Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1968

Vol. 65 No. 10

Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1968: Committee and Final Stages (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Before subsection (1) (d) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"( ) the persons have been accepted for entry to or continuance in a course of study at an approved institution,".
—(Professor Dooge.)

I had the floor last night when we adjourned discussion of this amendment. I wanted to intervene briefly on the amendment which suggests that a further consideration to be taken into account when grants are being granted to help people to attend the university should be whether or not they have been accepted for entry to or continuance in a course of study at an approved institution. Really the only point I wanted to make was that if the Minister does not accept some such amendment as this, he might find himself in the awkward position of making grants to enable people to attend the university without their having a university to attend. The presumption would then be that they would be getting their grants all right living in an hotel, doing the best they could, but not in fact attending a university because they had not gained admission.

I feel there ought to be an onus on the Minister, an obligation, to discover, before making the grants whether the people concerned are accepted in the university. I think the two necessarily go together and I believe this is something upon which the Minister might like time to reflect before Report Stage because it could be an implied absurdity if grants were paid for attending a university when in fact the university did not accept them.

The only legitimate reason I could see for not accepting them would be if the course they wanted to pursue were already full. It would be possible to have the intellectual qualifications but not to have the space and facilities available, and I feel that either amendment No. 8 or amendment No. 9, which we have not yet reached, would solve that problem.

As I said in the House yesterday before Senator Sheehy Skeffngton came in, in reply to this point, this whole matter is covered in section 5 where an obligation is placed on the local authority to prepare a scheme annually and under that scheme all the requirements in regard to students and the university are set out in detail. This has been the case since scholarships were initiated in this country and will continue to be the case under the scheme. I might read one particular recommendation which will be mandatory under section 5 for students, university authorities, local authorities and everybody else concerned. We have regulations for the provision of grants, the categories of students, the eligibility of candidates, and we say that he must meet the entrance requirements; a candidate must comply with the entrance requirements laid down by the university college or other approved institution of higher education in respect of the course the candidate will attend.

If there are further requirements which the university authorities may wish to incorporate in the higher grants scheme, we will be glad to meet them on it. This is a better way of dealing with the matter than writing it into an Act of the Oireachtas. It is better to have these requirements made out annually in the scheme of grants for higher education which the local authority must issue to each candidate for such grant and each successful student will be bound by the scheme, and the local authority will be bound by the scheme and everybody concerned will be bound by the scheme. This scheme has been fully acceptable over the years to the university authorities. If they wish any changes to be made, they can make representations to me and in the future to the Higher Education Authority in regard to the entrance requirements for students coming into their institutions.

I think this pretty well meets the point and I agree with most of what the Minister has just said. This scheme under subsection (2) of section 5 is pretty well in the Minister's hands. I am not one of those who suspect a deep conspiracy against the universities. I know the Minister would always satisfy himself that the scheme was in accordance with the wishes of these institutions but there is a subsidiary point which I would like to mention. It is possible that in present circumstances a student may satisfy the requirements laid down by the university but might wish to do a course of study at the university which is already full up. That student has fulfilled the requirements of the university as the Minister has said and would be eligible for a grant but it might happen that, although eligible, he could not be accepted for the course of study he desires. It is possible now for the student to gain entry to the university but to be refused entry to the course he chooses. If he is determined to do one particular course and no other, there would be a certain problem as to whether or not he would get a grant.

What the Minister has said sounds reasonable enough, but we have to look at it in a practical way against a practical background and that practical background is that the scheme as agreed on can be changed by the Minister with or without the agreement of the council concerned. It does seem very strange that in drafting this scheme the universities have not been consulted at all. Neither of the universities has been consulted and it is something which I feel constrained to raise at the Standing Committee of the Senate next week. There are many features of this Bill I will have to raise at this Committee and in the Seanad later.

The Minister says, and quite rightly, that the universities can make changes to those "for the purpose of protecting their standards", but the universities feel that that is exactly what they did, without any effect, in connection with the proposed alterations in the leaving certificate.

Sin ceist eile.

Still we have to judge this against a practical background because the universities were concerned that the representations they made in connection with the leaving certificate, which were shared by all teacher groups and all competent groups outside the universities, were, to quote the Minister, "for the purpose of protecting their standards" and they were dismissed offhand. Not a comma was changed. Are we then going to walk into the same trap again and hand over those powers to the Minister without safeguard in connection with the grants? I for one will not be a party to that. At the very minimum, we will have to insist on the amendment before us and we will have to be very critical when section I comes back to us in its redrafted form.

Even at this late stage, I would ask the Minister to defer Report Stage as late as possible in the present session and in that period to have belated but nevertheless urgent consultations with both the university authorities before Report Stage so that he can come here and tell us he has had those discussions and that an agreement has been reached.

We do not want this scheme to start out with any misunderstanding or any doubts. We want it to go forward as an effort by all. There are three sides to this triangle involved in drafting these standards, the Minister, the local authorities and the university. The third side must be given its due recognition and its due place in putting its experience at the disposal of the Minister and the Department in drafting these schemes under section 5.

Senator Quinlan has said there was a triangle involved in this and it is very dangerous for any fourth party to attempt to interfere where a triangle already exists.

You can have a quadrangle.

I put down this amendment because I felt that the question of entry standard was a matter of such great importance that it might be singled out from one of those things which were expressed in a scheme and should be given statutory effect. The Minister has indicated that he does not agree with this but nevertheless he has indicated that a provision similar to this has been in schemes in the past and is in the model scheme which he has already drafted and I think he is ready to assure us that such a provision will be in all schemes in the future.

With that assurance, even if it is only a gesture from the Minister and not on the records of the House——

You have it ab solutely.

From this Minister.

We have an absolute assurance from the Minister that as far as he is concerned, all future schemes will contain a provision that the universities will be free to control their own acceptance for entry and that they will not be coerced in any way. On the basis of that assurance, I would like to express my confidence in the Minister by withdrawing this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I wonder would the Senator consider that amendment No. 9 has been adequately discussed with amendment No. 8?

I do not think so.

The Chair feels it covers very much the same ground.

I move amendment No. 9:

In subsection (1) to delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following:

"(d) the persons comply with such other requirements as may from time to time be prescribed by the Minister in agreement with the relevant education authorities."

I think that is almost self-explanatory. I want to ensure that the requirements here are both scholastic and disciplinary and prescribed by the Minister. I cannot see why there should be any objections on the part of the Minister to having this done in full agreement with the relevant educational authorities.

It is done as a matter of course every day of the week.

We would like to see it written in. I cannot see objection to it. I suggest to the Minister to show on the assurance he has given that he accepts this. We do not for one moment suspect or doubt in any way his assurance but surely those assurances are in no way binding on even another Minister from the Minister's Party, much less on a Minister from any succeeding Government. That is why we cannot pass legislation on a series of assurances no matter how welcome for the time being and cannot accept anything in the nature of assurances from a Minister, or even ministerial interpretations of sections of a Bill, because once a Bill leaves the House, all that remains is what is written in the Bill and it is a matter of whatever interpretation the courts place on it. Consequently, I would urge on the Minister to come some distance to meet us by accepting this amendment.

I would like to support what Senator Quinlan has said because I feel this is merely an expression in other words of the assurance the Minister has given us. The purport of the amendment before us now is to add the words "in agreement with the relevant educational authorities". The Minister assures us he will always do this. I would like to ask him in what way would he feel inhibited in accepting this amendment?

I am not altogether certain that this amendment is a desirable one. If it read "in consultation with the relevant authorities", there would be some good in accepting it because that would express in black and white in the Bill what the Minister is going to do. I am not so sure it is a good thing to write into legislation that there must be agreement. What happens if there is no agreement? I do not want to go over unfortunate events of the past where—I am not attempting to snipe at anyone — things have happened which should not have led to this agreement. The autocratic behaviour of certain institutions with regard to local authority scholarships in the past was of the nature that no Minister should have agreed to certain things which were done in the past.

Those were not university authorities.

The point I am making is that there might be cases where in the public interest a Minister would have full considerataion but you would have to disagree with him. While, therefore, there is something to be said for writing into the Bill something to say there must be agreement, you thereby give a power of veto to the institution concerned. That is not necessarily good. I know somebody has to take the initiative and while there should be consultation and possibly every effort made to reach agreement, there may be cases where it would not be possible to reach agreement. I think it would be dangerous to put this in the Bill.

Who are the relevant educational authorities? You could get into terrible trouble if you write things of this kind into the Bill, and Senator Yeats has just postulated other things that might arise. It is beyond me that there should not be mutual understanding with regard to education. We should not tie ourselves unduly in a detail of this kind. This is a Bill primarily to enable the community to give more money to people who heretofore could not avail of higher education, to give more money to them and as a start to ensure as far as possible that the best talent we have should get into higher education. It is providing a flexible basis for ensuring that the community will to a greater degree in the future provide such grants to students in income categories who heretofore could not afford higher education. This is the main purpose of the Bill. It is a matter largely for the community and the people who wish to participate in it.

As far as Senator Quinlan's suggestion is concerned, that there should be detailed consultation in a matter of this kind, any representations the universities wish to make will be looked into closely by me and my Department, but this is not a matter which entails detailed consultations between my Department and the universities, and any matter which did involve the universities closely, we took in detail indeed.

I want to refer to the structure of the new leaving certificate and to assure Senator Quinlan and the House and the public generally that we spent two years discussing that matter with every body concerned, and a university expert and academician were brought in on our discussions. Teacher organisations were brought into our very detailed discussions on consultations on the structure of the leaving certificate. I want to compliment the university people on their excellent contribution in these matters. They were very helpful. They gave tremendous assistance in the preparation of the various groups which we have set out now as the new leaving structure. I do not want to suggest that universities have no function in this matter—quite the contrary. I want to say that the universities in these discussions were very helpful and I wish it to remain that way in regard to higher education.

On this particular amendment, there is absolutely no point in tying down the Minister, whoever he may be, in the manner suggested by the amendment. On the previous amendment— and I am covering old ground here— the university authorities, if they were asked to come in here and talk, would be far happier with the situation of the past. I am aware that the governing bodies of the universities would be happier with the provision we suggest in section 5, than a proposal of this kind which would tie the situation down. The responsible people in the universities want that, and what I have is a flexible scheme whereby they can make representations to me in the years ahead, and we do not tie anybody down to an undue degree and this is what the people in charge of the universities want.

It could be covered by subsection (d)—"such other requirements as may from time to time be prescribed". For instance, I could think of other requirements in university life. There is a rule of attendance at a certain percentage of lectures. If universities have a rule to that effect, here it says the university has this rule and the Minister may not prescribe that as a requirement. On the question of standards at examinations, I feel that the university alone is guardian of the standards. Why under this section, if it is required for a grant that a student must attain a certain standard, not have this standard stated after agreement, not after consultation?

There is the question of discipline. Again, why not have this in agreement rather than after consultation? In other words, we have not the confidence we should have in the phrase "after consultation". I think they do not want to take it in this debate, but the Minister and the public generally will unfortunately hear a great deal more about the leaving certificate and about consultations before we reach a satisfactory situation. I think it is only yesterday there was a strong pronouncement by a leading conference——

We would do a lot better in every field without denouncements.

The matter of these conferences is not appropriate to this Bill.

It is appropriate as showing the real confidence between the Minister and the point of view I am expressing, which other organisations outside and many members here share with me. It is an interpretation of the validity of the phrase "after consultation". In other words, we do not see the machinery for consultation. We are not satisfied with consultation of the past; rather are we looking forward to it in the future.

Consultations are under way at the present time and I hope they will be successful.

I wish them every success, and I will try to make them a success every time I am concerned with them. It would be unthinkable that the Minister would agree to a requirement that was against what the universities want in that regard; in other words, that he would impose something that would not be covered in the phrase. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this. Senator Yeats mentioned the autocratic behaviour of some university authorities. I challenge Senator Yeats that the universities are not to be labelled in this way. I have an idea what he is referring to but I challenge him to name the authorities.

I hope Senators Yeats and Quinlan will direct their attention to the amendment before the House.

I had every intention of doing so. I assure Senator Quinlan that I am not referring to University College, Cork; I was referring to University College, Dublin. I was shocked, I must say, to hear sections of Senator Quinlan's pronouncement and I feel called upon to rise in order to defend the universities' autonomy against Senator Quinlan. He made some quite extraordinary statements, and he was inviting the Minister, in fact, to interfere in matters of university discipline such as the number of lectures a student has to attend and standards in examination results. I was appalled by Senator Quinlan. It was quite fantastic. It seems to me that this Bill has nothing to do with these matters. It relates only to the payment of grants by local authorities. Whether the university decides that a student should reach a certain standard at examinations or attend a certain number of lectures or comply with other matters of discipline is entirely a matter for the university. I was appalled to hear Senator Quinlan suggesting that under this Bill the Minister should be in agreement with the universities in these matters. These are matters which are none of the Minister's business under this Bill. All it relates to is the payment of grants by local authorities. What the universities regard as their internal business is their business and not the Minister's.

