Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1992: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Education (Mr. S. Brennan)

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Acts, 1968 and 1978, so that a number of new and significant provisions concerning, in the main, mature students, can be made in the higher education grants scheme for 1992 and subsequent years. The higher education grants scheme is the scheme under which the local authorities, who are statutorily entrusted with the administration of the scheme, pay grants to eligible students attending full-time courses in universities and other approved third level institutions.

Grants awarded under the scheme have, of course, always been means tested. The detailed conditions governing the award of grants in any particular year are set out in the higher education grants scheme of that particular year, and not in the legislation itself. Naturally the terms of the scheme must be in accordance with the principles enshrined in the legislation. Each year my Department prepare and issue a specimen scheme for the guidance of local authorities, and they are recouped their expenditure on grants awarded under the scheme. Each local authority makes a new scheme for each year and, under the existing legislation, this has to be submitted to the Minister for approval.

The proposed amendments covered by this Bill are that the income eligibility of mature persons, who are not dependent on their parents, would be assessed by reference to their own and, where appropriate, that of their spouses incomes; mature students who secure a place in a third level institution would be recognised as satisfying the academic attainment requirements for the award of a grant; other school terminal examinations from our EC partners such as the general certificate of education of Northern Ireland, would be accepted in lieu of the leaving certificate examination for the award of grants.

Facilitating the return of mature students to formal education, including third level education, has a very definite emphasis in the Green Paper which I have just recently launched. This builds on the broad statement of education policy in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which identified the upgrading of education for mature students as a key policy objective. The programme, in paragraph 69 (m), provided that:

The Higher Education Grants Scheme will be re-examined in the context particularly of—

(i) increasing the income eligibility limits for families with more than one child attending third level;

(ii) assessing income eligibility of mature students who are not dependent on their parents, on the basis of their own and, if married, that of their spouses' incomes;

(iii) regarding mature students who secure a place in a third level institution as satisfying the academic requirements; and

(iv) the development of more equitable income assessment criteria for all applicants.

With the passing of this legislation, all of those objectives in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress are now achieved.

There are currently about 1,600 mature students enrolled in full-time courses of third level education — some 850 in the vocational education committee colleges sector and the balance of 750 in the Higher Education Authority sector. It is not possible at this stage to estimate with any certainty how many mature students will qualify for grants under the new scheme, but firm data should be available after the first year of operation.

The higher education grants scheme was introduced in 1968, almost a quarter of a century ago, following the enactment of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968. It is worthwhile and appropriate at this juncture to reflect on how the numbers of students in, and the public funding of, third level education have changed in the intervening 25 years or so. Numbers in third level education have expanded rapidly over the last quarter of a century, from 21,000 in 1965 to almost 70,000 in 1990-91, increasing in 1991-92 to about 75,000.

Total public expenditure on education in 1992 will amount to £1.6 billion, representing almost 20 per cent of total Government expenditure and almost 6 per cent of GDP. This represents an unprecedented increase in allocation of available resources to education compared with 1965, when the corresponding figures were 13.2 per cent and 3.3 per cent respectively. Indeed, the percentage of GDP invested in education has almost doubled in the past 25 years or so. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the third level sector. Third level education now accounts for 22 per cent of the Education budget compared to 8 per cent in 1966 — an almost three-fold increase.

The total enrolment in third level education at present is 75,000. A further increase in student places is planned over the next four to five years which will bring the participation rate up to about 45 per cent of the age group. 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 which reflects continuing Government commitment to providing additional third level student places as well as improving access to higher education.

I pointed out on another occasion that, despite the explosion in numbers of students at third level, more than half of all students at present in third level colleges receive grant assistance of one type or another, higher education grants, ESF grants and vocational education committee scholarships, etc.

The total student support for fees and maintenance provided by the State is about £72 million. The average support per student benefiting under the various grants schemes is £1,900.

The background to this Bill is that following on proposals contained in both the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, which I have quoted, and in the Joint Programme for Government, we have carried out a fundamental review of the higher education grants scheme. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government sanctioned a radical range of improvements. Those improvements will take effect in the schemes for 1992 and subsequent years in respect of mature students and students who sat the leaving certificate this year and who will be new entrants to third level education in 1992 or subsequently. However, as a result of a ministerial amendment which was made to the Bill during its passage through Dáil Éireann on Tuesday, 7 July, 1992, existing mature students who are attending approved institutions will also be eligible to apply for grants under the improved scheme from the 1992-93 academic year. This is the first occasion that mature students were recognised and it reflects our commitment to mature students.

The principal improvements to the grants scheme arising from the Programme for Economic and Social Progress as already announced 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 income and income limits in the year of entry into third level rather than as heretofore, on the income limits 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 who are not dependent on their parents may be assessed on the basis of their own incomes and, if applicable, their spouses' incomes rather than on their parents' income which has been the case up to now; and lone parents welfare payments under the lone parents allowance scheme will be excluded from the assessment of income for grant eligibility.

In addition, as I promised in the Dáil earlier this year, a working group in my Department have completed a detailed review of the criteria for eligibility for third level student grants to achieve greater equity and transparency. Following this complex review, I announced on Monday, 6 July 1992, a substantial increase in income eligibility limits with effect from the 1992-93 academic year.

The increases in the income limits are very significant and will be of enormous benefit to lower and middle-income families who have been experiencing difficulties in sending their children to third-level education. For instance, under the new arrangement which I have introduced, a family with anything from one to three children will qualify for full fee and full maintenance grants on an income of £15,000. This represents a dramatic increase on the present income limit of £10,787 — an increase of over £4,200 or 40 per cent. This same family will be eligible for a full fee grant with an income of up to £18,000 and a 50 per cent fee grant up to an income of £19,000.

It is important to note also as I have mentioned, that these income limits will be increased by a further £2,000 in respect of every child, after the first child, attending third level education, as announced earlier this year.

It was because of my concern about the sometimes extreme financial pressures placed on families in these income groups, and who are now catered for in the new income limits, that I announced earlier this year that I was carrying out this radical and fundamental review of third level student grants. I was also anxious to see that greater equity, fairness and openness be introduced into the system of means testing for student support and in the allocation of resources for students and their families. Taken in conjunction with the other package of improvements announced earlier this year — all of which will come into effect for the 1992-93 academic year — I am happy to state that these improvements represent the most radical and far-reaching set of reforms in student support since the scheme were introduced in the late sixties.

In introducing this range of improvements, I am also determined to ensure that a greater degree of fairness and rigour is introduced in the assessment of income and in ensuring a full return of income from all applicants. This approach is motivated by a wish to ensure that there is greater equity and fair-play for everyone and I am anxious that the more direct involvement of the Revenue Commissioners in this important aspect of the schemes will make a significant contribution to achieving this aim.

