Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1992

Vol. 132 No. 17

ESF Grants Scheme: Motion.

Mrs. Jackman

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Education to abandon his proposal to means test European Social Fund grants and instead to establish an expert independent body to examine all aspects of student grant aid and make recommendations thereon.

I commiserate with our Minister for Education, who is in hospital. I wish him well and hope that his appendix operation is just a minor one. I am very disappointed that we do not have the Minister for Education here because, since his appointment, he has not been in the Seanad. Over the last few months we had three Ministers for Education but only Minister O'Rourke came into the Seanad. It is important that, before the year is out, we would have a debate on education.

I am sorry that we have had to resort to Private Members' time to raise issues which are very important, particularly when this day week students will commence their leaving certificate examination — the countdown is on for them. In addition to the normal examination pressures, there is an additional pressure on those students aspiring to third level education if they applied on their CAO forms for courses in any of our nine regional technical colleges — Sligo, Galway, Letterkenny, Athlone, Tralee, Cork, Waterford, Carlow, Dundalk, CoACT in Limerick and the six Dublin colleges of technology known as Dublin Institute of Technology. The decision to means test the maintenance grant of £39 made post-Christmas is still there and this will have a devastating effect on the ability of many of those students to enter regional technical colleges. I am extremely disappointed because I would have thought at this stage that Minister Brennan, as that was not his idea, would have abandoned this proposal. It is estimated — and I have visited many third level colleges — that seven out of ten applying will not qualify because the income threshold is abysmally low with the result that, effectively, the lower middle income group families will be affected.

The former Minister's excuse was that he wished to bring equity to the system, but the higher education grants system as applied in the universities is anything but just and equitable. He stated at the time that he would have a committee which would report back, but it still has not reported back, and after this week we can effectively say that the schools are closed and we are into the next academic year.

Our motion seeks to establish an expert independent body, which is essential if we are to bring the social partners in education together. This body should reflect the views of all those interested in education. These would include the Minister and Department of Education officials but also IDA representatives, the Higher Education Authority, universities and regional technical colleges and other third level institutions, plus parents, teachers unions and the Union of Students in Ireland. That to me is the proper social democratic education grouping which would be essential if we are to examine and make recommendations regarding the removal of inequities in relation to student grants. I would be very disappointed if the Minister's committee was not extended to be this expert independent body which we in Fine Gael are advocating. I would ask, in the dying days of the academic year, that the committee which I suggest, would meet. Seeing that social partners have been very much "flavour of the month" with the Government, I would expect that the social partners in education would be treated likewise.

We note again and again, and we have done so here on the Order of Business, that it is the PAYE workers and their families who are being discriminated against in the assessment for third level education grants. These low income families are excluded from third level education because the income thresholds are too low. The industrial wage of £250 per week effectively will disqualify parents from that grant when the means testing for the £39 maintenance grant begins in September. The threshold of £12,900 is a very meagre wage.

Effectively, instead of bringing equity to the system, the Minister is disadvantaging the already disadvantaged. The payment of fees and the £39 represents for thousands of average, middle income families their only chance of getting into higher education. I noted in the school in which I was teaching that the children could get the benefit of third level education — regional technical colleges — specifically because of the scrimping and saving of their parents. They came from unemployment blackspot areas, their parents knew the problems of lack of qualification as regards job opportunities and wished their children would not suffer the same fate. These are the income groups who will be affected. I do not wish to see those children ending up on the dole queues if they do not gain access to third level education because that surely will not be cost effective. We are talking about a minimum of £50 a week for social welfare versus £39 for a better chance of employment. I cannot understand the mathematics of what Deputy Noel Davern brought about in January when he was Minister.

I have visited the colleges in Limerick. Students are aware of the efforts and sacrifices their parents have made. They think they are all right because they are in the system now, but they also think of younger brothers and sisters denied a chance. Parents making representations to me have said it is better for many of them to go on the dole, because then at least their children will be eligible for the grant. It is a strange country if we are actively encouraging parents to go on the dole because their meagre incomes will be means tested. These people have a tremendous thirst for learning and their parents want them to do better than they did. Many of these parents would not have had an opportunity to avail of third level education and they are crying out for their children to be given that opportunity.

I was looking at an excellent book from the Higher Education Authority called "Who goes to College" by Patrick Clancy of UCD, published some time ago. This was a second national survey of participation in higher education. Looking through the socio-economic status of entrants, students are asked a single question on the occupation of their parent or guardian and they are assigned to an appropriate socio-economic group on the basis of their response to that question.

I will go through the grouping — farmers, agricultural workers, higher professional, lower professional, employers and managers, salaried employees, intermediate non-manual workers, other non-manual workers, skilled manual workers, semi-skilled manual workers and unskilled manual workers. This was a study done on new entrants in 1986. If I had the time I would go through it line by line. The largest group of new entrants were from the farmer social grouping. I have no problem with that because it is very obvious now, with the way farming incomes are going and the prospects of a career on the land, that particularly if you have more than one son or daughter they will obviously go on to third level. The ratio coming through in the higher socio-economic groupings in regard to access to education was very specific. The national population participation rates study showed that the group which was under-represented were unskilled manual workers — only 1.3 per cent of new entrants came from this social grouping, although they made up 8.2 per cent of the comparison population group.

Summarising very briefly, the higher professionals had a ratio of 3; salaried employees, 2.3; lower professionals, 2.4 per cent; employees and managers, 1.98; and farmers, 1.45. These were the social groups which were over-represented in relation to admission to higher education. The five social groups significantly under-represented as shown by their participation ratios were unskilled manual labour, 0.16; semi-skilled manual workers, 0.42; other non-manual workers, 0.45; other agricultural occupations, 0.48; and skilled manual workers, 0.51.

I am stressing that comparison because the point the Minister stated in January in his press release was that he was bringing equity into the system. The comparative figures there show that the better off the parents the better chance of participation rates. At the very end are the lower socio-economic groupings. They are the people who go directly to regional technical colleges because they wish to avail of the fees plus the maintenance grant schemes. In other words they are under-represented in the institutions of Higher Education Authority — UCD, UCC, UCG and Trinity College — and totally under-represented in the professional areas. They are going to regional technical colleges.

It is a fallacy to say that the Minister is bringing equity into the system when he is not hitting at the very well-to-do people who get grants that perhaps they do not need. Under the ESF funding, all are entitled to grants. My premise is that the Minister is hitting at the lower socio-economic groupings, who are very poorly represented anyway. This further erosion of moneys in relation to the £39 grant when it goes — and I said it will be gone for seven out of ten — will disadvantage the already disadvantaged.

The social groups which had the smallest percentage of students without any financial aid were unskilled manual workers, farmers, semi-skilled manual workers and other agricultural occupations. I make that point because they are the very end of the scale. They do not go for further education if they do not have financial aid. The facts speak for themselves.