Might I interrupt the discussion for a moment? The Minister has to attend an important meeting at 12 noon. May I express the hope that we can possibly finish Committee Stage by then and adjourn for lunch from 12 to 1 o'clock if the House would agree?

I would not agree. We do not want to rush it to that extent.

We could be agreeable to adjourning from 12 to 1 and hopeful in regard to reaching the end of Committee Stage.

It seems to me that Senator Yeats made a good suggestion when he said that instead of "in agreement with" the words should be "after consultation with". I do not entirely share Senator Quinlan's reluctance to accept that, and I would think that it might be a good idea to withdraw this amendment in the hope that on Report Stage the Minister might consider accepting the wording suggested by Senator Yeats, always assuming that after this is put forward Senator Yeats will still agree with it.

I am quite agreeable to the suggestion made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington though it is less than I would have hoped for, but at least "in consultation with" the university authorities or "after consultation" with them would mean that the university authorities were made aware or to be made aware of the impending requirement that was about to be made by the Minister. That is the minimum we would ask in this regard. I cannot see how Senator Yeats got so mixed up as to believe that I was inviting the Minister to take these powers under the section. I was merely pointing out, and I thought that Senator Yeats as a lawyer would have seen this, that under the section as drafted this could be done. Perhaps at Report Stage we could table an amendment or, perhaps, the Minister might bring in an amendment along the lines suggested by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. Surely there can be no objection whatsoever to letting the university authorities have information as to what the Minister would like and getting their views as to the full requirements under this Act which he intends or thinks it would be worthwhile introducing. I cannot see any objection to that procedure.

Is amendment No. 9 withdrawn?

I should like to hear the Minister before I would withdraw it.

I think that I have gone over the ground fairly well.

Will the Minister accept my suggestion?

OK, we will consider it but I do not hold out any hope.

Can the Minister see any reason why he should not inform the university authorities about any requirements that he is thinking of bringing in?

In fact, I will. We always have and always will.

Why the reluctance on the part of the Minister to commit himself and his Department to that in the future? We have no doubt whatsoever that he will do it and, perhaps, his successor will do it but we want to see it in the legislation.

The scheme in front of me, this scheme the bones of which have been drawn up over the years in consultation with universities —there is no departure in it from the traditional scheme as pertaining to local authority scholarships. The university authorities are well aware of the scheme. They have copies of it, and if they have any suggestions now or at any time in the future this is an annual scheme which can be amended and their suggestions will be considered.

Have the university authorities got the document that the Minister has referred to here in the scheme? Have they been asked for their views on it? That is what consultation means at the minimum.

They have. What has happened is that the scheme here I mentioned, the draft of it, as issued to the local authorities is transposed from the scholarship schemes which have been drawn up year after year over many years in consultation with the university authorities. They know and they have this document and from time to time over many years past representations have been made by the university authorities and adjustments made, and if at any time in the future they wish to raise any question on this document I will be glad to see them, or my successor or my officials. The scheme has gone on for many years and is now being transposed into the Bill.

This is a most evasive and unsatisfactory answer. The scheme is not the same as what was done in the past. This is a new scheme, for which the Minister will be claiming credit, no doubt, under which grants will be made by local authorities at different levels on the basis of means tests.

I am talking about the scheme under section 5.

That is separate from the other scheme. This is a scheme in relation to the standards of pupils obtaining grants in regard to their attendance at university.

I appreciate this, that here we have a new scheme, which may have features in common with the earlier scholarship schemes, but this is a new one for the payment of grants on a means test basis involving the setting up of standards for determining entry. Have the universities been consulted by the Minister on the proposals contained in this part of the Bill, in this Schedule, in this new scheme? Have they been asked for their views? That is what consultation means at the minimum, though I would have hoped to see much more than that, but at least their views should be given every possible attention and account taken of them. Have the universities been consulted in regard to the whole scheme, and has the scheme been put in front of them? If not surely we are entitled to say that consultation should go into the Bill.

I would be opposed to altering the Bill as drafted in any way whatsoever. Section 1 in subsections (a) and (b) refers to two different types of institutions—(a) a university or university college and (b) any other institution in so far as it provides courses leading to qualifications which in the opinion of the Minister is equivalent to a university degree. That could be the College of Surgeons, the College of Science, a College of Technology or various other institutions, so I see no reason whatsoever why consultation should be with the university authorities and with the university authorities alone; and if this is going to be more wide than the universities, how are you going to provide for other colleges some of which may still not exist? That would be my first objection. My second objection is the fact that this is a Bill whereby the Minister as representative of the taxpayers of this country is deciding on what basis he as representative of the taxpayers is prepared to contribute to the education of boys and girls going to university.

It is just the same as a prudent parent will decide on which basis he will pay fees, which, perhaps, he can ill-afford, for the university training of his children. It has nothing to do with universities as such. It is as representative of the taxpayers, of the community, as the Minister said when he spoke here on it. The universities themselves can set their own standards. They may set standards very much higher than the Minister has said. They may say: "All right, you may give grants to those people but we do not consider they are up to the standard which we require in our colleges and we will not admit them". The universities can set their rules of discipline and say that the persons to whom we have given grants have not attended such lectures, have not complied with their standards in other ways. The universities can say accordingly: "We are sending them down. We are completely independent of you as Minister. We will govern our colleges as we think fit. We will maintain our own autonomy".

That is the problem associated with both sides and I am opposed to any further amendment to the wording of the Bill in this respect. The universities, on the one hand, wish to preserve their autonomy, their disciplines and their rules. On the other hand, the Minister, as the representative of the taxpayers, will decide on which basis we the public, the taxpayers, are prepared to contribute to this scheme.

Amendment withdrawn?

I was hoping to have a reply from the Minister on the question of what consultations have taken place with the universities. I have been handed this booklet, which I had not seen before, which has been sent to the universities.

We had a press conference on this. It has been circulated to 10,000 people.

It has not reached some members of university staffs.

It has been circulated. You must have left. You must have been in Timbuctoo. It was sent to the students.

I am not a student.

It was probably lying on the desk there. One hundred copies were sent to University College.

Even with the miserable staff we have there are more than one hundred. This booklet says: "If you fail your examination or if your conduct is unsatisfactory..."

You got one as a Senator.

I am sorry about that.

I saw it for the first time 60 seconds ago when it was handed to me by Senator Dooge. I do not know where he got it.

"Unsatisfactory" to whom? Is it to the university or to the Minister? Is the Minister claiming that he will investigate and control the conduct of students, or is it a question of the universities telling the Minister it is unsatisfactory? Who decides what are the regulations for the universities? Is it to be decided by consultation? How can the Minister issue a scheme like this without consulting the universities?

I can say no more than what Senator Nash has said and I had refrained from saying even that thinking we would get this Bill through expeditiously because I am concerned to have the Bill in operation for the coming year——

——so that 1,000 boys and girls will benefit who would not if we have this prevarication. If Senators want it, then we will have it. Maybe I should put it more plainly. This is a Bill through which the State is giving extra money by way of grants to enable a higher proportion of boys and girls to get higher education. This is a matter of community involvement. It is a matter in which the community, through the taxpayers and the Government as the community's agent, will have 1,000 boys and girls benefiting from student grants where heretofore through the local authorities, in a haphazard way, only 270 boys and girls benefited. We are lifting this from 270 to 1,000.

This, therefore, is primarily a matter for the State as representing the community. It is a decision taken in society's interests, in the interests of the community, to ensure that the best talents will get into the universities. Here we are providing a flexible piece of legislation whereby we can extend this in the future. This is not, and I say it positively, primarily a university matter at all. The Bill is designed to make higher education available, it is concerned with the community's money, with the community giving more money than heretofore to enable more boys and girls to get the benefits of higher education, which means not just university education but other higher education that the Minister of the day, from time to time, may deem to be equivalent to university education.

I am all for consulting the university authorities on matters of syllabus and curricula, matters concerned with their autonomy and their position vis-á-vis the community. We shall have ample time when the new Higher Education Bill comes before the Oireachtas after the Recess to go into this in detail. This Bill, which I propose to have in the next session, will be primarily a matter for university consideration, for academic consideration, and we propose to have the fullest consultations with the universities on their proposed structure, on the reorganisation of the universites and their places in the community and in higher education.

But the Bill we are now discussing is not one in respect of which there is any need for me to consult the universities. It is a community matter involving taxation from the community to enable more boys and girls to avail of higher education. We are discussing section 2 and the only matter which concerns the universities arises under section 5—that we agree that pupils who get into their universities by reason of our scheme under this Bill shall accord to the standards of the universities, and if they do not so accord then we will suspend the grants. From that point of view this is the one university interest in the matter.

We have here a scheme prepared under section 5 which covers all this matter and which has operated in regard to scholarships heretofore. On this aspect there is no change but there is a very big change in regard to the taxpayers', the community's involvement. In regard to the standard to be observed by the recipients of these grants there is no change. All we are doing is having greater community involvement, but in regard to the standards of the recipients of the grants there is no change in regard to his or her situation compared with the situation which has existed heretofore. We have here a prototype of the scheme which the university authorities have had during many years and of which they are aware, a scheme which fully safeguards them and to a far greater degree than has been suggested here in amendments put down by Senators who do not represent the real interests of the university authorities. If we had the governing bodies of the universities here they would all agree they are quite happy with this scheme.

It is a scheme to be drawn up from year to year and if there is any particular point in this scheme as compared with that administered by the local authorities this year, which the governing bodies of the universities wish to raise with me, I will be very glad to meet them and change the scheme if necessary. It is a flexible scheme that can be amended from year to year. If you write something into the Bill all you do is to inhibit the university authorities. The irony is that the people speaking here on behalf of the universities are doing more harm and damage to the university authorities by seeking to write into the Bill something that can be adjusted and amended from year to year——

We had endeavoured to put into the Bill the matter of acceptance of entry and the Minister assured us that this will not be changed from year to year.

What is that?

That the question of acceptance is a matter for the universities.

It is the point we were discussing yesterday. We were endeavouring to put it into the Bill and the Minister assured us this morning it would not be subjected to the flexibility of the scheme.

I shall read it again. I do not like being longwinded or detailed but I shall read it again. It is set out in the scheme which has been operated for many years in regard to scholarships:

A candidate must comply with the entrance requirements laid down by the university...

We are now retaining under the present system that a candidate must comply with the entrance requirement laid down by the university college or under any course which the candidate wishes to attend. I think that is very comprehensive. It Senators want to minimise that, that is their business, but they will be down-grading other aspects of future university authorities. We wish to stiffen that up, to give greater strength to the universities' point of view. We want this in a flexible way. We would welcome views from the universities on all aspects of higher education. The only lack has been the lack of constructive views from the universities. I would like to see these views coming forward. Our trouble is that as far as higher education is concerned, the views are always coming from the political Parties and in my view, particularly in recent years, the main contribution in regard to the matter of higher education and education generally has come from Fianna Fáil Ministers of State since 1957, first the Taoiseach, then Dr. Hillery, then George Colley, then Donogh O'Malley. I am making my little contribution now, but I think that the only forward thinking in regard to education has come from Fianna Fáil Ministers of State and that one of the lacks, during the 1950s particularly, and Senators know this well, was that there was a large silence from the university authorities and no great contribution of constructive thought by them particularly during that period. Any forward thinking was done by Fianna Fáil Ministers for Education.

The Minister is again showing evidence that he has not read the Fine Gael policy on education.

The Chair is concerned with amendment No. 9.

I appreciate that and that is what I am going to deal with.

The Minister made reference to the fact that he is anxious to get this Bill through. I would like to make the point that we are anxious to facilitate him in this. We have therefore proposed that the Report Stage be taken today so as to get it through as soon as possible. We appreciate that the debate may be taking longer than the Minister feels happy about and one can appreciate his frustration. We, too, are anxious to get it through, but we are anxious that this particular issue should be adequately debated.

Senator Nash made a very good point in distinguishing the two aspects —the community aspect of the grants and the universities concerned with the academic side, but the two are in fact inextricably linked up in ways which require consultation. The Minister has suggested that this is a matter that does not involve the universities because as far as they are concerned, there is no change in the present situation. This is simply not so. There are two major changes which concern the universities. The first one is that the Minister is abolishing the scholarship scheme. As a result of protests, he has now hastily proposed to increase the number of entrance scholarships. Due to the lack of consultation on the matter, great confusion has been caused here. The Minister made it clear that he was unaware of the fact that entrance scholarships are valid for one year only.

I have fixed that up.

