Deputy Jim Higgins has 40 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - ESF Funding for Third Level Education: Motion.
May I share my time with Deputies Deenihan, Creed, McGinley and Flanagan?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
In view of the inherently unjust operation of the higher education grants scheme which discriminates heavily against PAYE taxpayers and places impossible financial burdens on families in the provision of higher education to their children, and in view of his clear lack of planning and division in the area of third level education, Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Education to abandon his plans to means test ESF grants from September 1992, and calls on the Government to:
(a) retain in full the present ESF funding arrangements for third-level courses pending a total review of the finance arrangements for students attending third-level education;
(b) enter into negotiations with the EC to obtain further ESF funding for other third level courses and institutions; and
(c) establish a permanent education secretariat in Brussels for educational monitoring, research and liaison.
I sincerely congratulate the new Minister on his appointment to the onerous portfolio of Education. He is undoubtedly aware that in Education he has the single greatest instrument of social policy in his hands. I am confident that the Minister's ability and experience will stand him in good stead in dealing with the most complex Ministry. I look forward to the Minister's abundant commonsense assisting him in the decisions he will have to make over the testing months ahead.
Tonight is the first crucial challenge to the Minister's common sense because he has certainly been handed a poisoned chalice by his predecessor. The decision by the former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, to means test ESF maintenance grants from next September is a negative, short-sighted and extremely unjust proposal which no sensible Minister can stand over. It does not make social, educational or economic sense; certainly the former Minister's three month term of office will be remembered as the inglorious reign of the man who tried to take the £39 per week from the 27,000 middle income RTC and Dublin Institute of Technology college students.
One of the singular successes of education has been the six Dublin Colleges of Technology under the auspices of the Dublin Institute of Technology: Kevin Street, Bolton Street, Rathmines, Cathal Brugha Street, College of Art and Design and the College of Music. The nine regional technical colleges, Galway, Sligo, Letterkenny, Athlone, Tralee, Cork, Waterford, Carlow and Dundalk have brought a whole new dimension to education and to the regions in which they have been strategically located. These colleges are now bursting at the seams as the demand for places reflects the growing realisation that the type of education they provide is tightly tailored to the demands of modern industry and the workplace. One of the cornerstones of the success of these colleges is that they have managed to wrench the national consciousness and pride from its awesome infatuation for largely academic education and to acheive a much greater recognition and consciousness of the vital role of technology, science and the computer in terms of relevance to the world of today.
Central to attracting the type of top quality under-graduate material which has helped to make the colleges the flagships in technology has been the European Social Fund. I am happy it was a Fine Gael Minister, the then Deputy Hussey, who introduced ESF funding in the early eighties. While the colleges achieved relative success in their pre-ESF days it was really the influence of ESF funding and the consequent huge influx of highly motivated students and young people which have given the colleges the massive propulsion and energy which they enjoy today.
Recently this country signed the Maastricht Treaty and the European Single Market will shortly be a reality. One of the key considerations of Maastricht is the recognition of education as a central plank and instrument of European unity with a particular emphasis on the need to develop practical technical skills to help to drive the Community's economies and to fill the manpower needs of the member states.
There is an eager expectation that something will be done in the area of third level — particularly vocational — education. I have in my possession the eagerly awaited and much lauded Culliton report, A Time for Change: Industrial Policy for the 1990s. Chapter 6 of the report is scathing in relation to the over-orientation and bias of education towards the academic, the neglect of technical training and the crowding out of technical subjects, even at second level. The Culliton Report analyses accurately where we have gone wrong. It says: “over the years the prestige of the academic leaving certificate programme has diverted talented students who would be much better adapted to technical training”.
The report talks about the manner in which the German and Swiss economies have benefited from vocational and technical education by the provision of highly skilled and highly adaptable work forces. The report lays it on the line in no uncertain terms and says: "A major effort to reverse the trend of recent years and to place new emphasis on vocational and technical training is the single action most likely to yield progress". That is the prescription for success. This is the official report of a high powered, expert committee commissioned by the Government to advise on what the workplace expects from education and where we are going wrong in terms of education emphasis; however, their analysis and advice are effectively thrown back in their faces.
Is there any point in entering binding international agreements, such as Maastricht, when we dump the spirit of the agreement before the ink is dry on the page? We are signatories to Maastricht which encapsulates the need for education systems to produce a large pool of skilled young people graduating from third level colleges and training schemes with the technical and production skills and aptitudes required by industry and yet our Government set out deliberately to sabotage the RTCs and the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges which are the delivery service for such graduates. Effectively, the means testing of ESF grants will sabotage the 15 colleges involved by draining them and depriving them of their most important resource— top quality students.
We get £150 million from the European Social Fund. The payment of the fees and the £39 per week means that for thousands of average, middle income families, it represents their only chance of getting into higher education. If the ESF maintenance grants are withdrawn that chance is gone. I have been in contact with the Union of Students of Ireland and with the colleges and their managements; their unanimous view is that the means testing of ESF grants will have a catastrophic effect on the colleges. It is conservatively estimated that seven out of every ten students applying to the colleges from next September will not qualify for grants. For the vast majority of those who do not qualify it is a simple truth and raw reality, no grant means not going to college, not going to college means no education which means that they will have no future.
If one sets out to trawl the administrative system and jungle for an unfair, unjust and inequitable scheme, one need look no further than the higher education grant system in the universities. It is based on gross income, which is totally irrelevant, rather than net income. The thresholds are ridiculously low. If a husband and wife are both earning, every single penny of their joint incomes is grossly calculated. Nothing whatever is allowed for living costs, medical expenses, mortgage repayments or the other absolute necessities of life. Thousands of lower middle income and middle income families are automatically debarred because every single penny of their income is up front. This means in effect that none of the nation's 50,000 teachers, the bulk of its civil servants, none of its gardaí or nurses, the majority of its industrial and service workers or people on regular wages need even apply for third level grants because they simply will not qualify.
The operation of the 1991-92 higher education grant scheme means in effect that a husband and wife with one or two children who earn one penny more than £10,787, lose part of the grant. Let us look at the position of a family trying to survive on £10,787 with, let us assume, a mortgage of £25,000 — and you will not get much of a house for £25,000 nowadays. If they have a mortgage of £25,000, the repayments are £3,750 per annum. They then have to pay income tax and PRSI of approximately £1,000. That leaves the family with, at the very most, a disposable income of £6,037 or a princely sum of £116 per week to pay for food, clothing, ESB, service charges, heating etc. Do the Government not realise that a family cannot live with any degree of dignity on £116 per week, let alone subsidise the third level fees for their child? The Minister may argue that there is a sliding scale depending on the number of children, but sliding scale or no sliding scale the inherent snares, traps and thresholds in the scheme debar thousands of people right up through the very system itself.