I took a cross-section of one college in Limerick and it gives a breakdown very close to the one I have mentioned as regards access for students. Out of a total number in one college I got a participation rate of 70 per cent in the unskilled category, the lower socio-economic level. At the highest level, the children of the professional classes generally go to UCD, UCC or whatever. They become doctors, solicitors, engineers or whatever. They are not necessarily moving into the RTC area; they are there, but not in great numbers. As I said, a person who earns £250 a week, which is not a great amount of money — there are people earning less who would wish to send their children to third level — is over the limit.

If we look at social selectivity, in general the more prestigious the sector and field of study the greater the social inequality in participation levels. Inequality between social groups was greatest within the university sector — emphasising again that students from higher professional groups were more highly represented while sudents from working class backgrounds had the lowest representation in this sector. They are already disadvantaged in universities. There are large disparities in enrolment areas. Any serious effort to achieve a reduction in class inequality will require intervention at the primary and secondary stage. What would we in Fine Gael do about it? Certainly we would remove that inequality instantly. We would not have a situation where we have discrimination again among the disadvantaged.

When I am summing up I may have an opportunity to refer to the Culliton report and where we should be going as regards educational and vocational training, particularly in the context of Maastricht. This is important if we wish to put further emphasis on the need in this country for a highly qualified skilled workforce who will be able to take their place in a Europe which has tremendous emphasis at the moment on technology, engineering, electronics and so on. This committee of the social partners must be set up to ensure that our students get equality at third level.

Mr. O'Reilly

I second the motion. This motion has a particular significance at this time of year because it is now that the leaving certificate students are anxiously preparing for their examinations. The anxiety created by the points system, by the entire academic rat race, is further exacerbated this year by the uncertainty that hangs over their head about their future in terms of the financing of whatever third level courses they may select. For that reason this is an extremely serious debate. It is important that the Minister in his reply tonight would allay the fears of people who look to ESF funding as their means to third level education in the coming year and that they be left in no doubt that the means testing will be removed for one year, pending a review of the course. It is the objective of Fine Gael on this occasion to allay those fears and to put the minds of the parents and the young people at ease prior to their leaving certificate. That is what motivated this motion.

The RTCs and colleges of technology were given a tremendous boost in terms of enrolment, of status and of activity in them because of ESF funding. This funding increased enrolment and maximised participation of the colleagues. Their present level of status, their confidence and their standing is in no small way due to the ESF funding.

The Culliton report is considered to be the bible on job creation, on economic regeneration and specifically on industrial policy for the coming years. That report emphasis beyond yea or nay the critical importance of technical and technological education as a mechanism for job creation for innovative activity in the economy that will give rise to new jobs, that will create the necessary lift in employment. For that reason, rather than talking about curtailing our input to third level grants or in any way inhibiting people from access to them, we should make it extremely attractive to attend our RTCs and colleges of technology.

I want to put on the record of the House that I am aware that in our RTCs and our colleges of technology we have a number of students from the higher professional backgrounds. We have a number of people from very wealthy backgrounds and that is how it should be. It is not an unacceptable phenomenon. All analysis by the Clancy report, by recent USI surveys, or any empirical studies of participation in RTCs show that there is a tendency for the people from the poorer backgrounds to participate. This is obviously as a consequence of ESF funding, which is not a particularly major piece of largesse. An ESF grant is £39 a week to a student. It is welcome, it is good and it is certainly a boost to the student; but it is not manna from heaven.

We in Fine Gael have no difficulty with the principle of means testing. That is not at issue. What we have difficulty with are the ceilings on the means tests. We have a difficulty with the fact that the means are assessed on gross income rather than net income. We have a difficulty with the mechanisms by which we arrive at means and at what constitutes a genuinely just case for somebody to get to college on ESF funding. That is our problem.

The logical thing for the Government to do now is to abandon for one year any plans to introduce means testing. During that year they should carry out a root and branch analysis of ESF funding and of the third level grant structures — how they impinge on access to education, how they affect enrolment, how they affect the different socio-economic groups, etc. When that analysis is complete then introduce, if necessary, a means testing package for all the colleges and institutions. That will not be found unacceptable. What is unacceptable about the present plans is that, on the one hand, there is the introduction of means testing and the panic that that has caused among the parents and the young people; but, on the other hand, there is no strategy in place for its implementation. That is our concern.

I am one of those who unapologetically believes that we should pass the Maastricht Treaty, and I think it is the duty of all public representatives to advocate it. The events of yesterday should only reinforce our desire to assert our stance on it and not, by some sleeveen type strategy, be affected by what is happening abroad. One of the marvellous byproducts of the Maastricht Treaty will be the opportunity for this country to expand the whole range of funding for third level education; it will expand the whole grant structure; and there should be potential to expand ESF funding to increase the amount of money going into that sector, with a resultant increase in take-up.

That is another compelling reason this should be put on hold until the Maastricht Treaty is in place and we see the level of cohesion funding arising from it. That is an area of dispute at the moment, if it will be £6 billion, but when the funding is there, and the Treaty is in place and when there is an analysis of how to effectively means test, that is the time to look for a review.

Deputy Jim Higgins repeatedly made the point in the Dáil that he did not envisage this as some sort of a come down for the Government. Nobody is asking the Minister to withdraw the principle of means testing; I do not think anyone proposes that. We are asking the Minister to say that, in the interest of commonsense, the means testing will be put on hold for one year and that the review will take place during that year as to how effectively means testing could be put in place.

This is important. The one thing we need is to gear all our resources, human and economic, to job creation and rewarding incentive. This is an opportunity for us to give the green light to young people who want to go to third level institutions. That green light is much better than consigning those people to the dole queue and to a life of helplessness.

Mr. Mullooly

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

commends the Minister for Education for his initiatives in seeking to achieve greater equity and equality for all under the third level student support schemes; notes the various improvements to these schemes as announced earlier this year; and that further and more comprehensive improvements will be announced in the near future arising from a detailed review of the schemes.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I hope it is in order for me to extend good wishes for a speedy recovery to the Minister for Education, who I understand is hospitalised.

We must all acknowledge that great strides have been made in the area of third level education over the last few years. There has been a huge increase in the numbers participating in third level courses. Forty per cent of all school leavers in 1991 entered third level courses. When we compare this to the 20 per cent of school leavers who entered third level courses in 1980 and the 25 per cent who entered into third level courses in 1986, we can see the huge increase in participation that has taken place over the last few years.

Third level admission procedures have been simplified and streamlined. Many additional student places have been provided in our third level colleges. Last year 2,500 new places were provided in the third level colleges and the previous year — 1990 — 1,200 new places were provided. There is a commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that a further 9,000 places approximately will be provided over the next few years.

In addition, there has been a huge increase in the amount of financial support for third level students. I understand that at the moment approximately £70 million of State funding is being provided in support grants for students in the third level system. This year a new grading system for the leaving certificate is being introduced. These are major advances and we should give a lot of the credit for these advances and for this progress to Deputy O'Rourke, who was Minister for Education between 1987 and 1991 and was responsible for introducing all these reforms which have been so beneficial to our student population, and particularly to students in the third level system.

