I wish to support the motion moved by Deputy Horgan. It is not a political motion, it is not designed to apportion blame on one Government rather than another, it is not one designed to embarrass. It is simply that we are using the forum open to Opposition Deputies to bring our views to the Minister as forcibly as we can. I hope the Minister will accept it in that light.
The Local Authorities Act, 1968, which introduced the scheme of higher education grants, was welcomed by spokesmen of all parties. Its purpose, as stated by the Minister at the time, was to divert the flow of the then existing financial provisions which county councils were making for second level scholarships and which were no longer required because of the introduction of free secondary education, to the old third level education and to provide sufficient additional money to enable in the Minister's words all students who reached certain academic standards and who satisfied the means conditions to avail of the higher reaches of education open to them. The scheme was welcomed by everybody. I recall at the time saying that even if it were to bring higher education to only one other student who heretofore was debarred because of the financial difficulties of his parents, it would be welcomed by me.
I had no illusion that it was a scheme which would cater for all students. Like other speakers, I voiced my reservation at the time and the first reservation was that the academic requirements varied for those who happened to have money and those who did not. We instanced that four honours were required for a grant but two honours were required for university entrance if one had the money to pay. I can recall saying that I thought it might level out at three honours in both cases. I think the anomaly still exists and I do take the point that the increase in the number of points now required for university entrance has tended to narrow the gap.
There is still an anomaly, though the Minister has no personal responsibility for this, in the store set on certain subjects by the universities which makes it very difficult for people to gain entrance to university from vocational and technical schools. The subjects which they study do not qualify for points. The aim of the scheme was to ensure that people of inadequate means, from either the secondary or vocational stream, should be able to gain entrance. Even today it is very difficult to gain university entrance from the vocational schools. In 1974 the scheme was broadened to include colleges of technology but there should be access from the vocational schools and this is virtually impossible.
Very often it is necessary for students to repeat the leaving certificate examination and this is easily done in the family with substantial means. This brings me to what has always been our main criticism of the scheme. I recall saying that the system of grants being introduced would be an incentive to those who were reasonably well off, though perhaps not comfortable enough to afford a university education for their children, but it was of no use whatsoever to those at the bottom of the income scale who could not subsidise their children, people who could not forego the earnings of their sons and daughters.
Deputy Horgan made the point that this caters only for the survivors of the secondary system. The second level system, free to a certain extent, did not benefit those children whose parents could not afford the high cost of books. It did not cater for the children of parents who, because they were deprived, could not see the value of education and would not forego the earnings of their children. These children were left out. The purpose of the debate is not to cover that aspect but it is worth mentioning. It was by no means a solution regarding opportunity. If one looked at it as an instrument of social justice or as an egalitarian measure, it started in the middle. Certainly it did help to open up third level education for a great number of students with the capacity to benefit from education rather than the capacity to pay.
We had then and still have the question of income in terms of wages and salaries versus valuation. This has never worked out as equitably as we would have wished. Before the recent adjustment we had a situation in my own county where very few outside the agricultural community qualified for grants. While a £60 valuation might not represent much, in some cases it represented a considerable income. I know of people who had very considerable wealth and who had two or three children at boarding schools and perhaps one or two others at college and who seemed to be able to spend £2,000 or £3,000 annually on the education of their children. Such people got grants while the children of ordinary industrial workers did not qualify. I am not saying that this is so in all cases but there were glaring injustices in the scheme and there still are.
The recent adjustments were overdue and they do improve the scheme, but it is still a very inadequate one. The rate of £250 for a student who is not living adjacent to a university town is inadequate. Bed, breakfast and an evening meal for a student, not to mention a meal during the day, would cost at least £14 a week and the cost over 32 weeks would be £448. The grant is far short of the minimum requirements. Flats are another problem for students and those who succeed in getting flats would pay at least £6 per week. The cost over a year would be about £192 and that amount does not include the cost of food and all the other costs of maintenance. Books for third level students very often cost between £5 and £20 each. A subsidy from home is required if a student is to avail of third level education.
Where does that leave the children of widows, unmarried mothers and deserted wives? I know of one such student who, in order to sustain himself at college, teaches the four children of the family who maintain him. He has no wages. He has board and lodgings and in return he teaches these four children. He considers himself lucky to have made such an arrangement but, in fairness, this boy is not competing on fair terms with more fortunate people. He is a very exceptional boy and his mother is also exceptional. There are few people who would even think in terms of third level education from their disadvantaged position. The grant system must be sufficient to maintain the student, otherwise it will not help those who are most in need. We want a system which will ensure that all children who can benefit from grants will do so. This is the purpose of our motion. There is discrimination against the very poor and the under-privileged in an area where we could be of the greatest help and where discrimination can be most keenly felt and have the most far-reaching effects.
