Deputy Collins is in possession and the Deputy has 27 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Third Level Education: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following Motion:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to increase the money value of third level grants and scholarships and to update the eligibility limits.—(Deputy Wilson).
At the outset I should like to pay tribute to the former Minister for Education, Mr. Richard Burke, who I suppose was in his own way a controversial Minister. He was, I suppose, conservative, but he was honest and his actions followed through from his personal convictions. Anyone in politics who follows his conscience is to be admired. Far too often politicians are accused of saying one thing and doing the other. While I personally may not have agreed with him on a number of things, for instance, on contraception, at least the had the manliness to be honest about it. I want to pay tribute to him not for his personal political convictions, which are his own, but for the good, solid work he did while Minister for Education. I do not want to go into the amount of money involved since we came into Government, but in every city, town and village throughout Ireland the beneficial effects of his ministry are to be seen. In my constituency the number of new schools and extensions to be built has increased dramatically, and I am proud of this Government's policies. We have tackled education in an intelligent way. In fairness to Fianna Fáil I should say their introduction of the regional technical colleges was a step forward, and I am glad to see that we in this Government are continuing that broadening of third level education. Unfortunately, the Minister, when he was appointed to Europe, suffered vilification from members of the Fianna Fáil Party.
That is not so. It was from members of the Labour Party.
And the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Garret FitzGerald.
I am quite well aware of what was said by Deputy Colley on television, where he discussed the responsibilities given to Mr. Burke when he was appointed a Commissioner in Brussels. He called it a rag-bag of responsibilities. That type of personal attack is deplorable in respect of a person who is not representing Fine Gael, not representing the Labour Party or this Government but representing the people of Ireland abroad in a very responsible capacity——
What has this got to do with grants and scholarships?
I am just paying tribute to the former Minister which, as Deputy Wilson knows, is quite proper for a Deputy to do when he is first speaking after a change of ministry. To make it strictly relevant may I say the former Minister for Education, Mr. Burke, who has now gone to Europe, played a very important part in increasing the higher education grants about which the Opposition seem to be so worried.
Having paid tribute to Mr. Burke, let me now congratulate the man who has been appointed to take his place, Deputy Peter Barry, former Minister for Transport and Power. Anybody who knows the new Minister and who can transcend party politics will agree that he has been a very successful Minister. As a person he is very approachable and I wish him every success with his new portfolio. I feel sure he will be a forward-thinking Minister for Education.
This motion is narrow in its content and the contribution of Deputy Wilson was narrow in its content, in that it merely discussed one aspect of the whole question of higher education. It is a pity we did not have a broader discussion——
Pay up the money.
——of the problems facing higher education. I would like to inform the Opposition, who seem to be so worried about money, that up to 1970-71 the total higher education grant for students living in non-adjacent areas, that is outside university towns, including fee and maintenance, was £300. This was increased in the academic year 1972-73 and divided into two elements, a lecture fee of up to £156 and a maintenance grant for students not living in a university town of £250, making a total of £406. That was a step forward.
The grant was further increased by this Government up to the present maximum maintenance level of £300 for the academic year 1974-75 and the maximum for lecture fees has been raised to £247, giving a total of £547 for a non-adjacent area student.
That is progress. The Minister and every Deputy here would like to see that increased, but the limiting factor is finance. Not only that, but the moneys at the disposal of the Minister for Education must cover national school education, secondary and vocational and also other third level aspects apart from the university which are quite broad, for instance, the various training colleges. All these are competing and someone has to make an evaluation as to which is the most important. Some will say that a solid national education is the most important; others will say more emphasis should be placed on vocational and secondary education in order to give a good grounding. My personal opinion is that university education as such has been grossly over-rated and that perhaps we are turning out too many graduates who cannot find employment in Ireland. The profession they wish to enter will not bear more entrants and subsequently if they do enter it, their income will be decreased. They may not be able to enter their chosen profession.
I would like to see higher education grants being made more available to courses in regional technical colleges and colleges of technology. I am delighted that this Government of Fine Gael and Labour were the first to see the value of higher education grants being made available in regional technical colleges and in colleges of technology. That is a solid step forward. I am very much aware, as chairman of the board of management of the Waterford Regional Technical Colleges, of the care being taken to ensure that the standard of the courses and the standard of the teachers and lecturers in the various colleges are at such a high level that, with time, the national certificates and diplomas which will become available and are already available will be recognised not only in Ireland but in England, Europe and America. I see the facilities in the regional technical colleges as being a very important breakthrough in education in Ireland and one which I have acknowledged was helped along by Fianna Fáil and has been expanded in no small way by this Government. The courses concerned are solid courses in business, in technology and in science—subjects which have not been catered for in the universities but which are of much more use and of much more relevance to many children leaving secondary schools as well as to the needs of industry, commerce, science and technology in today's world.