I am happy that my announcement has received a wide welcome. As I said, this package represents an unprecedented leap forward in the whole area of student support and provides a major boost to thousands of students and their families throughout the country.

This Bill proposes minor amending legislation to give effect to the improvements referred to earlier so that the grants schemes for 1992 and thereafter can be appropriately amended and grants paid to mature students on the new basis for the 1992-93 academic year. The other improvements to which I have referred will be taken care of in the context of revisions to the higher education grants scheme for 1992, and do not require amending legislation. I am also taking the opportunity, in section 4, of amending section 2 (i) (a) of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968, to permit the acceptance of other school terminal examinations in place of the leaving certificate examination.

I now propose to outline to the House the provisions of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann. During the course of the consideration of the Bill by Dáil Éireann some very important and fundamental changes were made by way of ministerial amendments and I shall refer to these where they arise.

Section 1 defines "the Principal Act", which is referred to in the Bill, as the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants), Act, 1968. Section 2 amends section 1 of the Act of 1968, as amended by section 1 of the Act of 1978, by inserting definitions of "mature students" and "spouse". The section, in providing for a minimum age of 23 years for mature students, takes account of current admission requirements of approved institutions, and provides the facility for the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to vary that age by making regulations. The making of such regulations is dealt with in section 6. The definition of "spouse" in section 2 includes either person of a married couple living together and also includes a man and woman who are not married to each other but are cohabiting as husband and wife. It is identical to the same definition in social welfare legislation.

Section 3 amends section 2 of the Act of 1968 and provides for local authorities to award grants to mature students who do not qualify for grants under the existing arrangements. Also, mature students who are not dependent on their parents, will be assessed by reference to their own income, if any, and that of their spouses, as defined if applicable. Mature students who are dependent on their parents will be assessed by reference to their own income, if any, and that of their parents in accordance with the general practice for higher education grants. Section 3 also provides that mature students must comply with such other requirements as may be prescribed by the Minister. A similar provision exists in relation to higher education grants generally in subsection 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1968.

Section 3 will enable, inter alia, a suitable provision to be included in the higher education grants scheme for 1992 and subsequent years deeming mature students to have met the academic requirements for grants. Section 4 amends section 2 of the 1968 Act to permit the acceptance of other school terminal examinations in place of the leaving certificate examination. This section is not geared towards mature students per se but to cater for those students living in the Border counties and who attend second level schools in Northern Ireland. Under the 1968 Act such students could not qualify for a grant as only attainments in the leaving certificate examination could be taken into account. Section 4 will permit the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance to prescribe that appropriate standards at the general certificate of education of Northern Ireland may be taken into account for the purposes of a grant.

The Bill as originally drafted, however, referred to "such other school terminal examination held and sat outside the State", and, on reflection, this provision was seen to be too restrictive in that it would not allow the Minister to take account of any special circumstances which might arise. Consequently an amendment was introduced whereby that part of the section now reads, "held and ordinarily sat outside the State". As I have indicated this section was drafted mainly to cater for the situation of the relatively small number of Irish nationals residing in Border areas and attending second level schools in Northern Ireland. Bearing the post-Maastricht era in mind, it would also allow for the terminal examination of any of our EC partners to be taken into account for grant purposes should such a need arise.

The most fundamental and important amendment made in Dáil Éireann, however, was the amending of section 5 (1). The Bill as initiated in the Dáil provided that the grants improvements for mature students would apply to mature students who secured places to commence courses in 1992 or subsequent years. However, during the course of the Committee Stage debate strong arguments were made in favour of catering for those mature students who are already attending third level courses. As a consequence, the Bill was amended on Report Stage by way of a ministerial amendment to cover students "who have secured places to pursue courses in approved institutions in the year 1992 or subsequent years". In effect this means that mature students who are already attending approved courses and who will be continuing on those courses during the 1992-93 academic year or subsequent years will be eligible to apply for grants.

Section 5 (2) stipulates that the amended provision relating to school terminal examinations outside the State shall apply to the higher education grants scheme for 1992 and subsequent years.

Section 6 amends the Act of 1968 and provides for regulations made under the Act to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Section 7 is a standard provision relating to short title, construction and collective citation.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Mrs. Jackman

I am delighted to welcome the Minister to the House as I did not get an opportunity to do so last week because I had to vote in an election for a county council chairman which was extremely important as the voting was close. If I had been here the Minister would have had to listen to my expressions of frustration at not being able to debate education in this House over the past three years in Private Members' time. The Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, had to listen to me for an hour and a half and, perhaps, the Minister was saved that. Tonight I will be able to say what I want to say in relation to education and to this Bill. I hope we will be able to discuss very important educational matters during the debate on the Green Paper next session.

I welcome this Bill which has been changed substantially from the Bill initiated in the Dáil. It is timely because it emanates from the Programme for Economic and Social Progress I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, took on board the amendment which was pressed very strongly by Deputy Jim Higgins to extend the eligibility for grants to those already at college. This change brought relief to a great many and I am glad it is included in the Minister's presentation this evening.

The mature students lobbied for and argued the merits of a grant scheme for themselves and it would be sad if they did not benefit from the Bill. It was a job well done. Thought the scheme will be a cost on the Exchequer, the benefit will be inestimable to the mature students who began their studies in anticipation of being awarded the grant because of the commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. They were conscious also that the ESF grants were extended to mature students on 1 January 1991 and this took immediate effect and applied to students already attending the regional technical colleges and Dublin Institute of Technology colleges.

The numbers are very small; the latest figure the Minister has given is 1,800 and there is an almost equal divide between the vocational education committee and the Higher Education Authority colleges. It is to the credit of students who scrimped and saved that they are not studying for esoteric reasons or for self-fulfilment only, but out of sheer economic necessity. Social changes in our society have given rise to problematic issues. Single parents, deserted wives and husbands and those who married at a young age may have foregone third level education and now find themselves trying to rear a family on their own and job opportunities demand a C.V. which includes third level qualifications. This change will be welcomed by that sector. Society has changed since 1968.

It is very timely that new structures be put in place to facilitate and develop continuing education or further learning and to move forward in line with our nearest neighbours. I am glad the Minister stated that bearing the post-Maastricht era in mind, the examinations of our EC partners should be taken into account for grant purposes should such a need arise. We must anticipate what may happen rather than having to introduce a ministerial order at a later stage.

It is important in the light of the Regional Technical Colleges and Dublin Insitutute of Technology Bills to stress the tremendous work being done by the vocational education committees. I have been on the adult education committee since 1985 and this year I am chairperson. I am delighted to see the evolving nature of adult education. It is no longer confined to the leisure activity area but has moved very quickly into the areas of computers, particularly certificate and diploma courses. It is no longer just adult education to while away the hours, it is moving very quickly into the professional arena and attracting great numbers of mature students. The commitment of those who pursue these courses is enormous, despite the fact that some courses, particularly the diploma from UCC, are costly. I was interested to see that nobody from County Limerick dropped out of those courses; admittedly the majority of those students were women — and the female sex is well known for their tenacity — but they had to find the money for the courses and they were a great success — I would like to put on record the work of Kilfinnan Education Centre, which has developed TEFL courses, language exchange programmes, etc. I was on a plane recently from Germany and the person beside me had a brochure in German for Kilfinnan Education Centre. This is putting education on the map. Kilfinnan is in County Limerick, near the borders of Limerick and Cork.

