Before we take up consideration of the Committee Stage of this Bill I should like to indicate that I have ruled that the amendment standing in the name of Senator Murphy is out of order on the ground that it involves a potential charge on the public revenue. The additional amendment in the name of Senator Mary Robinson is out of order for the same reason. The Senators have been notified accordingly.
Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1978: Committee and Final Stages.
I thought that my amendment has a distinct definition and——
I am sorry, Senator, we cannot discuss this now. The amendments have been ruled out of order and it has been the tradition of this House to respect the ruling of the Chair. If the Senator has any question afterwards, the Senator will be met courteously on it.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
On section 1 which is the essential part of this Bill I indicated in the Second Stage debate that I approved of the section as far as it went, but I would like the Minister's amendment going further. I intended to put down amendments with this object in mind. I tried very hard and had considerable cooperation from the officials of the House and it did not seem to me that there was any way in which I could put my objects into the proper legal framework. Every attempt I made had already been ruled out of order in the previous debate in the other House.
However, there are some points that could be made on this section. With the general aim of ensuring that the local authority grants scheme has a wider field of application, particularly in view of the forthcoming NCEA Bill, perhaps the Minister could make clear to me the distinction which he alluded to in his second reading speech of the eligibility for scholarships vis-a-vis the eligibility for grants which this Bill deals with. I find it rather hard to set one against the other. It is very important, because one deals with the vocational education committee and the application of this section has a rather different range. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this when discussing this section?
I received the notice of the Chair's ruling that the amendment which I had tabled to this section was out of order. I accept that ruling. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasise yet again to the Minister, the dissatisfaction with the new power and control which he appears to wish to have and a new discretion in relation to the definition of approved institution relating that to universities and university colleges. The amendment which I had tabled and is not acceptable because it might be a potential charge on public revenue would have substituted the following for the definition of approved institution. It would have provided that approved institution means (a) a university or university college or any other institution of higher education for the time being approved by the Minister, for the purpose of this Act, in respect of its courses which, in the case of a university or university college, are declared by the university or university college to be of degree standard and in the case of any other institution declared by a university or a university college or The National Council for Educational Awards to be of degree standard, or (b) any university or university college or other institution of higher education in so far as it provides a course or courses of not less than two years duration being a course or courses of which the Minister approves for the time being for the purpose of this Act.
I believe that that amendment, if it could get past the technical problem of being a potential charge, is the power which the Minister seeks for himself in relation to the approval of courses. But the present wording of the section gives him a new power for the first time in relation to the approval of university courses. I raised at the Second Stage, and I am still not happy about the position and I would welcome a clarification by the Minister, the question of why he has chosen to broaden his power in this matter. I believe it could, in fact, erode university autonomy in a very significant way. I believe this could be the case either because the Minister refused to approve a particular university course or just failed to approve. If it is a case of a new university course, the Minister would have to approve it actively and if the approval was not forthcoming then it could put a university or university college in a very difficult position.
The separation of those courses which would be declared to be approved courses of approved institutions from the (b) category in the amendment, I think is legitimate in the case of a course or courses of not less than two years duration to allow the Minister to have a role and a function in coordinating through approving the particular courses and making them approved institutions for the purposes of extending the grants system. I was not satisfied with the Minister's reply on this point at Second Stage. I think this is a very narrow and minimalist Bill, but it does, in fact, give the Minister new power and it is not just filling in that legal vacuum that the Minister chastised me for criticising him doing on that last occasion. Clearly, I was not criticising the fact that he wanted to bring in legislation to legalise retrospectively what was happening: it was the fact that he had chosen to do so little and had not decided to remove the four honours eligibility which would have been a genuine step forward in the access to higher education grants from local authorities which would have been much more compatible with the kind of course and the kind of standards set by the technological colleges themselves. That would have been a genuine step to redress the imbalance and the present curtailing of expenditure in higher education.