I look forward to a time, hopefully in the near future, when greater emphasis will be placed on the question of grants by the relevant authorities, not only by the local authorities but by way also of an increase in the responsibility of the VECs in this regard. I trust that in the future these authorities will be given more control in relation to the moneys that they can allocate for scholarships that would be tenable not only in respect of courses at university level but also in respect of other courses which are just as important to our society as are degree courses. This is an interesting point of view but it is a very important aspect.
I am glad to see a reference in the Minister's speech to a statement made on September 10th last when it was stated that it was proposed to have a fundamental review of the terms of schemes that would apply as and from the academic year, 1977-78. I am not aware of what changes are to be made but I trust that greater emphasis will be placed in the area of higher education on the role of the regional technical colleges and of colleges of technology.
The question of the equality of opportunity in this regard has been referred to by Fianna Fáil. This is a matter which has become as relevant to the field of higher education as is the question of the value of grants. There is a case to be made for having a graduated scale of maintenance grants related directly to the distance that a person lives from a university or from a college of technology. What is more important, though, is that the level of the grants should vary according to the number of children from each family attending higher education courses. The situation for a parent who has one child attending a university, on the basis of a grant, is not likely to be very difficult in terms of the burden on the parent but the situation is different where there may be two, three or even four children engaged in higher education at the same time. In those circumstances there would be great hardship on the family unless they happened to be wealthy. Even for a man earning between £6,000 and £10,000 per year the burden would be great in respect of two or more children attending an institute of higher education on the basis of grants. Therefore, I ask the Minister to have regard to this aspect of the situation and to consider increasing the grant, especially in relation to maintenance.
Another aspect of the matter that is causing concern and about which a number of people have approached me is in relation to the income tax situation in so far as claims for expenditure in respect of children at university are concerned. Although the tax-payer can claim in respect of the child engaged in studies at this level, it would help a lot if expenses in that regard could be deductible from income tax liability. A move in this direction would be very constructive. It would not be beyond the ability of an inspector of taxes to estimate such expenses and the relief given in this way would be of much benefit to the parents concerned. I am thinking in terms of the expenditure by way of expense in excess of the value of the grant being taken into account in the assessment of income tax liability. Such a move would not be likely to cost the Exchequer a large amount of money. Perhaps the figure would be in the region of not more than £2 million or £3 million. A change of this kind would benefit greatly many middle-class people such as managers, teachers and so on who wished to send a second or subsequent child to an institute of higher education.
The number of people attending universities and other institutes of third level education as well as the number in receipt of grants for this purpose has increased rapidly. While Deputy Wilson was speaking on this matter I was asking myself what really is the present situation. Since we came to office there has not been any student unrest.
The Deputy should go across to Trinity.
And what about Kevin Street?
It can be said that since we came to office no Minister has had to either enter or leave a university by way of a toilet window.
When the Deputy's party were in Opposition, Deputy Garret FitzGerald was on the streets with the students.
I am endeavouring to quantify grant values.
On a point of order, is this debate about the popularity of Ministers of Education from the Deputy's side of the House.
That is not a point of order.
I am throwing out a political challenge.
How can the Deputy's remarks be related to the subject of the motion in my name, a motion which he is treating flippantly?
The Deputy is in order.
It is difficult to assess the real position in financial terms now compared with six or seven years ago.
If the Deputy had to pay for digs, bus fares or for cups of coffee, he would know the difference.
I am making the point that there is much less student unrest now in relation to grants than there was during my first term here which was between 1969 and 1973.
Has the Deputy not heard yet of the march planned for next week?
I am not aware of any Minister from this side of the House having to leave a university by way of a toilet window.
We are having repetition.
The motion deals with the question of grants.
This is a debate to which a time limit applies and interruptions are unwelcome.
The Deputy's interruption is far too narrow. As the Minister said last night we are in a twilight situation.
This is not a popularity contest.
If the Opposition were looking for greater grants and maintenance allowances the time to put down this motion for discussion would have been last October prior to the Estimates being complied.
The Deputy is parroting the Minister.
