I welcome the Minister to the House.
Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1992: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I welcome this timely Bill as we have been calling for a long time for the extension of the grants to mature students. It gives an opportunity to people who, for one reason or another, social, economic or educational, were not in a position to pursue further education, to avail of it now.
The Minister has opened the door for mature students to seek third level qualifications. Mature students are extremely determined in relation to achieving their goals. The importance for mature students is the improvement in the selfconcept that comes from pursuing a third level qualification. They take pride in the fact that, when they qualify, it will be easier to get employment in this technological age.
Will the Minister elaborate on the part mature students will play in the central applications process? For instance, will a single parent who obviously does not want to leave her environment but who would like to pursue a qualification in the local third level institution, be treated as a special case? Will the Minister instruct universities, Dublin Institute of Technologys and regional colleges to deal with them on that basis?
Another question relates to the case of somebody pursuing a third level course and opts out for one reason or another. Perhaps in five years' time as that person matures he or she may want to take another third level course. Would such a person be regarded as a mature student? The Bill is in line with the education objectives set out in the section of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which particularly concentrated on the upgrading of education for mature students. With the passing of the Bill all the Programme for Economic and Social Progress objectives in that regard will be achieved.
We are already aware that there are 1,600 mature students in full-time education in third level institutions. It would be fair to anticipate that with the generous grant scheme now in place we will see a doubling of that figure in the first year of operation. This is something I welcome. Students can be very grateful to the Minister for the foresight he has shown in bringing this Bill before the House.
It would be remiss of me not to mention major increases in the higher education grants recently announced by the Minister. They are even more significant when you consider the extraordinary increase in the number of places in third level colleges over a ten year period — 34,000 extra places. That is significant and augurs well for the future. We can pride ourselves on recognising the importance of education and its meaningfulness in the context of giving a full life to each and every student going through the hallowed halls of third level colleges.
There have been many complaints in the past, particularly from the PAYE sector, about the higher education grants. They feel that they have been hard done by, they point to the fact that grants were based on gross salaries and they perceived the self-employed doing particularly well out of the system.
The increases should mollify a large percentage of the PAYE sector because now that the limit is £19,500 there will be an extra £2,000 for additional students from the same family in third level colleges. The Minister has gone a very long way to ease the situation for many people in the lower income group. This applies particularly to the middle income group who have been most vociferous in this regard.
It is worth noting the statistics from Cork County Council last year. It gives an idea of why there is a perception that one sector seems to be doing far better than any other. From our statistics relating to all grants paid, the highest number went to farmers and the agricultural sector generally. Obviously the smallest number went to the higher professionals and 20 were paid to the lower professionals. Employers and managers received 30; the salaried employees 20; non-manual and unskilled 65; skilled and semi-skilled 80 and the unemployed and retired 100. That forms a basis for questioning the equity of the system. It gives good grounds for people in the PAYE sector to raise questions as to the fairness of this system. If a farmer or a business person takes out a loan he can write off the interest paid on that loan as an expense. Why can the PAYE person not offset his mortgage in terms of the grant? He can say he is paying out £2,500 a year by way of mortgage. If the Minister is allowing the business people to have that write-off in interest, why not allow them to have a write-off in terms of a mortgage? These are questions which will have to be answered.
I am glad that the Minister carried out a major review of the grants system to ensure that equity will be brought into the scheme. I am very happy that the increases which he has now put in place will ensure that the middle income group will gain far more from this extraordinary increase at a time of great financial stringency within this economy.
Every year we have a difficulty about the payment of higher education grants, and some local authorities are far more efficient than others. Somebody entering a college in October may not have grants paid until the next year. This is intolerable and it puts great pressure on the student involved. Will the Minister look at streamlining the operation of the payment of higher education grants? It is in stark contrast to the way payments of ESF grants are made. Within two or three weeks of students coming into regional colleges and Dublin Institute of Technology, these grants are made available to them and they do not suffer the same hardship.
Given that we are talking about regional colleges and universities, may I ask the Minister about the term "regional colleges" particularly since we entered into the central applications system? As somebody teaching in a regional college, I find myself faced for the first time in Cork with students from Monaghan and from all over the country. The concept was that a college would cater for a region, but because of the advent of the Central Applications Office I now find that students in Cork come from all over the country, and then we have the ludicrous situation of students from Cork going all over the country. Will the Minister concentrate on the word "regional"? Are we actually catering for the regional concept and can we cater for it under the CAO system?