The former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, lit a flicker of hope for such parents when banner headlines in the national newspapers on 21 January stated: "Davern to seek EC funding to cover university fees". We know that the former Minister was new to office and was naturally anxious to get as much publicity as possible for himself. We also acknowledge that Christmastime is often recognised as the silly season for politics. Nevertheless his promise of additional EC funding for the universities has turned out to be the sickest of sick political jokes, because, lo and behold, a mere two weeks later the same newspaper informs a startled population that rather than giving them money to subsidise university fees the former Minister has, in fact, decided to superimpose the justifiably maligned, highly flawed, and inherently unjust higher education grant scheme with all its warts and weals, right across the entire RTC and Dublin Institute of Technology college system.
This time last year the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was handed a similar hot political potato when his then predecessor, and the now redundant Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, and the Chief Executive of An Post, handed him the infamous An Post viability plan. This plan proposed to close down 600 rural sub-post offices, downgrade 30 post offices and impose post boxes at the entrance to rural laneways. The initial bush fires of protest turned into an inferno and in a series of staged phases the Minister eventually consigned the plan to where it justifiably belongs, that is, on the scrap heap. This move is equally ill-judged; it is retrograde, irrational, downright unfair and deserves the same fate.
I have faith in the Minister's commonsense to do the same with this proposal. The Minister knows that the financing arrangements for third level education are ludicrous and that the system needs a major review and overhaul. Up to now there has been no review or overhaul; all that has happened is cosmetic tinkering with the scheme. I am asking the Minister to carry out a fundamental review of our education system, as proposed in paragraph (a) of our motion. I also suggest that the Minister should put in place a review group consisting of officials of his Department and the Department of Finance, officials from the European Social Fund in order that they may see at first hand our policies, problems and priorities, representatives of the universities, of the Irish Vocational Education Association and, last but not least, of the Union of Students in Ireland. I ask the Minister not to engage in this costly tampering and tinkering with existing ESF arrangements until such time as the review body report because — I am sincere about this— thousands and thousands of students have made their September plans on the assumption that the £39 per week grant will be available to them.
Europe might well have conferred certain benefits on us but when we see our farmers being pushed over the cliff on a daily basis under the twin pressures of Common Agricultural Policy and GATT, our traditional industries buckle under the intense pressure of the market place and our best graduates poached on the open market for the labour markets of Europe, we are entitled to demand and expect that the additional funds promised but not delivered by the former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, would be forthcoming to the universities. Paragraph (b) of the motion proposes such an initiative. We should not be putting one group up or down at the expense of the other. We should not be going for the lowest common denominator. We should be going for the highest common denominator and telling Europe that they owe us this money.
Finally, in advancing the idea of a full-time education office in Brussels, as proposed in the third part of the motion, we are advocating having a secretariat on the spot in Brussels where the action is rather than doing things by bush telegraph, as happens at present, so that we can maximise this country's drawdown from the European Social Fund.
I exhort the Minister not to make any precipitate decision and to accept this motion. This will not be seen as a climb down but as a victory for common sense. It makes an awful lot more sense to pull back from a proposal to deprive 27,000 students of a mere £39 per week, the bulk of which comes from Europe, rather than dump our students uneducated on the dole queues where the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, will have to give them a minimum of £50 per week from the Exchequer.
I congratulate Deputy Higgins on bringing forward this motion. The excuse being offered for introducing the proposed ESF grants means testing is that very many rich people — the self-employed, big farmers and professional people — are benefiting under this scheme. I would dispute this claim on two counts. The ESF covers only certificate and diploma courses. Where possible, rich people, to whom I have already referred, direct their children towards the professions and the length of degree courses does not concern them too much. The vast majority of ESF students come from middle income and lower income PAYE families who cannot generally risk a four year investment in a university degree course for their children. For them the ESF is a breathing space where, if their children prove they are up to diploma level standard, the parents have a chance to accumulate some money and can hopefully pay for a further two years on a degree course.
The second point is that the major source of public dissatisfaction with the present means test for higher education grants is that rich people have no great problem in qualifying for State grants. Their income can rarely be proven, unlike the PAYE worker whose actual income is shown on a P60 and who is assessed on his gross income. If the self-employed and others have little difficulty in getting through the means test, then they are not going to be in any great rush to avail of ESF grants. Even if they do, it is obvious that the means test will not stop them but will exclude all the middle and lower income PAYE families.
This saga involves three Ministers for Education and two Ministers for Finance, one of whom is now Taoiseach. I deplore the decision of the Minister for Education to introduce a means testing scheme for the maintenance element of the ESF grant. There is considerable evidence to show that this harsh and unexpected cut was designed by Deputy Mary O'Rourke when Minister for Education. She acted under pressure from the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Albert Reynolds, who was looking for cuts. As Minister for Education, Deputy Davern was walked into making public the proposed cuts. Responsibility for this attempted cut in student grants must ultimately lie with the Taoiseach.
This change, which has been described as an improvement of the grant scheme, stretches any understanding of the English language beyond credibility. If implemented, the proposed change will have a significant adverse effect on the finances of the majority of RTC students and their families. This sudden unexpected change after a period of stability in the ESF scheme over the past few years will catch many families short of cash. They have planned on the availability of grants. A sudden change like this is grossly unfair. Therefore I appeal to the new Minister, to whom I extend my best wishes, to reverse the attempted change of his predecessor.
There are anomalies in the present structure of grant payments. However, it is not credible to suggest that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of current grant recipients should lose significant grant moneys in order to eliminate anomalies which arise for an insignificant number of students. If a ceiling on the Social Fund has been reached, can the shortfall not be found? Is this proposed change a solution? Think of the massive administration costs involved in the means testing process. When an offer of a college place has been made to an applicant, they and their parents need to know in the quickest possible time what their financial position will be. The current scheme of awarding ESF grants is simple and rapid, it is direct and transparent.