I am making a relevant statement.
The Deputy should be allowed to make his speech without interruption. I have already said that this is a limited debate.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy is not sticking to the point of the debate.
Order. Interruptions are disorderly at any time. I have said that a time limit applies to this debate and accordingly there should be no interruptions.
This Government have provided substantial amounts of money for education including higher education. We are meeting our responsibilities in higher education. The former Minister who is now an EEC Commissioner in Europe did a good job in his capacity as Minister for Education. That cannot be denied and it was verified by the lack of student unrest. I make that statement categorically and as a tribute to the former Minister who was wrongly maligned by the party opposite.
By whom?
By the Deputy's party.
The Deputy means by the Labour Party. Remember the Galway conference. We were praying for the Minister.
Order.
I am satisfied that this Government and this Minister will see that the development necessary in education, including the financial allowcations necessary to expand it and diversify higher level education, will be forthcoming. This Government have shown a greater commitment to social and educational needs than Fianna Fáil showed in their term of office. The need for commitment to education is obvious to all. The need for the education of handicapped children is being tackled. I hope that there will be more commitment to this type of education in the future when we are re-elected after the general election. I am satisfied that the recent announcement in relation to one-teacher schools is a socially desirable change in policy.
(Interruptions.)
What has the opening or closing of one or two-teacher schools to do with the motion which is in my name on university grants and eligibility limits, of parents' income?
The Deputy's time is limited. I am allowing him to develop his point of view. The Deputy will conclude shortly.
The money available to the Minister for higher education or for any other aspect of education must be balanced between priority and needs. Those priorities extend from the national schools, right through to helping handicapped people, secondary, vocational and higher education. These needs must be balanced skilfully and we have done this. We have widened the availability of higher education grants outside the university and this was a great step forward which I hope will be expanded more in the future. One must remember that money committed to higher education grants and financing our institutions will deprive other fields of education including slow learners. I would give a higher degree of importance to having teachers available for slow learners and for mentally and physically handicapped schools, than to higher education grants. I am sorry that the content of the motion on the Order Paper is too narrow. It is trying to take one aspect of education and isolate it. We all agree that there should be more money for education. I am sure the Minister would love to give more money for grants. It is a politically favourable thing to do in an election year.
Nobody here mentioned elections.
One aspect of education cannot be discussed in isolation, the whole spectrum should be looked at and within that spectrum there are sections of equal and in many cases of greater importance than higher education. I am disappointed that the Opposition did not in their wisdom see the need and the importance of the broader spectrum of the problems facing education. They should not have taken the grants level and tried to isolate it. That was wrong and showed a lack of maturity. With the passage of years I am sure Deputy Wilson and the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition will understand these problems as they arise, and perhaps the next time they are putting down a motion for discussion they may in their wisdom understand even greater problems facing the Minister for Education and any Government.
Is maith liom an ocáid seo chun labhairt ar an gceist seo agus chomh fada augs a bhaineann sé liomsa is ceist leathan í—i bhfad, i bhfad níos leithne ná mar a thuigfeá agus tú ag éisteacht leis an gcainteoir deireanach.
In my contribution I propose to treat all aspects of education and then relate the terms of the motion specifically to them. I disagree with Deputy Collins when he suggests that this is about higher education. This is about social justice in the matter of higher education. For some time now it has been popular and commonplace to talk about equality in higher education and to give the impression that the system is such that everybody can benefit from it to the same extent. I would say that if education is about anything, it is about speaking the truth. Over the years education has enjoyed, and perhaps more recently has suffered, from many interpretations. It has moved a long way from the time when scholars were prepared to subject themselves to deprivation and self-sacrifice in the pursuit of what they regarded as education. It has moved a long way from the time when education was structured so that it provided personnel for the legal profession, the medical profession and the diplomatic corps.
It is true that education has lost much of its ancient glory. Education as I see it today benefits very little from what might be called idealism. One need not be accused of being cynical if one were to say that education today is about money. The proof of that can be seen in many areas but perhaps more especially in the higher branches of education in what are regarded as the higher professions when we see how they have, for reasons best known to themselves, congregated in bodies of corporate power to extract the last penny for their services. It is true to say that today education is practical in approach rather than philosophical.