It is interesting that the European dimension existed long before we had the vote on the Maastricht Treaty. It is important to show that the vocational education committees have moved ahead so quickly despite their meagre resources.

It is important to note that our universities are in the early stages of developing continuing education programmes. It is appropriate that they address the needs of our society not just in relation to degree courses but in the context of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. They should link up with the trade unions to ensure the basic needs of mature students are met. We tend to associate universities with third level degree courses but there is no reason they could not provide certificate and diploma courses. This would widen the possibilities for everybody. Generally, those who go to university have not missed out on their education but I would like to see the universities relevant to all.

In the University of Limerick, 20 postgraduate courses are funded through the ESF and there are innovations and developments in regard to extending this funding to other courses. That is very important. In the context of the recently enacted colleges Bills it is very important to ensure that they advance in line with post-Maastricht Europe. This is a golden opportunity for all third level educational establishments.

This is my last chance before September to make an impassioned plea to the Minister to consider the plight of parents who even with the very welcome increase in income thresholds, will still not be able to send their children to college. I know I have the support of colleagues in all the political parties and they have told me they will take up the issue with the Minister.

The Minister's argument in the Dáil last week is not relevant to these people. The £50,000 earner will still be able to send his family to college. Whether his income is means tested or not, his children will still have access to third level education, whereas children of those in the low to middle income bracket will still not have access because their parents' gross income is above the income threshold and their income tax payments and other demands on their income are not taken into account.

I will cite three genuine cases which sadden me. The first case is a man who worked for 30 years and does not drink or smoke, his wife supplemented the family income by a part-time job, and all he wants is his daughter to have access to third level education but she will not qualify under the present means test. This man came to the Department of Education as part of a delegation to put his case. He said: I understand the figures, I understand equity, I know what the Minister is doing, but what about me? What do I say to my daughter? It is very hard not to be moved by somebody who is on the wrong side of the fence.

The second case is parents whose son and daughter have both sat the leaving certificate this year and who have to make a choice between who will go to third level education. That is insidious. I do not know how they will choose between their son and daughter. These couple are just over the threshold. The third case is where a family scrimped and saved and were on the point of opting for social welfare and giving up a job to ensure their daughter will get her place in a third level establishment. She has opted for a course in a college outside Limerick as the course she wishes to pursue is not held in Limerick. This means their is no question of her attending the local regional technical college. This girl's parents have heard her say — which disgusts them — she will live away from home and draw her £50 social welfare because she is embittered by the fact that she will not have the chance to go to college. These are three case studies — and if they were the only three, they would have to be dealt with.

Education is for life and at the end of the day it will be a question of £50 versus £39. I make that plea to the Minister. I understand what he is trying to do, and I know the public purse cannot be stretched much further but as a teacher I see the value of education. Here are three cases where these children cannot have third level education. Their futures depend on a couple of pounds. This saddens me. I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision to means test the ESF grant. I am only asking him to defer it until next year. It is not going to cost a fortune. He has already made the commitment to £5 million in relation to the income thresholds but it is still the PAYE lower and middle income earner who is affected.

I know the ethos of the whole grants system and the inequities that exist for the self-employed. I would point out that 66 per cent of the higher education grants paid by Limerick County Council goes to the self-employed — the figures are shocking in relation to who are actually availing of the grants — 19 per cent is paid to PAYE workers, 16 per cent to the unemployed and 9 per cent to retired people. Those are the facts from Limerick County Council this year. The figures show that the low, middle income and the unemployed are not having access to higher education. We have discussed this issue many times. I would ask the Minister to consider that point assessing students from disadvantaged areas not alone for third level education but for first and second level. In his report, Patrick Clancy has plenty of documentation to support that view. If we are genuine as regards cherishing each child equally, we have to address this matter. It is important as regards employability.

I am at variance with the various Ministers and I mentioned the last day we debated the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1992, that I like a coherent policy in education. I see it very differently from any other Department because you are talking about the long term. Whether we are talking about a Fine Gael Coalition, a Fianna Fáil Coalition Government or whatever, I expect Ministers to take on board the policies of previous Ministers. Education does not change overnight. There have to be long term policies. I am at variance with the three different interpretations, particularly in relation to the regional technical college Bill. In relation to the grants, I am not sure that I understand the review committee's whole examination of the inequities which I had hoped would have included interdepartmental finance, social welfare and education. I think it would be far more relevant to have social partners in education. Why can we not move into the social partners?

We are trying forever to put education in the context of community, to have liaison between parents, teachers and the community at large, because that is what education is all about. You cannot educate in a vacuum. The EC supported a pilot scheme in relation to local liaison through Shannon curriculum development. I was involved in it myself and I thought it was the most explosive and dynamic aspect of what we were doing with education.

If we were going to review the grants system it is obvious that not only would the Departments of Finance, Social Welfare and Education be involved but also parents, unions, the IVEA, students, students' unions and higher education groups, because there must be an exchange between the various groups. I know Deputy Higgins in the other House referred to the NESC and the ESRI for independent assessment, but I would appeal to the Minister again to cease means testing for this year. I will give him financial reasons later as to why he should do that.

There is a long list of people who will not benefit — for example, civil servants, those working in local authorities, staff officers, nurses, teachers and gardaí. We are talking about a cross-section of the community who are paying taxes and have a right to demand this grant.

In regard to the memorandum to which I referred when debating the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, can we not impress on Brussels the need for more funding all round? I will be very interested to read in the Green Paper the new education policy whereby the tranche of funds post-Maastricht will extend to education and health, among other areas. Will we have a say in how those funds are directed, whether to first, second or third level? I hope that topic will be covered in the Green Paper. We are not going cap in hand to Europe. What we are really saying is that Europe has our best asset — our young graduates are being poached from university campuses — so there is no reason we should not get a pay back in other ways. This would help to fund the people who are not getting the opportunity of education.

I would like to refer to reform and the assessment element. There are references in presentation to the Dáil regarding rigorous procedures in assessing income from all applicants. I would have thought that the local authorities, who deal with smaller numbers compared with the Revenue Commissioners who have to assess so much, would have fine combed every single applicant. I know that when there was a question of suspicion as regards the self-employed, the Revenue Commissioners were not in a financial position to be able to take a person to court, saying that the returns from their accountants were not acceptable. If the Revenue Commissioners did not accept the returns there would have been legal proceedings, so I know their hands were tied.