Under the new scheme, the means testing process will involve extra applicants. It is estimated that up to 21,000 applicants will have to be means tested as opposed to the 6,000 to 7,000 who are currently means tested for university places. People have to wait for two years for the result of means tests. The tripling of applicants will delay the date by which young people and their parents know if they can afford to take up the offer of an RTC place. This will result in an inevitable delay in the date of the first payment of the grants. Well qualified young people, particularly the less affluent, will lose out. This scheme will be socially regressive and women will lose out disproportionately in the proposed change.
It is estimated by the students' union at Tralee RTC that their members will lose £1 million in maintenance grants. While it is difficult to do an accurate calculation, the students' union is probably very near the mark in estimating the loss of £1 million in Tralee alone. The sudden withdrawal of this money will have an unwelcome deflationary effect on the economy of Tralee. It will result in job losses among those who provide services.
Access to RTCs is part of regional development of which we hear so much. The proposed changes will have a depressing effect on regional development. I regret the attempt to reduce RTC student grants to university levels. Rather I would hope that university grants should be increased in line with those at RTC level. Indeed, if we are serious about carving out a place in the post-Maastricht Europe, this ill-conceived proposal should be dropped. Our young people deserve no less.
I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. I wish to speak in support of the motion to maintain ESF grants in their current state, and to condemn the Government policy which would effectively exclude the lower income groups from participating in third level education by extending the application of the current higher education grant means test, which stands universally condemned by all quarters.
It has been established beyond doubt that educational achievement and employment opportunities are inextricably linked. At a time of record unemployment, it is inexplicable that the sole, proven avenue to increased employment prospects should be so cruelly removed from the grasp of students whose parents constitute the ranks of the lower paid and the unemployed. It says a multitude about the ethos of the Government and it dashes any hopes we might have had of a concerted co-ordinated attack on the scourge of unemployment. It is a shame on the new Minister that a new opportunity has been missed. It is regrettable as I believe that this will be the tune for the new Government — new faces but the same old failed policies.
It is truly ironic, as indeed it must be painful for many members of the Government, particularly those in Fianna Fáil who can recall the reforming zeal of former Minister for Education who pioneered access to free education at second level in the mid-sixties, to witness the practical erosion of this benefit over recent years and the removal from a large proportion of the population of the opportunity to attend third level education, as is currently proposed.
An historical analysis of access to educational opportunity in this country will show that the trend has been in the right direction to date. It will also show, however, that with regard to third level education, this was a privilege available only to those who could afford it. Any analysis of the recipients of higher education grants from local authorities will reveal a truly shocking discrimination against the PAYE sector and the unemployed. To extend the scope of this discriminatory means test to ESF-funded courses will quench the light at the end of the tunnel for many of the children of these backgrounds and condemn their generation to a life on the dole queues or, worse, emigration.
The Government should consider the following point also before rejecting this motion. The net cost to the State of paying full unemployment assistance to an individual for a year is only marginally less than the cost of providing grants for a third level education course.
In the context of a state of emergency in relation to unemployment, it is appropriate, now more than ever that the State should extend to all pupils the opportunity to attend third level education. It is appropriate in this context that we should consider providing free of charge full fees to all students in third level education. Hand-in-hand with this we have to argue coherently on the European stage for much more funding for education. This can be based on the premise that for the past decade many of our brightest and best graduates have been attracted by employment opportunities on mainland Europe at great expense to the Irish taxpayer. This case has never been fought before, and to dismantle the existing system before exhausting this avenue of opportunity is preposterous.
I wish to thank my colleague, Deputy Jim Higgins, for giving me some of his time. I compliment and congratulate him on introducing this motion on a subject that is causing great anxiety to many parents and third level students. The European Social Fund has been one of the most beneficial and constructive education schemes established since the introduction of free post primary education in the sixties. The numbers attending RTCs and Dublin Institute of Technology — 27,000 in all — is concrete proof of the contribution made by these colleges to our education system. The vast majority of students availing of regional technical college courses are in receipt of European Social Funds, and many would never have the opportunity of attending a third level institution without the benefit of such assistance. It has afforded thousands of lower and middle income families previously deprived of higher education because of the way the higher education grant scheme was operated, the opportunity to avail of certificate and diploma courses. If this decision of means testing ESF grants is implemented it will deprive thousands of young people of the opportunity to obtain certificates, diplomas and qualifications in regional technical colleges.
As I have said, those who will suffer are those from the lower and middle income families, the sons and daughters of the PAYE workers. They are the people who are already victims of the poverty trap. They have no economic props. They have to pay for all services. They must pay for transport to primary and post primary schools. As Deputy Higgins has said, the vast majority of these people in all probability are paying mortgages in an effort to purchase their own homes. They are certainly paying VHI premiums because if they fall ill there is no such thing as free medical treatment for them. You could say they are the new poor, victims of the poverty trap.
These proposals are a vicious attack on our already over-burdened taxpayers, people who are already paying tax on the double. If the proposals are implemented educational opportunities in rural Ireland will be dealt a severe blow. There are universities in our major cities — three universities in Dublin and universities in Cork, Limerick and Galway. Parents living in cities have the opportunity of sending their sons and daughters for third level education and for them maintenance does not constitute the same vital factor as it does for the parents in rural Ireland. The sons and daughters of those who live in the cities can often remain at home until their studies are completed. However, rural Ireland does not have the benefit of universities in close proximity Maintenance is a major element in the cost of education for parents who live in rural Ireland and the £39 per week ESF grant is often the vital factor in determining whether a son or daughter goes on to third level education or has to emigrate after post-primary education.
As we know, rural Ireland has been devastated by emigration in the past but at least many of our emigrants are educated and are qualified to avail of positions of responsibility and trust in their host countries. The discontinuation of ESF funding would lead to our young people emigrating at a much younger age without qualifications. They would simply become the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for their new masters. Make no mistake about it, Minister, if your proposals are implemented then they will have devastating consequences for rural Ireland and the educational opportunities of the young people who live there.
I represent a constituency that has a regional technical college, in the town of Letterkenny. When that college was established several years ago it was designed to cater for 600 pupils. At present 1,300 students attend the college. The vast majority of those students would not have been able to afford to avail of the opportunity of third level education without the benefit of ESF funding. At a recent meeting of the Donegal vocational education committee it was unanimously decided to pass a motion condemning the Government's decision to introduce means testing for the grant. All parties attended the meeting and there were no dissenters from the decision. It has also been decided to circulate the decision to every other vocational education committee. That is the extent of the opposition, the concern and the worry that is to be found in rural Ireland about the proposal.