Since the Second Stage, my views in relation to the issues that I raised have been greatly reinforced by the very strong statements in the observations of the Higher Education Authority on the relevant paragraph, paragraph 7.33 of the Green Paper on Development for Full Employment. In that statement grave concern is implied by the Higher Education Authority about the possibility—more than hinted at in the Green Paper—of a substantial fees increase, and there is a reference also to the Local Authority Higher Education Grants Bill where the Higher Education Authority points to the fact that the investment in higher education in Ireland is much lower than in any of the other European Community countries. Paragraph 6 refers to the Green Paper. The principal theme of paragraph 7.33 is that means should be found to transfer some of the cost of providing third level courses in institutions funded by the authority to those who benefit from them. This it is suggested could be achieved by charging higher tuition fees, but the paragraph also contains the statement that improvements in the higher education grants scheme could ensure that prospective students with limited means would not be affected. The Authority's view is that a deliberate policy designed to increase fees and to maintain them at a higher level must be accompanied by positive guarantees that the condition attaching to the higher education grant scheme will be kept under continuous review. The means test regulations and the value of the maintenance elements in such grants must be linked to changes in the consumer price index.
In the course of the debate on this Bill in the other House the Minister referred to the question of the review of the higher education grants scheme, and I would be grateful if he could indicate what the present position is on that.
I would also like to take up the point that Senator West mentioned in relation to the VEC scholarships. I note that the Minister did supply some statistical information to Deputy John Horgan, the Labour Party's spokesman on Education in the Dáil as recorded in the Official Report 19 November 1978 at column 797. He gave the figures of the provisional number of scholarship holders for the academic year—1978 to 1979—and I would like to ask the Minister to assess the way in which figures for scholarships tally with the figures for the previous years. How do these compare with the figures for earlier years? It is my understanding that because of the severity of the means test the number of eligible applicants for scholarships has declined and that the scholarships are not, in fact, as adequate a support as the Minister was suggesting at Second Stage. They do not compensate for the fact that the four honours eligibility criterion is retained in relation to local authority grants.
It is difficult to get detailed information on this unless the Minister himself is prepared to supply the information. For example, in the same page of the Dáil Report Deputy Horgan asked the Minister the estimated cost of extending the higher education grant scheme to all persons eligible under the means test who satisfy the entry requirements and are acceptable to a third level institution for a course of degree or diploma level recognised or designated by him for grant purposes. Effectively, that would mean what is the cost of removing the tour honours eligibility criterion for the purposes of the other approved institutions under this Bill. The Minister's reply was that he had no information in regard to the number of students who would qualify for such grants under the means test conditions and so he was not in a position to calculate the cost of the proposal. It seems to me that this is the kind of information that the Minister should at least be able to estimate fairly accurately if he cannot give a precise figure. It would be both of interest and relevance to the House to know what the estimated cost would be of removing the four honours requirement for the other approved institutions, for the technical colleges, the RTCs. I would welcome further clarification of the position relating to the numbers applying for and receiving vocational education scholarships and the possible cost to the Exchequer of removing the four honours eligibility and simply relying on the standard required of the particular institution itself for entry to that institution.
I would also, on this section, welcome clarification of the degree to which this legalising of the position is retrospective. Subsection (2) provides that this section should be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of August 1974, and we know that in fact this was the de facto situation in relation to claims made. But what about students who would have been eligible but were not aware, were not in a position to know, that they could have claimed? Can they claim retrospectively now under this legislation? Are they put in a position where they could claim that they followed the course subsequent to 1974 and, if they had been aware of the possibility, that they satisfied the test for eligibility and satisfied the requirement of the four honours? I think the situation is potentially a somewhat arbitrary one in that it is legalising a de facto situation for those fortunate enough to be able to avail of it, but what about those who were not in that fortunate position?
On the question of the emphasis in higher education, the Minister was very critical of some of the comments that I had made on Second Stage about the need for a very dramatic emphasis in expenditure at all levels of education and to redress the present decline in real terms in expenditure at the third level. Rather than trumpet about what Fianna Fáil did or did not do previously I think there is an immense responsibility on the Government in the unique situation in which we find ourselves as a country to forget the party political approach in a bitter and confrontationalist way, and the Minister for Education should rally some of the arguments to himself when he is competing for scarce resources within his own Cabinet and in the budget negotiations of the Government. The Minister should, in a sense, welcome the very strong support that he gets, certainly from the Labour group, for a substantial increase in the expenditure in third level education and in particular for the need to redress the present definite pattern where the number obtaining vocational scolarships is declining, the number who are state aided is declining, the number who are fee paying—and therefore from the higher income groups—are the ones who are taking up the third level places in the institute of higher education.