My point is that the Revenue Commissioners still did an excellent job and they know what they are talking about. Local councillors do not spare those whom they know to be creaming the system, so it is not as if the local authority are not able to assess.

In relation to the Revenue Commissioners, I would like to ask the Minister where is the link to tax assessment procedures that is referred to? How will it be done? Mention of the Revenue Commissioners puts the fear of God in people, so perhaps the fear element will result in more genuine and honest certificates of income being submitted. If there is a disagreement between the local authority and the Revenue Commissioners — the local authority say they are the statutory body for awarding grants; the Revenue Commissioners come up with a different figure — who is the ultimate authority at the end of the day in those assessment procedures?

There is a delay in local authorities throughout the country in the assessment procedure and in trying to ensure that the student going to college has his or her money up front immediately. The heaviest burden an undergraduate has to face is in the first year of college, where they have to pay for digs, clothes, books, etc. Parents are absolutely skint at that particular time. I know plenty of students, whose names I could give, who dropped out of college in those first weeks because the grant was not made available on time and they could not survive financially. They had their pride and did not wish to say their parents could not put up the goodies or whatever. Will there now be a delay because of the numbers coming into the system who will have to be assessed? Whoever is entitled to a grant should have that grant on his or her first day in college, because there is absolutely no way that that income group will be able to support the student ad nauseum or until the grant actually comes. As public representatives we get numerous representations asking whether the grant will ever be paid. I think I mentioned that the final arbiter of assessable income is very important.

The other point — the hardy annual as regards the link between Departments and local authorities — will the Minister make resources available to the local authorities to help process the grants? Really, they are hardly able to do what they have to do already. What is the union's attitude in relation to the huge amount of assessing they will have to do, which may slow up the whole process?

In relation to universities, a positive point — and there are many positive points in relation to this Bill — is that they operated a waiver system under which they found it very difficult to decide in relation to a young student whose father was dead or a mature student who just scrimped and saved to get to college. As it stands they will no longer be the arbiters; the grant will be there for the person who needs it most and that is very welcome.

I seek clarification on a case study in the Limerick area of a young unmarried mother living on her own in a flat who was assessed on her parents income, even though she was in receipt of social welfare. I hope the Bill will ensure that that category of girl who may wish to pursue third level education would be assessed on her own income. At the discretion of the local authority they cleared her for the grant, but certainly she was not going to get it.

There must be thoroughness in relation to the implementation of this Bill. I do not envy the Revenue Commissioners their job. I do not envy the local authorities their job either in the forthcoming months. Generally speaking it is an exceptionally good Bill now because of the amendments taken in the Dáil. The case studies I outlined are genuine and the cost is not going to break the bank; I do not think there will be very many cases at that level. My point is that one student missing the chance of education for life is one too many. When one weighs up the cost of implementation, the cost in time to the Revenue Commissioners etc., at the end of the day one might throw out the baby with the bath water.

I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter in the light of the sad cases of those who are on the margins and who are still weighing up whether their children will or will not have access to third level education.

Mr. McKenna

Let me welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on this very innovative legislation. The proof of the excellence of this legislation is that even though Senator Jackman tried extremely hard to find fault with it, at the end of the day she was not able to and had to acknowledge that. I welcome also the recent announcements made by the Minister in relation to income limits. I am particularly pleased with this legislation because it addresses difficulties in a particular sector of third level education.

It is very appropriate that the Minister has laid great emphasis on continuing adult education. That is extremely welcome. One must ask who are these mature students. In passing, let me say to Senator Jackman that we all acknowledge that women are very tenacious people, as they have proved that over and over again. There is a range of categories of mature students not least the people that Senator Jackman referred to. A number of mature students have gone through second level education and, for a variety of reasons, did not at the time appreciate the importance of further education. There may have been other circumstances, such as difficulties at home, family problems etc., which mean that students at second level did not get the opportunities and type of support and help that students need at second level. They are at a very formative time when they are coming out of the age of puberty and are under a lot of stress and do not appreciate how important education is.

A survey of students at intermediate certificate level, which is the stage at which drop out often occurs, would probably show that the vast majority of those young students would opt out if they got the opportunity. They stay because they have constant financial and moral support at home, and the importance of education is reiterated to them over and over again. Unfortunately, there is that category of students who opt out for a variety of reasons. Some who finish second level get the leaving certificate or the GCE find that they are not at the time interested in furthering their education and go into mundane jobs. They then realise that that is not for them and that there might be an opportunity for them to do better in some other area. It is then that they look at the opportunities of getting a third level education. It is marvellous that there is a facility for those people to come back into mainstream education. This legislation will definitely help those people enormously.

One must recognise that, in terms of adult education, there are two different streams. There are those interested in hobby or leisure classes but now more and more adult education is concentrating on some sort of certification and improving one's lot in employment. Certification is extremely important. The more certificates people have the better chance they have of getting improved employment or getting employment itself. There is more and more emphasis on certification. Ten or 15 years ago the vast majority of adult education classes concentrated on hobby or leisure-time activities. Now there are only a few of those leisure classes which are cyclical and usually involve a group of people who just want to have a night out. However the vast majority of people are looking for courses with a certification at the end which will prove that they are competent or efficient or have attained a certain standard in a particular subject or in a particular area of business. People who can present certification to employers who advertise for jobs have a better chance of getting those jobs. It is through that type of activity that people come back into mainstream education and realise that there are opportunities to go further and attend third level education. That is welcome. The legislation will benefit those people enormously.

Senator Jackman mentioned married women who, very unselfishly, gave up work outside the home to rear their children. One invariably hears people talking about giving up work to look after their children but what they did effectively was to give up work outside the home and take on a much more difficult job of rearing their children. It was left to the woman of the house to do that. The husband was invariably seen as the breadwinner and the wife did all of the housework. Subsequently many of those people found — when the birds had flown the nest and the family was reared — that they had time on their hands and looked for the opportunity to get back into employment. Unfortunately, opportunities were closed to them in the intervening years because of the demands for certification and qualifications that they would not have had the opportunity to acquire. We are talking about a time span of maybe 20 years when these people would have been out of the workplace, and when they want to re-enter the workplace they find that things have changed drastically and that they are not really competent. Many of those people who want to be in a position to financially support themselves opt then to go back into third level education in order to get qualifications, and they do that for a variety of different reasons. They are an important sector as well. There is a whole range of individuals within this category of mature students and each of them is equally important in their own way.

What the Minister said in terms of third level education is very significant. The number of students attending third level institutions increased from 21,000 in 1965 to 75,000 in 1992. The budget for third level education increased from 8 per cent to 22 per cent during that period. I think the Minister said there has been an increase of 16 per cent in the third level student population in ten years. That is a massive increase in numbers. One has to appreciate the enormous strain this puts on the Exchequer. The education bill is absolutely massive every year. We have to recognise that finances are not limitless and there is a limit to the amount which can be divided out. By and large, a fair share of the finances is devoted to education.