In 1991, 25,000 new students entered third level education. This brought the total number in third level institutions up to approximately 75,000 students and it is anticipated that this figure will grow by a further 15,000 over the next few years. Of those students who are in the system, approximately 55 per cent are in receipt of support under the various student grant schemes.

University students have access to the higher education grants. These grants are means tested. Degree students in the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges have access to regional college scholarships, which again, of course, are means tested on the same basis as the higher education grant scheme. I would agree with those who said the income limits for higher education grants and for regional college scholarships are relatively low, and I sincerely hope it will be possible for the Government to raise those income limits so that, by degrees, more students will qualify for these grants.

Certificate and diploma students in the regional colleges and in the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges who are attending ESF aided courses are in receipt of ESF grants. These grants up to now have not been means tested. Initially, only a small number of courses in the RTCs and in the Institute of Technology colleges were ESF funded, but by degrees funding was extended to cover practically all the certificate and diploma courses. Many people were under the impression, and appear to be still under the impression, that there is no limit to the amount of ESF funding which is available. This is not so. The Community support framework limits the amount of funding that is available. A funding limit was set in the Community support framework at 19,600 students. By 1990 this limit had been reached; the enrolment of 19,600 had been exceeded. In 1991 the number on ESF courses was over 22,000. This means that 2,600 in excess of the limit are now on these courses. These 2,600 students are being paid grants which are fully funded by the State at a cost of £10 million and without any means testing.

There is a means test in operation for all other students. Obviously, this is an inequitable situation where we have some students in receipt of State-funded grants without a means test while the vast majority of students who apply for State-funded grants, such as the higher education grants, are liable to means testing. It is understandable that, arising from that situation and against that background, the Minister felt obliged to make some changes in the ESF grant scheme and it was with a view to achieving greater equity and equality for all third level students that he examined the situation.

As I see it there were three options open to the Minister. He could have limited the number going into these courses. He could have limited the number to the 19,600 who would be funded by the money available under the Community support framework but that would have resulted in students being denied places on the courses.

The second option was to limit the range of courses to which ESF funding would apply. The third option was to try to accommodate as many students as possible on these courses by applying a means test to the maintenance element of the ESF grant. That was the option the Minister chose and I believe he chose the correct option. To choose either of the other two options would have done an injustice to the many students who will now continue to be accommodated in those courses.

It is important to point out the proposal to means test the maintenance element of the ESF grant will only apply to new applicants for ESF grants, that is, new students who enter the ESF-funded courses in September. The fees of the students will be paid. It is important to emphasise that there is no change as far as existing students are concerned. ESF students on certificate and diploma courses will continue to receive their ESF grants.

Students who have completed their certificate courses and who are undertaking work experience programmes in order to proceed to diploma courses will be eligible for the ESF grants when they enter these diploma courses. They will qualify both for maintenance and fees but as and from September the new entrants to ESF-funded courses will be means tested for the maintenance element. They will still be at an advantage vis-a-vis other third level students because their fees will be paid irrespective of means.

This is something I would like to see extended to students in all third level colleges. I would like to see a situation reached eventually where the fees of all students in all third level colleges are paid. That is why I welcome the fact the Minister has established a committee to carry out a full review of the present situation in relation to student grants. I hope one of the recomendations that review committee will come up with is that all fees will be paid for all students in third level colleges.

I welcome the commitment in the amendment which states that further and more comprehensive improvements will be announced in the near future arising from the detailed review of the higher education grants schemes that is ongoing at present. I look forward to these improvements and I support the amendment.

Mr. McKenna

I second the amendment. I reiterate the sentiments expressed by Senator Mullooly and I congratulate the Minister on the initiatives he is taking in relation to bringing equity into this whole system of third level education. I am rather in a quandary in relation to the Opposition motion here because as I understand it, — I am open to correction on this — Senator Jackman had the old idea in relation to meanstesting and so on while her colleague, who seconded the motion, was agreeing in principle to the whole notion of means testing. I wonder is there a difference of opinion among the Opposition in relation to whether there should be means testing? One person seemed to be saying there should be no means testing and the other was saying that they agreed in principle on meanstesting. I respect and appreciate the concern of all people, particularly the two people in the Opposition who put down the motion and seconded it, who are in the educational field, as are a number of people on this side of the House. We are all concerned with development in education.

One could really say that the reason the motion was tabled is because of the success of the RTCs and the huge development that has taken place in the whole RTC system in recent years. I would hate to think for one moment that the reason the RTCs were such a success was principally because people were getting paid money in order to go to third level colleges. All of the success stories in the RTCs are basically because there is an outstanding facility there and there is a most worthwhile third level educational mechanism in operation in the RTCs.

Senator Jackman was trying to differentiate between universities and RTCs. I know numerous people who left my own school and other schools who would have been quite capable of gaining entry to university but who opted for an RTC even though under the means testing they would have qualified for entry to university. Because they felt that was the area they wanted to be involved in and that the RTCs were more appropriate to the type of careers those people wished to follow in the long term, they opted for education in an RTC and not necessarily because there was ESF funding.

It is important to point out that more than RTCs get ESF funding. People are not aware that there are now a number of third level and postgraduate courses in university that are ESF-funded and their number is growing. I welcome that development which I regard as very important.

In relation to the socio-economic groupings and the fact that unskilled people seem to be suffering most, I do not think for one moment that has any bearing whatever on entry to third level colleges. There are many other problems and difficulties that have to be taken into account. I am sure Senator Jackman is aware of the difficulties in second level education where, not alone is it almost impossible in a number of instances to encourage people to go to third level education, but it is extremely difficult to encourage people to finish second level education. That is where the difficulty is. The vast majority of people in the socio-economic grouping that has been mentioned would qualify, even if they were means tested, for entry to third level education and would be funded. As Senator Mullooly pointed out, only the maintenance is being means tested; the fees remain unchanged. There is inequity in a situation where two people on the same income, with the same number of children and the same commitments, but one opts to go to one third level college and the other goes to another; one gets away scot free and the other has to pay through the nose. That is not equitable and anyone who suggests it is would have to produce very strong proof to convince me.

I recognise Senator Mullooly has difficulties in relation to means testing. Every year at local authority, vocational education committee and county council meetings, when the third level grants come up for approval, I try to change the system of assessment for means testing and to bring about a change in emphasis where possible. I have advocated a number of times that net income should be the appropriate figure for means testing for entry to third level colleges.

However, this is a different matter. The difficulty is that the funding initially coming from Europe was for a limited amount and because of the success of the scheme, we spent that money very quickly.

As Senator Mullooly said, what started off as a small range of courses mushroomed into a multiplicity of courses within a couple of years. That is fantastic and I welcome it. I agree with Senator O'Reilly's comments on the importance of Maastricht in the education field and the developments accruing to this country as a result of our ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. I am pro-Maastricht. When people get the opportunity to vote on 18 June I hope they vote massively in favour. From the education point of view alone, the opportunities accruing to us will be enormous.

We have to face reality. It is a crazy system if a millionaire sends a son or daughter to a RTC course that is ESF funded he does not have to pay a penny in terms of fees or maintenance while a worker earning above the income limit has to pay for his son or daughter attending a third level institution, other than an RTC. That is inequity.

