At first reading of Section 3 (b), it seemed to me, as it must have seemed to many Senators, that the amount in question was the total fund. I learned in conversation with the Minister that is not so, that this subdivision applies only to the new amount coming in, that the old commitments for continuing scholarship-holders are not affected by this Bill. That is a point worth emphasising. Subsection (c) (1) says: "an income of an amount exceeding such amount." I wonder whether that wording is elastic enough to permit reductions for the number of children in assessing the income?
Local Authorities (Education Scholarships) (Amendment) Bill, 1961— Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I understand it is elastic enough for that purpose.
Would it not be necessary to put in there "and/or"? Can you deal under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c) with a person who has property—say, land—and an income also? It might be possible that one excludes the other, according to the wording here, in the case, as somebody mentioned here today, of a person with an income and also a farm of land. Will paragraphs (1) and (2) not be separately exclusive ?
I expect that in a combined ownership of property and an income, an income value would be put on the property.
I know that is intended but does what is here mean that? Suppose I had an income that was within the terms laid down for a scholarship for my son and that I also had property that was within those terms, can you add both together?
I think both would be considered as income, in much the same way as property would be taxed in the case of a person with property and who was also an income-earner. In paragraph (1), "income" could cover income in salary as well as income from property, whereas in paragraph (2) which relates to a person with property but no fixed income, the "income" in that case would be related to the property. I think in the case of a person having both, all the income will be fixed by the local authority as the income derived from the property and added to the actual income of the person so that a notional total income will be fixed.
For the purpose of argument, suppose I had a farm of 1,000 acres and could prove I was losing money on it. Suppose I did not bother about it but just paid the rates on it, to take an exaggerated case. You can have such a case. Suppose I had that farm and could prove I was not making any money on it; suppose I employed a lot of labour, I would then be entitled to a scholarship? That is an extreme case.
I doubt if, on the present number of scholarships available, anybody with 1,000 acres of useful land would be eligible for a scholarship, no matter what he would say.
I do not think that affects the validity of Senator Cole's point. I read that paragraph "property of a value exceeding such value" as relating to rateable valuation of property. Now, I gather that is not so. The Minister says it is the income derived from the ownership of the property.
No. The Senator thought that in the case of a person with a combined income of a known sum and ownership of property of a certain valuation, where both figures, if separated—one under income and one under valaution—would be less than the figure fixed by the means test such person would escape even though his combined income from the property with his known income would be greater than the income of a person excluded? I think that is what the Senator means.
Then, Senator Cole is perfectly right in those circumstances.
In which circumstances?
In the circumstances that you are going to aggregate both incomes, the known income and the income out of property. Subsection (c) paragraph (1) should read "an income of an amount exceeding such amount and/or property of a value exceeding such value."
That would perhaps be clearer as a description, but in fact I am advised it is covered in the way it is put in the Bill. The case taken is that of a man with a money income below the level of the means test figure. He owns property which gives him an additional income to his money income which, when the two are combined, would exclude him. I understand that in estimating the value of income from a valued property £1 valuation is taken to equal £16 income and that the person assessing such a combined income can do so fairly accurately. A combined income would come under heading (1) even though the income comes from property and from a fixed money income.
That is a different story.
That is what we have in our scheme in Cavan. We have a limit of £800 income or £50 valuation. I am not sure that this section will allow us to do that in the way it is worded now.
My advice is that it does cover it.
I hope so.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his promise to look into possible anomalies in the scheme and to do his best, with his inimitable powers of persuasion, to remove anything he may consider injurious or undesirable. I assure him he has our full confidence in this matter, and we look forward to some changes at any rate on those lines.
In accordance with Section 2 of the Principal Act, the Minister is empowered to approve of the schemes submitted, to modify them and so on. In other words, he can then substantially bring the various schemes into line under the various headings of conditions of award, performance during tenure of the scholarship, and so on. I would ask the Minister, then, if in drafting what he would regard as reasonable schemes, he would at that period consult both with the university authorities concerned or any other authorities to ensure he has the benefit of their experience in advising him as to possible pitfalls in the existing schemes and on the objectives that should be sought after so that the resulting standards set by the Minister and his Department would be the best possible.
I hope to have full consultation on all aspects of the schemes, wherever I can get information.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
First I should like to say how glad I am that this Bill is now about to pass and that I regret I had not an opportunity of saying so at an earlier stage. I hope when the Minister comes to allocate the funds he will make it possible for these scholarships to be at as generous a level as possible, particularly in the universities. I know that because the universities in Great Britain have got very much greater support from the Government than we can hope to have, because of their greater resources, their fees are correspondingly lower than ours in many cases. This is a great burden on our people and rather an anomaly. If we can ease that by giving generous scholarships, it would be in the long run very considerably to the benefit of the country.
I hope when the local authorities are administering these grants they will make it possible for the scholars who are allocated to these scholarships, subject to their satisfactory performance in the universities, if necessary to prolong their stay there. I am thinking particularly of professional students. The professional courses in medicine, veterinary medicine, dentistry and engineering are all now so crowded with detail—so many special little bits to be gone into here and there—that a student cannot give much consideration to the scientific aspect of these subjects.
It has become usual in Great Britain for such students, usually the better portion of the class, to take some time off, about a year, to devote specially to the scientific aspects of the subject during the course of their professional training. That prolongs their stay in the university and, therefore, is an extra burden on them which, if they cannot provide it out of funds like this, they will be unwilling and perhaps unable to undertake. These are extremely important people from the country's point of view. It is these people usually who are qualified to do research work in their professional subjects and to take up such aspects for public advancement at a later stage. We have been very definitely contributing less than our share of people with this special training in our Irish universities in the past for that reason—that the burden of the long professional course is so great they are not given time off to do the scientific work at higher level.
There is only one other thing I should like to add, and that is largely to support what my colleague, Senator Stanford, said about the allocation of these scholarships. I am glad to hear from him the Minister is well disposed towards some review of the anomalies that have obtained in the past. I feel in allocating these scholarships only two things should be taken into consideration: the ability and merit of the candidate and the wishes of the parents of the candidate as to the university he should go to under the scholarship scheme. I believe they should be allowed to go to any university where the standard is sufficiently high.
Speaking for the university I have the honour to represent, I think a consideration of the list of our teachers is sufficient to guarantee the adequacy of the training of any student who comes to us. We take our teachers from all levels of universities in various countries. We have a large number of teachers who are graduates and former members of the staff of the National University of Ireland. We are very proud to have this wide selection of distinguished teachers and, on that basis, we can undertake that anybody who wishes to come to us under the scheme will be assured of an adequate training. This university has a long tradition of participation in higher education and we are only too ready and too willing to play our part and do anything we can in furthering the interests of the country. We regard this as a very proper opportunity from that point of view.
One postscript to the Bill. I hope that this great increase in the number of scholarships will not mean the further growth of universities in this city to the detriment of the provincial universities. In short, I hope the scholarship holders——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I doubt very much if this is relevant. I allowed Senator Jessop to speak because he had not spoken before, but he was not absolutely relevant.
May I declare my intention not to follow Senator Jessop or Senator Quinlan in what seems to me to be an irrelevant boost by each for his own institution?
Question put and agreed to.