This is a very serious situation which will get worse unless the Minister does bring the means test, the eligibility criterion, into line with the present cost of living and link it to the Consumer Price Index and also take the step that is very relevant to this particular Bill, and that is to acknowledge that the academic criterion of the four honours entry is not a rational or reasonable criterion on which to decide to provide grants for students applying. The criterion is much more, that the student is acceptable to the regional technical college, that the student wishes to pursue a course of a technological sort. That is the particular need in the community—this kind of expertise and this kind of third level education—and as a country competing with other countries for skills and technological expertise we have no choice but to expand very substantially in that area.
The Bill itself is minimalist, and it gives the Minister a potential new power in relation to approval of university courses. I was disappointed in the Minster's response at Second Stage to the arguments that were being put forward about the need for very radical concentration on the provision of new places in third level education. Once again I think that the observations of the Higher Education Authority are very relevant here, because this is a body established with a particular jurisdiction and concern in the area of higher education. The Authority is very worried about the present trends, about the hint and implication in the Government's Green Paper, and is clearly publicising its observations before the White Paper is published because of grave concern which I know is shared by many people in institutions of higher education that the Government may be prepared to condone a sharp rise in fees which would worsen the present pattern of discrimination against less well off students and further cement in the privilege of access to higher education. These are extremely serious issues. The overall picture is not a satisfactory one, and I would hope that the Minister would be more forthcoming on the kind of review that he is engaged in at the moment of higher education grants and his policy as Minister for Education in relation to access to third level education.
On the Second Reading I made some points about this also. As I see it, this Bill is not saying that the Minister will not in the future take action which will help in the case of some of the items mentioned by Senator Robinson. I made some suggestions that the Minister might think of differential support. I would prefer to see more of the available money going towards technical training and technological training rather than into art faculties. To that extent, I am glad to see the Minister having power in relation to courses in the universities as well. The Bill as it stands is not laying down what exactly is going to happen in the future. That lies with the Minister, and I am sure that he knows what we all would like to see.
I discovered to my embarrassment when I was concluding my contribution last week that I referred to the Minister as Hercules rather than Hector. I hope he does not mind. I propose to make the necessary correction in the Official Report.
Neither of them had much brains: so, the Senator was right.
Perhaps it was the Minister's physique that misled me rather than anything else. I am puzzled about this Bill. If it was considered necessary to bring in the Bill entitled "Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill" one would have expected it to be less of a Mickey Mouse Bill, so to speak, and more substantial: if indeed Fianna Fáil in fact intend to fulfil their election promises in the manifesto especially in respect of eligibility levels for grants it seems to me that this amending Bill would have been an ideal vehicle in which to do this. However, my main point is that while I accept the ruling that my amendment was out of order I would nonetheless like to express the concern that lies behind my amendment. It seems to me that as Senator Robinson has said, this Bill gives the Minister, in theory at least, discretionary powers over which courses will be approved and which will not be approved. I know that the Minister is not likely to interfere in this way. But once it is in the Bill, to a certain extent it raises the problem of interference with university autonomy. After all, if a university or other recognised higher institution is deemed responsible to handle courses then I think the question of approval should be left to them. I am puzzled as to why there seems to be this further extension of ministerial powers to approving courses rather than the universities. Suppose that the hairshirt becomes more irritable and that the national cake—to mix my metaphors—has to be rationed in a more strict way, what is to stop the Minister's civil servants advising him that such and such courses in the university are not really economically viable, or what is to stop the Minister's civil servants from advising him that there are too many going into the Arts faculties and that this does not represent the best use of public moneys? Already there have been some suggestions that, in view of the diminishing number taking Ancient Classics, such small departments are not really worth the money being spent on them. In all these areas then, I feel that if we have a move towards cutting down spending on the education sector, this section here might encourage, not perhaps this Minister, but maybe the Department of Education to interfere in areas which are properly part of university autonomy. I would also support Senator Robinson in asking the Minister to clarify what would be the effect of subsection (2). If students are otherwise qualified and meet all the requirements, and if they began their course in 1974 and finished two years' course in a proper institution in 1976, would they not have the right to apply for a grant?
I want to thank the Senators who contributed and to deal with some of their points. Senator West asked for further clarification as to what I said about scholarships and grants. This is simply in the context of the people talking about the minimum academic qualification for a grant which is well known. The point I was making on Second Stage was that this qualification is not required for a scholarship and I went on to say that in fact the scholarship was of the same monetary value as a grant but that those who were availing of the scholarships in the regional technical colleges did not have to satisfy the same high academic standards as those who were getting grants for universities. Since the purpose of this Bill is to extend the area where the grant may be enjoyed the point I made about the scholarship is relevant. In other words, in a given RTC class you may have students who are enjoying scholarships under the vocational education committee of the full value of the grant and in that same class you may have, due to the extension of the grant scheme, people enjoying the grants. They are enjoying exactly the same amount of money but the standard demanded for the scholarship may be a great deal lower than that demanded for the grant. That is the point I was making on Second Stage. It is the local authorities who operate the grants scheme. This may also cause some confusion.