I compliment the Minister for trying to reverse the situation and ensuring that every student enters third level education on the same basis and that they would opt for a course not on the basis of how much they will get but the career they see for themselves.

I compliment the RTCs for the magnificant contribution they have made to third level education and I have no doubt that they will make an even greater contribution in the years ahead. I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him well. I know the committee set up to review the position will bring forward concrete proposals and I look forward to reading their report.

Mrs. Doyle

I live in a county that has one of the lowest participation rates in third level education. The announcement by the then Minister, Deputy Davern, and the subsequent Ministers for Education of the means testing of the maintenance of the ESF grants has caused widespread alarm throughout the length and breadth of Wexford and in other areas.

We do not have any third level colleges in Wexford. Any young person who wants third level education must leave Wexford and live away from home from Monday to Friday. As a result, the maintenance portion of their grant is of particular importance when they do not have the option of attending a third level course in their town or area. I have a file from parents, councils and individuals, all expressing alarm and wanting an explanation of what the proposals might mean for their sons and daughters next autumn.

The reality is that we have yet to hear the views of the public on this issue. It will only be in the next few months as leaving certificate results are analysed and as place offers from the CAO/CAS system come in that the new changes introduced by the Minister will dawn on parents. I urge him to review this. I accept there are enormous inequalities, inequities and injustices in the present system of grants at university level but what is needed is a fundamental reform of the system and not just a tinkering with the system by attacking the easy option, the ESF grants for those attending RTCs and Dublin Institutes of Technology.

This group should not be singled out in the absence of an overall review of the system of third level funding. That is the point I am making. We do not want to perpetuate any more inequities. We are not in the business of ensuring, as Senator McKenna said, that millionaires get maintenance grants for their sons and daughters while others with £200 over a strict income limit get nothing for sending a young person to university. That makes little sense, but for the few big fish the Minister catches in the net he has cast in relation to ESF maintenance grants, there will be hundreds of borderline cases, second, third and fourth members of a family, who will not now be able to take up the option of third level at an RTC or Dublin Institute of Technology because of the proposed changes.

I urge the Minister to put these proposals on hold until we have the results of his overhaul of third level funding. His proposals do not make sense on social, education or economic grounds. The sum of £39 per week maintenance for the 22,000 RTC and Dublin Institute of Technology students has proved a lifeline not only for the students themselves but for the colleges concerned because it has ensured a throughput in the RTCs and Dublin Institutes of Technology of quality undergraduate material, young people who would not have had the option of going to these colleges but for ESF funding.

The amendment to the motion makes great play about noting the various improvements to these schemes announced earlier in the year. That is worth looking at and dispelling the myth once and for all. I have before me the answer to a parliamentary question, answered by Deputy Seamus Brennan, Minister for Education, on 19 February. There are five points made, four will bear little relevance to what we are talking about now. For example, the Minister spoke about income limits and maintenance grants being indexed from 1992. In theory that sounds marvellous but unless you start off at a realistic level there is little point in indexing them at 3 per cent or 4 per cent or whatever the cost of living or inflation rate will be in the years concerned. It will make little overall difference to whether the second child or third child of a large family, living in rural Ireland, will be able to go to the local regional college.

Indexing is fine once you start from a realistic level in 1992 but I am suggesting we are not doing that. Lone parent welfare payments under the lone parent's allowance will be excluded from assessment of income. Realistically, how many will that let off the hook or give maintenance grants they otherwise would not get?

Mature students will now be assessed on the basis of their own incomes rather than their parents' incomes. That is commonsense and it is accepted but it is a very small proportion of what we are talking about. Again, it will make little difference to the basic overall problem. Income eligibility will be assessed on income and income limits in the year of entering third level rather than, as heretofore, on income limits in the year in which the student sat the leaving certificate. A youngster might not be going to third level, to a RTC or a Dublin Institute of Technology for three or four years after they leave school. Their parents' income may have collapsed in the meantime and it makes sense to assess them on the income eligibility on the year of entering third level rather than the year in which they sat the leaving certificate.

May I come back to the one point which will make a little difference. In the amendment great play is made of the various improvements to these schemes, as announced earlier in the year. However, most of them really are very selective in that the number who will be helped as a result of the Minister's changes will be so small as to not affect the overall problem or the bulk of the students who are the subject of the motion this evening.

The income eligibility ceiling for families will be increased by £2,000 for each child after the first child attending third level. If my figures are correct, for the academic year 1991-92, if a married couple with two children, who want to send each child to third level have a gross income over approximately £10,780, immediately there will be a decrease in the amount of grant eligible to them until it tapers out altogether. We all know that a gross income of £10,800 leaves one with very little disposable income. Certainly, it would ensure that a couple with that gross income would not have sufficient disposable income to allow a son or daughter attend third level outside their own town. That is the position in Wexford and that is why we have a low uptake of third level education.

I welcome the increase after the first child of £2,000 in income eligibility, but a £10,800 gross income for the complete maintenance and tuition grant means the option of going to third level education is not very realistic. While we welcome the few points the Minister has made, it is not the fundamental review we all agree that is necessary to have equity and to remove the injustice that is in the present system. My colleague, Deputy Jim Higgins and many others have said that what the Minister is now proposing to do is transfer the fundamental inequity of the existing higher education grants system which operates in the universities to the Dublin Institute of Technology and RTC colleges. I urge the Minister not to do that until the fundamental review is available. I urge him to put on hold any means testing of the maintenance portion of ESF grants until the review that I understand has been commissioned is before us. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell us when that review will be available, when it can be implemented, who is reviewing it and how long they have been reviewing it? I ask the Minister to retain in full the present ESF funding arrangements for third level courses pending this review. I also ask him to give us assurances that he will enter into negotiations with the European Community to obtain further ESF funding for other third level courses and institutions.

What is the thinking behind means testing the maintenance portion of ESF grants? Is it because we used up in full our ESF block grant last year and the Government had to carry the last 2,500 students directly out of the national Exchequer. I am quite sure that if the case was made in Brussels more ESF funding would be made available. If anything in the Maastricht Treaty makes sense, if cohesion, convergence, the removal of disparities, or help in relation to unemployment mean anything at all, there will be ESF funding if the Government look for it in Brussels.

To achieve what I have asked for, we would need to establish a permanent education secretariat in Brussels for education, monitoring, research and liaison. I ask the Minister to give a commitment to this House that he will do that in order to maximise the benefit of European Union in this most important area. We welcome the inclusion of education in the provisions of the Treaty. I ask the Minister to think about the matter and not to make any change until we have the full review and look at the overall funding of third level education in this country.

Mr. Farrell

I would like to welcome the Minister this evening. He has been thrown in at the deep end. We send our good wishes to the Minister, Deputy Brennan, who is ill in hospital.

