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.