Role of alcohol in student life key to welfare debate | Kevin O’Neill & Audrey Ellard Walsh

Welfare candidates centred on issues of confidentiality and alcohol in the UCC Express hustings Monday night.

    With four eager candidates debating the welfare position, there were a number of points to debate between Dave Berry, Ruth Ní Riada, Eddie O’Keeffe, Daniel Waugh. The UCC Express were given exclusive access to all 14 of the sabbatical candidates on Monday night. Candidates were quizzed on their manifestos and questions submitted by students. Look out on uccexpress.net later in the week for the video recordings of the debates.

    Of the initial round of questioning, Eddie O’Keeffe’s responses drew the most attention. He put forward a plan to encourage nightclubs to drop entry fees in order to allow students to burn off stress and enjoy their social lives more. Candidates Dave Berry and Daniel Waugh reacted to this with intrigue, both questioning the wisdom of putting students in a position which encourages alcohol consumption.

    O’Keeffe insisted on two occasions, however, that his manifesto contained no mention of alcohol consumption and that his intention was the complete opposite of this. He maintained that the necessity of the ability to blow off steam was important and would alleviate stress and mental health issues.

    Ruth ni Riada echoed O’Keeffe’s sentiment that rest was an important and often overlooked aspect of maintaining the mental health of the student body and that it was something she intended to address resolutely.

    Prior to this, however, ni Riada was the focus of rebuttals from each of her opponents questioning the wisdom of her plan to get the student body working. She proposed approaching local businesses, including bars and shops, and partnering with them in order to obtain a series of part-time positions for students. She noted that even 4-5 hours a week of unskilled labour would make considerable different to the pockets of most students ensuring, above all, that they would be able to eat throughout the week and, thus, reducing the importance of the food drop in the Students’ Union at present.

    Daniel Waugh questioned the validity of the plan, noting that Ruth had slammed the ‘first come first serve’ assessment system of the students’ assistance fund. He maintained that a programme of assisting students to find work would surely operate on a similar basis and, thus, would have the same flaws. Ruth rebutted, noting that students could be means tested and that those worse off than others could be given priority.

    The issue of confidentiality was given the freedom of the floor for substantial parts of the debate also. Dave Berry proposed the notion of developing a team of peer support leaders to deputise in the welfare office in the absence of the officer. This was queried by the group, however, who maintained students would not be so keen to discuss sensitive issues with a stranger. Berry argued that having a deputy in the office was better than having nobody, however, as students are turned away automatically by an empty office.

    An interesting talking point prevalent revolved around the establishment of themed weeks to complement the likes of SHAG Week, Disability Week and Mental Health Week and whether these were a positive step for the Union to take. Dave Berry insisted that his proposed ‘Welfare Week’ to take place immediately after Freshers’ Week would benefit the Union, highlighting the role of the Welfare Officer to incoming students. He indicated the each day would have a separate theme, such as financial awareness, and that these would continue to run throughout the year.

    The other candidates, while not wholly opposed to the establishment of said weeks, questioned whether the volume of themed campaigns would detract from the impact that they could have. Berry was confident that his experience in campaigning would be sufficient to ensure this would not be the case.