The Minister referred to his amendment. We have to appreciate that he did not have to introduce that amendment. However, I am delighted the Minister brought in the amendment. He appreciates that mature students are a very important category of people.

There are approximately 1,600 mature students attending third level education at present and I believe that number will increase dramatically over the next few years because of this far-seeing Bill.

I welcome the recent announcement in regard to income limits and means testing. As a member of both a county council and a vocational education committee I have been pushing for years for an increase in the income limits. Every year the council and vocational education committee automatically appealed to the Minister to do something about income limits and means testing for grants for third level education. I must compliment the Minister for tackling this issue and bringing forward these improvements, which will be of enormous benefit to third level students. Some people might say he has not gone far enough but I think he has done a tremendous job. In some instances he has increased the income limits by 50 per cent.

Senator Jackman referred to case studies. The existing income limit for full fee and maintenance support for a family with two children is £10,787. This will be increased to £15,000, an increase of 39 per cent. No one could suggest that an increase of 39 per cent is not a substantial increase. Sometimes limits are only increased by the rate of inflation, that is by 3 or 4 per cent. The existing limit of £13,822 is being increased to £18,000, an increase of 30 per cent. A family with two children on an income of £14,995 get no grant at present for either maintenance or fee. Under the new limits, they will be entitled to full fee and maintenance. That is an absolutely unbelievable change. The Minister has not been loud enough in praising himself for what he has done. This is a revolutionary move, and we have to give credit where it is due.

Mrs. Jackman

The Senator is getting carried away.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McKenna, without interruption.

Mr. McKenna

As I said at the outset, Senator Jackman tried to knock the Bill but she could not find any fault with it.

Mrs. Jackman

The assessment of maintenance grants——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McKenna, without interruption.

Mr. McKenna

With regard to ESF grants, as the Minister said tonight he will introduce equity into the system. We are talking about transparency and equity. I agree fully with Senator Jackman that there is a perception that the children of many self-employed people who are entitled to third level grants are receiving them at the expense of the PAYE worker. As a PAYE earner, I know exactly what the Senator is talking about. I put three of my children through third level education and, as anyone who has had to do this knows, this was very expensive.

Mrs. Jackman

The Senator got no grant.

Mr. McKenna

Some people in that category do not get any grants. As we all know, if everything had to be put on the table and was above board many people who are receiving grants would not get them. Many PAYE worker who have lower incomes than many self-employed people do not get any grant. The other sting in the tail is that the tax paid by the PAYE worker who does not qualify for a grant is used, among other things, to pay grants to people who should not get them.

Mrs. Jackman

It would be a better idea to take money from the big earner and——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Jackman had the opportunity to speak on the Bill earlier. Senator McKenna, without interruption.

Mr. McKenna

In relation to equity and transparency, I want to reiterate that the Minister is bringing equity into the ESF grants system. If a family are over the income limit, a student will get no grant or maintenance allowance. As Senator Jackman said, some families with an income of £50,000 get a full grant and full maintenance while other families with an income which is approximately one-third that amount do not get a grant. Anyone who would suggest that that is equitable would need to review the system.

Middle income and lower income families who send their students to third level institutions experience financial difficulties. I imagine the Minister would acknowledge that point. If all the money in the world was available there would be no problem. The Minister's announcement is a step towards complete transparency and equity in the system of third level grants. How can it be suggested that a person earning £50,000 should be allowed avail of full grants while the person earning one-third of that amount would not be entitled to any grants because the student happened to be sent to one third level institution as opposed to another?

I welcome this Bill which will be of tremendous benefit to all mature students. I hope many more mature students will take up these grants. Those who know about these grants should tell others about them. Some mature students might not realise that these benefits are available. A public relations exercise is needed to explain the types of grants and supports available for adult education at third level.

I congratulate the Minister on this innovative legislation and on the huge increase in income limits announced recently.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the Minister to the House and I also welcome the Bill. It represents a long overdue improvement. Comment was made yesterday on the amount of legislation coming from the Department of Education. This is the third Bill we have dealt with this week. Educational legislation in the past was scarce. The levelling process which is evident in the Green Paper has resulted in these legislative proposals coming before the Oireachtas. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress which has been in operation for 18 months, envisaged that many of these proposals would have been dealt with already but, unfortunately, the Green Paper has only been published. The related proposals we dealt with this week were expected by the authors of the Programme for Social and Economic Progress to be in operation before now. This Bill is very much along the lines of the proposals in that programme and it is to be welcomed.

Education has been expanding at all levels at an enormous rate. The number of students at third level has increased from 21,000 in 1965 to 70,000 last year while 75,000 are expected this year. This indicates a massive increase in the number of young people going to third level. That has been reflected in the ever-increasing budget for education, which now represents 20 per cent of Government expenditure. This sobering thought underlines our very large young population and the emphasis that we as a society place on education. We have already placed that emphasis but accessibility has been greatly improved over the past 25 years.

Greater participation has resulted in increased problems, particularly at third level. At primary level we are experiencing a reduction in numbers, while at second level numbers are expected to reach a plateau by 1996-97. The extension of the secondary cycle to six years may defer the levelling out of numbers at second level for a year or two. There is a continuing expansion in the demand for third level places. One of the problems is that we make extra provision in terms of numbers rather than space. The numbers seeking places will increase due to the fillip represented by local authority third level educational grants.

The number of mature students availing of third level education is disappointing. This is because financial circumstances restrict their accessibility. The imbalance is very interesting, with roughly 850 mature students in the vocational education committee sector and 750 in the Higher Education Authority sector. This reflects the direction in which the educational system has been going. There has been more emphasis in the vocational sector on continuing adult education and the involvement of mature students than in the other third level sector.

Last year 53,000 students completed post-primary education, of whom 35,000 sought places at third level. Of those who applied, 20,000 did not receive offers. That is an enormous number. Some of those who did not receive offers would not have reached the required academic standard but others would have been refused because there were no places for them. The academic standard is dependent on the number of places available. There is tremendous pressure for third level places and we have not been able to provide the extra places required. This will impinge on what we are now trying to do in making third level education more accessible to mature students. They will have to compete for places. A corollary to this legislation should be sound proposals to provide the extra places needed. I would be interested in hearing any proposals the Minister may have to create this equitable mix over the next few years. There will be very considerable pressure on third level places.

According to the Green Paper, there is 75 per cent participation at senior cycle level and that is expected to be extended to 90 per cent. If we extend the senior cycle participation level to those aged 17 and 18, there will be a carry through to third level. The greater the success we have in generating more involvement and participation at post-primary level, the greater the number who will carry on. That is not a defect in the legislation but it an issue that needs to be taken into consideration when making provision to bring more people into the system.