As this is my first opportunity to do so, I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. The Minister would certainly make a name for himself and his Government if he immediately withdrew the proposals. Indeed, if he wanted to go down in history as being an innovative Minister, he could increase the grant of £39 a week instead of introducing a vicious system of means testing.
I rise to make one or two points on this matter, which is of great importance to the people of Ireland and to our young people in particular. In doing so, I compliment my colleague Deputy Jim Higgins, the Fine Gael spokesman on education, for moving the motion. I look forward to listening to the Minister's reply to the detailed points made on behalf of Fine Gael by Deputy Higgins.
In 1991 the total amount of Government funds paid in support of students undertaking ESF courses was £31.5 million. Of that amount, £20 million was paid in maintenance. In my view, a means test system would save approximately £12 million. That sum is much greater than the cost to the taxpayer of Carysfort and much less than the cost of the Government jet or the recently dubbed "Albert Hall", yet it will restrict student access to the precise area of education most directly geared to making the youth of our country employable and therefore attracting industry to our depressed economy. This move exposes massive hypocrisy on the part of the Government and their commitment to job creation. What we see, in the context of education grants, is a direct attack on jobs. It is anti-family.
Blanket means testing, as proposed by the Minister and as announced by his predecessor, is fundamentally wrong as it takes account only of income, not of property and other assets. Many people of property at present benefit from third level grants, not on the basis of low income but because they make use of a device called "low declared income". On the other hand, children of low paid workers are denied the grant support that alone would be the key to an education and a job. Our Constitution specifically purports to cherish all the children of the nation equally. That pledge is shallow, meaningless and false under the present grant scheme.
I represent a constituency bounded by two excellent regional technical colleges, in Athlone and Carlow. Statistics clearly show that our universities are not overcrowded with children from counties Offaly and Laois. The first option for third level education for the children and young people of my constituency is an RTC. That is mainly because of the grant incentive and allocation. It is not uncommon for school teachers in the midlands area — as is the case throughout rural Ireland — to advise parents and children, before children sit their final exams, to rule out a career that would require university education and to opt instead for education at an RTC, because of the finances involved. The recent decision of the Minister for Education now cuts off that option.
It is a fact that less than 2 per cent of third level students come from families the head of whose household is either unemployed or an unskilled labourer. The reality is that almost no one who falls within the income limits could or would think of sending a child to university unless he or she had assets additional to income. However, more than one million of our children have a father or breadwinner who is unskilled or unemployed. Thus, we are denying those children the right to an education.
The cost of State funding to universities is more than £100 million annually — a figure much higher than the total spent on 1991 grants, which amounted to a mere £29 million by comparison. The £100 million expenditure is taxpayers' money. The Minister is clearly presiding over a system that is fundamentally unfair in that taxpayers are paying directly or indirectly to subsidise the access to third level education of the children of the better off. This is a scandal of much greater proportion than those scandals that have gained so much news media attention of late. The average PAYE worker cannot afford to send his or her children to third level college simply because there is not sufficient funding in grant aid. The people who are effectively excluded are forced, without any choice, to support the rich in that regard. The operation of the entire third level grant scheme discriminates heavily against the PAYE sector and the unemployed. The less privileged — and the middle classes, who are now brought in under Minister Davern's recent decision — are forced by way of taxation to support the children of the wealthy in an education system that denies their own children access. In my view, that inequity might not survive a constitutional challenge, having regard to the place accorded our children in the Constitution. The system is wrong and if we do not decide that, then it could well be decided for us by way of a European Court application.
I urge the Minister to support the motion and its content and I compliment my colleague, Deputy Higgins, for the forthright manner in which he addressed the issue since the Minister's decision of some weeks past.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "In" and to substitute the following:
"regard to education, Dáil Éireann commends the Government for its achievements with particular reference to the dramatic expansion in the provision of third-level places and measures taken to ensure greater equity in the third-level system; notes that the Minister for Education, being conscious of the pressures on families in providing for third-level education for their children, intends to complete a full review of the criteria for eligibility for student grants by September 1992; and further commends the Government for its ongoing initiatives in this area, including:
the expansion in the number of places available on ESF supported programmes through the more equitable distribution of available funds,
the targeting of resources to assist the disadvantaged and those from lower income groups in availing of the various education and training programmes at all levels and
the co-ordinated arrangements being made to ensure a major expansion in EC support for education and training programmes in Ireland, including the establishment of a permanent education representative in Brussels.".
As the outset, I thank the Opposition spokesman for Fine Gael, Deputy Jim Higgins, for his best wishes. I regard Deputy Higgins as a very able, competent, respected and formidable political opponent — one whom in my time as Minister for Education I certainly shall not take for granted. I shall listen extremely carefully to what he has to say at all times. I hold him in very high esteem.
I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to place once again on the record of this House the substantial progress made in the field of education in recent years. Concern for the less well-off, or the disadvantaged, has been central to developments in education pursued by the Government over the last few years. Despite the serious economic situation we inherited, the Government were careful to protect those most in need from the effects of the measures we had to take to bring the State finances under control. All Members in the House would be familiar with the steps we took.
The underlying theme of positive discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged has informed Government action in the area of education since 1987. That has been reflected in the provisions on eduction in the Programme for Ecomomic and Social Progress. Incidentally, that theme is not the convenient adoption of a simple political slogan devoid of substance; it is a clear and unambiguous strategy born out of a conviction and commitment to better the lot of the less well-off. The conviction is shared on all sides of the House. The overall aim of the education system, simply stated is to provide the opportunity for all to develop their potential to the full. There are powerful economic, social and political reasons for pursuing the dual ambition of seeking significant improvements in the quality of education while extending these benefits to all sections of the population. The aims of equality and quality are inseparable.
In achieving these aims it is vital that the education system is effective in improving the quality of life for all rather than conferring added advantage on the already privileged.
For a long time access to education was seen, in essence, as the promotion of equality of opportunity. It is now evident that the achievement of equality of educational opportunity is a much more complex process.
One could say that to some extent we are the victims of our own success. Due to policies promoted by Fianna Fáil over the years, there has been an enormous expansion in participation rates in school. There has also been an improvement in the representation of the poorer socioeconomic groups in post-primary schooling when compared with the situation in the early sixties.
While we need to become more sophisticated and finely focused in our strategies for tackling disadvantage we had as a start, to concentrate effort and resources to eliminating financial and geographical impediments to access to education. However, we are now focusing much more on the difficult and demanding tasks of eliminating disadvantages deriving from gender, ability, cultural, educational, social, structural and generational factors — all complex issues.
