matter before the summer recess.

I also call on the Leader to facilitate a debate with the Minister for Education and Skills in the House on the Cassells report. Like other speakers, I believe it is a very urgent and important issue, one which we should debate in the House, in particular because six Senators represent university constituencies.

Unlike Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell, I think the report was helpful. It was not very surprising, in that Mr. Peter Cassells had more or less indicated what would be in it. The Royal Irish Academy did a good deal of work on the report. Senator Lynne Ruane and I spoke at a seminar in Trinity College Dublin some months ago which examined the different models under consideration. Like Senator Lynn Ruane who has put the case for the State-funded system very eloquently and which the Cassells report puts forward as option one, I also endorse that option. It is the way we should proceed and is the norm across other EU countries. It clearly provides for education as a right rather than a privilege. In the same way as Donogh O'Malley provided for free secondary education, a revolutionary move at the time, we should move back to that system and reject the proposal for a deferred payment loan system as proposed in the other options.

In response to Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell's point about the funding needs of universities, it is very clear if one looks at the evidence gathered by a range of different bodies, including the European University Association, that between 2008 and 2013, inclusive, Ireland saw an 18% increase in student numbers but a 29% decrease in public funding. Student numbers increased at a very significant rate, yet funding has fallen which of course has had an effect in terms of declines in international rankings and student-to-staff ratios. In 2016 it was 21:1, compared to the OECD average of 14:1.

We need to be very clear about the needs of third level, in particular when we consider demographic change. The Cassells report states €1 billion will be needed in the next 15 years by way of investment in third level to accommodate a growing population. We need to be clear about the urgency of introducing a new system for funding universities. We also need to be very clear about the disadvantages of a deferred payment loan scheme. The Cassells report puts the evidence fairly.

It is welcome that we will have a debate on Friday on the motion to establish a citizens' assembly. The first issue for debate by the assembly will be the eighth amendment. I am concerned to note that no timeframe has been set out for that aspect of the work of the assembly. The Leader and I were heavily involved in the Constitutional Convention, a model from which the Citizens' Assembly clearly borrows. In that model, there was a clear timeframe - I understand it was four months - for the first issues under consideration. It is unfortunate that the motion before us does not set a timeframe within the overall timeframe of one year for the work of the assembly. There is no tight timeframe for a decision or recommendation to be made on this very important issue. I know that we will have more time to debate the matter on Friday, but I wanted to mention it now.

I support the calls for a full debate on the Cassells report on education. It is important that the House debate the future of education and how we wish to provide for graduates, apprentices and others who will be needed in the workforce in the coming years.

The Construction Contracts Act 2013 which was passed by the previous Government will apply to certain construction contracts for subcontractors after 25 July this year. It is important to note that the Act originated in the Seanad and acknowledge the Trojan work of former Senator Fergal Quinn and the former Minister of State, Senator Gerald Nash, on the issue.

The legislation will provide new payment protections for subcontractors who might be vulnerable, regulate payments from main contractors to subcontractors and provide a payment dispute resolution system, with a code of practice for an adjudication panel.

It is in this and the wider context that I ask the Leader to provide a debate on the future of the construction sector. As we all know, it has suffered huge reputational damage. There was a serious loss of confidence in construction. If we are to meet the pressing needs in housing, foreign direct investment and economic growth, we have to have a vision and strategy for how we propose to provide for a sustainable construction sector. I have said here before and will continue to repeat that we need the skilled craftsmen, tradespeople, apprentices and graduates to meet the growth demands in the economy. We can make all the calls and table all the motions we like in this or the other House, but if we do not act quickly, have a strategy to deal with it, talk it through, debate it and make the resources available to deal with the issues and barriers, we will not meet that demand. That is fairly obvious for everyone to see. Will the Leader provide for a debate on the future of the construction sector and acknowledge the work of former Senator Feargal Quinn and the former Minister of State, now our colleague, Senator Ged Nash, on this important issue?