The area of continuing education and adult education is extremely important. I know the matter was dealt with at length in the Green Paper on Education and in the Programme for Social and Economic Progress. We have a partnership involvement in seeking to improve access to continued education. That is the direction we must take to ensure that everybody, at whatever level, who seeks to continue education will be able to get it. Even if the person involved has not completed second level education, he or she should be able to come into education and continue to the level to which they aspire. In that context, I am concerned that those who do not have the leaving certificate, the standard criterion established here, and are involved in apprenticeships, for example, should not be excluded from participation in the regional technical colleges and the new Dublin Institute of Technology. I hope that, because the legislation changes the criteria to an extent, we will not bring in mature students who have reached the necessary academic qualification while excluding others who have already been in the system. I am concerned that one sector might substitute the other.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. He may say it is a matter for discussion in the context of the Green Paper and that it is for the universities and the Dublin Institute of Technology themselves to deal with as time goes by. I should like him to give an indication of intent in that regard.

I suppose one could say very cynically that further participation in education is a means of getting people off the live register and that that is a cheap way of doing so as long as there is money coming from Europe. I do not question the Minister's bona fides in the matter, but I ask him why his predecessor felt it necessary to impose means testing on ESF funded courses for the very large number of people who attend vocational education committee colleges.

About 90 per cent of the students who attend vocational education committee courses avail of one of the grant systems, in particular the ESF grant, whereas for the universities the figure is between 40 per cent and 45 per cent. A particularly large number of students in the vocational education committee colleges are being affected by the sudden decision to means test ESF applications.

I am disappointed that Senator McKenna is not in the Chamber to hear my next few comments. My criticism of the ESF grant means testing does not result from any opposition to the introduction of equity and transparency to the system. That is welcome. What I objected to was the timing of the new regime. As I said before, the cart was put before the horse. In other words, the axe fell before any equity in terms of eligibility was put into the system. That meant that towards the end of January, when the decision was being taken and was announced, youngsters had a very short period until 1 February, to make CAO/CAS choices for the courses they wished to enter. The result was chaos because students did not know what their entitlements would be. They did not know if this was a firm decision, if it would be reversed, or if they could opt for courses that were ESF funded. It should be remembered that at that time there was a very low level of eligibility, which has since been increased. Even at the increased level of eligibility, some students will still be faced with a considerable amount of hardship.

As I said to Senator McKenna, my criticism of the previous Minister for Education was with the timing of the new system and the manner in which the changes took place. I was concerned about the hardship and the trauma it caused and, to a large extent, still causes. It is my opinion that the wrong decision was taken. The number of students budgeted for the ESF funding estimates has been exceeeded by about 2,600.

The State has to pay 100 per cent of the funding for those students maintenance grants, whereas it would have paid a proportion of that with the rest being met by Europe. The obvious answer would have been for the State to bear the burden this year. The maximum amount involved would be about £2.5 million but that is not a large sum in the context of the £1.6 billion Education budget. The measure has hit very hard and caused many problems. The second idea would have been for the Minister to go back to Europe to determine whether Ireland could argue for an extra tranche of funding. We have been very good Europeans in that we have been very anxious to use European funds for educational and training purposes.

In this debate we are not talking simply about higher education grants, we are talking about the local authority higher education grants. Under this legislation mature students are being introduced to this scheme. It is interesting that in the scheme outlined it is the Minister who provides the scheme for the local authorities rather than local authorities providing the scheme for the Minister. Therefore, the criteria under which grants are provided are drawn up by the Minister. I do not know whether the Minister has as yet provided a specimen scheme and sent it to the local authorities so that they may examine the requirements for eligibility for local authority grants.

The problem is that the eligibility requirements will be set to a national standard which will not take into consideration the requirements of individual local authorities. In this regard I refer to the Clancy Report which, in 1986, reported on an examination carried out on participation at third level education. The report strongly noted that there was an incredibly poor participation rate in certain socio-economic areas. Because local authorities cannot themselves devise a specimen scheme but must rely on the scheme that comes from the Minister, they will not be able to draw up their own regulations and criteria to encourage the involvement of people at the lower end of the scale.

The constituency with which I am involved, Dublin central, the north innercity area south of the canals, has an incredibly low participation rate of approximately 0.5 per cent. There is a need for the authorities to be able to focus on a particular blighted area and try to put together a system where it is possible to take young people to the top level of education. The Minister might consider requesting suggestions from the local authorities about the way the participation level in ESF-funded courses might be enhanced and what flexibility might be required to attract a greater participation of the whole socio-economic grouping. I know it is very complex and probably cannot be done without participation and interaction at primary, second and third levels. But it would be worthwhile to invite suggestions from local authorities because I know their members have expressed concern continuously at the enormously low participation rate.

I shall not go through the provisions of the Bill in any detail. I will just refer to the three major amendments. For example, henceforth eligibility for grants will be dependent on a person's and their spouse's income, not that of their family. If applicant students are not dependent on their parents, meanstesting will be of their own income and their spouse's income, not that of their family. In addition, eligibility will be dependent on actual current income as distinct from the income of the student when he or she graduated, which might be some time ago. That was the old system operated by the local authorities. We now have an interesting change.

The second point concerns mature students. It is said that third level institutions will be recognised as satisfying the academic attainment required for the awarding of grant. That is a criterion that will be determined by the availability of space for students in existing third level accommodation, a matter to which I referred already.

The third point is in relation to our EC partners and Northern Ireland. This is a very useful development. I hope we will have reciprocation from that area and I know there are certain schemes in existence. It is interesting to note that local authorities will now be providing facilities for mature students who have received a qualification outside this state.

I welcome the fact that the 300 to 400 mature students already within the educational system will be included and that the provisions of the Bill will apply to them retrospectively. What will be the position of, say a mature student who may have a third level degree or qualification already will they receive a grant, as a mature student if they enter third level education for the second time, so to speak? Perhaps their skills may have become somewhat redundant and they may have become unemployed. They may have a primary qualification and may be anxious to re-enter third level education in some other area. They would seem to be covered by the provisions of the Bill. That would appear to be reasonable, particularly considering our present level of unemployment in many areas, affecting not merely people with third level education but those in the professions as well.

I welcome the increase in the income eligibility ceiling of families, an increase for each child, the assessment on the current income and the fact that the income limits in relation to the maintenance grants will now be index-linked. In particular I welcome the fact that mature students can now participate in third level education with the benefit of local authority higher education grants.

Mr. Mullooly

I join other Senators in welcoming the Minister and his Bill. The main purpose of this Bill is to enable local authorities to award higher education grants to mature students, if such students satisfy the income eligibility criteria on the basis of their own means or, if applicable, on the basis of their own and/or their spouse's means. The Bill also provides that a mature student who secures a place in a third level institution automatically will be regarded as having satisfied the academic requirements of the grants scheme.