Central to the Government's approach to combating the complexities of disadvantage is to have education seen as an integrated part of the wider political, social, economic and cultural framework of society's development. Integrated, cohesive and multi-faceted action is called for in which there is close co-operation between education, welfare, health, labour and training agencies, and between schools, parents, employers and the wider community. This approach has been affirmed by the social partners through the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
A school is a significant factor in promoting or inhibiting its pupils' chances of success in life. A range of studies have confirmed educational achievement as a crucial ingredient for success in working life. Apart from studies, our commonsense would indicate that to us.
The importance of learning for economic and social participation means that the costs of missing out have now become very high — to the individuals concerned, their families and to the country at large. The economic costs to the community of the continuing existence of failure are certainly high. I am convinced that insufficient use by a country of its potential talents and skills, proves to be an expensive waste. The social implications are equally serious and carry their own high economic costs.
As demands for skills grow and as the number of job openings for the unskilled shrinks, the position of those with little to show for their years of schooling is thrown into sharp relief. Even in countries with emerging skill shortages, the position of those at the bottom of the ladder is exacerbated as the educational levels attained and demanded continue to grow.
I have taken some time to set the context in which developments in education have been implemented by the Government. I will now illustrate some of the important measures the Government have taken to implement their resultant policies. Funding for the special assistance scheme for schools in disadvantaged areas increased by 300 per cent between 1987 and 1991 and a further £250,000 has been provided this year. The home school links programme was set up and has been expanded to a total of 80 primary schools. It is currently being extended to second level schools. Within the past three years some 325 additional teachers have been approved for primary schools in disadvantaged areas and for remedial education. A pilot school psychological service for primary schools has been initiated.
In 1991, 325 teaching posts were authorised in order to reduce class sizes in primary schools. This year a further 300 posts will be allocated to the same purpose. At post-primary level some 120 schools have each been provided with the services of an extra teacher to assist in aspects of disadvantage within those schools. In 1991, 250 posts were sanctioned to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools. The effect of the further posts retained this year will be to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio to less than 25.2. At post primary level, pupil-teacher ratio will be improved to 19.25 for appointment purposes this year. This will increase the number of existing teaching posts by 143. There are now some 1,000 teachers, approved for post-primary schools outside the normal quota provision in order to meet particular curricula, remedial and other needs. From September next, 87 vice-principals will be recognised as ex-quota, thereby giving rise to a similar number of new teaching posts. Also some 62 schools will benefit from the services of guidance teachers. The free book schemes aimed at helping needy pupils have been expanded to include infant classes for the first time. The total expenditure on the schemes now exceeds £4 million annually. A new scheme to provide caretaking and clerical assistance for schools will commence in September this year.
For those who leave school prematurely, a variety of opportunities are now available ranging from literacy and community programmes, through Youth-reach and vocational training opportunities scheme. This latter scheme is geared specifically towards the long term unemployed.
At third level the Government have relentlessly pursued a policy of providing easier access for more students through a two-pronged strategy of simplifying the whole process of entry to third level and expanding the number of places available. The simplification and coordination of entry procedures will be fully implemented this year for all third-level colleges.
In the current academic year almost 40 per cent of school leavers entered third level education compared with 20 per cent in 1980 and 25 per cent in 1986. Under the Government's programme of expansion the participation rate will soon be about 45 per cent. They are dramatic growth rates, from 20 per cent in 1980 to 45 per cent in the not too distant future.
Enrolments in third level education now stand at 75,000. A further increase of 15,000 students is projected over the next four to five years. In a period of less than ten years there will have been an increase of 34,000 students in third level education — a staggering increase of 60 per cent.
Despite the explosion in numbers of students at third level more than half of all students at present in third level colleges receive grants. The total student support for fees and maintenance provided by the State is about £72 million. The average support per student is £1,900 per annum.
The massive growth in student numbers is nowhere more evident than in the case of ESF aided programmes. In 1986 there were some 10,600 students on ESF-aided third level programmes. In the programme of support negotiated under the European Community Support Framework, provision for an expansion of that number to 19,600 by 1993 was made. By 1990 that threshold had been reached.
Since 1990 a further 2,600 students have joined the same programmes for whom no ESF support is available. The State, therefore, has had to meet the full costs of these extra students which amounts to £10 million per annum.
In circumstances of limited financial resources the choice facing Government was between limiting the number going on to such courses within available funds or, alternatively, trying to accommodate more students by applying a means test to maintenance grants payable to the students participating in those programmes. The only equitable solution, which would not militate against students from the lower income groups, was to apply means testing. Even at that the savings achieved only partly offset the shortfall in ESF funding for the programmes.
I want to stress in the strongest possible terms that there will be no change for students already enrolled on ESF-aided third level courses. I repeat that. Furthermore, all students on these ESF third level courses will continue to have their tuition fees paid for them, regardless of income. What is at issue is means testing for maintenance grants only. Therefore they will still have a considerable advantage over students attending other third level courses.
The developments in relation to ESF grants have to be seen in the wider context of achieving more places for more and more students in third level education within the constraints of limited funds; and a more equitable distribution of the available funds focusing in particular on students from the lower income groups.
The revisions in ESF grants are only one of a number of measures that have been announced to remedy inequities in existing student support schemes. They comprise a package of measures. None should be considered in isolation from the others. The other main features of the package are: the income eligibility ceiling for families will be increased by £2,000 for each child after the first child attending third level education; income eligibility will be assessed on current income rather than, as heretofore, on the income in the year in which the student sat the leaving certificate; mature students who secure a place in a third level institution will automatically be considered to meet the academic requirements for the award of a grant; mature students may be assessed on the basis of their own incomes — and, if married, their spouses' incomes — rather than on their parent's income which has been the case up to now; lone parent's welfare payments under the lone parents allowance scheme will be excluded from the assessment of income for grant eligibility; and income limits and maintenance grants will be indexed-linked in 1992.
From what I have said it will be obvious that the objectives of the measures announced in relation to third level student grants is to achieve absolute equity in the distribution of available funds. Within these limits the means testing amendments introduced for ESF maintenance grants — and this is an important point — will ensure that a greater number of students from the lower income families will be enabled to participate in third level education.
I am satisfied that the revised arrangements forced on the Government by limited funds protect students from the lower income groups. I accept there is still a problem for students from middle income groups. I am conscious of the financial pressures placed on families in these groups in providing for third level education for their children. Accordingly, I intend to complete a review of the criteria for eligibility for student grants and have that completed by September 1992.