I have stated already and I repeat that to some extent education may be equated with the old much-criticised capitalist system. People are concerned with what they can get out of education and there is more emphasis on the material than on the spiritual. I am not saying that is an offence although it might be regarded as a pity. I am disappointed because I do not see evidence of the benefits that should attach to university or third level education visible in the products of the system, if I might call them that. The situation has moved a long way from the time when, in my innocence, I was attracted to and believed in what Cardinal Newman said about universities and university education. What has happened is unfortunate but we must accept the situation. We can establish that today education is about achieving something that may guarantee a certain mental and intellectual satisfaction but which more especially guarantees economic security and wellbeing for the individual concerned.
I do not like to talk about education in this way but I do so because all around me there is evidence that the situation is as I have set out. Equality of education may exist to the extent that some 750,000 young students in primary schools will be exposed and treated to the same course but that is not equality of opportunity when we consider the economic and social pressures that exist in certain abodes as against others. It is a fallacy, a myth and a deception to say that there is equality of opportunity in education.
I am glad the Minister agrees with me that the areas that require the most attention are the primary and secondary levels although I agree that we must always have a tertiary or higher level. I am anxious that we have a situation where, irrespective of the economic or social conditions existing in any home, the boy or girl from that home will have an opportunity if desired to pursue education into the third level. That is not the position that obtains now. It did not obtain when Fianna Fáil were in power. It has never been the position but for me it must be our goal and in that regard the motion in the name of our spokesman on Education and in the names of other members of our party is relevant. It is not a narrow approach, as Deputy Collins said. It refers to our whole approach to the wide area of education, making it available to people without attaching conditions so that the people generally will benefit from the aggregate IQ of the nation, not the IQ of those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay for education. There is a loss to the individual and to the nation which must be corrected. So far as I am concerned, at the moment the courses at primary and secondary level are geared towards the middle and upper middle classes. There is a supposition that every child comes from a home where the education he gets at school will be complemented in the home but that is not true.
I hope I will not be regarded as parochial if I refer to the situation in Dublin city and county. Notwithstanding all the difficulties obtaining throughout 1976, some 8,700 students in the area passed their leaving certificate. I am not saying that all of them had credits or qualifications that would entitle them to enter university. Let us assume that of that number 6,000 children lived in the Dublin city area; I think that is an under-estimate but it will suffice for the purpose of my argument. I am assuming that half of that number, 3,000, had qualifications that would enable them to enter university. I do not want to talk about examinations. The sooner the present system is changed the happier I shall be but I am not going to develop that point now. I am making the further assumption that 1,000 came from what is commonly, and incorrectly, called working class areas, and were the children of parents who could not afford to pay for third level education. Let us consider the situation of a boy or girl in that category. He or she has passed the leaving certificate examination with two, three or four honours, and he or she is anxious, for the same reason as other people, for the satisfaction of his motivation towards material gain, which he is entitled to have in the same way as everybody else, to pursue education at university level but his parents cannot afford it.
University education at the moment is a wholetime occupation. He has no money. He cannot go to university. He cannot go unless he gets some form of assistance to which I believe he is entitled from society. Assuming there are 1,000 students in Dublin for whom the third level education grant allegedly caters, what do we find? Of 7,000 leaving certificate students last year of whom, I submit, 1,000 were qualified for university, the position was that that 1,000 could not go to university because they did not have the money. Dublin Corporation offered 72 third level education grants to the totality of students dependent upon financial aid in pursuing third level education.
Deputy Collins expects me to offer to the former Minister for Education the compliments of this party and of the nation for what he did for education. I have never made political capital out of education but, as a politician, I am entitled to say to Deputy Collins that after we left office in 1973 there were moneys available, moneys which had arisen as a result of our thrift, and the number then out of a lower total of students was 195. The Minister was lauded by Deputy Collins and yet we have a situation in Dublin where the number dropped from 200 beneficiaries to a meagre 72. Those figures cannot be contradicted.
Do they not tell a story? I submit they do and the story is that eligibility for these grants is totally and utterly unrealistic. Equality of opportunity. In 1976 a student with two honours in his leaving certificate whose parents could afford to pay for him in university could be accommodated in university. The poor man's child must have four honours but even with those four honours he cannot avail of university education unless he gets financial assistance. Is that the great equality of opportunity Deputy Collins talked about which occurred under his great Minister? If it is it is certainly not as attractive to me as it would appear to be to Deputy Collins.