The position to date has been that all applicants for higher education grants were regarded and assessed as dependants, which meant that their parents' or guardians' income, as well as any income they might have themselves, was taken into account in determining reckonable income. I welcome the fact that that will be the position no longer in the case of mature students. Mature students who are not dependent on their parents or guardians will now qualify in their own right for higher education grants if they meet the income eligibility criteria. To date also the leaving certificate was the only qualifying examination for higher education grants — in other words, the academic attainments required for the higher education grants had to be obtained in the leaving certificate examination.

I also welcome the fact that this Bill provides that school terminal examinations outside the State will now be accepted in lieu of the leaving certificate examination for the award of the higher education grants. I assume that from what the Minister said in his statement that this situation will apply to all students, not just to mature students as defined in this Bill. The Minister referred to students from Border counties who may be attending schools outside the State. I take it from what he said that such students will now be eligible for higher education grants if they meet the academic attainments required on the basis of examinations they may sit for in these schools. This provision will also be helpful to emigrant families who return home and who have children in second level education. It will mean that such children will be able to continue their studies for terminal examinations outside the State and at the same time qualify for higher education grants here.

The provisions of this Bill will render it easier for mature students to enter third level education and will lead to an increase in the number of third level students seeking places in higher education institutions. In turn, that will lead to a need for those third level institutions to increase the number of places available to mature students. I certainly hope that that will be done. In this context I like to welcome the proposal in the Green Paper on Education regarding the provision of additional third level places for mature students who do not fulfil the usual academic requirements. Other Senators have referred to the Green Paper. This is an important and welcome proposal in the Green Paper. There will be those mature students who will not satisfy the ordinary or usual academic requirements and who will be anxious to secure a place in third level institutions. The fact that new arrangements will be made for those students if this proposal in the Green Paper is implemented is indeed very welcome.

The provisions of this Bill will also lead to an increased demand for pre-third level courses and pre-university courses for mature students. I expect and hope that this demand will be met, particularly by the vocational education committees. Every vocational education committee should consider how best such pre-third level courses can be provided to facilitate mature students who wish to seek places in third level institutions.

It will be important also, as a previous speaker said, to promote such courses and to promote the idea of mature students seeking third level places. In the last few years we have seen a significant number of very welcome initiatives in the area of third level education. The number of third level places has been increased very considerably. There is a commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to provide a further 9,000 places over the next few years.

The application and admission procedures for third level institutions have also been simplified. Last year, for the first time, all applications for entry to third level were processed through the expanded CAO/CAS system. Offers for courses in all institutions issued on the same day. Everybody with an interest in the matter welcomed this development. This year a new grading system for the leaving certificate results is being introduced and all third level institutions will operate a common points system this year. For the first time the colleges of education are included in the CAO system. After this year the matriculation examination will be discontinued and it will no longer be possible to combine the results of two leaving certificates, this will introduce a greater equity into the system and make it fairer for everybody.

Earlier this year, in addition to announcing the new arrangements for mature students, the Minister for Education announced a number of other improvements in relation to the higher education grants scheme. He announced that the income eligibility ceiling for families is to be increased by £2,000 for each child after the first, attending third level education. This was a very welcome recognition of the financial strain on families with more than one child in higher education. At the same time the Minister announced that he had set up a committee to review all aspects of the third level grant schemes, including the income eligibility limits. As a result of that review major improvements were announced very recently. From the start of the next academic year in September-October, a substantial increase for all families in income eligibility limits will obtain and more equitable procedures for assessing income will operate.

A family comprising one to three children will qualify for full fee and full maintenance grants on an income of up to £15,000. If two children from this family are in third level the income limit will be increased to £17,000. These increases, as Senator McKenna said, are substantial and very welcome. It will mean that many average PAYE families and middle income families who would not have qualified in the past for higher education grants will now qualify, not only for fee grants, but also for maintenance grants. Full fees will now be paid in respect of students from families, with one to three children, on an income of up to £18,000 and this figure will rise to £20,000 if two of those students are in third level.

I also welcome the fact that the parents' welfare payments under the lone parent's allowance scheme will be excluded from the assessment of income for grant eligibility. The fact that income limits and maintenance grants will be index-linked from this year on — all very significant improvements — will help to increase the participation rate in higher education and will benefit, in particular, students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

In the academic year just ended, approximately 75,000 students were enrolled in third level institutions and approximately 55 per cent were in receipt of financial support under the various student grant schemes. Another 27,000 students approximately will enter third level education in the next academic year in September or October. More than half of these will be in receipt of grants and indeed will be dependent on grants to cover the cost of their third level education. I agree with Senators who said that it is important to pay these grants when they fall due and that there is no undue delay in processing applications, particularly for higher education grants, because of the new procedures which will operate from this year.

Before concluding I want to refer to the recoupment of higher education grants to local authorities. The local authority of which I am a member will, in the current year, pay out in excess of £1 million in higher education grants. If we are to go by the experience in the past the recoupment will not be made until almost 12 months later, so that local authorities generally carry the expenditure on higher education grants for almost a year on their own overdraft accounts. This results in substantial bills arising for local authorities. In the case of my local authority it is estimated that the interest bill which will arise this year because of the delay in the recoupment of higher education grants will be in the region of £50,000. Expenditure on higher grants should be recouped to local authorities in instalments, as payments to students fall due. Finally, I welcome this Bill as its provisions will enable mature students to receive financial assistance to enter third level education where, heretofore, they were precluded in many cases from receiving higher education grants. The third level system will be enriched through the increased participation of mature students and this increased participation will be facilitated and encouraged by this legislation.

Mrs. Doyle

I join other Members in welcoming the Minister to the House this evening. I have spoken many times in this House and, indeed, on general legislation, in relation to the changes in ESF grant eligibility for the maintenance portion of the grants. While this Bill does not specifically deal with that I again want to emphasise my concerns about that area. I welcome the increase in income eligibility. It makes some improvement in a fairly chaotic system. The Minister referred to the fundamental review of the higher education grant scheme which the Minister and his Department have carried out. Will the Minister make that review available as a separate document to Members of the Oireachtas?

All of us particularly each autumn, are approached by constituents who have difficulty in determining their eligibility, or in understanding their lack of eligibility for third level grants of one kind or another. It is accepted that the system has been fairly chaotic for some time. There appears to have been an anomaly in the treatment of the self employed versus the PAYE sector. We all had cases from time to time particularly from the PAYE middle and lower income sectors, who have felt very hard done by by the system that has been in operation up to now. These people outline details of cases of farmers up the road who have so many acres, so many head of cattle and such and such a milk quota and only two children and yet they got a third level grant, whereas the PAYE middle income person with five, six or ten children did not manage it on the basis of their P60 or whatever. The inference and veiled allegation is that the self employed can somehow fiddle the system, but those in PAYE type employment are caught, because the facts are on paper with their returns each year. There has been grave and growing disquiet in this area.