I want to refer briefly to entrance requirements for colleges of physical education. I have a particular case in mind. While we must insist on minimum academic standards for entry, there needs to be greater flexibility. I instance a case where a college of physical education has been presented with a candidate of exceptional athletic qualities, a girl who has achieved success and prominence on the international scene and who would be of benefit to the country if she were allowed to train as a teacher of physical education. It appears that she is very slightly short of the required academic qualifications and may not get through. This is a serious loss to physical education because there are so few openings available for girls who wish to train in physical education. It may well be that this girl will have to take up some unsuitable work when she has so much to offer in the area of physical education, which is neglected in our schools and colleges.
The State's investment in education is sizeable. It is important to have some idea of where the jobs are likely to be. I recall that when the system was introduced the Minister said that we should plan the system on the basis of where the job requirements would be and that we should train our children towards job requirements. We should be taking practical steps towards having a community in which talent is used to the fullest extent. To my knowledge, students are given very little guidance. Students elect for a faculty from secondary schools which have no idea of their talents and which therefore cannot guide them. Students select their faculties by sticking pins in papers. Then they enter college and stumble along without guidance. I know that many bright students fall by the wayside because of lack of support and guidance. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the need for doing something about this matter. Students can be very lonely at college, especially in their first year and need all the help and guidance they can get.
I should like to mention a problem that exists in the Cork area in regard to higher education. I understand that Deputy Horgan referred to it briefly during his address. In adopting the scheme for higher education grants in 1968 Cork County Council applied the higher rate, that is the rate applicable to students whose homes are not adjacent to universities. They applied this rate to all students in the county council area. The county council decided that none of their applicants could be deemed to be adjacent to the university within the terms of the Act. Neither the Act nor any Department directive was specified in regard to the term "adjacent". It appeared to be a flexible term, and Cork County Council opted for a more liberal view of it. That liberal view benefited many students who would not have been able to avail of third level education. During the time that the grants fell so hopelessly behind the rate of inflation the Department paid the grant on that basis without question until 1975. In 1975 the Department paid £250,000 on account, leaving the county council short of £42,275. That money has still not been paid to the Cork County Council.
In 1976 a letter was received from the Department. It stated that the Department wished to impress upon the county council that the question of whether the normal family residence was adjacent to the college or university should be decided in the case of each successful candidate and that the lower scale should be applied in the case of every candidate who could reasonably be expected to travel daily. The county council considered the letter and influenced by the views expressed by its members, continued to pay the higher rate to all students. They were influenced by a number of points. One point was that even where bus services operated the cost worked out at £140, which was the total allocated for maintenance. Even where those bus services operated, it was found that the connecting services left many students late for their lectures. It was agreed that it would be administratively impossible, in the Cork area in particular, to ascertain who was on the bus route, where their houses were, and the hours of lectures for each student. The hours varied for each student and varied in each faculty from year to year. It was brought to mind that there is a need for students to return to college at night, not alone for college activities but for the practical reason that library facilities are so inadequate that it is impossible for students to avail of them during the day. I know of a law faculty which has only one copy of a report and 70 students clamouring for it. There is no way that a country student could get that report and still get his bus home in the evening. The council opted for a liberal view and continued to pay the higher rate of grant but they were not paid the money due to them under the scheme for 1976, £234,284.
A further £260,000 is required this year. So far, grants have not been allocated and students have not been notified whether their grants will be allocated. To date the county council have been penalised to the extent of half a million pounds for their enlightened attitude towards higher education. The county council have now been asked to check on all the grants allocated since 1970, to check on grants paid at the higher rate which should have been paid at the lower rate, and to recover from the students the grants which have been paid. Apart from the high cost of this and the fact that it is almost administratively impossible, it is not possible to trace the whereabouts of all the students who received grants in 1970.
Cork County Council have asked the Minister to receive a deputation to discuss the matter. I am asking the Minister to please accede to the request of Cork County Council. Many students are very concerned about this matter and it is important that the matter be clarified without delay.
The Minister heard the comment that his motion of May last had the effect of improving the scheme. I trust that the motion moved by Deputy Horgan will be adopted.