I am not saying the present holder of the office shares the satisfaction expressed by Deputy Collins but I would hope that he would accept that, if we are making any attempt at all at introducing social justice into third level education, we must move away from the situation where the child of a family who qualify for a medical card does not qualify for a third level education grant. The new guidelines in respect of medical cards for a husband, wife and one child allows earnings of £1,929 per annum. There are certain allowances made. A man with a wife and one child with earnings of more than £1,735 is at a disadvantage because his child will qualify only for the fee and part of the grant. What an appalling situation! I do not say that situation derives from the fact that there is a Coalition Government in office but the Government must carry responsibility for it and I am hoping that the Minister is now being alerted to the situation and that he will take a different approach from that of his immediate predecessor. I hope that the case made here can to some extent be used by him at Cabinet level to lever additional moneys for education.
I can only speak for myself but I think I know our spokesman on Education well enough to know that his attitude is probably identical with mine but possibly more idealistic. His concern is primarily with the students and their welfare. He is also concerned for education generally. I am not happy— I make no apology whatever for saying this and some of my former colleagues at UCD may say that Tunney is going anti-university and anti-intellectual—with the position. Neither am I concerned with superficial comments or criticisms made on or of me. The position today is that especially at university level we have a continuation of the educational élitism which obtained down through the decades. That is manifest in every profession especially in what are regarded as the higher professions.
I am not opposed to any person getting that which he is able to pay for and if these are people who can afford to keep their children an additional year at secondary education so they will get the number of points which will entitle them to get into medicine, law, accountancy or engineering, more power to them. At the same time, there should be recognition of the situation that we all know obtains where the intellectual flowers are blooming unseen and where Dublin city and other urban areas and rural areas have students with an IQ comparable to or even higher than that of others, who have everything that is required to benefit from third level education except the money. There is an obligation on society at least to make some provision for them and I can see many benefits apart from those which would accrue to the particular student.
It would be no harm if the jaded arteries of the legal, medical and other professions would enjoy the vibrant, sympathetic and refreshing blood of the children from what are called working class areas. Are we happy here to continue to look at the situation where in areas of highest population density in Dublin—Ballyfermot, Inchicore, Finglas, Coolock, you have people as good as the best in this or any other nation who have given to their children a first-class upbringing and who have a respectability and intelligence comparable to that in any area except that they are in this category called the working class? Is it fair that those areas should not be in a position to contribute to all the professions? If we think that that is their entitlement, we must make financial assistance available to them and I do not think it has to be in the matter of grants.
For far too long we have tied ourselves to the grant system. Other countries like England, the Scandinavian countries and Canada have a system of loans. Loans could and should be made available and in the system of loans there would be attractions superior to the other system. I would hope that anybody who benefits from third level education—and this applies to the student who pays his fees but does not pay for the service he gets, who at the same time enjoys subsistence of about £1,000 a year—should pay back something to society, to the rest of the community who have helped him to enjoy this service. I suggest to the Minister, knowing that he would, perhaps, in his newness be open to suggestions more than somebody who might be sitting there for years and hold conservative views, that he might consider the introduction of loans. He and his officers could negotiate with other countries and the precedent would be there of how the system works. There would be the advantage of making third level education available to people who were anxious but not qualified to benefit from it and it would also mean that they would be required to pay back to society that financial assistance. I am not saying that the Minister should act as a banker and charge the last £ for interest. I would hope that the loans could be made at a very small interest rate.
I ask the Minister to accept the motion and make news by accepting a motion coming from the Opposition when he knows the merit attaching to it. I know he accepts, as I do, that there is urgent need at the moment for making financial assistance available to the number of students in this country who are anxious for and capable of third level education but who, unfortunately, for one reason or another have not the wherewithal to pay for it.
Mr. Kenny
Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. I think I should congratulate the Minister somewhat belatedly and wish him well in his relatively new appointment and I extend the hope that education in all spheres will develop under his guidance. I do not envy him his especially difficult task in so broad a field but I am sure his personality and ability will hold the people to the immense challenge.
This motion calls on the Government to increase the money bill of third level grants and scholarships and to update the eligibility limits. It calls into focus the whole sphere of education and in particular third level education, its relevance, importance, potential and development and it indicates what priority it holds and should hold in our society. Third level education used to be the domain of the few. University education in days gone by was somewhat limited. Third level education today is inundated with willing applicants from many different spheres of life and from different economic and geographical backgrounds.