With the advent of the more streamlined central applications system, I fear that in many instances we have put square pegs into round holes. At the end of the day points will determine where students will go. One would expect a student taking a course in tourism skills to be extremely outgoing; yet in many instances under the new CAO system we find people who get in because they have the points but who may not at all be suitable for that course. I fear that students will opt out of courses to which they were never suited. They went in because they got a place and a grant, but having gone into the course they find themselves totally unsuitable. A number of people, for instance, who would not have physics find themselves in a technology course. They find that they have to start with physics from day one. They never really intended to pursue that type of course, but because of the points system and the practicalities of the situation they find themselves in it.
This year I have noticed a fair number of students in the college opting out because they were pursuing a subject they are not really interested in. While I can understand the Minister's dilemma in overcoming the problems, I am a believer in the points interview system, because eligibility, practicality and the suitability of the student to the course is all important. When a student gets a place after an interview on the basis of points, one knows that it is the course the student wants to pursue.
Senator Costello raised the point last night that 75 per cent of our students now go on to senior cycle. That is a marvellous achievement to date. The aspiration in the Green Paper is for a figure of 90 per cent. That is very laudable and something the Minister and each and every one of us in the educational system should encourage.
Given the major number of places that have been provided in third level institutions, if the growth continues these institutions will be cracking at the seams. Has the Minister considered having a look at other options? The Outreach Centre is something that we should now look at. It has many advantages. We should have second level schools with an excellence in, say, automobile engineering or mechancial engineering which in the first year of certificate course would ensure that many students would be able to pursue their courses in an appointed Outreach Centre for the first year of that course. In the regional colleges and universities we now have a system whereby somebody does a certificate course, goes on to do a diploma course and the option is there for that person to go on to do a third year degree.
I wonder if the system could be made flexible enough so that with the Outreach Centre students in a locality would have an opportunity of pursuing the first year there, thus enabling financial constraint on parents to be removed because students would be living in the local community and attending a local school. All of it would be under the aegis of the regional technical college and, ultimately, the National Council for Educational Awards. By doing that we could ensure that the standard of excellence within regional colleges could be maintained. It would be up to each school, and indeed the regional college, to ensure that the education is of the standard they would wish and that they have in the colleges. That is worth thinking about, because down the road there is a large number of students coming onstream who want to have a third level education.
The Minister knows it is his duty to ensure that as many students as possible go through the cycle, because in the modern era unless one has a third level education the chances of getting meaningful employment are reduced dramatically. One avenue that may be open to the Minister in the near future is through the Outreach Centre.
I will return to the question of ESF grants and the great play that has been made of the Minister's announcement in this regard. It has stuck in my craw over the years to see the children of parents who could well afford to send them to regional colleges not alone having their fees and books etc. paid for but also getting a maintenance grant, while down the road somebody who has not the same means at their disposal for one reason or another cannot send his children to college. I have always questioned the equity of that. I do not mind going on record and saying that the Minister's decision to means test the maintenance portion of the ESF grant is right. That decision will have an impact on those who are less able to afford college and at the end of the day we will thank him for it.
It is a very progressive Bill, one that each and everyone of us welcomes. Our hope is that mature students will take up the opportunities and will be better persons as a result, better educated, far more employable and making a very meaningful contribution to the economic life of this country.
At the outset may I say how pleased I am to see in the Visitor's Gallery a group of my friends from Rialto with their guests from Glasgow. I hope they have an enjoyable stay in Ireland.
We join with the Senator in welcoming them.
The Bill is very welcome. It arises from the commitments and provisions contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It will give mature students an opportunity to benefit from third level education. It will provide anybody who is over 23 years of age, subject to a means test, with a chance to get back into the educational system. It will give those people who never got a chance of third level of education the opportunity to avail of it. It will give some people who did get the chance but refused to take it for one reason or another — for example, people who have become redundant, have retired, or are unemployed — the opportunity of getting back into the system. That is desirable. It will also give emigrants returning to this country after a spell away an opportunity of getting back into the system, subject to meeting the means test. These are worth while provisions and I welcome them.
Undoubtedly a certain cost will arise from this initiative, but the money will be very well spent and is bound to pay dividends in the longer term. The extra cost to the colleges in some cases may not be particularly great as at least some of that cost will be at the margins. It will not cost a great deal extra in class sizes, which may be increased from 50 to 60. I acknowledge that in the various teaching support aspects of college life there will be extra costs in relation to tutorials and, for example, the one-to-one aspects of going to college.