Like Deputy Jim Higgins, I am not satisfied that the overall higher education grants scheme, as it applies now, is a sensible one. For that reason I regard my current review as extremely urgent and timely. For example, the entire grants system will be examined, including the recent changes and will be overhauled by me if practicable and affordable. That will be done right across the board, but I must make it clear that the same rules must apply to all involved.
The current agreement for support from the European Community Structural Funds expires on 31 December 1993. Under this agreement ESF support for programmes run by the education system amounts to some £500 million. I expect that the new agreement on a community support framework, due to come into operation in January 1994, will result in substantially more EC aid for programmes in third level colleges.
I consider that it is vital that the interests of the education system are fully represented in the forthcoming negotiations. Accordingly, I have decided to establish a permanent Department of Education presence in Brussels, a move proposed by Deputy Jim Higgins and his party whose work in that regard I acknowledge.
Through our representation in Busssels we will seek to develop a clearer view of the Commission's thinking as it develops both on the overall size of the new funds and the underlying principles which will govern the allocation of the increased funds. This will be of immeasurable help in planning the development of education and training provision for the future.
I have no doubt but that there will be a substantial increase in support available to this country from 1994 onwards and am determined to so ensure which could result in a higher level of support for existing programmes. I intend to explore all possibilities to enhance the level and extent of student support within the context of those extra resources.
I commend the amendment to the House.
I congratulate the new Minister for Education on his appointment. I have no doubt that he will bring the same degree of professionalism and effectiveness to his duties in the Department of Education as he did in his other Ministries.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I can assure the House that I have no hesitation whatsoever in commending the achievements effected in education since 1987 which, by any standard, have been significant and dramatic.
The reforming measures in the educational area are a clear recognition on the part of Government that individuals' success and the economic development of the community to which they belong are best achieved by enabling them, through appropriate, relevant educational and training programmes, develop their potential to the fullest possible extent.
This Government recognise that our young people are our greatest resource, that education and training are the key to our continued economic growth and development on which the future of our young people and the quality of life in our society are dependent. Our society, compared with that of other European states, is characterised by its youthfulness in that, out of a population of some 3.5 million, approximately half are under the age of 25 years and almost one million participate in full-time education, representing the highest proportion of population in education among the OECD group of countries.
We have an extremely good education system which fosters and nurtures the talents, aptitudes and abilities of our young people. Nonetheless, in spite of its excellence we must continue to endeavour to reform and develop it so that it will continue to be relevant to existing needs, preparing our young people for life in a dynamic, ever changing world.
There is general acceptance of the policy for a rolling reform process in the education sector, allowing for dynamic qualitative and quantitative improvements in the delivery of those educational services. Therefore our strategy must continue to be one of seeking to ensure that all our young people are afforded an opportunity to achieve their innate potential in the most effective and efficient manner.
As the House will be aware, a new unified course at junior cycle level was introduced in 1989, the old intermediate and day group certificate examinations being replaced from this year by a single junior certificate examination, marking the end of compulsory schooling. I am sure there will be some nostalgia at the passing of the day group and intermediate certificates, both of which held a secure place in the Irish educational consciousness, but I have no doubt that the new courses and examination will be accepted universally for what they are, a major step forward in the development of a coherent, comprehensive system obtaining to the end of compulsory schooling.
As indicated in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the aim of this Government is to encourage and facilitate pupils to continue in full-time education up to the age of 18 years, by providing a range of education training programmes suited to their abilities and aptitudes.
At present some 74 per cent of young people complete the senior cycle of second level education whereas in 1980, 60 per cent only completed senior cycle. As we approach the end of the present century, a realistic target would be to have 90 per cent of pupils achieve that level of educational attainment with up to 90 per cent of those progressing to some form of post-second level education and training. There is no doubt that this is an ambitious target but I have no doubt that the Government, given their past successes, will succeed in the sustained and committed efforts towards improving retention rates in post-compulsory education. There is some evidence to show that the senior cycle needs to be reformed in a major way in order to provide more fully for all ability levels that will participate in post-compulsory programmes.
Questions have been raised regarding the suitability of the present leaving certificate programme to the educational needs of all our young people who at present follow it. For example, some 20 per cent of students taking not less than five subjects in the leaving certificate do not obtain a grade D in five subjects. A study carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute into the quality of education as seen by young people, indicated that many students who had followed the lower level leaving certificate programme were dissatisfied. However, there was a more positive view of educational experience among those who had followed low level courses with vocational or technical options. Accordingly, the restructuring and reform of senior cycle currently taking place must ensure that individuals can select a range of study options which are in accordance with their abilities, aptitudes and talents. In this way, the senior cycle will be more relevant to the needs of all students and become more responsive to the requirements of the economy for appropriately skilled personnel.
The Minister for Education outlined in his address the very comprehensive undertaking by Government in the education area in recent years and, in particular, in those areas which are directed towards the disadvantaged. These have been a central feature of the Government's programme since 1987. The increased resources allocated for this area in recent years have been very significant and are strong indicators of the commitment by Government to addressing, in a very practical way, the social equity issues.
The budgetary provisions for vocational education committee student grants and scholarships is almost £42 million. This represents an increase of £6 million approximately or 16 per cent on the 1991 outturn and is required to provide grants for the increased number of students attending programmes in vocational education committee third level colleges. There has been a phenomenal increase in the number of students attending EC supported training programmes in these colleges. In 1985, 10,300 students received ESF grants whereas in 1991, approximately 22,200 were in receipt of such grants. The result of such growth in numbers is that the limited ESF aid available for these training programmes was reached when student enrolments reached 19,600 students approximately. Obviously a conflict between budgetary restraint and increasing student numbers exists. I have urged the Minister to explore all avenues to overcome this problem. Indeed, I welcome the Minister's announcement tonight that he will review the criteria of eligibility for all student grants by September 1992.
I dtosach báire, iarraim cead uaitse mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Howlin agus an Teachta O'Sullivan.
Agus ón Teach, mar is é an Teach a thugann an cead, agus déarfainn go dtabharfaidh siad sin duit agus fáilte. Is that agreed? Agreed.
First, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Deputy Seamus Brennan on his appointment as Minister for Education — we will miss his trips to Waterford Airport and other tourism developments in Waterford — and Deputy Aylward in the adjoining constituency on his appointment. I wish them every success.