Senator Robinson referred, as did Senator Murphy, to my "apparent" powers and rightly so because in fact I am not taking any new real powers or any powers to extend the role of the Minister or his Department in third level education. Senator Robinson talked about chastisement, about my chastising her. I would not have thought that that was the appropriate word. She said that one should not make a party political issue of education. I agree with her. In fact my remarks on Second Stage were purely in the context of Senator Robinson's very first sentence using the name of the Labour Party and stating that she was being motivated by the philosophy of the Labour Party. I said I had been a voice crying in the wilderness looking for an increase in grants and eligibility limits for four and a half years almost and I got no support, no sustenance, no encouragement from the Labour Party. In fact, when I had motions down in the Dáil on both grants and eligibility limits no member of the Labour Party turned up in the Dáil at all except ex-Deputy Stephen Coughlan who turned up at the end of my speech to barrack me a little. Indeed, I was glad to see him because he was the only Member of his party who had the courage to come in. It was in that context that I mentioned, in no triumphalistic way, what had been achieved. There was no intention on my part to be triumphalistic about it. As has been said by other Senators, we have limited resources for any particular Department of Government and we must try to deploy them as best we can. It is my purpose and my function and my intention to fight as hard as I possibly can to get as much as I can of what Senator Murphy called the national cake for education.
By nature I am averse to hairshirts. I just want to point out, of course, that in fact 84 per cent of the cost of an individual student in a university or university college is borne as of now by the State. I agree with Senator Mulcahy and with the other Senators who mentioned the importance of technological education to our developing economy. Sometimes fashionable phrases like this become popular and people cease to examine the meaning of them and I would regret it if this happened. It is important to develop the technological side whatever about the differential aid which Senator Mulcahy mentioned. This would be difficult. In what we are doing here and in the provision of the scholarships under the education committees we are in a sense directing attention to the technological sector. This is the greatest growth sector in education at the moment mainly due to the building and placement at various points in the country of the regional technical colleges.
I did not at any time claim that this Bill was a major Bill dealing with higher university grants. For that reason I would like to assure Senator Murphy that what I am doing here is simply fixing a puncture, not producing a new wheel. The puncture is there, sizzling away since 1974, and the job had to be done. He also referred to university autonomy. There is no intention as I stated at the outset, of interfering with the universities or their autonomy; in fact university autonomy is respected, I would suggest, in this country, north and south, far more than it is in most countries who pride themselves on their treatment of the universities.
Some years ago I remember the chairman of the university grants committee addressing the National University of Ireland convocation in Dublin. He indicated that the disbursement of funds by the UGC was often used as an arm-twisting exercise to get universities to follow particular courses, establish new departments and so on. Neither the Department nor I intend to interfere in that way with the universities. I am precluded from discussing the amendments which were ruled out of order, but I might say that Senator Robinson's would have extended the application of grants to the teacher training colleges where they have a scheme of their own with which they are satisfied.
I should like to refer to one point in the Minister's reply to the Second Stage debate. Again it is a point I raised and I tried to frame an amendment but my best efforts were defeated. It was an amendment that was out of order but it does, in a tangential way, concern the Minister's powers in relation to these grants and the way in which the grants system operates vis-a-vis the local authorities. It concerns this case which I mentioned to him about the date of application for a grant. I will not go into the case again, but it did seem that the Minister could direct the local authorities to have the application dates at the same time. In fact he did reply to this and he did say that on the radio he had referred to this on one occasion, but it was not clear to me from his Second Stage speech whether he was actually thinking of giving a direction and bringing all the county councils into line vis-a-vis the application date.
I can tell Senator West that the universal date is the 31 August. I did mention, either here or in another place, that the authorities had two weeks discretionary period—was it up to 14 September? —the first two weeks of September. I knew that that was so for the scholarship schemes, I did not know if it were so at that time for the grants but I believe so. I am informed now that it is true of the grants as well. The person who applied would now have to be very late indeed before he or she would be precluded for not applying in time.