I am glad Sentor Doyle referred to the good things Deputy Davern announced when he was Minister. The fact that the eligibility ceiling for families will be increased by £2,000 for each child after the first is a very important step forward. The income eligibility being assesed on the current year's income is very important. I have always said that if I were Minister for Education one of the things I would do is to send everybody out to work for a year after leaving second level education. They should go out into the world, into the university of reality, where many of us had to go and we did not suffer as a result. When they then go back into third level education, they will go back with a greater sense of purpose and there will be far fewer drop-outs. The number of drop-outs from third level education is alarming at present. Last year the failure rate in some of our universities was deplorable. We are spending increased amounts on health and education but we have a sicker society now than we ever had and we also have more illiteracy than we ever had. When I was in the national school in third class, before we went to the next room to fourth class, the teacher always ensured we could write a letter home to our parents so if one ever had to leave the country, at least one would be able to write home.

It is deplorable today that with so much third level education people are leaving school who cannot write their names. It is not that people are any less intelligent. One sees cases of people who cannot write their own names, who are involved in all kinds of vandalism, stealing cars and so on. I was a mechanic for many years and some of these fellows could open a car quicker than I could. They could stick a bit of plastic into a lock and have the car open in no time. It is not that they are unintelligent. A group of people who amaze me never went to school at all — I am speaking of the travelling salesmen who sell carpets and can tell you the yardage you need for a room; they sell televisions and tell you how to work them; they drive vans and cars but you never see them in a garage. They cannot spell "nut" but they know the nut to fit the bolt. They are highly intelligent.

I hope the review group will take a good hard look at the amount of money that is spent on education and see if we are getting the maximum results. For far too long we spent a great deal of money educating people for the Civil Service and the public service, and any person who went into business or was entreprenurial-minded was regarded as a speculator; it was a dirty word. I hope that the people in our colleges are learning about marketing and research. Up to now people did not know very much about selling. Everything was geared towards Civil Service work.

The technical schools did a great job but they never got credit for it. They trained the people for life. They taught them a trade. We should look at how vocational schools could be upgraded. Maybe we spend too much on FÁS when that money could be better spent on vocational education. If the vocational schools went back to teaching students a trade, they would do more to create employment and students would be able to earn a living when they leave the colleges.

I agree with what Senator O'Reilly said about the Maastricht Treaty. It is important that we vote "yes" in the referendum because we need funds for education and I would hate to think we would do anything to hinder that. If we did not have the ESF funding we would not be talking about this motion or this amendment.

Since Bord Telecom stopped printing directories for the whole country I am sure Senators have had occasion to ring Directory Enquiries, now you are asked to spell the name of the person or firm whose telephone number is required. If you cannot spell the name you are told it is not in the directory and they cannot help you. It is a sad reflection on our education system that people in those jobs do not have a clue how to spell a name like Gallogly. I rang the operator for the telephone number of a pub known as TDs and the operator asked me to spell it. I said it is simply TD. It is time we looked at our standard of education when people cannot spell a simple name. I hope the review body will take a good indepth look at all those issues.

We have regional colleges in Sligo, Letterkenny and Limerick and it is ridiculous that people from Sligo go to the colleges in Letterkenny, Limerick or Dundalk. The same courses are held in Sligo but when the course is full the chidren are sent elsewhere. There is a lack of organisation here. It is a waste of money sending students all over the country for interviews. There should be one interview board in each area and each student would be given the result of their interview which they could send to any college. I hope the review body looks at that as well.

I support the amendment. I welcome this indepth review and I hope some of the points I have made here will be taken on board. When students leave school they should be able to write and spell. We should not need adult education today when we consider the amount of money we have spent on education over the last 25 years. It is ridiculous that children cannot write their own names. We need to take an indepth look at this.

Mr. Costello

I support the motion, I do not agree with the amendment because essentially it copperfastens the position adopted by the Minister, which I think is the wrong one. The Minister put the cart before the horse earlier this year when he decided to means test ESF funding. It was quite the wrong thing to do. There has been a call for an equitable form of assessment for higher education grants, and I fully subscribe to that.

It is wrong to introduce restrictions on funding from Europe that has been used — I do not want to use the word "exploited", but that effectivey is what it is — widely and effectively for the benefit of our third level students. What is happening now is that we are being penalised for our success in attracting ESF funding and for the greater numbers of students attending third level institutions. We have barely exceeded the estimated number of students eligible for ESF funding.

I suppose the criticism could be made of the Government that there was not a greater perception of these increased needs and that they did not negotiate a greater tranche of funding in this direction, but I acknowledge that there has been tremendous development in this area of education. The Government are either trying to restrict students coming into the system or ensure, by means testing, that they do not pay more than 50 per cent of the cost of third level education where the students attract ESF funding.

It is a shame that the Government should see fit to limit the number of students this year for the sake of a few million pounds — I think it is £2 million this year, £2 million next year and perhaps £2 million the following year, approximately £6 million in three years. We do not know what the future holds but we do know that the present intake of students will be disadvantaged. Students had to apply for courses by 1 February but because they thought they would be means tested, some of them will have decided not to apply for the courses they wanted to do.

We do not know what will be the effects of the January announcement. Did people decide not to go forward for certain courses because there would be a limit on funding, in other words, that they would get funds for tuition but not for maintenance? We would have been better off devoting our energies to seeking an increase in the amount of European funding for education because Europe is more sympathetic to providing funds for training and education than for any other area. Rather than means testing students who will commence courses in September, we should have gone back to Europe on the matter. In my view, the Government should have carried the extra costs this year in the context of closer European union in the future and greater funding coming into this area.

At present, approximately 60 per cent of the 9,000 students in the Dublin Institute of Technology are in receipt of ESF funding; that is the percentage of students who would be affected by this move; obviously not all are affected in the sense that some of them are already attending courses. In 1990 we succeeded in extending ESF funding to first, second and third year courses, certificate and diploma courses; this was a major development; we extended the age limit; we abolished the upper age limit of 25 years and we have been very successful in extending the barriers and funded courses, and, in a sense, we are being penalised for that success.

The regional colleges and other third level institutions have attracted ESF funding. The 1986 Clancy report on third level education makes it obvious that in areas where there are third level institutions, and particularly regional colleges, a higher quota of students are attracted to third level education. We should encourage that trend because it attracts ESF funding.

All the documentation produced by the Department of Education deals with training programmes and trainees, so we are not talking about allowances for any other purpose and, in that context, it is improper for the Government to describe it as a maintenance allowance. They say they are taxing the maintenance allowance, not the tuition allowance but it is really a training allowance. I do not think it is right to tax an allowance that is given for training purposes. There is no way we can tax — which is effectively what the Government are doing — money provided by the European Community for training purposes. The Government are on very shaky ground. They should look at that issue again before legal action is taken against them. We did not need this ad hoc response from the Government to means test once they found there was an overrun, and when there was uproar about that, to increase the eligibility threshold; I welcome the increase in the eligibility threshold by £2,000. The Government say they are setting up a review committee to bring a more equitable income assessment scheme into operation and to establish proper criteria. Why did they not do it the other way round? This is the worst type of ad hocery and the Minister must be criticised for his approach.

