Minister, you are very welcome to the House.
Adjournment Matter. - Third Level Education Costs.
I welcome the Minister. I would like to share some of my time with Senator Doyle, as agreed.
I am asking the Minister for Education, who was here prior to this, to take positive steps to reduce the burden of the cost of third level education on the middle income PAYE sector. The figures I have before me show that 37,500 students attend HEA colleges. There is an inequity between students of HEA and students attending other third level institutions, because the ESF grants are not means tested. Of the 37,500 students, 27 per cent get full grants, both means and maintenance; 9 per cent get partial grants, either means or fees; 24,000 students get no State support. These are the people that I ask the Minister to assist through increasing of the third level grants to the middle income PAYE sector. The 24,000 students get no State support. They are people on modest incomes.
These are not high flyers, or financiers who do not need funding, they are people on modest incomes. The problem is that the thresholds are too low. One example that I will give to the Minister is that of a married man with three children. He is on an income which I consider extremely modest in these days, of £15,000. He receives no grant. Not along that but he cannot get for his children fees or maintenance. There are many people in our society on incomes of £15,000 who have high expectations for their children. They realise, as we have been told over and over again and, indeed, it surfaced in the debate on education today, that the higher the levels of qualifications within the education system, the greater the opportunities of getting jobs at the end of the day.
There is no point in having our students emigrating to Europe, inclusive of Britain, or to America, or wherever, with minimal educational standards. We in Ireland have always been a nation that has put tremendous store on education. Over the centuries, from the time of the island of saints and scholars, the stress on education has always been a No. 1 priority with parents, so much so that they sacrifice much to ensure it. In the early years, obviously, we just had primary school, which was available to all. Then a follow through came of entry to second level with the advent, 25 years ago, of free education. Of course, it is obvious that free education will come to third level. It is expected today that parents will want third level education for their sons and daughters — not just sons as it has been in the past, but daughters as well. I know there is a high level of girls in the third level system.
I will go back again to that £15,000 income. It certainly is a barrier to the children of parents who wish them to have access to third level. If you look at the grant, full and inclusive of maintenance, the maximum is £3,068; that is the minimal cost. I am talking about the maximum grant, which is not all of the cost factor to parents if they wish their sons and daughters to experience and benefit from third level education. If you subtract that £3,068 from the average income of £15,000 for the man who does not qualify for a grant, he is left with an income of £11,932. Of course, if there are three average, or intelligent, children and if they qualify with their honours to go to third level — the children could be close in age — I cannot see how those parents would have a hope of either having even one of their children getting the opportunity of third level education.
The sad thing is that some students who get places in HEA colleges have to turn down their first choice and opt for other third level colleges. I am not saying that they will not get a good education in other third level colleges, but surely everything to do with options today and with developing the potential of the individual to the full, must ultimately be to get that student into a third level programme of his or her choice. We do not want square pegs in round holes. If they have qualified for the HEA but the money is not within the family income, and there is no grant to send them to a third level college, they are denied access. Surely we are supposed to cherish all the students of the nation equally.
People are coming to me asking about the grant system. The grant system militates against the PAYE sector. The statistics show that the self-employed are far more successful in getting those grants and so their children have access to third level education.
Let us look at a family with children who did qualify. A father may have an income which allows him to qualify. He may have a number of children. It is a heartbreaking decision for parents to see the first child going to college, but the second or third child with equal abilities — or better — wanting the opportunity to go, are unable to do so. The parents may have to make that heartbreaking decision. These are the children of teachers and Garda sergeants. I am referring to people who have come to me pleading that something be done to enable their children to have the benefit of exploring their potential to the full. I am asking the Minister to try to do something, whether by income tax rebate or whatever, to ensure that the PAYE sector — the middle income sector — are not affected in relation to equal opportunites for their children. It is something that is going to become an issue. When the Minister comes back again, as she promised today, the whole question of third level will become an issue.