For that reason and because of the fact that these entrance scholarships are at a very high level and that the colleges are not getting sufficient numbers of people at that level, they do not provide a vehicle for additional scholarships. It has now become necessary because of lack of consultation with the universities to introduce a complicated, cumbersome scheme which is thoroughly unsatisfactory but which is going to be pushed through and accepted because we must have something as an alternative to the present scholarship arrangements. To say that this is entirely a community matter is untrue. The questions whether there are students coming on scholarships and how the scholarships would be awarded and what role the colleges are going to play are important.

The Minister is now proposing that they should play a role in the awarding of these scholarships that will impose additional burdens on the universities in this particular matter. The Minister is going to introduce into the university a further 600 or 700 people in receipt of scholarships or grants and this is going to require that the university fulfils certain functions that it at present fulfils in regard to 275 students. Overnight it will have to deal with 900 or 1,000 students, including reporting on the conduct of the students. Here is a matter which very much concerns the university. The burden of reporting is going to be trebled overnight. How can the Minister suggest that this is not a matter for consultation with the universities? Due to lack of consultation, they are having to introduce a makeshift scholarship scheme to get around the abolishing of the existing scheme. They are also facing the burden of handling these extra cases overnight about which there has been no consultation.

I think I have shown that in this instance the two things are intermeshed. You cannot say the grants scheme is a community matter and that the universities can look after their own side. You cannot say no change is being made in the present situation by introducing a grant scheme which will treble the burden of reporting on colleges. These are matters that concern us intimately. We should have been consulted on them. The Minister will be reluctant to admit that fact. It is desirable to spell out in the legislation that there should be consultation in regard to matters concerned with this scheme. The absence of it is causing great difficulties at the present time and the attempts to retrieve the problems created by a lack of consultation are causing difficulties.

I would appeal to the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment, the need for which has been amply demonstrated by the confusion created in the past few weeks.

In my opinion the wording of the amendment is too rigid. It is not practical to suggest that the section here should depend on the condition that there should be agreement between the Minister and the other educational authorities. A very useful suggestion was made by Senator Yeats and agreed to by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I feel we should revert to that point rather than go into the broad field of the necessity for consultation.

May I intervene to say it was my intention to support that but in the heat of my concern about getting the word "consultation" in, I may not have mentioned it.

Rather than hope that there should be agreement between educational interests I feel we might wisely revert to the idea proposed by Senator Yeats and ask the Minister to consider the inclusion of the words "following consultation" suggested by Senator Yeats for Report Stage.

I indicated my agreement with this—in other words, to accept the words "in consultation with", because I think we have demonstrated quite clearly that there has been a very grave lack of consultation in bringing in that scheme and it is to remedy that that I am insisting that we have——

The Chair wishes to draw attention to the fact that we are now indulging in unlimited repetition.

I shall avoid repetition as far as possible, but when the Minister has acknowledged the fact that there was not adequate consultation, it strengthens the case for an amendment on these lines because such an amendment would mean that the universities would have to be consulted.

I can give the Senator reams of correspondence in regard to consultations with the universities and he can see from that correspondence the delay that would be involved in trying to amend the scheme in consultation with the universities.

I beg to differ gravely with the Minister on the matter of consultation. However, I will withdraw the amendment and hope the Minister will see fit to agree with an altered amendment when I table it on Report Stage.

I think the amendment should be put, if it is going to be submitted again. I would be completely opposed to this amendment as it stands because what the Minister is doing now is what the parent does when he wants to provide higher education for his children. What the universities do is a matter for themselves and their autonomy should not be interfered with and is not being interfered with.

They have to administer the scheme.

They have to cater for the students. I am opposed to the withdrawal of the amendment.

Could I ask Senator Nash if he has listened to the points I have made?

I have.

The main burden of the debate in its later stages has not been on the amendment as it stands but as to whether there should not be an amendment to the scheme as it stands. I wish to propose an amendment to the amendment.

May I make the point that Senator Nash seems to be under a misapprehension? He thinks that if we vote on this, we cannot put down another amendment. We can.

Not on the same lines.

But we can put down another amendment.

This is an example of the dilemma a Minister would be in when it comes to consultation with the universities. From time to time, all sorts of questions arise as to whether a person is qualified or is eligible for a grant. We get hundreds of letters from parents and their children about this, all seeking to ascertain whether a person is eligible for the grants. There may be a flaw in the scheme and some change may be required. That is a community matter because it is the community's money that is being used.

If I want to change the scheme to meet a certain case, a fairly quick decision may have to be reached. These cases usually arise in September or August when there is very little time before the universities open and I would have great trouble in getting the university authorities together during the long hot summer when Ministers have to work and parents are concerned about their children. I feel that the matter should be left as it is and if in the winter a flaw appears, then the university authorities can bring it to my notice and we can have consultations on it.

Senator Dooge wishes to propose an amendment to the amendment. The Chair is not happy about it but I propose to ask the House to decide the matter.

Question: "That Senator Dooge be permitted to propose an amendment to the amendment" put and declared lost.
Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

To add to subsection (1) a new paragraph as follows:

"( ) the continuation of a grant for any subsequent year depends on the persons attaining the required standard as prescribed by the Minister in agreement with the relevant education authorities in the appropriate examination of the previous year."

The position is that the standard is prescribed in agreement with the relevant educational authorities and I want to know the Minister's mind on the standard. Is it to be based on a pass in the examination? It is probably not to be based on honours in the examination as it was in the past but surely the Minister will not be prepared to accept just a plain pass in this regard? I hope this paragraph will be inserted.

I continue to be more and more amused as this debate goes on. There was never any question of an honours requirement being obligatory under the scholarship scheme. It did not arise.

This is so amazing that I wonder if the Minister would repeat it.

In regard to the great majority of scholarships heretofore, you got the scholarship from the local authority as long as you passed the examination of the university college for whatever course you intended doing and the local authorities did not investigate the matter further.

They did not receive the full amount of the scholarship.

In most cases they did. What Senator Quinlan seeks to insert in the Bill has not been the case in a majority of scholarships. As long as they passed the examination, they would get the grant. If they did not pass, the grant would be held up for a year or until such time as they got the examination. If they got the examination, the grant would be resumed. I hope that university representatives here will pursue the scheme as assiduously as they have pursued the debate here. The scheme covers the situation proposed here by Senator Quinlan and if the university authorities make representations to me between now and next year, we will consult with them regarding the amendment of the scheme.

However, I am certain that there will be no representations and no writing and things will continue as heretofore. Talk is cheap but when it comes to the matter of putting things down on paper, very little will be done. The scheme is available.

When is it available?

We will send a couple of dozen copies to each of the universities.

We will accept them.

We will send a couple of dozen copies of the scheme to you. I am sure they will lie on the same desk gathering the same dust.

Will there be a covering letter?

I wonder could I have my mind clarified on this amendment. Am I to understand that students who have a county council scholarship in no instance are they required to get honours in order to hold a scholarship?

I should like to be clear on the facts, and also if a student has a county council scholarship and fails his examination at the end of the year, 12 months later, is the scholarship repeated if he goes back to the university and passes his examination at the end of the second year? If that is so, it is a matter which the House should consider. It would be a very serious thing if for the minimum standards the taxpayer should incur a vast amount of expense. I also think, and I say it with great respect as there are a number of university professors here, that it seems that since my time at the university even the standard seems to have dropped. Students can get their examinations today in bits and scraps, one subject at one examination, another at the next and the third after that. That is a shocking standard. I should like to know the whole facts regarding standards and this other question in relation to this amendment.

I find myself in disagreement on this. It would be a dangerous policy to lay down that a student who got one of those grants and went to a university and only got a pass in his first year examination was given up. Many students who go to the university for the first time take some time to find their feet. Conditions are so different and circumstances are so different that in many cases those who get an excellent degree do not do anything like so well in their earlier years. There might also be other reasons in a particular year that they did not do very well in their examinations. On that point they might in effect be sent down from the university.

Apart from this, it seems to me that the amendment is another attempt on Senator Quinlan's part to interfere with university autonomy. Students go to the university on grants provided by the State and once they do it is a matter for the university in regard to the standards they reach. Under the amendment no longer will universities have the sole voice as to whether students have to continue doing a course. The Minister comes into it and the standard the student reaches must be decided in agreement with the university. The Minister can veto the standard laid down. That seems to be a highly undesirable interference with the university authorities and I am surprised to see Senator Quinlan proposing this. Apart from the grant, students once they reach the university, whether they have grants or not, should be on exactly the same plane. All students should be on the one level and it should be a matter for the university authorities.

I never cease to marvel at the interpretation lawyers can put on simple statements, but I think Senator Nash has raised a very good point on this amendment, that is the question of standard and that is precisely what I am after. In other words, what standards have to be attained by all scholars? The regulalation lays down that the candidate must attain honours to hold a scholarship.

The university has at all times insisted that the awarded scholar should not be compared with any student who fails to get honours. The general practice is that if a student passes there may be a recommendation by the university to the authority concerned that he be given a maintenance grant and that some deduction be made in that regard. In other words, there can be this distinction between pass and honours.

That will not apply in future under this scheme.

Is the scheme being changed?

In that respect it is being changed.

It is being changed without consultation.

We are learning.

We have now established, as a result of a long debate and much cross-checking, that the scheme as presented differs from the existing scheme in a vital respect.

We will pay them and the rest is your job.

We want to preserve university autonomy.

You are changing the scheme without consultation. If you are referring to university autonomy we are far better judges of that than some of the people who are trying to preserve it.

You did not appear to know much about the governing bodies.

We are much closer to those bodies than the Minister who purports to be able to speak for all and every one in this regard, including the various councils and governing bodies.

You are the arch purporter.

We are concerned with ensuring that the taxpayer's money is spent to the best advantage under this. We welcome the decision to spend money to get good students to come to the university and we are anxious at all times to contribute towards the selection and the development of those students. One of the essential features in any subject is that the man who does well in the university course must be rewarded and those who do not must be penalised. In other words, the man who really does his best at the university and gets honours in his examination is entitled to more than the man who simply coasts along and barely gets a pass. We have asked the Minister repeatedly to ensure that in a scheme. We want to encourage real scholars who will do good work and study. We want to ensure that we get the best people into the university rather than those who just coast along and get a pass degree and nothing more. Senator Nash has said quite rightly that he would not favour that.

Perhaps Senator Quinlan would also let us know if students can get their examinations today in bits and scraps?

I was about to deal with that. I can assure Senator Nash it is getting harder to pass examinations. I feel that the work of students is increasing every day. New lecturers are coming in desirous of putting all their new knowledge into practice and I do not think we need for one moment hesitate to think that standards are higher. The demands are very much higher on students than they have been in the past. Our business is to try to lighten the load on students. This is why in cases of five subjects in an examination there is a tendency, if a student does well in three and fails in the others, to carry those forward to the following examination. That is not unreasonable. I can assure Senator Nash he need have no worries about our standards. Certainly the students themselves are fully conscious of the fact that standards are just as good today as ever.

As it is now almost 12 o'clock, will we dispose of the amendment?

Might I ask something before the Minister goes? Some of us last night assumed that the Leader of the House was going to stick to the Order of Business proposed. At 10.30 this morning we were told nothing of the Minister's necessity for going. I have invited guests to lunch between one and two and I am anxious to speak on section 2. Now I find we are to break from 12 to 1.00. I should like to know what is the future pattern of business. I asked the Leader of the House and he became very offensive and suggested I was tearing up the agenda. This morning he did the same thing within half an hour of the House meeting. Will we continue on this Bill or on the Road Traffic Bill? I should like to make a protest. If I miss the opportunity of speaking on section 2, I should be very much put out.

Would the House agree to dispose of the amendment?

I want to say a short word on the amendment.

We are not finished with the amendment.

What will we be doing when we return?

With your permission, Sir, I want to answer Senator Sheehy Skeffington. He talks so much buffoonery and tomfoolery that I will not deal with it. I am a patient man.

(Interruptions.)

I think the Leader of the House ought to withdraw the remark.

I shall withdraw it with respect to Senator Sheehy Skeffington for whom I have a great regard. I was going to suggest, in order to soothe Senator Sheehy Skeffington's feelings since he is so interested in this Bill, that we might compromise by adjourning to 1.30 p.m.

What will we do on resumption?

We continue this Bill until it is completed and then we will take the Road Traffic Bill.

Business suspended at 12.5 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.

We were dealing with amendment No. 10 which makes no reference to honours in any examination. It seems to me if I properly understood Senator Quinlan in the crossfire we had earlier today that he was saying that a person who qualifies under these arrangements for financial assistance to enable him to attend university should have this financial assistance withdrawn if he did not get honours in the yearly examination. This I think he was saying.

No. I asked for a bonus—in order words, some distinction between an honours performance and a mediocre performance.

The Senator might be trying to come out from under it but most certainly he did not say that. There was no question of a bonus and the Bill does not provide for a bonus. What I understood the Senator to be arguing in favour of was an arrangement where a person who had qualified for financial assistance should have that financial assistance withdrawn if he did not get honours in the yearly examination.