I call on the Minister, even at this late stage, to ensure that students starting their third level education in September will not be penalised vis-a-vis students already in the system. First year students in the Dublin Institute of Technology, the regional colleges and other third level institutions will not be given grants whereas those starting their second or third year will receive grants. I ask the Minister not to go ahead with these proposals to extend the present scheme for a further year. Perhaps the review committee has already been set up, but I hope it is a wide-ranging remit and that once and for all, we will have an equitable income assessment scheme for those attending higher education.

Mr. Ross

When I first heard of the Government's measures on means testing ESF funding, I did not share the horror of some of my colleagues because I was not totally in touch with the situation as it affects the people involved. When I made inquiries at various schools — I visited them recently with the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy John Bruton — the one message that kept coming through from the pupils — not from the parents but presumably the students heard it from their parents — was that this measure discriminated against them and many of them would not be able to receive a third level education as a result.

I believe the Government did not realise the effect this measure would have on ordinary people, the disappointment and discomfort it would cause and the fact that they would be deprived of a third level education to which they were entitled. It will mean that some people will not receive third level education while their colleagues of equal academic merit will. I believe that the Government, at this stage recognise they made a mistake.

Senator Costello put his finger on it just now when he said that the characteristic attitude of a pragmatic Government, of the kind we have now, to education, as to everything else, is to respond and react in a piecemeal fashion. One of the most distressing aspects of this measure is that it tells us more about the Government and their attitude to education than anything else. The Government have no philosophy or commitment to education. I do not know whether they believe that everybody who is academically qualified should be entitled to third level education, but this measure would indicate that when they found they did not have enough money to meet the demand for education, they came up with the idea of a means test. A means test sounds very fair but as it will be applied here, it is very unfair.

Senator Mullooly as much as admitted that because he said it only applied to the maintenance element and to new students. That is an admission that the Government are doing this with great regret, that they do not really want to take this action but are being forced to do it by circumstances. It shows a lack of an educational philosophy and a lack of a commitment. It also demonstrates the tendency of the Government to take a shortcut even where education is involved. It offends the principle of merit in education which is a principle to which all parties in this House would aspire.

I make a special plea to the Minister regarding third level education that the Government would seriously review the points system as it exists at the moment and the system of entering third level education. I know the Minister is said to be setting up a review body, the terms of which I am unaware, but if there were to be a review body on education, the most important thing they should consider is how people enter third level education; whether there is to be a points system, an interview system or what sort of system because the pressures students who sit the leaving certificate suffer today are totally unacceptable. The system provides us with automatons, robots and people going into university and third level education simply on the basis of points. Unsuitable people are going into university and doing courses for which they are not suited.

There are extreme cases where a person could be an absolute genius in one subject such as English and extremely weak in others but because of the fact that they are so weak in these other subjects, although they would star in one particular subject, they will not get into university or any third level college. The system is totally unfair, not only because it puts the wrong people in the wrong courses but also because it puts immense pressure on students. On the basis of one or two hours in their life their whole future is determined. That is unfair and that is what the Government should look at in the third level education field. That is desperately important. It is also important that the grants they give out are channelled into a much fairer system.

We know the Government are short of money and everybody on this side of the House would sympathise with their plight. They should consider asking universities who take in foreign students to charge full commercial fees to them. Some of them obviously pay full commercial fees, for example, the College of Surgeons but in some of the universities such as Galway, Dublin, UCD and UCC many of the students benefit from the taxpayer. I see nothing wrong with that in principle but, as a marketing exercise, it is unnecessary. We should encourage people from here to go abroad and also encourage people from abroad to come here. We should not discourage them by making the fees higher but there is no doubt there is an enormous demand from overseas for education in this country and in the UK. Not only is there a demand for it but people are quite willing to pay for the high level of third level education which we can offer. Yet, the Government subsidise many of these people to the tune of maybe 60 per cent. I do not know the figures but a saving could be made in this area by the Government by offering this education to more students from overseas but on a commercial basis. Those places would be taken up fully by foreign students and we would benefit also because our universities and third level institutions would become more cosmopolitan. The third and final advantage would be that the Irish taxpayer would benefit also.

I do not share the sentiments expressed by Senator Farrell which sounded to me as being anti-third level education. It must be acknowledged — we should all think about this very strongly — that third level education is not the be-all and the end-all. It is not necessarily something to which everybody should aspire. There is no shame or stigma attached to not having a third level education. Some of the brightest and most successful people in Irish society, in business, journalism and among Irish authors never received a third level education. They did not need it to prove they were successful people. Senator Farrell was possibly trying to say that.

We should examine whether we are getting results from these educational establishments. I do not believe what Senators Mullooly, McKenna and other Government speakers said that the solution lies in setting up a review body. When the Government are in trouble on issues like this, or on any other issue, instead of taking hard decisions they set up a review body to deflect the criticism they receive from the Opposition and the population. Nowhere have I seen more spontaneous opposition than among the school teachers and schoolchildren to this deplorable suggestion from the Government that ESF grants should be means tested.

Professor Conroy

I agree with much of what Senator Ross said in relation to education and third level education. The Government can claim a very good record and have a very good philosophy in regard to education. It was this party which under the late Donogh O'Malley brought in effective second level education and made it available to young people. I agree a great deal needs to be done as regards the stage after that and it may be time for us to look at third level education in a somewhat similar or perhaps more revoluntionary way.

I do not altogether disagree with Senator Ross except that I consider continuing education, let us call it third level education, is something all our young people should have available to them. It need not necessarily be an academic education as such. In fact, the dividing line between what is academic, what is applied and what is vocational is becoming very blurred. Perhaps we suffer a little in this country from a narrow, restrictive and artificially elitist view of third level education suffered up to the past few years. Even now there is still a somewhat narrow and almost snobbish view of third level education.

I agree with the comments made regarding the points system. It is a cruel and inequitable system which masquerades under the name of equity and fairness. It is indeed an appalling system. Children must go through this dreadful experience at a time in their life when their education should be broadening and when they should be looking forward to developing their personalities. Instead, they find themselves totally constricted and under pressure because of this appalling bureaucratic system. It is cruelty beyond description and is not in any way educational or fair. God help all the students and their parents who have to suffer under this system.

There should not be any means test for third level education. I do not agree with the idea that one in any sense, either Government or anyone else, saves money by not expending it on education at third level. The realities are twofold: one, it is an essential. We had much discussion today on the expansion of the European Community but we will not be able to play an effective part in that unless our students have an opportunity for further achievement and training in order to realise their full potential.

It does not necessarily have to be a BA in French literature — I have nothing against that, it is very important in itself but it might equally be two years training in some aspect of aerospace systems or a whole lot of other things. Equally, if it were a manual trade there is nothing wrong with that. What is essential is that it enriches the personality of the young person and allows them to play a role in life so that they and the country will be able to compete in what is, like it or not, a very competitive environment.

It costs far less to have a young person undergo some form of post-secondary training than it does to have the same person unemployed and on the dole and it is an extraordinary shortsighted and narrow view of Government economics to imagine otherwise. We are perhaps a little better off than the United Kingdom, as regards education but compared with Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and almost any of the other members of the European Community we have a smaller percentage of people in third level training. This is very much to our disadvantage. If we had even something half-way between our present situation and that of Germany we would, in that process alone, have 50,000 people immediately removed from the dole which would be of great benefit to themselves and to the State. It would be at lower cost than the present methods of providing social security for them.