I am not even going into the problems of the socially deprived students today. That is a debate for another day. I am talking specifically about the middle income PAYE sector with expectations. Some PAYE sector workers have had the opportunity in the past of third level education for themselves. As I said, if I were to open the debate to the socially disadvantaged, some of whom were very bright, I would stress that they certainly do not even get near the prospect of third level education. Today, I am asking the Minister to take positive steps to reduce that burden. They have other costs like mortgages, etc., which I could enumerate. Some of them have suffered redundancy, but they still place the same value on education and wish their children to be able to pursue the courses of their choice.
Our children are not born equal. That goes without saying. We have to ensure equality of opportunity for all of them so that they can realise their individual potential. The only way that can be done is through ensuring equal access to all tiers of our education system. It is the one goal all Governments must have, and it is certainly the goal of Fine Gael. The only way we can be seen to be cherishing all our children equally is by allowing them equal opportunity. It starts by having equal opportunity throughout the education system. We are specifically talking this evening about equal access to third level education, and access for the middle income group to be quite specific.
As my colleague said, if we were to open the debate now to the socially disadvantaged it would be a far broader issue. There are many bright young people who cannot even consider the option of third level education because their parents are not in a position financially to add to whatever maintenance and fee grants they may, or may not, be entitled to.
I come from a constituency in Wexford that has no third level institution of any kind. We are acutely aware of the problems this causes to all levels in society, particularly the PAYE sector we are discussing today. We are surrounded in Carlow, Waterford and Dublin by different third level institutions, but none is close enough for the young people to live at home and to travel daily, thus avoiding extra maintenance costs. Ideally, we should be addressing ourselves to free third level education for all young people who meet the basic academic qualifications or the basic qualifications for the particular course — the specific honours that are laid down. That is the only way we will have equality of access, and equal opportunity for all our young people to third level education. I know that cannot be done overnight. I would be very interested to know if the Minister has the figures of the costings if we were to open third level colleges to all those who qualify, regardless of means. I imagine the cost to the State would be fairly stiff.
In the meantime, what I would like to ask the Minister, particularly for those parents who would like to be able to pay for their young people at third level colleges — particularly from places like Wexford, where they have to pay maintenance fees for the young people from Monday to Friday — at least to make the extra cost to the parents tax allowable. Parents in the PAYE sector may have more children at home. We must seriously consider this, as young people today once they are over 18 years of age, are adults. These young people are adult dependants, in every sense of the word, of their parents if they are being fully maintained by their parents.
The cost of keeping these young people, over and above whatever grants may or may not be coming to them, has to be fully borne by their working parent or parents, depending on the situation in the home. My plea to the Minister is to make those costs tax allowable to ensure that as many young people as possible avail of third level education. Without certification today, our young people have a bleak future. We are looking at 20 per cent unemployment at the moment. Now, 10 per cent of those unemployed suffer from all sorts of social problems, such as alcoholism, depression, marital and family problems of one kind or another. We must do everything possible to ensure that our young people do not face the dole queues of the future.
It is statistically well recorded and charted that the greater the educational qualifications and the greater the certification of our young people, the greater the realisation of their individual talents and potential, the smaller the chances are of them ending up on the dole queues. That is what we must be aiming for, particularly in areas like Wexford where we have, tragically, a very low uptake at third level. I would risk being contradicted by the Minister that we have perhaps the lowest uptake at third level in the country because of the logistical problems, as well as the financial problems, of getting the young people to third level colleges.
I would also request, in the context of this discussion, that the Minister would give serious consideration to the provision of a third level institution in Wexford. We would settle for a satellite college running courses that are relevant to our industries, given our location and our attractive Europort. We would be in a position to attract more jobs if we were able to give the third level education that is necessary for high-tech industries today. A third level institution is essential for Wexford, to ensure that we do not languish at the bottom of a pile in terms of the number of our young people that make it to third level institutions of one kind or another.
The only long term address to poverty is through the education system. Let us not create a new poor, a category of people whose parents may be at work but who, after they have paid their PAYE, do not have sufficient disposable income to keep young people at college in terms of maintenance fees, books, clothing and whatever pocket money that is essential.