Apart from what is before us in this limited Bill in relation to mature students, and the increase in the income eligibility limits, which we welcome, I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on the third level grants issue generally. I would also like to know if he could make public, the outcome of the review in the Department of Education. I respectfully request the Minister to do so. Making it public would surely be in line with the Taoiseach's commitment to open Government. I await with interest the opportunity to read the full review and not just the specific issues that are apparently dealt with in this short Bill.

In relation to mature students, the Minister in his speech welcomed the ministerial amendment which was made to the Bill during its passage through Dáil Éireann on Tuesday 7 July last, which allows existing mature students who are attending approved institutions to be eligible to apply for grants under the improved scheme for the 1992-93 academic year.

We all welcome that amendment which while technically a ministerial amendment came at the request of Deputy Jim Higgins, the Fine Gael Education spokesperson in the lower House. As this was taken on Report Stage it was ministerial wording but it was a Fine Gael proposal supported by the other parties. While the Minister may claim credit for an excellent change in this Bill relative to its initial publication, the Fine Gael and Labour parties can claim as much if not more credit for the achievement of the application of this Bill to mature students already taking third level courses.

There has been and still is great disquiet about eligibility and assessment of eligibility for third level grants. I would have liked the Minister to postpone the implementation of means-testing of the maintenance portion of ESF grants, particularly for this coming academic year, until it could be taken as part of the overall review of the grant scheme for third level education generally.

The ESF grants have turned what might have been considered "Cinderella" third level institutions, into a major success story as part of our third level scheme. I refer to the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. In the short few years that ESF grants have been around, the demand for places in regional colleges has doubled and trebled. The number of young people who have been able to get third level education is beyond the dreams of previous Governments before European funding was available. I would hate to add to what is a hotchpotch system, which has been subjected to deletions and additions due to various budgets and Estimates, a proposal to means test the maintenance portion in the absence of considering it in the overall review of third level funding generally. I ask the Minister again to consider it.

In the main, the families we are affecting by this change are those who could not afford the option of sending their sons or daughters to universities to acquire degrees where there is no ESF funding for either the fees or their maintenance. County Wexford has no third level institution.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mrs. Doyle

I live in County Wexford which has no third level institution. Our young people who leave second level education and want third level training or university education must travel from home to Carlow, Waterford or to Dublin with Waterford taking the bulk of our students. This means that they must live away from home from Monday to Friday. The maintenance portion of the ESF grant is a critical factor in the ability of middle to low income students, particularly from families with more than three children, to get third level education. I ask the Minister to reconsider this. In County Wexford, we have the second lowest uptake of third level places in Ireland, and this relates directly to the fact that we have no third level institution in the county and our young people cannot afford to travel either to the university or to the regional technical colleges. We also have the second highest unemployment rate, with 24 per cent unemployed. This is not often recognised because the perception is that Wexford is the model county and does not have a major unemployment problem.

We have not lost any major industry but over a long period there has been an insidious decline of our industries. The decline of our industrial base has reached critical proportions. We were a major farming county but with the loss of employment on the land and with that option now closed off, our school leavers face major difficulties finding work.

Having stated the statistics on the uptake of third level places and our chronic unemployment, I need not remind the Minister that education is directly related to one's chance of not ending up on the dole queue. If one leaves school without any certificate, there is a 36 per cent chance of ending up on the dole queue; however if you have a leaving certificate the chance of ending up on the dole is reduced to between 12 per cent and 15 per cent; if you succeed in getting a third level education there is only a 4 to 5 per cent chance of ending up on the dole queue. Need we say more? The question for jobs for 16 and 17 year olds should be directed to a quest for third level places or for further realistic training when they leave formal education.

The problem in Wexford is critical. Because of our low uptake of third level places and our high rate of unemployment, I urge the Minister to reconsider his proposals to means test the maintenance portion of the ESF grants. Distance is a cost factor for young people attending third level institutes. Our young people do not have the option of attending third level courses in their own county, although there is a post-leaving certificate course in the Wexford vocational school where students have the option of taking a language and secretarial course, but we do not have a third level institute, much as we would love to develop satellite courses from Carlow or Waterford regional technical colleges. Indeed that concept is being actively pursued at present.

The increase in the income eligibility threshold is to be welcomed as well as the opening up of opportunities for mature students but I am very concerned about the overall scheme for grant aiding third level students. I regret that the Minister has chosen to means test ESF grants without dealing with this matter in the overall review. May I ask him to consider postponing means testing ESF grants for the academic year 1992-93 until there has been a comprehensive examination of third level grant aid assistance?

I accept the calls and the need for equity in the system, but I also accept that some of the perceptions of inequity may not be realised. I have a feeling that the system is heavily weighted in favour of the self-employed because of the system of tax assessment of the self-employed and as a result of PAYE sector need our attention and protection because they find it particularly difficult to fund their children's third level education.

From the statistics, the Minister will realise why Members want to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to pursue third level education at certificate if not degree level. We want to increase their prospects of employment or at least make them mobile in terms of gaining employment outside the country and, when they want to return, hopefully being able to find a niche for themselves at home. May I again appeal to the Minister to postpone his proposals to means test the ESF grant this year until we can all examine the review of the higher education grant scheme. I look forward to getting a copy of that review so that I can study the many issues that need to be considered in this most important area.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I welcome the Minister to this House. I wish him well in his new portfolio.

Times were stormy but things have settled down as the Minister has indicated his concept of education. The Minister is introducing the enterprise culture into the education sector, and we all welcome this. He deserves credit for doing this. It is very important that such a concept exists in education from the very beginning right through to third level because our young people need to be enterprise conscious to generate the economic activity we so badly need.

I welcome this Bill. For many years Members have been calling on Ministers to extend the opportunities to mature students. For one reason or another, some people were unable to attain certain standards and were not in a position to pursue third level courses. However, in this Bill the Minister has opened the door for them. One of the advantages of giving mature people the opportunity to pursue a third level course will be to improve their self image. These people know third level education opens up many new opportunities for them. When they pursue a course, they are motivated and have a goal to achieve and most of them are successful. This Bill will give many mature people the opportunity to return to education and pursue a third level course.

Senator Doyle is right when she says that most people want the opportunities that come from education because it makes them employable. Those who have been denied second and third level education find it extremely difficult to find employment in this age of technology. This Bill will provide opportunities for them to pursue a course. At the end of the day most people want meaningful employment and wish to contribute to the economy.

We tend to overlook the commitments in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. There were four areas covered: increasing the income eligibility limits; assessment of income eligibility for mature students; third, academic requirements of mature students who secured a place in third level institutions and, fourth, the development of more equitable income assessment criteria for all applicants.

Debate adjourned.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Wright

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 15 Jul 1992