That is what the amendment says.

The amendment says nothing about honours. Senator Quinlan was arguing that the standard provided should, in fact, provide for honours, otherwise financial assistance should be withdrawn. I am indignant at the very idea of this and I hope that this is not the Fine Gael idea of a just society or their educational policy because—and let us make this very plain—this is discrimination. If I can afford to put my son through university he can go there and get a pass every year, but the poor man's son, or at least the son of a man poorer than I am, who cannot afford to pay fees without the State's assistance should be barred because he could not get honours in his examination.

That has nothing to do with Fine Gael. We said nothing at all on the subject.

That is what you are getting at.

I have not even spoken about it. It has nothing to do with Fine Gael.

I made no such statement. This is completely foreign to my thinking on it.

If Senator Quinlan says that he did not make that statement, I apologise for misinterpreting him.

We all misinterpreted him, then.

I should say that this was my clear recollection of what he was saying. If he did not intend that so much the better, but I understood him to be saying this as the argument in favour of the amendment and I am against that discriminatory basis of the amendment.

At the point of adjournment the Seanad was anxious that the amendment be put. Have we got agreement on that?

I still have something to say on the amendment which had only barely begun to be discussed. I wish to clarify the misconception raised by Senator Murphy. The amendment asks for the attainment of the required standard as prescribed by the Minister——

In agreement with the universities.

I was asking for a standard and expressing the view, in which Senator Nash supported me strongly, that ordinary pass level would not be sufficient.

That is what Senator Murphy said.

There he goes again. I was not wrong, then.

Let Senator Quinlan try to explain.

Having spent 20 years in the university. I might know a little more about it than Senators who have not been there.

Not necessarily.

Now we know where the elite are.

Whom do you represent now? Snobbery.

Senator Quinlan, on the amendment.

In the amendment I am not asking for honours standard for the continuation of the grant but on the other hand I think we should have more than pass standard because ordinary pass degree level is not a high enough level to require that the taxpayers should contribute to this handsome extent.

(Longford): The only alternative, then, is honours. Tell us the difference.

He is trying to but Senators will not let him.

The whole purpose of this should be to encourage scholarship in the universities and any arrangement the Minister has, and I am trying to ensure it in this amendment, should ensure that students are encouraged to a good performance which means striving for honours which should be recognised as being better than pass performances. It should accordingly make some difference, as it has done in the past, in the amount of the grant paid. It is as simple as that.

It still seems to be discrimination.

The real discrimination which we are fighting against is that based on these awards being decided once and for all on one examination—on four honours in the leaving certificate. We are seeking ways and means of ensuring that subsequent university performance is taken into account, that it allows the student whose performance in the leaving certificate did not qualify him for the grant will receive a grant if his performance merits it otherwise.

This is not a grant for scholarship.

It is to assist a student.

It is not a scholarship. That is a misconception.

It is not a prize for performance.

That is correct. It is a system to bring people who could not afford heretofore to go to higher education into higher education.

And to encourage those who give of their best.

That is another day's work. It has nothing got to do with this.

If our purpose in reforming education in this country is to down-grade education and if this down-grading is to be started by the abolition of various examinations to the university level, I am afraid it is a sorry reform we are trying to bring about.

Is the Senator not aware of the discrimination practised by his university through which a certain class of student are deprived of taking an honours paper because they cannot afford to go to the university wholetime?

Might I come in here in an effort to get the debate back on the rails?

The Government are not presuming in this Bill to reform the whole system of education. That is another day's work and I am sure we will have ample debate on it in future when we bring in the Higher Education (Authority) Bill and other measures which I hope to introduce. This particular Bill is on the very narrow social front of community performance in order to broaden the range of people that we are seeking to bring into higher education who heretofore could not do it because of economic circumstances. I am not saying the Bill is the full answer but it provides a framework within which we can work in the future. The Bill is on this narrow front. There are no pretensions in the Bill to deal with examinations or academic matters. These are all matters for future discussion. This is on the narrow front of enabling boys and girls of parents who because of economic circumstances heretofore could not afford it if they have the talent to go forward and reach certain qualifications to enter universities. That is all the Bill is about and I should like to keep it on that level, to narrow it down to that.

I support the Minister on this point. Let us clearly distinguish between competitive scholarships, in respect of continuance of which it may be legitimate to impose certain requirements as regards reaching a certain standard, and grants designed to open up the university to students who hitherto were not able to get there. I am not saying there should not be any requirement as regards performance. It may be that there is a case for consultation between the Minister and the university with a view to ensuring that students who repeatedly fail do not indefinitely get their grants renewed. Such a case could be made and I think it could be left to the Minister and the university to consult in regard to that matter. I do not think it should be in the legislation here and I do not think anything like an honours standard should be required for the renewing and continuance of grants. I should like to support the Minister on that. I think Senator Quinlan is confusing the question of scholarships and the question of this kind of grant for a social purpose.

I find myself almost wholly though not entirely in agreement with Senator FitzGerald in this. It seems to me as a layman that the situation will be quite simple from now on. There will be two types of students, those who have grants and those who have not, whose parents are paying the entire costs of keeping them at the university. I feel, as Senator Murphy does, that both those types of students should be treated exactly equally. Obviously, Senator Quinlan is correct in saying that university students should be encouraged in every possible way to get honours and so on and it is a matter for the university to try to arrange its affairs so that this desirable thing is achieved but all should be treated alike in this respect. It would be entirely wrong to do it on any other basis.

Senator Quinlan may not mean this but what his amendment says, in fact, whether he intends it or not, is that from now on the Minister should lay down standards of examinations and so forth for certain types of students. This may not be what he means but it is what the amendment says quite clearly, that for these grant-aided students the Minister, in agreement with the university, should lay down standards that these students must reach. That seems to me to be a complete breach of the whole conception of university autonomy and besides that a most retrograde notion that grant-aided students should be treated in a different way and should be required to fulfil higher standards than ordinary students. The whole basis of the success of this scheme must be that all students will be treated exactly alike by the university authorities.

Where the idea arises that all students are not treated exactly alike I do not know because all students are treated exactly alike. In the examinations the same standards apply to all and there are certain awards given, in other words a grant. If I interpret the feeling of the Minister and of the other speakers rightly, the grant student who passes an examination gets a grant and the grant student who fails his examination does not. I was suggesting that we should aim at something more than a pass and yet not as high as honours. I thought that something could be worked out between the university authorities and the Minister, something like third-class honours or some other designation which already applies in science which could probably be introduced and used as a basis. I think for the first time we have heard from the Minister that all he requires for the continuation of a grant is a mere pass. Therefore, I feel that this will make a very substantial change in the whole form work. The whole form work was based on scholarship and on giving a good performance at examinations. Consequently, I think it highlights once again the necessity for having had consultations on this.

Surely there is nothing wrong with a pass?

So long as the university is satisfied that he should remain then the grant should be paid.

He wants a tag on the students who are getting grants, segregate them.

All I want is that the Minister should make a full statement here and now that the only requirement is a pass in the examination.

That is the same snobbery that got evening students out of an honours paper and you were on the governing body. There is no answer to that, Senator Quinlan.

There is no change in this. Every local authority in the country heretofore since scholarships were initiated only have the requirement for the scholarship to be paid that a student should pass his examination each year, and we are putting that principle into the field of grants so as to enable a far wider category of people to go on for higher education who could not do so heretofore for economic reasons. We are adopting the same principle as is operated by every local authority in the country. There is no change.

Surely the Minister is not correct in saying that that is the case with Cork County Council, Cork Borough Council, Limerick County Council?

Honours are required or a recommendation from the university.

I do not think this is relevant to the debate on this particular amendment. The condition for a fee-paying student to be admitted to the following year is that he passes his examination. This is the university condition for continuance. I think it is proper that the same condition which applies to the fee-paying student should also apply to the community-aided student who received a grant. Anything other than this is discrimination. We could well get lost in the idea of what has happened in the past in regard to students holding competitive scholarships. It is unfortunate that there appears to be a difference of opinion across the House as to what the position has been in the past but I think this is completely irrelevant to what should be done under this scheme. What should be done now is that the grant-aided student should have to fulfil the requirement which the fee-paying student has to fulfil and no more.

(Longford): I agree fully with Senator Nash. It has been my experience that people even with five or six honours getting a university scholarship or a county council scholarship have been known to fail their first year examination because of ill-health or because of emotional maladjustment.

Falling in love.

(Longford): It has been known for students despite the fact that they fail the first time to do it again and get it with honours. I know of such cases. With reference to the question of passes, suppose that five or ten per cent fail in their first year, I feel that the whole background of each individual case should be examined by the university authorities and the Minister should seek to ensure that no injustice is done. I would like to see the scheme applied with common sense and tolerance.

Will the Minister make clear what are the regulations for continuing to hold the grants where students fail and are allowed by the university authorities to repeat?

That is set out in the scheme.

I accept that the Minister's scheme is based on a minimum of passes but I would ask him to give some extra bonus to the students obtaining honours. He indicated that he was making some extra money available to the universities for scholarships. If that money is going to be on a generous scale, the universities will be able to use it to foster scholarships and I hope the Minister will not be averse from students on grants receiving additional awards, say up to £50, as an encouragement to obtain honours. If that is done, my requirements will be met. I hope the Minister will in this way be able to assist us to keep scholarship alive in universities which is the real reason for their existence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

This section provides for the provision of grants to assist persons to attend or to continue to attend approved institutions and it is on the latter point of continuing to attend that I want to raise a question with the Minister. I do not know if he has read the document issued by the Union of Students of Ireland and if he has had an opportunity of considering that matter. It seems to me that they make a relevant point when they state that people already attending the universities are, because of their financial circumstances and the educational standard they have reached, bound to be as much in need of financial assistance as people coming along from school.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister on questions like this. In trade union negotiations when you make a change, you always have the hard luck cases. I am often in the position of having to try to overcome these hard luck cases and it seems to me that whatever is said in the section about the standard of entry, the Minister does not seem to tie himself down with regard to continuance. There is no particular date set for the scheme to come into operation; the Bill does not say that the scheme will operate from 1st October, 1968 or any time like that. I would hope that the Minister would be liberal in his approach to the problem because it could quite well be that students attending university might, by reason of their financial circumstances, be unable to continue attending their courses. If such a student had attended a university subsequent to the coming into operation of the scheme in the Bill, he would have qualified for financial assistance to enable him to continue with his studies.

I have sympathy with the Minister in this because when you start to do something good, you always find some people coming along and saying that if this had been done a year ago, it would be of assistance to them. I want to make the strongest plea I can to the Minister that he approaches this problem in a liberal manner, that he should not tie his hands in the matter, that he should not prevent himself from doing something to assist people already attending these institutions.

On the section, particularly paragraph (a), I want to raise the question of the standard of the leaving certificate, the four honours certificate. I do not want to go back over what I said previously about the unsuitability of the leaving certificate as causing grieyance and injustice over which we have no control. What is the attitude of the Minister in cases where a student fails to get four honours? He gets two honours and his means are under the allowable limit. What decision are his parents to make if they have confidence in the student? Will it become the regular pattern for such students to spend an additional year in the secondary school, feeling confident that if they succeeded in getting two honours in their first year, with a little extra coaching they should emerge with four honours in the following year and so qualify for a scholarship?

That would seem to me to be a wrong tendency. I would much prefer that the way would be open to such a student whose parents believe in him, so that they could either raise the money or make the necessary additional sacrifice to send him up to the university. If that is not possible under the scheme as it stands, I would ask the Minister to recognise that students who qualify on the means test, if they get honours level in the first year, should qualify for a grant in the following year. This would be preferable to having students returning to do the leaving certificate a second or third time. I would like to know the Minister's attitude on that.

There are just a few small points I would like to discuss on this section. The first one concerns paragraphs (a) and (c). I have been a member of a scholarship committee of a county council for many years and just in passing, I might mention to you, Sir, and to Senator Quinlan that the extraordinary thing about it is that it worked perfectly with the universities and the Department. Once or twice when there were complaints from the university to the scholarship committee, there was no doubt about it and either the council continued to give the grants or the Department discontinued them. It certainly worked.

The point I would like to make, however, is that one question that was always coming up in regard to those schemes was the day of the child's birth. It was extraordinary that this came up year after year. They fixed a certain date and at a certain time the child was disqualified. Under paragraph (a) of this section, we have the child reaching a certain standard in the leaving certificate examination. I do not know what the Minister's intention can be with regard to (c), that the person is within the appropriate age limit. I think perhaps the child may be limited under this Bill but I do not know. The age limit should not count.

You might send me to the university.

Others could go back.

In fact, take it out of the hands of the university. We are in their hands at the moment.