The thrust of the Fine Gael motion is acceptable to the Labour Party. I compliment Deputy Jim Higgins in securing the agreement of his Front Bench colleagues to moving this motion and affording the House the opportunity of debating the totally unacceptable decision of the Government to means test the ESF maintenance grants from next September. Last Thursday I tabled a question to the Minister for Education to find out the amount of European Structural Funds spent on Irish third level education in the years 1990 and 1991 and a breakdown on how other funding was spent in the third level institutions in each of those years. I was given the global amounts for 1990 and 1991. The figures were £70.59 million and £72.01 million respectively. The latter part of the reply, however, was appalling and underlines the chaos and total lack of effective financial control at the Department of Education. I was informed that the amount of ESF support spent on individual third level institutions was not readily available and, in view of the inordinate amount of staff time required, it would not be feasible to divert resources from essential tasks to collate the information sought.
The Department of Education have spent approximately £70 million of ESF funding in the past two years and they do not know in detail how that money was spent. Following the recent report of the Committee of Public Accounts in relation to the Carysfort transactions, Deputies cannot but be concerned about accountability in the Department of Education I have, therefore, written to the Comptroller and Auditor-General suggesting that he examine the whole area of third level European Social Funding. As a Dáil Deputy, and as a Front Bench spokesperson, I resent having to pursue this matter in this fashion having failed to get the required information by way of Dáil question. The new Taoiseach, and his Ministers, in terms of their commitment to open Government, would do well to heed the words of Mr. Justice Hamilton at the beef tribunal in relation to proper answers to Dáil questions. I contend that either the Department have something to hide or operate with unacceptable inefficiency in relation to the ESF area and I base that on the type of reply I received. It is not good enough for a Minister to come back into this House with a reply stating he does not know in detail how £70 million was disbursed in 1990 and 1991.
However, tonight we are debating the decision to means test ESF grants and I put it to the Minister that although the Department of Education may very well try to represent this decision as a directive from the Department of Finance, the real agenda is quite different. I contend that it is part of a strategy to limit the growth of the RTC-DIT sector by diverting students to the universities in the context of a falling birth rate. This policy — and this very same policy pervades the RTC and Dublin Institute of Technology Bills — will result in further centralising of third level resources in Dublin, in particular, and in Cork, Limerick and Galway at the expense of the regions and economic development in the regions.
The publication of the Green Paper on education has once again been deferred following the appointment of a new Minister. According to the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress it was to have been published last September; Minister O'Rourke was to have published it last December; Minister Davern was having a look at it at the time he departed from office and now it seems that the new Minister will spend some time before he presents the Green Paper to the country. This is totally unacceptable. Surely enough time has been spent in the Department dealing with the Green Paper so that publishing it cannot be all that difficult. I worry that the change of Minister may very well result in the accountancy approach to education tending to dominate rather than a more open educational approach in terms of what education is all about, in terms of the full development of each individual to the absolute extent of his or her potential.
The Green Paper has not arrived. In this context I welcome very much, in the Minister's response tonight, the provision of permanent representation in Brussels for this country. The fact is the Green Paper has not been published. All those with an interest in education, parents just as much as teachers and administrators, should be involved in this debate to come up with policies which will put this country on the proper track, in terms of economic development and education, and take us into the next century. We are sending a representative to Brussels in order to attract more funds, but I would contend that, even though the Minister tonight seemed to give the idea that his Department have an overall policy, that is not so. The Department of Education have been moving along in a certain ad hoc fashion and we need look no further than the position at second level.
The Barber report clearly demonstrates that each town in Ireland, by the year 2006, will have one second level institution, but there is no policy emerging in the Department to ensure amalgamations will be effected in the best interests of students and parents. All the various local vested interests will descend on the scene and some agreement will be cobbled together, whereas what is required is a long term policy which will provide for the children of Ireland and the proper utilisation of all resources and facilities available.
The Minister mentioned the review committee which his predecessor, Deputy Davern, had referred to — the review committee established to examine the income limits in relation to third level grants. I was very glad to hear tonight that the review is to be completed by September. However, no indication has been given as to what will happen when the review body report and their recommendations are put before the Government. Since I entered this House, there has been a tendency to refer everything to a review body: at primary level we have had the primary review body and the curriculum review body. When these report, there is a certain amount of hooha and then nothing happens. Therefore, the last thing we need in this vital area is another review body.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the section on education in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, in particular, clause (m). There is no mention in that section of ESF grants. Neither is there any mention of those grants being curtailed or of means testing. I put it to the Minister that, to the social partners and in particular to the PAYE sector, this amounts to a breach of faith and a breach of the spirit of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
In the press statement issued by the previous Minister, Deputy Davern, on higher education grants, three matters covered in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress were dealt with, that is, the question of increasing the income limit for families with more than one child at third level, assessing mature students on their own income and whether mature students would be regarded as having fulfilled the academic requirements at the stage they gained a place in a third level college. That is to be welcomed. The problem, however, is that the income limits in place in relation to the higher education grants are now to be extended to cover maintenance grants under the ESF. For instance, a two child family with an income of £10,887, will receive the full maintenance grant, in respect of one student, of £561, but I stress that if gross income exceeds £13,214, the meagre maintenance grant of £226 per quarter will not be paid. In order for a four child family to qualify for the full grant their income must not exceed £12,403 and in order to qualify for the meagre maintenance grant of £226 per quarter their income must not exceed £14,832.
The Labour Party have argued strongly time and again in relation to third level grants — I am talking here of higher education grants and ESF grants — that eligibility must be assessed on net rather than gross income. In relation to the ESF grants, we say "let them be" and that they should not be means tested. Great play can be made of the fact that the children of the rich obtain ESF grants without being subjected to a means test. In principle, obviously my party have a problem with this. The children to the rich will be educated one way or another. The Clancy report published in 1986 showed that 30 per cent of the children of those in the professional classes gain places in universities, whereas only 12.2 per cent attend RTCs; that 13.9 per cent of children of manual workers attend universities whereas 31.4 per cent attend RTCs.
In relation to the RTCs, it has to be borne in mind that families with rather modest incomes will send their children to the RTCs to pursue either certificate or diploma courses. The children can then go on to university. Because the parents have been in receipt of the ESF grants savings can be made, either from the parents income or the income earned by children during the summer period. In this way many children are allowed to aspire to university degrees which otherwise would not be possible. The point should be made about the ESF grants that this is a legitimate aspiration, and it is totally unacceptable for the Department of Education or, indeed, for the Minister, to act in this way.