The motion is selective and the discussion should be broadened in view of the fact that this very motion is being examined and will shortly be reported on, particularly in relation to the terms of the scheme as it operates. Education in general, admittedly, did fall in recent years in priority ratings regarding the amount of finance expended therein in relation to other spheres of activity but this was done with a genuine concern for what were considered and, indeed, were greater priorities at the time. Education, as can be seen from the figures in the recent budget statement, has increased in these ratings and is gradually turning to its rightful place. I am sure this trend will continue under the new Minister. I will not read out these statistics as they are there for those who wish to examine them.
The late Donogh O'Malley was an excellent Minister and a generous and great one but the results of his ideas are only now becoming visible in the advanced numbers attending universities and higher level institutes. The number of grant holders in 1968-69 was 1,419 with a value of £252,185. In the 1972-73 period the number of grant holders was 4,954 with a value of £1,524,371. For the 1975-76 period the number of grant holders was 6,168 with a total value of £2,401,000. Admittedly, some of these were attending regional and technical colleges. I want to ask: where are we going? I am sure Opposition Deputies would ask that question also.
It appears to me that the motion is too narrow. We would need a much broader discussion on the whole trend of education. As we have many thousands of students attending university, it seems ridiculous that they should obtain a degree and then find that their field of ability is somewhat limited after they acquire their degree. In other words, jobs are not available for those with degrees. This is why I say the whole subject needs to be rediscussed. To offset this, in 1974 the Government extended the grants and scholarships to regional and technical colleges. This was a major step and provided an incentive to certain students to follow courses for which they were suited. Regional and technical colleges have greatly increased their capacity and their intake of students in recent times, and this has satisfied many students and enabled them to find their true role and their true position in life.
It is well-known that in every university there are students who should not be there at all. This may not be their fault. During their secondary education it may appear that they have a certain bent for a certain subject but, on reaching university level and having spent a certain amount of time at university, they find this is not the case. The Government and the Minister have this very important factor under consideration. They have provided a greater range and a greater variety of courses in the different institutions. The range of subjects followed in technical and regional colleges is wide, varied, practical and successful. I, for one, want this to continue, if at all possible.
What we should be discussing is not really the importance of grants and scholarships. We must ask: are we getting value for the amount of money being expended on education? If we are not, something must be done about that. For instance, I understand it costs the State something like £1,600 per year to keep a student in Trinity College. There are parents of students attending Trinity College who could well afford to pay that £1,600, thus allowing that money to be allocated elsewhere. On the other hand, there are parents of students attending that college who are not able to pay that £1,600. This is a question worth looking at.
I had intended to mention the system of loans mentioned by Deputy Tunney. This system which operates in some other countries is well worth looking at. If a student in a particular faculty knows he can acquire a long term low interest loan this provides him with an incentive to attain his goal in that faculty. This has undoubted potential in the easing of financial stress.
I know a young person whose mother is a widow. Presumably he will qualify for a university grant on completion of the leaving certificate course. His mother is by no means well off and the grant may not cover his expenses. He lives in a rather remote area. The local people are willing to subsidise him to a certain extent over and above the grant. If a business man were willing to put up £100 to help him, would that fact be recognised by the Revenue Commissioners? That point is worth looking at. Covenants of many types are drawn up in other countries. I am sure suggestions such as this will receive consideration by the Minister.
The question of how student grants are spent also needs to be raised. In my own student days I saw many education grants wasted, to put it mildly. Many young students travel abroad to get work to subsidise their income for the year and to enable them to engage in leisurely and social activities. These opportunities in other countries are now somewhat limited and students must learn to balance their budgets.
I agree with the Deputy opposite in giving priority to primary and secondary education. To me primary education is one of the bedrocks of our society. In primary schools pupils learn attitudes to life which are carried on through secondary education into adulthood. There are more important priorities in our educational system than the grants and eligibility limits. It is fair to say any Minister for Education is strictly bound by financial limitations. It is quite easy to allocate millions of pounds without achieving any worthwhile results.
One of the problems which is much more important than the amount of the grant is the transition from primary school to secondary school. When the new curriculum was introduced in the primary schools some years ago it was accepted with a fair deal of comment by the teachers. It is not difficult to find secondary teachers who will tell you quite adamantly that primary school pupils are not up to the standard of some years ago. The root cause of this is the method of teaching. In primary schools that emphasis has changed from being teacher-centred to pupil-centred. A major problem arises in the pupil-teacher ratio. This is currently being tackled by the Minister for Education. In my book it is much more important than grants and eligibility limits.