I am going to send them back but I think possibly paragraph (c) might be very limited. No matter what date you fix, you always catch someone. We have changed the wording of that many times over the years but there was always a case of a person losing a scholarship and not getting another chance by reason of age or circumstances.

The other point I would like to mention in regard to those schemes is so far as I remember that the county council could grant certain additional sums to very poor parents for clothing perhaps and books. I do not know how far these grants will go towards giving extra to the lowest income group. I do not know how far they will go towards sending that pupil to the university. Would it be possible that a county council, knowing the circumstances, should feel obliged, if they could do it, to give certain other assistance in the case of very poor students? You could have the case of a person with £1,100 in income and the person who is the son of an agricultural labourer and those two people in certain circumstances would get the same grant from the Minister. I know that in the past we had some balance from which we could give a little assistance towards books and clothing over and above the scholarship.

There are a number of points I would like to make on the section. The first one I will not dwell on because we discussed it on Second Stage. I merely want to repeat how important it is to raise this, in support of what Senator Murphy said in regard to students who are in the university at the moment and who got the necessary standard in the leaving certificate. The Minister has a document, which we have all seen, from the university students in Ireland. I must say I have not been able to go into this closely because I have not been able to give the time to it since I received it but I am rather puzzled by the magnitude of the sums they mentioned. They give exaggerated costs of doing what they want done. I would press the Minister to reconsider his position on this. If he wishes this scheme to be a success and not to become a subject of unfortunate controversy next autumn, as will otherwise be the case, he should reconsider his position on it. Could he give us some indication of what the cost would be of the scheme in its present form? He does not appear to have done so up to this.

A sum of £750,000 to £800,000, in its present form.

That is in the first year?

Over a cycle.

£300,000 in the first year.

It will work up to that.

The cost in the first year will be £300,000 and therefore the cost for existing students would bring it to £750,000 to £800,000.

Therefore the extra cost involved we are talking of will be something like £400,000. Perhaps when we come near to the autumn, and if revenue is flowing in as encouragingly as we hope it will, the Minister might have a word with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, and might get some extra money.

All my sentiments are on the side of yourself and Senator Murphy in this but it comes down to plain money.

I appreciate that, and perhaps if the situation improves, the Minister might be able to get the extra money. There will be great problems about the means test when this scheme comes into operation. I had a phone call this morning from a woman who is the mother of a potential university student. She rang from a public phone box and I had to ring her back again. What she had to say arises out of what she read in the papers this morning regarding the debate yesterday. She rang me to express her concern about the fact that the scholarships which existed at present on merit are abolished and replaced by this grant scheme. I explained that there will be other scholarships replacing the existing ones and her child would have a good chance of competing. The point she made was that in her case her husband last year offered to work overtime voluntarily in his employment, as a result of which he had secured an income which by a few pounds puts him outside the limit for getting any benefit under this scheme.

I did not get that.

She said her husband in the last year had worked overtime voluntarily, as a result of which he had secured an income which put him outside the limit. I think the income was over £2,000 and with four children put them outside the scheme. The point she made was that if her husband had known the consequences of doing this in one year, in order to get a couple of hundred pounds extra, that it would deprive their child of the benefit of a scholarship over the years because his income was that few pounds too much above this level, he would not have considered it. She pointed out that that would be very unfair. I would like to ask the Minister how will the means test operate? Is it the case that the means test in a family in the year immediately prior to the time of the grant is taken into account and no change in the means after will be considered? That would be very unfair. Will it not be done on the basis of the income in the current year?

People's incomes go down as well as up. This overtime I speak of was fortuitous. In future years the income of the people concerned would be lower and they would be deprived of any benefit simply because of the gratuitous fact that this overtime occurred, that the man worked overtime because he did not know he was working himself out of a university grant by so doing. I would like the Minister to consider this kind of problem. It seems to me that although there are administrative difficulties involved, it will be necessary to review the means test situation during the period the child is at the university, or to make provision for the matter to be re-opened by the parents, should they be able to show that their income has fallen during that period. I would press the Minister to consider that point and to make as flexible as possible a system of administration for the means test because of the hardship it might occasion.

In this booklet that came to me this morning by An Roinn Oideachais I notice that students have been told what to do to get the scholarship. To my mind, what is here is conflicting with what the Minister told us last week in an important respect. What he said briefly is that if you are a candidate for the leaving certificate examination and if you pass at that examination the number of subjects necessary to qualify for the award of the leaving certificate and at least obtain four honours in the matriculation examination subjects, you are entitled to participate, provided your parents' income comes within the category set out. If a child sits for the examination and obtains the leaving certificate in five subjects, with honours in four, the parents are notified, on the basis of this document, that they are eligible to participate in the scheme for a grant.

The Minister told us last week this was not the case, that he proposed to introduce a different provisional requirement and that you must pass a particular subject in that examination in order to qualify. That is not said here.

If you pass in that examination the number of subjects necessary to qualify for the award of the leaving certificate.

The number of subjects you must pass in the leaving certificate is five and you must pass in Irish. That is a separate requirement. Anybody who reads the scheme here will see there is no requirement to pass in Irish. I take it what the Minister said is incorrect and the document issued is something the students stand on and that the Minister is not now going to tell them that if they do not pass Irish, they will not get it and this document is not worth the paper it is written on.

There is no conflict. Senator Garret FitzGerald is playing games.

I was waiting for that. The Minister is beginning to play the game of jingle.

Please. We had a very constructive debate all day. Implicit in the fact that the leaving certificate is obtained or awarded is the fact that pass Irish has heretofore been passed by 98 per cent of the students doing Irish.

There is nothing in this document at all about passing the leaving certificate. It says that you pass the number of subjects necessary to qualify for the award. There is nothing about qualifying for the award by passing the examination.

It is written into that that you pass the leaving certificate. It is not a very meritorious point and I want to refer to points made by Senator Garret FitzGerald, particularly that of the unfortunate man who worked overtime and due to that, now has his child disqualified. Again, if you refer to the booklet in regard to means, on page 5, paragraph (2) under the heading "And Again" it says:

If your local authority is satisfied that your parents' income has decreased during the period of tenure of your grant to such an extent that the amount of the grant no longer corresponds to the income category in the Schedule in relation to which it was originally determined, the amount of the grant will be adjusted to that relating to the category corresponding to the new income.

Apart from what is written there and written in the Bill, this Bill has been deliberately framed in a flexible way. I said this also in the Dáil with a view to having such hardship cases as mentioned by Senator Garret FitzGerald covered. In the Dáil it was mentioned by, I think, Deputy Tully. I want to make sure that I, or any future Minister for Education, will be in a position, as it were, to bend the situation to meet these cases. That is why this table of means, while it will serve as a basic guideline in regard to the means categories, is not written into the Bill itself.

In section 2 (1) (b) the means provision is:

the means (calculated in such manner and by reference to such matters as may be specified from time to time by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance) of the persons, if any, and of the parents or guardians of the persons do not exceed such limits as may be prescribed from time to time by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

From time to time means tests will be flexible, as far as I am concerned, and I can give an assurance to the House and I gave an assurance to the Dáil, that I will be glad to hear in any such cases as Senator FitzGerald sets out of the particulars, as in the case he has mentioned, which appear to merit inclusion in whatever is the appropriate category. Generally, I feel this Bill should be operated and administered in a humane manner and, as far as I am concerned, it will be. I should like to hear from Senators on particular cases where people may be just outside the qualification limit. None of these matters in regard to means qualifications is written into this Bill. They are all matters for ministerial determination of the Bill or for decision from time to time in a particular case.

Senator Murphy's point I think I have answered already. I am all for this but where do you stop when you start something progressive? You raise a hornet's nest, and I have raised a hornet's nest around my ears from people in all sorts of situations going back ten and 15 years who want to get into the scheme. Where do you start? Where do you end? If you go back, where do you stop there? If you go back to last year, it would cost £300,000; if you go back to 1964, it would cost £1 million. Then you exclude the really unfortunate people who never started at university because they had no means. There are other people who were at least able to get there, but you have all the people who never got there at all. The scope is endless if you start taking up retrospection, extending, especially in a progressive scheme, facilities to people through the many branches of Government Departments in any form of advanced endeavour.

There frequently are financial implications which, particularly because of the open-ended nature of this in regard to ascertaining where to begin and end, preclude me from going any further than I have gone in the Bill. I am sorry there are hard luck cases for that reason.

The Bill does not prevent you going back.

If the money turns up, the Bill would enable the Minister to do it.

I will not close the door. If there are hard luck cases and they can be brought within whatever order we propose to deal with the matter, I will consider them.

I should like to say to the Minister—do not pretend to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

It is calling a House.

I am glad to hear that. This leaves me then to speak on the section in the presence of the Minister which I am glad to have the opportunity of doing. This section is the most important section of the Bill, a section which gives the Minister wide powers. It is a section which enables him to refer to the Bill as flexible because of the fact that it gives him the power not only to frame regulations and to decide what the requirements shall be before the granting of these sums of money to students, but also to alter these. He has said in fact that this is totally flexible. I am quite happy about this. In fact I hope I will not embarrass the Minister when I say that I am even more happy about this in view of the personality of the Minister as we know him here. I should like to say in all sincerity that both as Minister for Justice and now as Minister for Education, he has shown a combination of strength, firmness, and flexibility, which could stand as an example to one or two of his colleagues who shall be nameless. The Minister does not regard the Bills he puts before us as Holy Writ. He regards them as capable of amendment, as we have seen and on this I am not speaking just about this Bill but I am recalling cases in the past, like the Succession Bill, which spring to mind. I am not talking only about suggestions made just now, but I have seen suggestions made by Senators in the past, to the Minister, first argued and then considered by the Minister, and sometimes the point conceded.

If the Minister does not mind my interrupting, I would like to say "Hear, hear" to that.

This is an entirely merited tribute, and I am quite confident that the whole House would agree that this Minister does—he is not the only one but there are others who do not—concede that amendments are possible. I think that he sets a very good example here, that he makes it worthwhile arguing, although it does not necessarily mean that one wins the argument, because the Minister is quite aware of the implications of what is before us and argues back with great competence. Nevertheless, we feel that he is open to persuasion, and it is therefore worth our while trying to persuade the Minister to let himself be convinced.

One remark he made—I was sorry that I was not able to be present when he said it, owing to one of the oddities of our procedure in that on that particular occasion we decided that between 6 and 7 o'clock we would not adjourn——

You had better lay off. I am not in the best of humour.

I realise that this is postprandial.

I am willing to be "riz" now if you want to rise me.

I am gratified to find that Senator Ó Maoláin is listening to me.

I always listen to you.

I regard that as a great tribute. But the House was told, during this period when I could not be present, by the Minister in relation to something that Senator Garret FitzGerald had just raised, that is to say, the requirement of a qualification in Irish in order to get the leaving certificate and these grants. The Minister, I think, used a phrase which I could not actually find in the Official Report, but which was reported in the papers to the effect that to ask an Irish child to speak Irish was no more unnatural than to ask a duck to swim. But this is not the Minister for Agriculture before us, and he is unaware of the fact that you do not have to ask a duck to swim. You do not have to say to a duck: "Unless you get into this water and swim, you are not going to get an education grant." Ducks take to the water. I am convinced, without being asked, sometimes rather to the alarm of their parents.

I am a little bit jealous of Senator Garret FitzGerald and Senator Dooge because they had access to a little booklet about the new scheme, in relation to these grants, to which neither as a university lecturer nor as a Senator have I had access up to now.

You are not a student.

I am a student. We are all students.

I might say—and this is against Senator FitzGerald's institution—that TCD got 100 of them and they wrote back and acknowledged the fact and asked for 50 more.

In UCD they got no cover note when they arrived and so there was no indication of where they had come from.

Ah, now!

I am glad that Trinity asked for more, and I hope the Minister will now address some of the surplus to me. The TCD copies did not reach down to the rank at which I stand, but I would appreciate it if I were allowed to have a look at the document, and I am sure the Minister would be prepared to let me see it.

I should like to come to a fundamental point mentioned in the explanatory memorandum itself with reference to subsection (1) and paragraph (b). It says that with regard to the question of means test, it is felt that a parent or guardian with one child who has less than £1,200 a year would require the "full financial assistance", and of course I underline this phrase, as I did on Second Stage; "full financial assistance". This allows me to come to the document which has already been mentioned and which has been placed before all of us here, the document issued by the Union of Students in Ireland in relation to these grants. My feeling is that however optimistic or pessimistic they may be about certain costs, nevertheless this document based on three main claims is a very valuable document and very carefully put together. The three main claims are: first, that the Bill as it stands, the scheme, does not allow for the giving of these grants to anybody who had this qualification before 1968. They say, and I quote from the first paragraph, "the decision to give the grant only to those young people who obtain the four honours in the 1968 and thereafter leaving certificate examinations blatantly discriminates against those people who had reached the same standard in previous years." This point I think has already been made, but the point is a valid one, and they themselves in this document suggest that the Minister might consider going back as far as 1964, and they suggest in an appendix which gives figures pretty carefully worked out that the cost of so doing would be something like £390,000.