The Minister mentioned, in relation to the great improvements that have been made in the education sector, the school psychological service in primary schools which has been introduced on a pilot basis in three areas. While this is to be welcomed, I pointed out to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy O'Rourke, that the greatest problem in our national schools is discipline. There are children in our schools who could be loosely described as being emotionally disturbed, and there is no place to which they can be referred.
As they can be quite intelligent they are not suited to special schools. However, they can be extremely disruptive. When we consider that £10 million was spent on Carysfort College, we wonder what we could have achieved in relation to a school psychological service, if that funding had been allocated to the primary sector. Children in primary schools would benefit greatly under a better disciplinary regime with the result, that by the time they reach third level, they would be far better prepared than they are at the moment. Teaching has become far more difficult and it is no longer possible to attain job satisfaction or the targets that it was once possible to attain. One of the difficulties is that there is a high degree of burn-out.
In conclusion, I support the Fine Gael motion and compliment Deputy Higgins, once again, for bringing it forward. When we come to vote on it tomorrow night the Labour Party will support it.
I join other speakers in wishing the new Minister for Education well. That also applies to the Minister of State who comes from an adjoining county which, I hope, augurs well for all the educational establishments in the south-east, a view which I am sure is shared by my colleague, Deputy O'Shea.
I speak on this motion to underscore, to the best of my ability, to the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department, the huge anxiety, particularly among middle income families and parents, about the affordability of third level education for their children. Of all the issues raised at our clinics in recent times this is often one of the most distressing, the sheer panic that parents face trying to plan and map the future of their children. Many, particularly PAYE workers, had hoped they could afford not only to have their first child but subsequent children educated in RTCs or in the Dublin Institute of Technology through the European Social Fund paying for courses. It is nothing short of a devastating blow to them to hear an arbitrary decision by the former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, to remove this plank from them and to tell them that, unless they are already in the system, they will not have support for the maintenance of their children from this year. It sent shock waves through many households and the spontaneous reaction of parents — and indeed of students in the senior level in secondary schools — to this suggestion has been very noticeable; it should have registered even with the Minister and the Minister of State.
We must focus on what we want in terms of education, whether we approach education as a right or as a privilege. If we are to begin to tackle the horrendous problems we face providing jobs on an ongoing basis for our young people, let alone the vast number of unemployed, we must at least provide them with the best education possible and consistent with their own abilities. That simply is not happening now. If the Minister had decided to announce a fundamental restructuring of the support system for all third level courses, the Labour Party would possibly have welcomed it. If he had said that the issue would be, not of trying to further restrict moneys going to one category of third level student but to see how best to broaden the scope to allow more people from all sectors and socio-economic backgrounds to advance to the best of their ability, then there would have been some merit in looking at it. However, he blandly announced that he intended to attack one sector of education although he sweetened the news with one or two minor improvements.
The reaction of the vocational education committees across the country, who have their fingers on the pulse in regard to matters of vocational education in particular, should certainly register with the Minister and the Department. It is nothing short of obscene that the Minister would decide to cut support to one sector instead of transforming the whole issue of access to third level education, which is certainly crying out for attention.
I have only a few minutes left as I intend sharing my time with Deputy O'Sullivan. I want to address a particular issue, my own county and constituency of Wexford. Other Deputies have been parochial and I make no apology for being the same. I do so for one reason: the Clancy report identified Wexford as having the third lowest level of participation in third level education in the country, not a statistic of which I am proud. I am not proud of another statistic, the fact that my county has the second highest level of unemployment, I do not think those two statistics are unrelated.
Most of the students in my county who manage to get third level education attend the regional colleges in the constituency of the Minister of State in Carlow or in Deputy O'Shea's constituency in Waterford. From now on, many of them will not be able to pursue that option and the impact on participation rates in third level education — and the consequent employability of young people from Wexford — will suffer. We already have a disproportionate uptake on a regional basis, an uneven uptake, across the country and instead of looking for mechanisms and devices to allow all the children of the nation to be treated equally, to make progress to the best of their abilities, there is now a set of decisions which will impact even greater on those who are already disadvantaged geographically by the fact of not having a third level facility within their own county boundaries.
The means test as a device for determining entitlement to funding and support is an extraordinarily crude one because it focuses on those who are transparent and honest in all their dealings, in other words, for the greater part, PAYE workers for whom every penny is accountable and transparent but there are other categories who are not as forthcoming, open or obvious in relation to their incomes. Unfortunately, there will again be a total disadvantaging of the PAYE sector.
I am most anxious to have a fundamental reform. The Minister announced a review. I take a jaundiced attitude to reviews because, as my colleague said, so few of them bear fruit. The Labour Party are fundamentally opposed to this arbitrary attack on one sector which will certainly disadvantage many communities, counties and students.
I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. When you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, held that position from 1977 to 1981 you were more than generous to the Cork regional technicial college and I hope that the present holder of the office will take a leaf from your book because we are again in need of funds. As my two colleagues complimented the man from the south-east, a little bit of flattery on my part is not out of place.
The Minister said that central to the Government's approach to combating the complexities of disadvantage is to have education seen as an integrated part of the wider political, social, economic and cultural framework of society's development. I differ slightly from that view in as much as I consider that education is the driving force by which we will combat all these problems in society. It is the catalyst and for that reason it is very difficut to accept what the Minister is now trying to introduce — means testing ESF grants.
In another part of his speech the Minister mentioned the massive growth in student numbers which he said was nowhere more evident than in the case of ESF aided programmes. That in itself tells a story because we have often heard references to the poverty trap. However, there was one way out of the poverty trap, through education. I must be extremely careful in what I say in this regard but education is seen as an alternative to unemployment. That is unacceptable, education as a means of combating and defeating unemployment is readily acceptable to me.
There are also misgivings and misunderstandings about the role of regional technical colleges. I am glad that Deputy McGinley is in the House because it seems that the problem to date has been projected as one appertaining to rural areas. Since the introduction of a central applications system it is commonplace for students from Cork city, which has a regional college and a university, to pursue courses in regional colleges or universities in other counties.
I know students from Kerry who have had to go to Letterkenny.
For this reason, I do not think the proposal will hit rural based children only; the problem is very real in urban areas also. In view of the proposal to introduce a Green Paper on education in the foreseeable future, I find it difficult to understand why the Minister should insist on having this proposal introduced by next September.
Debate adjourned.