We are living in a changing world, we are living in a society in transition. It is no longer brawn that counts, it is very much a matter of the brain being developed as well. There was a time where there were sufficient unskilled jobs for our young people to opt in that direction if they were not in a position to see their education through to third level. That is no longer the case today as I think the Minister will fully realise. The Gulf War did one thing for us; it made us realise that even when it came to armies fighting it was no longer brawn that counted, it was the smart weapons, it was technology that won that war, rightly or wrongly. It is an indication of where the brain has taken over from brawn in the world today. We owe it to all our young people to ensure that those who meet the qualifications get a full third level education and are not hindered by the fact that their parents are not financially in a position to keep them at third level colleges of one kind or another.
Certificates equal money in the bank for young people today. That means they are less likely to be dependent on the State, more likely to be at work and to provide their own houses, to look after their own health, to look after their own children's needs. It is an investment in the future of our country to invest in third level education for our young people today. Education, particularly in languages, will open the possibility of employment in Europe generally for our young people. Let us not preclude any young person, whatever their talents, from being mobile enough to take up employment wherever they might want to do so, preferably at home if that is their first choice but let them look to Europe, providing we are sending them to Europe well qualified and equipped to get the jobs that are available there today. Young people will be in their own limited world if they are imprisoned in a life without education, without third level education in the context of the debate today.
I hope the Minister realises the crisis that exists among the PAYE sector for those who want to do best for their children. There is one thing that motivates us all, regardless of our background or our interests in life, and that is we want our children to have a better chance in life than we had ourselves. We all want better for our own children: that is what motivates us all. It motivates us all in this House; it motivates us in local government; it motivates us whether we are on the residents' association or the parents' committee or the board of management of the local school. We are really doing it for the next generation to ensure they get at least as good a chance as many of us got, but better in most cases when the chances were not available for some of us.
The motivation is good. We take risks with our children and let them grow. We must be sure we do everything possible to ensure a happy, healthy and secure future for them in the town and country of their choice so that we will have a generation who can look after themselves. They will not have to look to the State, as many people regrettably had to do in this generation because they were not able to continue in education themselves.
I will be very interested to hear the Minister's views on whether he could provide third level education in County Wexford, one of the few counties that has no third level institutions. Hence there is the lowest uptake by young people in Wexford of third level education. It is my plea to the Minister. We have talked about it for a long time and I would like to see some action on it now.
It is as well to put this motion into its financial context. In the present year the gross allocation for educational services is £1,416 million. This is the largest allocation ever made for education and it represents in the region of 6 per cent of GNP. After social welfare and health, education is the next largest spender of Exchequer resources. In 1991, £300 million or 21 per cent of the gross allocation for education, is for the higher education sector. This is 6.4 per cent greater than the 1990 allocation.
The priority of the Government must be to provide additional student places across the range of higher education institutions to meet the increasing demand. In this context the Programme for Economic and Social Progress commits the Government to provide about 9,000 additional third level places, 3,600 in universities under the special undergraduate expansion initiative, 600 for UCD at Carysfort, 1,500 by spare capacity in the colleges of education including Thomond College, 2,000 through RTC and other third level facilities under the National Development Plan and 1,000 with private sector financial involvement being explored by Limerick University. In addition, central services and physical facilities in the third level VEC sector will be further strengthened to enable them to cope with increasing enrolments.
Under the National Development Plan £75 million will be spent on capital works in the third level area. In association with the 3,600 additional places being provided in the universities a further £15 million will be provided for capital development. Further capital allocations will be provided under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to upgrade and replace substandard accommodation in VEC third level colleges. In addition to dealing with the additional third level places, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress also contains special provisions to deal with improving access to higher education from the under-represented socio-economic groups. Funds will be made available to forge links between third level institutions and second level schools in disadvantaged areas. Dublin City University which has developed a special relationship with second level schools in Ballymun is an excellent example of this kind of initiative.
Through these kinds of links the benefits of third level education can be brought home to students who through lack of knowledge or motivation might not have considered higher education as an available option. Initiatives of this kind will lead to increased retention rates at second level and one would hope will help to redress the imbalance that exists at present at third level between the different socio-economic groups.