Our teachers have immense responsibility. It is not easy to stand before 40, 50 or 60 pupils and allow each intellect to develop at its own rate in its own way. That is a major problem. In the schools for the handicapped are children who may never see any intellectual light and who may need to be helped all through their lives. The Minister is concerned with the building of centres for the education of these children and that is of greater importance than the size of grants and eligibility for these grants.
In the budget speech the Minister for Finance said that with effect from the 1977-78 academic year national maintenance grants would be increased from £300 to £350 for university students whose normal family residence is outside the university town, and from £120 to £140 in the case of other students. Corresponding increases are to be paid in the case of scholarships provided by the vocational education committees. These increases are over and above increases in fee grants which have kept pace with rises in fees generally.
The motion before us is too confined, particularly when the former Minister announced on 10th September, 1976 that it was proposed to make a fundamental review of the terms of the scheme which would apply in coming years as and from the academic year 1977-78. To acquire information on this matter, local authorities were contacted. This information is being or will be processed and I am sure that in the report on that information there will be reference to some concessions or some innovations in regard to financing higher institutional education for students.
Mr. Kitt
I appeal to the Minister to accept the motion. The only argument he has made against it is in regard to timing and I do not think that argument stands up when one considers the number of requests made to his predecessor by the various local authorities and by Members on this side of the House. There is a good deal of hypocrisy about it because we will see that some of the Deputies who are members of local authorities will vote against this motion even though they supported it at their local authority meetings. It is obvious that a country student who wants to get accommodation in the university town, and buy text books will find it very difficult to get education when that student is not eligible for a grant. The grant itself is not adequate for third level education. If the sick and unemployed were completely neglected there would be an outcry but it seems that very little attention is being given to those who cannot get third level education. I believe the Minister's priorities are right and I would ask him to consider seriously the matter of third level education. I point out particularly that the £1,600 income limit of 1973 should now be £2,944 to keep in line with the 85 per cent inflation which has occurred in the meantime.
The Minister's speech was mainly descriptive. He spent much time describing the schemes that exist, the grants and the various scholarships. He said he thought this motion was not put down at the right time. He went on to a third point, that higher education had to compete for money with all other sectors of education. Those were his three main points. There is no onus on me to deal with the long descriptive passages in his speech stating what was available. It was more historic than creative. He said this was not an opportune time to have this motion because a fundamental review was taking place of the whole question of grants and scholarships for third level education. I found that very hard to stomach.
We heard of this fundamental review in September. On Saturday, 11th September the papers carried one or two lines about this review and the refusal to increase the maintenance part of the third level grant. The then Minister simply stated that there would be a fundamental review. We heard nothing about that review in October, November, December or January but in February it was resurrected. It was worthwhile putting down this motion even to find out what was happening to this fundamental review. The Minister said that the submissions had all come in and that he would probably soon be getting a document with policy options and that he would have to make decisions on it. I contend that the fundamental review could have been done in a week or a month at most and that the whole purpose of declaring the fundamental review in September was to delay action in raising the grants and the eligibility limits. This is a typical way of putting off action. As the Minister said, these are uniform schemes. It would not require any great, analytic mind to consider them and come up with suggestions for improvement within a week or a month at most.
They say that a camel is a horse designed by a committee and this has a certain amount of truth. The Minister, after a couple of hours study, could see the weaknesses that we have pointed out to him from this side of the House in the course of the debate in the third level grants scheme. He could remedy those weaknesses by raising the amount of money for the grants—and that is the more important point—and raising the income eligibility limits. One hears about reviews of that kind and then the thing fades out but when a motion is put down the review is resurrected. I hope that as a result of this motion the rearguard action will end and that we shall have an announcement in the near future about high income limits and higher grants.
The Minister said that from the Opposition's point of view the timing of the motion was wrong. I suggest that from the Government's point of view the timing of the motion is wrong because it is time the results of this fundamental review saw the light of day and I am hoping that within the next couple of weeks we will have a statement from the Minister on it.
Another aspect of the Minister's speech struck me as being familiar. From going to the Department on trade union missions, the Department officials have acquired an old technique and it was worked by the Minister in his speech. I used to call it the pull-the-stool-from-under-you technique. There would be two or three officers of the Department there; one would give way on something and the other would pull the stool from under you immediately. The Minister used this technique in his speech when he said "I cannot give it to higher education because if I do I will be taking it away from primary education". Some speakers fell for this, including Deputy Collins and Deputy Kenny.