We need to review the area of third level education in a very broad manner, to review the totality of third level opportunities for young people and the number of years they should have the opportunity to stay in training. That further education is not necessarily a university education. It is not necessarily a regional technical college education. It may be education in a business school, education in agriculture or a technological education. There are a thousand different methods of expanding the individual personality. Every youngster could benefit by having that opportunity, preferably following what is his or her bent and certainly not doing X, Y or Z because they had the misfortune to obtain a certain number of points. That system must be looked at, and preferably abolished as soon as possible.

I would like to follow on Senator Ross's point in regard to foreign students. We have in some ways a tremendous opportunity in this country which has only been very slightly tapped at this stage. We have a very good, well earned and deserved reputation for teaching. It is something that for one reason or another we seem to take to naturally and students enjoy coming here. In our economic circumstances, other than for very special cases and it is one good way of helping the developing world, those students should not be a burden on the Irish taxpayer. They should make some contribution. There are ample opportunities for so doing but only a few have as yet been used by our various colleges. One would like to see that greatly expanded. There is a tremendous and worthwhile opportunity there in which we are both giving and taking at one time. Let us expand the number of foreign students who come here. They enrich our colleges and educational establishments but they should not be subsidised other than those, perhaps, from developing countries or in very poor circumstances.

I would like to see an end to means testing for third level students. I would like to see young people taking it as natural that they would continue in education in one form or another. It need not necessarily be an academic education and for many students they would be far better off if it were not.

The other point which I am glad to see was supported by the Minister in January is the opportunity for mature students. There are many people who for one reason or another do not have an opportunity to study at a younger age. They benefit by doing some work and then come back to study. We should encourage them.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. Flood)

In addressing this motion it is relevant to recall the substance of what was said by the Minister for Education in the Dáil on 18 February on a motion on the Government's commitment to education where he gave details of the substantial progress that has been made by this Government in the field of education since 1987. He pointed out that since that time the underlying theme of positive discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged has informed Government action in the field of education. This is reflected in the provisions on education in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Positive discrimination is designed to ensure that the benefits of education are distributed equally over all sections of the community rather than compounding the advantage of those who are already privileged. Side-by-side with the equalisation of opportunity, significant steps have been taken to enhance the quality of education for the benefit of all participants.

Great advances have been made in facilitating access to education at all levels. It is a measure of our success that 73 per cent of all students complete the senior cycle of second-level education and a major objective of education policy for the 1990s is to bring that up to 90 per cent. Enrolment in full-time third level education has grown from 21,000 in 1965 to 75,000 in the current year, an increase of 350 per cent over a quarter of a century. A substantial proportion of that increase has taken place since 1987. A further increase of 15,000 places is projected over the next four to five years. In a period of less than ten years there will have been an increase of 34,000 students in third level education — a staggering increase of 60 per cent.

The projected increase of 15,000 places over the next few years will bring the number of third level places to 90,000. This represents 45 per cent of the relevant age cohort. A comparison with 24 per cent in Portugal and 30 per cent in Germany will give a clear indication of the enormous financial and logictical demand which we face in providing quality higher education for such a large proportion of our young population.

Despite the explosion in numbers of full-time third level students more than half of all students at present are in receipt of grants. The total student support for fees and maintenance provided by the State is about £72 million. The average support per student is £1,900 per annum.

The massive growth in student numbers is nowhere more evident than in the case of ESF-aided programmes. In 1986 there were some 10,600 students on ESF-aided third level programmes. In the programme of support negotiated under the European Community support framework provision for an expansion of the number to 19,600 by 1993 was made. By 1990 that threshold had been reached.

Since 1990 a further 2,600 students have joined the same programmes for whom no ESF support is available. The State, therefore, has had to meet the full costs of these extra students which amounts to £10 million per annum.

It is anticipated that ESF support for the development of human resources in Ireland will be substantially increased from the beginning of 1994 and that it will be extended to courses which have been regarded as ineligible up to now. This will create the possibility of increasing not only the actual numbers of students but also the proportion of students on ESF courses.

This brings me to the question of means testing ESF grants which up to now have not been subject to means testing. To this extent ESF grants represent an exception to the general rule because, as Senators know, our national schemes of student support are based on the principle of means testing.

In a situation of limited financial resources choices have to be made. The choice facing the Government in this case was to limit the number of students going on ESF courses or to accommodate a greater number by introducing a means test to maintenance grants. The only equitable solution which does not militate against students from a lower income family is to apply means testing. Even at that the savings achieved only partly offset the shortfall in ESF funding for the programmes.

Two things should be clearly understood. First, there will be no change for existing students enrolled on ESF-aided third level courses; and, secondly, all students on these courses will continue to have their tuition fees paid for them, regardless of income. That is to say, the ESF students will continue to have an advantage over other students since the means testing will apply to maintenance grants only.

The developments in relation to ESF grants should be seen in the wider context of achieving more places for more and more students in third level education within the constraints of limited funds and a more equitable distribution of the available funds focusing in particular on students from the lower income groups.

The revisions in ESF grants are only one of a number of measures which have been announced to remedy inequities in existing student support schemes. They comprise a package of measures and none should be considered in isolation from the others. The other main features of the package are: the income eligibility ceiling for families will be increased by £2,000 for each child after the first child attending third level education; income eligibility will be assessed on current income rather than as heretofore on the income in the year in which the student sat the leaving certificate; mature students who secure a place in a third level institution will automatically be considered to meet the academic requirements for the award of a grant, mature students may be assessed on the basis of their own incomes and, if married, their spouses' incomes rather than on their parents' income which has been the case up to now; lone parent's welfare payments under the lone parent's allowance scheme will be excluded from the assessment of income for grant eligibility and income limits and maintenance grants will be indexed linked in 1992.

From what I have said, it will be obvious that the objective of the measures announced in relation to third level student grants is to achieve absolute equity in the distribution of available funds. Within these limits the amendments introduced for ESF maintenance grants will ensure that a greater number of students from the lower income families will be enabled to participate in third level education.

I am satisfied that the revised arrangements forced on the Government by limited funds protect students from the lower income groups. I accept there is still a problem for students from middle income groups. I am conscious of the great financial sacrifices which many parents in these groups make in order to provide the opportunity of third level education for their children.

In that context, the Minister for Education iniatiated a full review of all aspects of the students support scheme. In announcing the review the Minister clarified its objectives as follows: the overall aim will be to ensure equity within and between the different schemes and the review will include the removal of any outstanding barriers which may militate against students from disadvantaged backgrounds. To the extent that it is practical and affordable, it will seek to address the particular financial pressures on students from the lower to middle income families. In particular, the review will re-examine the financial criteria for eligibility for student grants and develop more equitable means assessment criteria. The same rules must apply to all. The review is well advanced and the Minister expects to be in a position to bring proposals to Government shortly with a view to introducing major changes in the student support schemes.