On the student support front almost £60 million was provided last year under the higher education grants, VEC scholarships and ESF grants. The number of students receiving assistance under these schemes was 34,500, an increase of 6,000 on the previous year and of over 10,000 in 1981-82. Positive steps are being taken all the time to improve the schemes of student support. For example, expenditure on the higher education grants scheme has increased from £3.4 million in 1981 to £27.5 million in 1991, while the number of grant holders has more than doubled in the period from 1981 to 1991.
This motion must also be looked at in the light of the extent to which progress has already been made, as evidenced by the foregoing. Notwithstanding the heavy demands on the Exchequer for educational services, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress provides that the higher education grants scheme will be re-examined in the context of increasing the income eligibility limits for families with more than one child attending third level education and in developing a more equitable income assessment for all applicants. I have no doubt that this examination will lead to improvements in the scheme and will help those whom both Senators have in mind.
In the context of the second chance education, the examination of the scheme will include the assessment of income eligibility of mature students on the basis of their own and, if married, that of their spouse's income and secondly, regarding the mature students who secure a place in third level institutions, as satisfying the academic requirements of the scheme.
I take the points that have been fairly made by both Senators but I think that the funding of third level education must be placed in the context of the significant improvements that have taken place over the last number of years. All of us would like to see a more fair playing pitch with regard to eligibility for third level education and it is in respect of trying to make more opportunities available especially towards the less well-off sections of our community that series of initiatives have been taken both as part of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress programme, and indeed outside it. However, I think it is a little unfair of the Senators to simply make a demand in the way it has been done without doing so in the context of the considerable improvements that have been made, indeed without being cognisant of the very significant demands in all areas of the education sector and indeed all areas of the economy.
I would like to respond specifically to the Senator's question in regard to Wexford. I think the Senator will accept that many areas throughout the country make consistent demands for having their own third level institution and clearly it would not be desirable to have a proliferation of such institutions throughout the country. I would have the view that to expend the scarce amount of resources in the way the Government have now decided through the increase in places in existing institutions gives much better value for money and a much better opportunity to Wexford people than would the very considerable expenditure which would be involved in the creation of a third level institution, even a satellite institution, in Wexford. I could only answer that question by asking can the taxpayers of Wexford afford a third level institution any more than the taxpayers of so many other parts of the country who feel they should have such an institution? In fairness the improvement in transport, in the accessibility to existing institutions, will considerably improve the situation in Wexford and in other parts of the country. It is the Government's intention to continue to provide more resources so that the major work that still remains to be done providing greater access and opportunity can be achieved as we go on. Positive progress has been made and will continue to be made under the policies that are being pursued by the Government.
What about a tax allowable expense for those who have to pay their fees?
Personally, I would favour such a suggestion. In particular it is rather difficult for families of PAYE taxpayers who have two or three children attending university. The idea of some form of tax incentive for such families has a lot of appeal. We are back to the same old story that that costs money and that is money the Exchequer can hardly afford. I know the Minister is quite keen on such an initiative and I am sure she will continue, as all of us will, to try to bring about such a development.
Everything the Minister said we have read already in Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I can see where the higher education grant scheme will be re-examined. It is written in here. We are all very much aware that there are anomalies in the system where the self-employed have access to grants and we know that their salaries are way ahead of the PAYE workers. These discrepancies and anomolies are evident every day of the week and they have to be examined and addressed in order to achieve fairness.
I take the point about the anomalies but the Department have been very rigorous in ensuring that local authorities take every possible step to ensure that an accurate assessment of income is attained and that includes now insuring that all assessments are backed up by an evaluation by the Revenue Commissioners.
It happens on paper but the reality is different.
Where people in different localities are found to be eligible for grants and it appears to members of the VEC, such as the Senator, that they are not entitled to those grants, then that is a matter for the local authority to carry out investigation to ensure that people who are not making proper returns of income do not receive those grants. From the Department's point of view, we have tried to ensure that a very rigorous examination is carried out. I accept that in years gone by people received grants who were not entitled to them because of the absence of that very rigorous assessment.
The Seanad adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 24 May 1991.