It is three times that.

The Minister says that it would cost three times that but I was going to say that I think it would cost rather less, for this reason, and I would put this to the Minister for his consideration, that in fact people who are already established in jobs, who have got their professions perhaps, or who have gone into business or trade or agriculture, and who got four honours in the leaving certificate before 1964, that is to say, five years or more ago, are very unlikely to say: "Well now, I would like to throw up all this, and I will now apply for a university grant to go to a university." Not only are they unlikely to want to do it in those circumstances, but they are unlikely to be able to do it. The further you go back the smaller the likelihood that, whatever their rights as conceded by the Minister in this regard, they are going to take them up. Many of them may have got married, settled down, have got their posts or their farms and it is unlikely that they will claim a university grant.

Therefore, the USI have been overmodest in asking that this should be retrospective only to 1964. I do not think that in practice it would cost very much more if you put it back right to the beginning of time, because the number of people who would actually avail themselves of this in practice would be very few in number beyond the last three or four years. In my mind there is no question about that. I am in agreement therefore with the USI document when it says that "such discrimination is indefensible." I do not think that one can argue to the contrary. Perhaps the USI did not go quite far enough—that they made an estimate which was not sufficient when they suggested that it should go back only to 1964. Without very much more expense in practice, they could have gone back as far as the leaving certificate goes back.

That deals with the first point made by the USI—that these grants should be given to people who qualified as far back as 1964. The second point is that this grant should be given to people at present in the universities. I quote from the first paragraph of this second submission by the USI:

There is a significant number of students at present in higher education who fall within the limits of the means criteria of the new scheme. The condition of these is well known to any who have interested themselves in higher education. A recent survey concluded that no less than 70 per cent of all students in higher education relied upon vacation employment to pay for their tuition fees, books, accommodation and meals during term time.

I mentioned this on Second Stage, in answer to a comment by Senator O'Kennedy that vacation work was possible, and I think we are all agreed here that a small amount of vacation work in industry, commerce and agriculture would be valuable for students, but an obligation on them to work a long time through all their vacations to supplement the money available to them now would be a bad thing for them educationally. Again, the Minister might well reconsider this question of allowing the grants here proposed to apply to people with the necessary qualifications who are at present in universities.

There is one argument in this document about the figures. It has been suggested by Senator FitzGerald that the estimate of the USI of the cost of such a change is too high, and the Minister seemed to agree with the Senator—he seemed to suggest that so far from this being likely to cost the figures given by the USI, £1.4 million per year, it would be unlikely to cost more than £400,000. I think I have got that figure correct. If the Minister and Senator FitzGerald are right on this— that this figure of £1.4 million is a considerable over-estimate—this strengthens rather than weakens the submission of the USI, that those at present in the universities should be considered in relation to this scheme.

I might say, in parenthesis here, it applies to my third point on which I shall say two things. One is that the Minister's sympathy here is on the same side as ours—that to quite a genuine degree there are few things the Minister would like better than to grant these further concessions—but the Minister's case would be that the money is not there. In this House we can strengthen his hand by insisting that he insists on getting more grants in order to enable him to do justice, because to give the grants to those pre-1968 people who have qualified, and to those at present in the universities would seem to us a minimum requirement of justice.

The third point the USI make is based on their contention—I think they are right and I made the point on Second Stage—that the grants suggested are too small—each one of them, the £300, the £175, as the case may be. In answer to that, and in order to supplement the grants, the USI suggest that tuition fees ought to be remitted for students obtaining this grant. They estimate that the cost of this on average would be about another £70 a year per student, and they make the point—and I shall refer again to the third contention of the students—that tuition fees should be remitted in full for recipients of grants. They say that the estimated expenses of a student are: fees, average £70; accommodation, £176—32 weeks at £5 10s a week; meals, £91 10s—32 weeks at £3 per week. This totals £335 5s. This does not include expenses for books, clothing, pocket money, et cetera.

This is a modest figure. On the Second Stage I suggested that a student might well have to calculate his expenses on a 40-week basis, not 32 weeks, allowing for the necessity for reading and working for examinations.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has reminded us that he has made this point on Second Stage. He should not, therefore, make it at length again on Committee.

I do not think I am being unique in this respect, but I take your point. I think the point in question has been sufficiently made. The third point in this submission by the USI states:

Thus, as it stands, the size of the grant is insufficient to cover even the basic costs of the poorest student.

This is a very significant sentence. I am sure it is true. I think everybody here will agree with it and I am certain the Minister would underwrite that.

I agree with a lot of it but it comes down to availability. It may be a lot more than their figures. We are talking not in hundreds of thousands of pounds but in millions.

The Minister says there is a lot more, though in one case is would be less. Where they quote £1.4 million, the Minister told us it should not cost more than £400,000.

They are seeking it for everybody in higher education. They are talking about everybody in higher education. That £1,500,000 should be £4,500,000.

This is for everybody in higher education who has four honours in the Leaving Certificate, everybody who has the qualifications.

That is not what they say there. I met them and what they wanted was that it should be for everybody. They say in the third paragraph that the number affected is 18,000. That 18,000 is literally everybody and their calculation of £1,500,000 should, in fact, be £4,500,000.

I may be mistaken in this but I understood their claim as being a claim on behalf of those already in higher education who had the necessary qualifications.

And come within the necessary income category. That would be a reasonable sort of claim, quite conceivable to concede, but what they say there is that the number affected is 18,000 which includes the whole student population.

May I ask the Minister for the reference?

It is the third paragraph. The heading is: "Projection of cost of extending the grants scheme to those already in higher education." They say:

The number of full-time students enrolled in courses falling within the terms of the scheme, i.e. courses recognised by the Department of Education as being of degree or equivalent status is 18,000 (Dept. of Ed.). Thus the number affected by this extension in 1968 and thereafter is 18,000.

That 18,000 is the total student population in the country.

Yes, I see the point. There is ambiguity there.

Just take it at £1,500,000.

That is legitimate.

My submission is on the basis of granting it to those already in higher education who have the four honours.

And who come within the income requirements. That is a reasonable sort of case. It is not a case that I am in a position to concede but——

Financially reasonable. Entertainable. This is an idea that might be entertained.

I have great confidence in the capacity of the Minister to convince his colleagues that the money required for this particular scheme takes a very high priority. I recognise that the present Minister and his predecessor have succeeded in gaining financial recognition for the requirements of education well beyond what was gained before. Let me say, in parenthesis, that when the Minister was driven reluctantly into paying tribute to Fianna Fáil Ministers for Education, I think the facts in some measure justify what he said. I do not think any of them have gone far enough, but I do remember the Fine Gael Minister for Education in the inter-Party Government telling me that if you had an oral examination in Irish in the leaving certificate it might be the last straw which would cause the collapse of the whole educational system. Therefore, though I have great reluctance to hurt the feelings of opponents of the present Government, and am even more reluctant to soothe unduly the feelings of the present Government, I feel that when the Minister was reluctantly obliged to compliment his own Party, there is a certain amount of justification for what he said. It may be that in saying this I am out of order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Senator would indicate when his parenthesis is closed perhaps we could return to the question in hand.

Close the bracket. The third claim made by the USI is an excellent one, and it is quite simple. It is that tuition fees should be remitted in full for recipients of a grant. They make the point that this is a very easy way of helping the recipients without in any way handicapping the universities. They give in the first paragraph various expenses of a student, and they go on to say that the size of grant is insufficient to cover even the basic costs of the poorest student. The amount that they say this would take is the sum of £735,000. I am not competent to judge how near accuracy that figure is but I feel that this is something to which the Minister should give attention. Under this section he is given full power to modify schemes and to take into account the necessity for doing this. If it were granted, and I think it probably ought to be granted, that £300 a year to a student whose home is outside a university town is not enough for him to live as a university student without having a supplement to his income, if that is granted, then a neat way of making up the additional sum would be to have tuition fee remission to each of these grant-receiving students.

The point that the USI ought to have added, and I am afraid have failed to add, is a point that I also made on the Second Stage. It is that the Minister in calculating the sum to be granted of £175 to a student who is living in a place adjacent to a university town and £300 to a student living in a university town, does not take any account of the loss of potential earnings which would allow such a student if he, instead of becoming a student, were to have entered industry, commerce or agriculture, to contribute to the family income. In other words, it does not allow for loss of potential income, which means loss of potential contribution to the family income. Therefore, the smallness of this sum, and the failure to recognise that this means that class division will, to some extent, still remain even among the receivers of grants. This is a very important point. We could put it briefly in one sentence: some students will be unable to afford the luxury of accepting these grants—that is a very important fact—by reason of the fact that their family conditions are so poor, and the numbers of younger children in the family so great, that the family requires a financial contribution from them immediately they leave the secondary or vocational school, and that consequently they cannot afford to accept these grants.

I know the Minister well enough to know that if there are any deficiencies in this scheme the one about which he is least satisfied is this. I am quite sure that this is something which concerns him, and I should like to feel that under the provisions of section 2 the Minister will devise some way of having a further inner means test which will enable him to give additional grants to people who might, owing to loss of potential contribution to family income, otherwise be prevented from accepting the grants here offered.

It has been suggested that there should be some test at the end of the first or second year, by the universities, of these grant-receiving students, to see how well they are doing. It was suggested by some that they might be penalised if they were not doing well. I will not repeat what I said on this matter on Second Stage.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Nor what was said on earlier amendments.

Perish the thought. However, instead of thinking in terms of penalisation, could we not think in terms of reward? Could we not say that those who passed with unusual merit might have that merit recognised by a bonus grant? I am against penalisation and punishment, and I feel that we would get far more from reward and compensation than from penalisation. I put this idea before the Minister in the confident hope that he will give it further consideration.

Finally, I come to the question of the means test and I should like to acknowledge that in speaking on another Bill I made a mistake which was corrected by Senator O'Kennedy. I said that the limit was over £1,800 for a man with ten children. That is incorrect, a man with ten children can have up to £2,500 and still be helped. The £1,800 limit applies to the man with one child. I can see why a means test is being applied, it is for financial reasons, but I am wondering whether it is really necessary. The original motion put down by some of my colleagues was that university education should be free for all those who could benefit from it. I have a preference for that principle, and perhaps the Minister could consider, as a long-term proposition, whether he could eventually abolish the means test.

If he does not do this the situation arises that four honours are equal to two honours plus money. In other words, you can buy two honours.

Three in Trinity College.

We are making it three in Trinity College from next September, and this is a good thing. One of the big defects in Trinity College and indeed in the NUI is that we subject applicants to two tests, one intellectual and the other financial; and the financial test is so severe that many people who would benefit greatly from a university education do not get in. That makes us rather embarrassed, the fact that four leaving certificate honours will equal two honours plus the money.

My recollection is that in the previous debate Senator Sheehy Skeffington said that the minimum standard in his opinion should be four honours in the leaving certificate.

Senator Nash is quite right, I said "three or four honours". I have since received many letters and phone calls from former friends and contemporaries in Trinity College, who said that in that case they would never have got into college! These fears are exaggerated. I feel now that three honours is a minimum, and I should be quite happy to accept four honours as a minimum. This being so, under the Minister's scheme, anybody with these four honours would get a grant, but the means test will still apply, and I should like to look forward to the day when it will be abolished.

This would mean a considerable advance in the amount of money which the Minister is prepared to pay for higher education, but I do not think the Minister or his predecessor were reluctant to spend money, and I feel that this Bill and this section, which is important step forward. It represents only half a loaf, but I am strongly of the opinion that half a loaf is perceptibly better than no bread.

The point which I raised previously and to which the Minister has failed to reply adequately is the change in the requirements for the grants. If one reads the Bill and the regulations, it is obvious that the original intention was to make provision for people getting the grants even if they had not actually got the leaving certificate. It was not required that they should pass the leaving certificate. What was required was that they should reach such standard as was prescribed by the Minister. If it was the intention that they should pass the examination the Minister would have said that the requirement was that they should pass the leaving certificate examination and reach such standard as was prescribed by him. The omission of the requirements of passing the examination can scarcely be without significance.

The wording of this document is most circumlocutory. The normal thing to have said was that if you pass the leaving certificate examination and obtain at least four university matriculation subjects you will get the grant. The position now is that a student who took the Minister at his word this year and decided that he could get a grant to enter Trinity College which does not have the Irish language by passing in five subjects now finds that he cannot do this.

Give me one example of that. That is purely academic. There is not a single person in that category in the country.

I am not in a position to say whether there is or not. The Minister advertised the scheme in one form and he subsequently decided to change it and he has not the right to do that. Any student who passes the leaving certificate in five subjects and gets honours in four and who decided to go to Trinity and applied for a grant is entitled to get it. If he is refused that grant——

We will jump that hurdle when we meet it.