My attention was drawn by a number of Senators to the uncertainty among intending applicants for third level places as to their grant entitlement from next September. It was pointed out in the Dáil on 18 February by the Minister for Education that he intended to apply a means test to maintenance grants payable to new students on ESF courses from next September. That decision has been a matter of public knowledge since 18 February. It is only one element in a comprehensive overhaul of the grant schemes for third level students. As I have already pointed out, this is a highly complex matter involving a range of other Departments and agencies. However, the Minister hopes to be in a position to publish the amended scheme without further delay.

Reference was also made by Senators in the debate to the possibility of postponing the introduction of means testing until September 1993. Many Senators did not disagree with the motion of means testing. The application of means testing to ESF grants is only one of a package of amendments to the student support scheme. I am satisfied that the new scheme is more equitable and designed to facilitate access to third level education by disadvantaged students. From that equity standpoint, I am sure we would all agree that the earlier the scheme is introduced the better.

Reference was also made to the general issue regarding the decision to means test ESF grants. One point should be made absolutely clear. The improvement to the income eligibility limits which the Miniser will be introducing shortly will benefit all PAYE workers whether their children apply for places on ESF or non-ESF courses. I am aware of the public perception that third level grants are available to people outside of the PAYE system who otherwise appear to have substantial means. The new scheme of grants will tackle that issue. It will try to ensure that the criteria used to assess income under the new scheme will give a true indication of taxable income for PAYE and non-PAYE taxpayers alike.

I thank those who contributed tonight to a very informative and interesting debate. I will most assuredly bring to the attention of the Minister for Education the various points of view put forward and I will also convey to him the best wishes for his speedy recovery expressed by Senators.

Mrs. Jackman

I am extremely disappointed with the two words I picked up in this debate "no change". The Minister of State referred to a review and gave us some information; but that page was missing from the script.

Mr. Flood

I will supply the Senator with the information.

Mrs. Jackman

Thank you. Senators wanted to know when the review committee would report and the Minister referred briefly to the substance of what the review committee would address straightaway — income thresholds and so on.

The only Senator with whom I agree is Senator Conroy when he spoke about the importance of education. It is the great instrument of European union. All European third level institutions are non-fee paying. I hope the review committee will explore how best to exploit the funds we will get. The Minister in Limerick last week referred to the doubling of funds that will come within the new policy area of education.

It is essential that the review body referred to in our motion be an expert independent body. I am not happy with just the Minister for Education and his officials being involved; I hope it will be extended to the social partners in education, representatives of Higher Education Authority institutions, regional and technical colleges, representatives of IVEA, parents, students' unions and teacher bodies. They are the people best equipped to deal with a comprehensive review of third level education.

Senator McKenna missed the point I was making about bringing equity into the system. The Clancy report states that the disadvantaged do not have access to the "traditional universities"; the children of the professional classes and the higher income earners are the main recipients of professional education. The facts are that children of the lower income groups go to regional technical colleges. I am not making a division between the status of universities versus a lower status of regional technical colleges. The numbers going to regional technical colleges speak for themselves. We all know these institutions were set up to provide training and expertise in the engineering, high-tech and electronics industries, etc.

The fact that such colleges have the greatest increase in the number of third level students speaks for itself. Senator McKenna completely misinterpreted what I said: I said the Minister, by means testing ESF grants, is disadvantaging the already disadvantaged. The facts speak for themselves.

The £39 per week maintenance given to students is survival money. Students in regional technical colleges told me it is not drink and cigarette money but bread and butter money. The introduction of the means test will affect those most in need. Nothing the Minister said does anything to address that system. I agree with the increase in the income level of £2,000 for each child after the first child attending third level — we complimented the Minister when this was announced earlier this year; we welcomed the proposals in relation to income eligibility being assessed on current income; we welcomed the proposals dealing with mature students, lone parents, etc., and the fact that mature students could get a place in a third level institution provided they met the academic requirements and the fact that they would be assessed on their own incomes and not that of their parents. I do not take issue with any of those points. This is all very positive but it is not enough because the target group Culliton referred to, those who most need qualifications, are being affected and they will continue to be affected. Nothing that was said here today will change my mind on that.

I taught in an inner city school where students did not have access to the traditional universities; academically they were qualified to attend but not from a financial viewpoint. However, the development of the University of Limerick helped because these students could live at home. Many of these students opt for regional technical colleges but I am afraid that as a result of what is happening now the academically qualfied students will no longer have a choice.

As Senator Costello said, ESF funding is European money. I am not saying we do not have a discretion within the principle of a democratic deficit of utilising that money the way we think it should be used but it is not being used the way the students wish and they are outraged. Once again they will be relegated to the dole queues being paid £50 plus social welfare against a £39 grant. The mathematics are crazy. The Minister, Deputy Brennan, would probably say he inherited this problem but if he were here today, I am sure he would agree to scrap this scheme because it is bringing nothing into the Exchequer. All it does is to disadvantage the disadvantaged.

With regard to the Maastricht Treaty, hopefully we will have a "Yes" vote on 18 June. How shall we use the doubling of funds? We will be in a dilemma because if we go the European way we may opt for no fees for any students in line with our European neighbours.

Outside of the Netherlands, we have the highest participation rate in subdegree education, not "sub" in the sense of substandard but in the sense of a diploma instead of degree. This brings me back to the point I was making; students were taking diploma courses because they were provided with the survival money of £39 maintenance and their fees were paid; many of these students could not afford to say on for a degree. There will be a huge increase this year in the number of second level students who will have access to third level education. This is marvellous but we should not forget that many thousands of students will have to opt out when they receive their diplomas because they cannot afford to stay on. They do not get ESF funding after two years. That is an area we should look at. European social funding should be provided for third and fourth year students. We must ensure that a balance is struck between professional and lower grade training, particularly when Europe is the target labour market, and not just Ireland.

We are talking about the importance of flexibility and self-reliance through enterprise training. This cannot be stressed enough. There will be a debate we would love to have had within the context of the Green Paper. It is not something that should be pushed through post-Maastricht. We need to tease out what best to do with that increased funding. We must address vocational education and bringing equity into the system.

My last point is very important. Having a senior civil servant or somebody in the diplomatic corps in Brussels looking after our educational interests is a far cry from establishing a permanent education secretariat in Brussels but if we had we would be in line with the other member countries who have an education secretariat developing the whole area of the curriculum, language and student exchange. We have a very poor rate of exchange in education and training, particularly in the apprenticeship area to which Senator Conroy referred in the context of the German model. We must learn from Europe but we are too insular at the moment to do so; we only pick up bits and pieces here and there. If we had a permanent secretariat there would be a feedback to the social partners and to the independent body which I hope the Minister will set up. When we come to address the problem of equity in third level education we must ensure that we do not just tinker with the system but overhaul it to the advantage of all students.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Sean.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Doherty, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Murphy, John A.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, John.
• Staunton, Myles.

Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.

Amendment declared carried.

Question: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Wright

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.