The date is uniform for all local authorities?
So I am informed.
I accept what the Minister said about our standards of university autonomy and that we are relatively very fortunate in enjoying such autonomy. I further accept that there is no sinister intention in section 1 of the amended Bill. Nevertheless, the 1968 Act talks of an approved institution as a university or a university college in respect of it's courses which are of a degree standard, but the amending Bill speaks about an approved institution meaning a university or a university college in so far as it provides a course of which the Minister approves. It seems that there is a significant difference in emphasis or nuance here, shifting the standard of approval from the actual institution to the courses. Why is this so? Why is it necessary to make this kind of change?
There may be undue sensitivity on it. The actual formula was meant to cover the change and to exclude the institutions that I mentioned in my previous intervention. I appreciate what the Senator said about the present position. As he knows very well, that kind of autonomy is preserved by eternal vigilance, and I appreciate his remarks. I contend that the amendment as it is here is in no way restrictive of the liberty or the autonomy of universities nor is it intended that it should be.
I was going to put the same question as Senator Murphy in relation to the wording of this section giving the Minister power to approve of a university degree course which would have got automatic approval under the 1968 Act. I am still puzzled by the Minister's response to this question. The Minister seems to be suggesting that, in seeking a formula to extend the higher education grants to approved institutions, this was the only way of doing it. This is not the case, because in both Houses amendments were tabled which drew to the attention of the Minister that he was effectively terminating the automatic approval of university courses and giving himself a discretion in the matter. I am not reassured by Ministerial assurances and good will in the House. We have enough experience of the fact that Ministers come and go, Governments change, time passes, and we are conferring a new and potentially far-reaching power on the Minister in relation to approval of univesity degree courses. The Minister has not satisfied the question as to why he changed the automatic exemption from approval of these courses in the 1968 Act when he was extending the scheme. That has not been adequately explained. If anything, the question mark has got a bit larger and slightly more ominous.
I am also not at all satisfied with the Minister's response to a number of the other questions which I had raised on this section. I had referred to the question of the vocational scholarships. The Minister has emphasised on Second Stage and has emphasised this afternoon that the persons who are eligible for VEC scholarships, even if they do not satisfy the four honours eligibility requirement, this satisfactorily balances the situation and means that in his opinion it is satisfactory to retain the four honours eligibility criteria in relation to higher education grants from local authorities.
I was seeking confirmation—and I referred to the figures he had given to Deputy Horgan in the Dáil—that the means test is so severe for applicants for the scholarship that a significant number of students cannot satisfy the criterion and, therefore, there is a decline in applications for scholarships because the parents are just above the £3,400 limit for eligibility. I asked him for the figures for earlier years of scholarship holders. I referred to the fact that he gave the provisional number of scholarship holders for the academic year 1978-79 in the Dáil on 14 November and I asked for comparable figures for earlier years because it would be important to ascertain whether the numbers are declining on the two grounds—the very severe means test for eligibility and that these scholarships are competitive, there is not an unlimited number of them. They are not, therefore, an adequate response to the question of whether or not the academic criterion of the four honours should be retained for access to the regional techs when these institutions themselves have accepted, or would accept, the candidate. The whole emphasis on eligibility should be based on having an accepted place in the institution. The scholarship system does not fill that gap. It does not cater for the significant number of students who are denied placed because of the academic eligibility criterion, or because they do not satisfy the means test.
The Minister did not answer the request for more information on the present review of the grant system or give us any indication of present Government thinking, apart from a vague expression of his own personal commitment and goodwill in the matter. This is the first legislative measure in the area of education that we have had since the Minister took office.
Since 1972, Senator.
since the Minister took office, despite the very substantial commitments in the Government manifesto on which the election was won, very substantial promises which had a very significant impact on young people at the time.
They will be delivered on.
I am afraid the Government are failing to deliver, as is evident from the figures for investment in higher education, from the pattern of those who have access to education, from the failure to bring the means test and eligibility criterion into line with the cost of living. Yes, the Minister did take some steps in that regard but they do not in any way even halt the present drift in access to higher education. I regret that the Minister is choosing to fight it out on past party political battles rather than trying to address himself and the attention of Senators to the present situation and to future demands. It is the kind of challenge that deserves serious and conscientious treatment from us. It is not enough to go back and fight old political battles and score old political points on the basis of it. That is not a satisfactory response to the questions being asked by Members of this House, trying to elicit information on the background to this small and technical measure which has within it a new assumption of ministerial power which continues to worry some of us and which does not do what many of us would like to see, that is, to remove the four honours eligibility criterion. The House is entitled to some indication of the Minister's thinking in the matter and of his attempts, as a matter of urgency, to redress the present pattern of accessibility to higher education, the present decline in real terms in investment in higher education.