You expect to get no students coming to you who passed five subjects in the leaving certificate, four with honours, who go to Trinity and have not got Irish?

If such a person turned up he will get a grant?

I did not say that.

You will meet that hurdle when you come to it but are you going to jump it?

I am quite confident that anybody who gets four honours in the leaving certificate will pass Irish.

I was looking at the results of examinations in our college the other day and the Minister would be surprised——

98 per cent of the people sitting for the leaving certificate pass Irish.

The number of people affected is relatively small, I grant you. Even if the number is only 100 I feel the whole thing is completely pointless. In order to maintain this facade 100 people I feel are to be penalised and I think the effect on the popularity of the language goes far beyond that. Although only 100 people are affected, I feel the result will be far greater.

Surely over 100 people with four honours speak Irish.

I appreciate that point. I am only accepting what the Minister said. He said 98 per cent. The way he should have put it is that only 2 per cent fail because they have failed in Irish. If, in fact, the Minister thinks there will be no such person turning up he is not as aware of things as we thought he was.

There is a principle involved.

What is the principle involved here? If nobody will turn up what is at stake?

I am not going into that principle here. I referred to it on the last occasion.

I have never heard this form of discrimination dignified by the title of principle before. That is something novel. The document the Minister presented indicates that anyone who passes five subjects and gets four honours will get a grant. Certainly if the Minister sees that this small number will not be deprived of a scholarship because of their failure to pass Irish he will have the support of turning up he is not as aware of things They should not be deprived of a grant.

I may be very simple or perhaps Senator Garret FitzGerald is very tortuous——

——neither when he first read out this phrase from the document nor when he read it again did there seem any difficulty. It refers to a student who passes the number of subjects necessary to qualify for the award of the leaving certificate. The word "award" is very important.

Would the Senator quote the words again?

Any student who passes the number of subjects necessary to qualify for the award of the leaving certificate will obtain the grant.

We are talking about the number of subjects.

Senator FitzGerald seemed to suggest in a very tortuous manner that it is necessary to pass five subjects. If five subjects is what they meant they should have said that. Instead it is said "for the award of the leaving certificate". It is clear to me, and I hope it is clear to the ordinary student, that it is "shall qualify for the award of the leaving certificate". It does not say that he must qualify in five subjects.

That may change.

If it was merely a matter of five subjects it should have said that.

It may be six next year. That is why it should be left open.

I do not think there is any difficulty about it. Now, assuming, which I think is most unlikely, that some student, even before Senator FitzGerald raised this here, found he did not have to get the leaving certificate because for 30 to 40 years the university entrance has been based on——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Yeats, to continue.

The university has been geared to accepting the leaving certificate even though Senator FitzGerald's mythical student might not get in. If somebody gets four honours in the leaving certificate and does not pass in Irish on the basis of the pass Irish paper it means that he deliberately refrained from doing so and should not get the scholarship. If he made any effort he would be able to at least pass the pass Irish paper. I hope that any such student who came to the Minister would not get a grant.

I hope he would not get the grant because he has deliberately refrained from passing in Irish. I do not think that Senator FitzGerald can point to anyone in the last five years who got four honours in the leaving certificate and failed in Irish. The Senator has raised a great hare here and suggested that there is a difference in what the Minister said on Second Reading and what he says now.

I have never heard Senator Yeats speaking Irish in this House.

What has that got to do with it?

Apparently that is because you did not want to make the effort.

Senator Yeats has various honours degrees.

I raise one point on which I should like the Minister to give some views. What is the Minister's attitude towards having the leaving certificate repeated for the purpose of attaining four honours the following year?

Some people would do it. It depends.

Does the Minister want to encourage that or would he look to the future when such a student could go to the university and get into the scholarship stream by his performance in the university?

You must have a qualification and decide on it. That is one of the things we are positive about here. There must be a standard in the leaving certificate examination. We have written that into the Bill.

Therefore, the advice we, as legislators, have to give to students who qualify on the income level and who fail to get four honours next September is that they should go back and try for another year.

That obviously depends on the calibre of the student. I would say a student of 17 years with ability to do it would probably do it the following year. It depends on the age in each case.

I think from our experience we would much prefer to get such a student into the university system and let him take his chance on a first year examination.

That is a subject for discussion. I know we are broadening the terms of discussion but there are various views on that. Our entry age to the university in Ireland is in my view rather too low and that is the purpose of proposing the advanced leaving certificate, that we will have this specialised extra year where the students can specialise in particular subjects and then be in a position at 18 years to go into the university. On the continent the average age of entry is around 20 years. Ours is 17 and is probably a year too low. That is my own view and is also the view of educationists. We have had a long debate on this particular section. Senator Sheehy Skeffington mentioned a number of matters. There is no doubt that what he says is tantamount to the idea. I would like to see all of what he said implemented. For the present, within our financial resources, we are making a start in this Bill. It is not possible from the financial point of view to start to go retrospective. As I said earlier, the implications could start mounting and we would be talking in terms of hundreds of thousands and we could go into millions.

We could do social injustice if we go on to selecting people who are in universities from last year and the year before and the year before as against people who did not get a chance to go to the university. In terms of social justice if anybody deserves help, it is the person who by reason of his bad economic circumstances in the past few years, could not not get to university, whereas there are people who did get to university. Although their parents made that sacrifice, at least they were in a position to make an attempt at it within their resources.

If you start thinking in terms of social justice and start thinking of retrospection, there is no end to how far you could go back or where you might stop, and you could run into expenditure of millions. In any progressive measure of this kind we are bound to have these difficulties arising. You are bound to have people who see they have not come in under the scheme and who will naturally complain and seek to come in. You have to set a deadline. People in the previous year will start to complain and then the people in the year before, and the year before that, and so on. Where do you start and where do you end?

At least we have made a start. We are bringing in people who by reason of their circumstances would never see the light of day in an institution of higher education, and we are bringing people who have talent under the Bill. I deliberately left the section flexible so that if hardship cases, or any cases, arise where I can adjust matters in people's favour they can be adjusted in the future. That is the importance of not having too strict terms here in section 2. The whole purpose of it is that I can adjust the income limits, adjust the standard qualifications, adjust the type of institution for which a boy or girl can qualify. I agree that in time to come we will have to start adjusting the income categories here. I know there will be cases. I know of cases who are outside the income categories here and, mind you, the people concerned are not that well off. I agree with everything said about it in this respect.

I regard this only as a start and I made that plain in the Dáil and Seanad. As far as I am concerned it is only a start, and I hope future Ministers for Education will do the same thing. I would hope year in year out that whoever occupies the chair of Minister for Education would regard it as one of his cardinal duties to make sure pressure is maintained on the Exchequer to release the necessary funds to expand and extend this Bill to cover a wider range of boys and girls in our community. That I am certain will be the approach in the future. This particular section, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington said, is the key section, and it is deliberately drafted in that flexible way to allow for a humane approach, to allow for extension and expansion of it in the years ahead.

Perhaps I could raise one other query with the Minister. So much of this is governed by regulation, and so on, especially under subsection (a), the standards that will be required—whether four honours or three honours and, more important still, whether an honours at 90 per cent counts the same as an honours at 60 per cent. In other words, will you weigh the honours? I think you should. It is something we cannot go into in a long discussion here and on which we could not reach finality.

By next year it will be decided on the graded system. Grade C goes down to 55 per cent; there would be A, B and C, and 100 to 85, 85 to 70 and 70 to 55. This will come in next year.

We would feel much happier if we had four honours with so many grade points, to see which would be a high performance in one and a low in the other.

It is a point we will take into account. The Senator made it on Second Stage and it is most valid.

Secondly, I would like to suggest to the Minister that in the drafting of these regulations over the next few weeks, I would be glad if he would consult as soon as possible with some of the university institutions.

I shall do that.

Those of us on the University Panels here are conscious of the need to do something for which we are particularly equipped in the educational field, and so on. We have had some talks over the past few weeks and we are coming together with Senator Brosnahan to form a panel. We have had more or less an official offer to call it the University Educational Panel——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It scarcely arises on the section.

We are suggesting that perhaps the Minister could receive us as soon as possible so that the many points we would like to put in the regulations might be of assistance to him. We would be glad of an opportunity of meeting the Minister on it. Obviously there are many points we gave on Second Reading and otherwise.

I will be very glad to give that assistance.

There are many points which I made on Second Reading to which I should like to refer but there is no point in detaining the House. I thank the Minister for his readiness to meet us, and I assure him that I and my colleagues in the Panel will be happy to meet him and play whatever part we can in shaping the educational development under this Bill towards future development in education.

It would make me very happy if when the Senator and his brains trust come back he will also consider abolishing the discrimination against evening students which he spoke about a few times.

It was purely financial and outside the scope of this. The grants will make a definite——

It took a long time and it took the Government to do it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 11 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

I move amendment No. 12:

In line 7, before "in" to insert "from the rates only".

I would like to assure the Minister that I speak not as an academic but as a county councillor, and as such I can make my case somewhat more easily than my academic colleagues have made theirs in the past few hours. I am aware that the Minister has made it clear, as stated on Second Reading, that the local authorities will pay only the net amount. Senator Quinlan said here this morning that ministerial assurances are not worth a whole lot, and while I would not like to see the Minister leaving his present position— although I would not mind seeing all his colleagues leaving their present positions—nevertheless what he said is quite true, in the light of assurances given in the past. Some of us in local authorities have had rather unhappy experiences with ministerial assurances. I could remind the House and the Minister of what Ministers assured us about the Health Act. It is only two years ago since we were assured that the charges under the Health Act were to be frozen, but we found the following year that they were not frozen, and the next year, and this year they are not frozen either. I would not like to take the Minister's assurance that the costs will be the net costs of the scholarships. The Bill is very specific and says that a council shall provide in each local financial year towards the cost of making grants by it each year from the council's gross amount. This Bill says that they shall provide the same as they provided in previous years. Officials in Clare County Council are quite worried in spite of the Minister's assurances that this is flexible because the wording is not flexible. It says that the councils must provide the gross amount. After that they can be recouped by way of a grant. As I see it, this wording is quite specific: they must provide the same as in the previous year. The explanatory memorandum says also that the total annual local authority contribution shall be the figure allocated by them in the local financial year ending on 31st March, 1968, but the total allocation by the county council in the financial year ending on 31st March, 1968, was the gross amount. I would ask the Minister to insert, as I have it in my amendment, the words "from the rates only". This would ensure that the councils would only provide the net amount. While we have the Minister's assurance that they will be asked to provide only the net amount, the Bill says quite clearly that they shall provide the gross amount. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment and remove from the county councils the worry that in years to come they will be asked to provide the gross amount they have provided in the past.

I will consider it, but this matter came up after the publication of the Bill in the Dáil on Committee Stage. We actually redrafted it, and it is only a drafting point, to make sure that the Senator's point of view was met. It is purely drafting, and one would want a wet blanket for a while to go into it. As I see it, I think it is quite clear that the Senator's intention is met, particularly when you look at the phrase in the third line about the sum provided by the local authority in the local financial year ending 31st March, 1968. The phrase is: "The sum provided by it".

That is the gross amount. That is quite true.

They must provide the amount before they know the recoupment, long before they know the grant. For instance, Clare County Council provided £16,000 and they got a recoupment afterwards of almost £8,000.

If you look at it, it is quite clear that it is not the gross sum provided for in the local financial year. The gross returned for recoupment comes up and in fact the sum provided by the local authority is the net sum.

The local authorities interpret the word "provide" as meaning to provide or make available the gross amount and if you speak to a local authority official and ask him: "What do you provide?", he will tell you "the gross amount".

I can see the validity of what the Senator is saying, but the sum provided by a council in any financial year in respect of assistance to university fees is the sum provided by it in that local financial year ending on that date, which is the net amount because the recoupment has been effected in respect of that financial year. Actually, we improved the drafting in the Dáil to meet the point.

If the Minister will assure me that this is quite clearly the meaning that will be taken—I can assure him that county council officials are not quite certain about it.

I can put it on record here, though I do not know whether the courts will take account of what is said here in the Oireachtas.

No, not yet.

I hope they are moving to that. I have had the advice of the draftsman on this particular point, and between Second Stage and Committee Stage in the Dáil we clarified the section with the phraseology just mentioned to make certain it was the net amount. The draftsman's advice and his office's advice as far as I can see it in plain English is that it can only be the net amount so I think the Senator can accept the assurance that there will be no intention to extract from the local authorities any more than the net amount.

I cannot see any reason why the Minister should not accept "from the rates only" because it seems to me that Senator McHugh and the Minister are on the very same thing, but as I understand it, what Senator McHugh wants to ensure in this amendment is that it is only the amount raised by the local authorities from the rates which will be provided, because I understand that local authorities have in fact sometimes to borrow in order to provide the sum necessary for scholarships under their schemes. It seems to me that it makes it perfectly clear to say "from the rates only".