These different levels, as we choose to call them for administrative convenience and ease of identification, the Minister says "are, however, in reality so interdependent and inter-related that any alteration at any level must disturb the existing equilibrium and influence all other levels". I take it that this is the old pull-the-stool-from-under-you technique still working. Of course, all sections are competing for funds. Of course, the Minister's job is that of the conductor of the orchestra but he will not have good results conducting his orchestra if he leaves a whole section silent and does not call them into play at all.
This is what is happening, particularly with regard to the eligibility limits. I want to make a plea for an individual student about whom I wrote to the Minister. I am making the plea in the context of a claim for more flexibility and more humanity in the grants scheme. When this student did his leaving certificate his parents' income was too high to allow him get a third level grant. He started an engineering course and is very successful. He is now in his third year.
In the meantime, he got married and, consequently, his income is well below the eligibility limit. I appealed to the Minister, and to his predecessor, that this student be allotted an en route grant. This is not part of the present scheme. I will not delay the House much longer on this. I wanted to make the point that he is a serious student delivering the goods, passing his examinations in engineering and is fully qualified academically for the grant. When he first applied he was ineligible for it but now he is in poor circumstances financially and should be entitled to it.
Deputy Collins spoke about everything. I was expecting to hear the story of the three bears. He talked about popularity polls and the Minister's predecessor. I decried a lot of the abuse to which he was subjected. When he was appointed commissioner in Europe, at the first opportunity in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, I paid him a tribute that he was no longer a Fine Gael man or an Irish commissioner, he was a European commissioner and this is the proper approach. Deputy Collins' remarks were irrelevant and I do not know why he had to make them.
He said more money was required in education. It has been our contention that the most serious obligation on the Government is to create wealth out of which money for education, the most important social service, should come. The Government have fallen down on this. It is as fundamental as that. They have not set about creating wealth, maintaining employment and it is out of this wealth that money can come to fund education at all levels, and in particular the one we are talking about in this motion.
I refute the Minister's suggestion that this is not an opportune time to put down this motion. I refute it because the grants are out of line. I gave facts and figures, not airy fairy ones. I gave lodgings charges, fares to college, charges for meals in Belfield. I took a case in University College Dublin and the same would hold in regard to Galway, Cork, Maynooth or Trinity. The maintenance section of the grants is completely out of line. The eligibility limits are also completely out of line. There has been a rate of 84 per cent inflation since 1973. No one could be happy about the results of this neglect to raise these limits.
I pointed out that a messenger or paperkeeper in a Government Department or an agricultural labourer with one child who had got four honours in the leaving certificate would be disqualified from holding a grant under this system. This is a most ridiculous position to find ourselves in. The basic purpose of this grant was to make available a third level education to the person who could not otherwise have afforded it.
Deputy Tunney referred to the parlous position in Dublin city. So many hard working people who are anxious for the social mobility that comes with this type of education are excluded because the income limits which are ridiculously low have been allowed to get out of touch completely with reality. It is on the strength of this that I claim I could not have put down this motion at a more opportune time.
I want to congratulate the Deputy from Limerick who has arrived in the House. He is the first Labour man we saw since this motion started. There was no Labour Minister or Deputy to speak on this motion. Where is the conscience of the Labour Party? Surely they are not out of touch with the needs of the working man at the lowest levels in our society. They have forgotten the people they are supposed to look after in this House.
(Interruptions).
Are they sulking in the party rooms? Are they like Niobe all tears in the party rooms? Why did they not come in here to support this motion? I appeal to them to go into the lobbies to support it and show that their new folie de grandeur has not put them out of touch with the working people. I appeal to them to slough off their four-year-old conservative skin and vote for this motion so that the people will know that Labour have not lost their soul and conscience.
(Interruptions).
They have a very glorious philosophic past, a glorious commitment to the underdog in our society. Now they can help by walking into the lobby and backing this motion so that something will be done about both grants and eligibility limits.
I included scholarships to RTCs in my original speech, despite what Deputy Collins said. If the messenger, paperkeeper, agricultural labourer or road worker has been forgotten by the Labour Party, I want to assure the House they will not be forgotten by the Fianna Fáil Party. I still have hopes that the Labour members will follow us into the lobby.
The Minister said figures could not be taken out of the air. In my opening speech I suggested that he had what we called a quasi-scientific basis but I would call it a fully scientific basis as far as the maintenance part of the grant is concerned, in the consumer price index. Let him relate the maintenance grants to the consumer price index and he will be doing a good job.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10th February, 1977.