I congratulate Senator Robinson because I have never before heard anybody, in any place, who can get away with murder to the same extent that she does. Neither in the Act of 1968 nor in this amendment of 1978 is there any mention at all of one honour, two honours, three honours or four honours. She keeps talking on Committee Stage about something which is neither in the original Act nor in the amending Bill. The actual academic qualification is not mentioned at all in the Bill. I understand that on Committee Stage of a Bill one confines onself to what is actually in the Bill, whatever open forum there may be is usually on Second Stage. I congratulate the Senator on her ability to get away with that kind of thing.
The Senator has asked for figures. The eligibility limits were raised substantially. I gave the Senator the figure of 29.2 per cent, if I recall correctly, of a rise in the eligibility limits at the maximum. In view of the fact, which is relevant when people are making up their minds whether they will go to a third level institution or not, that the actual grants were raised as much as 66? per cent at maximum, I would think that more people would be enjoying grants and scholarships than have been hitherto. Coupled with this is the quite significant factor that this has been done in a period when inflation has been dropping, when it has come down to between 8 and 9 per cent from a level of as much as 25 per cent at a period when absolutely no move was made to raise either eligibility limits or the value of the third level grants.
If possible, I should like the quotation from the Senator on the subject of a review. She said I had said something about a review. Would the Senator care to give me the exact quotation?
I do not have the report here. In the course of the reply to the debate in the other House, I think the Minister indicated that he was keeping under review the scheme for higher education grants.
I am particularly sensitive about the word "review" because I had been hammering away at a previous Minister about a review which took two years to complete when, with any kind of normal application, it should have been completed in two weeks, or a couple of months at the very most. I do not recall having said anything about a review, so I am really in the dark with regard to what the Senator says. Failing a direct quotation I would not like to make any comment. Without having the figures available here, in view of the fact that limits have been raised, the value of the grants has been raised and inflation has been brought under some kind of control, my belief would be that the numbers holding grants and scholarships are rising rather than falling. They did take a dip around 1975 but I do not want to be specific seeing that I have not actual figures at my disposal at the moment.
I was concerned as to whether I allowed Senator Robinson to become too irrelevant and I asked for advice. Looking at the Minister's Second Reading speech, I think I was quite correct to allow the debate to proceed in the way it proceeded.
To come back briefly on this point, the Minister says he thinks that more people are availing of State grants, or availing of scholarships in access to higher education. Does he dispute the table of figures which was compiled by the Union of Students in Ireland which, I understand, was submitted to the Minister? These figures show a definite decline in the number of students receiving financial aid from the State in 1975, 1976 and 1977.
As the Senator is aware, I took office on 5 July 1977 and the eligibility limits were increased by me to refer to the academic year 1977-78. This is the second academic year in which they apply, namely 1978-79. I accept that there was a dip and I submit that the cause of that dip was that no action had been taken on eligibility limits or amounts of grants.
The figures compiled by the Union of Students in Ireland in assessing the decline in the percentage of students receiving financial aid from the State for higher education bear in mind the increases that were made in relation to the grants and the means test. Following the table of figures there is a comment that may be of interest to the Minister. The comment is:
The most striking pattern which emerges is the overall decrease in State-supported students in the system. The 1975 level is low by international standards but it is falling very gradually. This is happening while the overall number in third level has been rising by small steps each year, from 29,600 in 1975 to 33,300 in 1977. There is an established pattern, then, of even slow growth leading to increased opportunity for families who can finance their own children through third level. Adequate means tests and grant level revisions would be needed immediately to halt this trend. Last year's increases——
these were prepared in 1978 so "last year" refers to what the Minister is talking about
——in the means test will take three years to have an impact and by that time the measure itself will be substantially eroded by inflation.
I would accept that reduction of the students simply proves my point that there was a valley period when nothing was done and we are seeing the effects of it in the figures given. I still maintain that, due to the improvement, there will be an increase. Of course, the whole situation will have to be kept constantly in our minds——
Under review?
I was not going to use the word "review".
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.