I will have a discussion with the draftsman about it.

I would just like to say that my county council provided for the financial year ended 31st March, 1968, a sum of around £16,000 which they have shown in their accounts as the sum provided and they were recouped £7,985.

That is a very narrow view of the word "provided", is it not?

We have to be very careful, in view of our unhappy experiences of ministerial assurances in the past.

There is no question of our making a demand upon the local authorities for more than the total they provided.

Our experience is quite unhappy. The Minister will look into it?

I would be happy to, but I would like to get Report Stage today.

A short, sharp look.

I think that there is something in what Senator McHugh says because when the assessments are made, it is this amount that has been provided at that point of time which is involved. The general expectancy is that you will get recoupment from the Department, but it could also happen that the Minister might write to the council and say that because of one thing or another, he had decided not to make any recoupment in that particular year. That never happened, but if this is to be interpreted strictly, as most councils provided without any conditions, it would have to be held that this was the amount they did provide.

It occurs to me now, looking at it more closely again, that the Senator's amendment would tend to make the situation worse in that he is seeking to insert "from the rates only". Recoupment is not from the rates, and if you take from the rates only, you would lead to a situation in which it was not from the rates only, but the gross amount, whereas if you leave out "from the rates only", the word "provided" means what the local authority has provided in the current financial year and what it has provided net.

I see the Minister's point but it emphasises my original point that "provided" is the operative word. Last year we provided £16,000.

You provided the gross amount from the rates and you got a recoupment from the Central Fund. If you treat this amendment in that way it is clearer that what you provided was the net amount.

Will the Minister accept an amendment to insert "the net sum"?

The Minister has emphasised my point.

We would then get into arguments about "net".

Could we show in a schedule to the Bill what each council provided? I feel sure that is too late now.

The Senator has my assurance that this is not a question on which there could be an attempt to mislead the House. We can argue about the nuances of the word "provided" but we will not take any more than the net amount from local authorities from year to year. The Senator, as a good politician, will realise that this or any other Government who demanded the gross instead of the net amount would be slightly out of their minds.

I am happy about the Minister's confidence but I have a distinct recollection of health charges being frozen but they are no longer frozen.

It is a good point.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Yes. The Minister says he will look at it sometime, somewhere, somehow.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No.13 not moved.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 14:

Before section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) The Minister shall as soon as possible after the passing of this Act prescribe by regulation a scheme to carry the provisions of this Act into effect and shall publish the scheme in such a manner as to bring the provisions thereof to the notice of persons intended to be benefited thereby.

(2) The Minister may from time to time amend or otherwise alter the scheme made under subsection (1) of this section and shall publish such amendments and alterations in due time and in an appropriate manner."

Section 5 proposes a rather complicated procedure whereby the scheme will be drawn up by the local authorities and sent to the Minister for confirmation, amendment, et cetera. The Minister has indicated in the course of the discussion that he has already proposed a model scheme which he has circulated to the local authorities and that they in turn can return the scheme to him. In the course of the debate yesterday the Minister used the revealing words “This is our scheme which they will have to adopt.”

The purpose of the amendment is to get away from the circuitous manner in which the Bill prescribes the making of these schemes. We will all agree that one of the features of this Bill which commends itself to us is that we are getting away from the disparity of the scholarship schemes which has existed as between one local authority and another or one county and another, and that we shall have uniform standards throughout the country. The Minister obviously intends that if there are disparities between schemes sent up by the different local authorities he will take steps to harmonise them to ensure there will be no discrimination in the making of grants between applicants living in the different local authority areas, discrimination merely arising from the place of residence of the grant-applicant.

Accordingly, the reasonable thing is that the Minister should make the scheme. The clear-cut thing to do is for the Minister to make his scheme. On Second Stage, the Minister indicated that the local authorities are being retained in the present scheme for the giving of grants because of the convenience which he alleges exists in regard to the checking of means, and he indicated that this is the only reason they are being retained. At that stage I protested this was misuse of local authorities, treating them as mere agents of the central Government. However, in the Bill they remain playing a part.

It is clumsy and cumbersome that the making of the schemes should follow the routine. If we are to accomplish what the Minister has set out to do, it will be necessary that all local authority schemes should be harmonised together. That is the reason I put down the amendment.

I can see the merit in the amendment but on balance I prefer the section as it stands. It is a good thing to have the local authorities involved, though not involved to the degree in which they were heretofore: it is a good thing to have them interested in the preparation of these schemes. They can come forward in the democratic way from their scholarship committees with suggestions and amendments which may be incorporated in a particular way for a particular area or county. That could arise. It is part of the overall flexible approach we have adopted in this Bill that if a particular county suggests that in particular circumstances a certain approach might be adopted in respect of the preparation of a scheme suitable to that county's needs, a case can be made by the county and I can adjust the scheme to suit it. This could conceivably arise.

While we are aiming at a degree of uniformity and harmonisation, at the same time I would not throw the local authorities and their advice out the door altogether. They have something to contribute and local democracy has something to contribute. Good ideas can come up from time to time from local authorities to suit particular areas and, as Senator Cole suggested, excellent work has been done by scholarship committees attached to local authorities who have had a certain amount of experience and wisdom, gathered during the years in the operation of the old system. Something can be contributed from this direction.

On balance, it is wiser to leave the section as it is and to realise that while we want to achieve a far higher degree of uniformity, there may be a situation requiring amendment of the scheme in certain circumstances.

It is significant that the Minister, though sympathising with what is in the amendment, spoke about the conceivable rather than the probable in regard to the future. Perhaps that is not in tone with the general trend of the debate and I shall not complain too much about it. However, we must face the reality of the situation that the Minister will make the scheme. There is no doubt about that. He will make the scheme and in making it he will take into account representations made currently or in the past by local authorities in different parts.

I still suggest that for the Minister to make this scheme after consultation would be a neater thing. I believe no service is being done to the local authorities by the pretence that they have powers which they have not got. Local government in this country is weakened in many instances because it appears on paper that they possess powers which they do not possess. That is a great danger for local government in this country. For this reason I should feel far happier if the Minister were able to adopt the direct approach rather than the circuitous approach which camouflages and covers up what is the real situation. However, as the Minister does not appear to be disposed to that I have no wish to prolong the discussion. I think much of our discussion today has been long enough and accordingly I will with regret if the House agrees withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

I feel that the local authorities might be of considerable assistance to the Minister in preparing schemes. I know there was one scheme in the past that we prepared in Cavan County Council and I think it was turned down by the universities. We envisaged in this scheme that it might be possible for parents who could not afford to send their child to university—it will not arise so much in the future—could mortgage to the county council by land or take out insurance policies that they would pay in future years after the students had left the university back to the university over the years the amount of money that was lent by the county council. The county council apart from the administration of the scheme would not be out of any money at all. That was the scheme that was worked out in great detail largely by the secretary of our county council who is still there and it was turned down possibly by the Department and the universities but it was a first-class scheme and I was very sorry that it did not work. It is possible that there is reason for such a scheme even still in a different way.

I am satisfied that there are many good ideas in local authorities, ahead of ideas on this particular subject in many other quarters.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 15:

Before section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—

"Every order and regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if a resolution annulling the order or regulation is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the order or regulation is laid before it, the order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the order or regulation."

There has been a very long debate on this Bill today and particularly on section 2 because Members of the House are very concerned with some of the important details of the scholarship scheme. I think it is true to say that if the section which it is now proposed to insert in this amendment had been in the Bill a good deal of the debate could have been avoided, not, indeed, but it has probably been very useful to have a fairly protracted debate on this particularly important Bill.

The amendment is designed to ensure that the orders and regulations relating to the working out of this rather flexible scheme will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and if any particular order or regulation calls for debate that it should be open to the Members of the Oireachtas to have a debate on it.

It is heartening to think that the Minister, who is receptive to new ideas, does not think that all wisdom lies in one quarter and that he can find it not merely behind him but all about him. For that reason I think it is desirable that this amendment which would give this House as well as the other House an opportunity of debating the progress of this scheme which to a large extent will be experimental, should be accepted and that the House should have an opportunity of debating the more important details of the scheme as they come to be devised.

I feel that this particular section which we are proposing to insert here is standard practice in most Bills and I hope that the Minister will not belie his reputation and will accept it and that we can get to the Report Stage of this Bill in a very short time.

On this amendment I must go against what Senator O'Quigley has just said. The debate earlier on, particularly on section 2, highlighted the necessity for the greatest possible degree of flexibility in measures of this kind. In effect what the proposed amendment would do would be to circumscribe this very flexibility which I think is the major merit in the Bill. Indeed, in the House here Senator FitzGerald mentioned a particular case to me which posed a certain problem which I promised to investigate for him as to whether or not the person concerned would come within the income limits having regard to overtime that this parent specially earned last year in order to put his child into university and now finds that these extra earnings have put him out of the income category. This is the sort of human problem that always arises in this sort of situation. I get letters in the post every day about problems relating to the need for flexibility in interpretation as regards a scheme of this kind.

I could not possibly devise an order that would cover every type of conceivable situation that would arise in regard to people's income, in regard to qualifications, in regard to whether certain institutions of higher education are to be brought within the scope of this scheme. Senator Cole mentioned the local authorities and Senator Quinlan suggested a particular type of qualification involving a person who might get high honours in particular subjects, not necessarily in four but, perhaps, very high honours in two, showing a particular bent. There are countless problems that will arise in regard to orders and ministerial decisions that will have to be made under a scheme of this kind and that is why we have left it open and flexible.

If I have to start devising orders to be laid before the House to cover every situation that could possibly arise not only would I be circumscribing myself but I would be circumscribing the humane approach which I want to adopt in regard to this Bill. I want to ensure that if a case of genuine hardship or genuine educational merit is brought before me, as Minister for Education, or before a successor of mine, that a decision can be made by me and that a particular order or decision can be made which would be in the right direction. I do not think you are helping that sort of humane direction of affairs by asking us to place an order before each House of the Oireachtas in regard to every such decision. Indeed, the old scholarship legislation recognised this sort of flexibility and now when we are bringing in an expansionist Bill I think it would be retrograde to circumscribe the Minister when heretofore he has had this flexibility in regard to scholarships.

I do not wish to delay the House but I am not at all convinced that the Minister is right for the reason that there are certain signposts which the Minister will have to erect and which will have to be observed by those administering schemes. There will have to be a certain standard fixed from time to time. This is a matter which the Minister could easily fix by order or regulation which could be the subject of debate as to whether the standard was too high or too low.

There are other things. The Minister has given an indication in the White Paper as to means. No doubt that will be subject to change and I rather think the Minister must give certain directives to his officials on the matter. While it is true to say that these things must be left in a very flexible condition, this scheme is not going to be administered in such a way that every person worthy of a grant is going to receive it, irrespective of whether he comes within certain broad directives and regulations laid down by the Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Finance. This broad scheme which the Minister will prescribe should be the subject of some comment by Members of the Oireachtas. How are the Members of the Oireachtas to get to know what are the schemes in operation, what are the grants and what are the changes? The only way they can get that information is from some order made by the Minister being laid before both Houses. I thought the Minister would accept the amendment in order to enable the Oireachtas to know what was going on.

It is the right sort of amendment but not for this sort of Bill.

How are the Members of the Oireachtas to know at any time what are the means?

By writing to the local authority or to the Department.

Why can the Minister not determine now what the means are so that they can be prescribed in the order?

I might change.

The change could also be approved. The same thing applies to the standard, which can be too high or too low.

This would be an appropriate amendment for Bills such as I used to have when I was in the Department of Justice when the liberty of the subject was at stake, but it is not appropriate when you want to be expansionist, generous and humane.

Everybody has conceded that the Minister is going to be humane and considerate, expansionist and kind, but the officials of his Department and of county councils will have to follow certain broad directives which will be laid down in circulars, and I feel that these circulars should be embodied in the regulations to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister has said that under the old scholarship schemes there were no such regulations but I would remind him that the Department of Education is governed by about six Acts of Parliament, and after that everything is done by circular.

The salaries of teachers and conditions in primary, secondary and vocational schools are all governed by circulars and the Department has a tradition of unwillingness to put anything where it can be examined. One of the reasons the Department is so backward is that they have not been coming before the Oireachtas to get the geeing-up which they require.

I cannot accept the implications being made by the Senator.

I should like to support the amendment. I cannot see what the Minister could lose by having placed on him an obligation to put these regulations before the Oireachtas, and it is unlikely that any regulations that are going to be expansionist and generous would be annulled by the Oireachtas. I cannot see how the Minister would lose by being under an obligation to put them before the House. On the contrary, he would gain even wider applause.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share