I must express a degree of concern in relation to the financial pressures which some colleges find themselves under at present. While in the past one could have argued that there may have been a case for increased efficiencies and so on, we need to bear in mind that there is a risk in restricting financial resources for colleges in as much as that may result in standards beginning to fall. If standards fall that will be very damaging to the quality of the degrees awarded by the colleges; and the colleges stand or fall on the quality of the degrees awarded by them. I should have said at the outset that I work in the third level sector and I have the greatest confidence in the quality of degree courses and the various certificate and diploma courses which are given at Irish third level colleges. It is very important that we protect those standards very jealously because if standards begin to fall it will be in nobody's interest; degrees will become devalued and the colleges will not serve the purpose for which they were founded.
I welcome particularly the decision taken in the other House by the Minister to include in the Bill mature students who are at present in the system. This is a very welcome initiative. It would have been very unfair if those students had been excluded from the provisions of the Bill because they had completed part of their course. It would have created an unfortunate and unacceptable level of discrimination. I am glad the Minister acceded to the arguments which were made in the other House and that he saw fit to change his mind. It will cost something in the region of £800,000 to £1 million, but even in the present financial circumstances that is money well spent and it will pay dividends in the long run. I welcome the fact that the Minister during the debate in the other House was prepared to listen to the arguments put forward, and that is one of the more desirable aspect of our work in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I am disappointed that the Minister restricts the provisions of this Bill to those students entering third level education for the first time. In other words, I am disappointed that some students who have already obtained a third level degree are excluded from the provisions of this Bill. To qualify under the provisions of this Bill one is subject to a means test. Somebody who has a third level degree will have to pass a means test to get back into the system so that means the person is not exactly well off. It is a pity that having a third level degree excludes people from the provisions of the Bill. In the case of some people who hold third level degrees the reality is that the qualification which they have obtained is not particularly useful to them. That holds in the case of people who have been out of the system for a long time. Because of the technological changes and so on, a degree from 20 or 30 years ago would not be of very much value now in terms of obtaining a job or in the whole area of knowledge they had studied.
In the case of law, the primary basic qualifications in law is that one either becomes a barrister or a solicitor. It is quite possible to obtain a degree in law, which is just one step along the way. It does not get one very far in terms of pursuing a professional qualification in law and becoming a barrister or solicitor. A degree in law or in arts is not of much use when you want to become a lawyer. It is a pity that restriction exists in the Bill and that it will disqualify people from benefiting from the Bill.
I know an individual who has a degree in arts who now wants to become a lawyer and who would qualify on the basis of the means test, but as I understand the present provisions of the Bill that person will be excluded from benefiting from it. That is a pity. It is particularly so in relation to a profession such as law which had in the past been very much biased in the direction of those people with plenty of money who come from the wealthier segments of society.
Another aspect which I particularly welcome is the fact that it will increase the number of mature students who will pursue third level education. As somebody who works in that sector, I think it will be very beneficial in the faculty of veterinary medicine where I lecture. Some mature students take veterinary degree courses and everybody in the faculty would acknowledge the contribution which these mature students make to the welfare of the college and the whole student body. They add a degree of maturity and stability to the student population which is very valuable.
While many mature students are certainly not more intelligent or more capable than the other students, they have a maturing effect; they have a better perspective of the way the world works. They can be a source of very sensible advice and help to 18, 19 and 20 year old students who have just come from second level education and who have been through a system where, in effect, they have been force-fed with knowledge, exam techniques and soon. The fact that these students can interact with people who may be 25 to 30 years of age, who have had considerable experience with the world and how it works, is very beneficial to people who have just left the second level sector. The fact that mature students will be present in greater numbers in the student population will be very beneficial. It is a side effect of the Bill which may not have received the attention it deserves. It is always a pleasure to speak after Senator O'Keeffe who is always a source of new and stimulating ideas.
Initiatives.
For a change, I agree with most of what the Senator said. I sincerely hope that will not disturb him unduly. I am not going worry about it although I would not like to see it happening too often, for both our sakes. I agree with him when he referred to the self-employed doing very well out of the present system. There is no doubt about that and it is something the Minister needs to review very carefully. There is a very strong bias in the present system in favour of those people who come from the better-off elements of society.
Any body looking at the statistics in relation to those who participate in third level education could not but be struck by the manner in which they are biased in favour of the higher socio-economic groupings. The reasons this should not persist are complex. Despite the introduction of grants during the past 15 to 20 years there has not been a significant change in the pattern and in the type of people who go through third level education now compared with, say, 30 years ago. That is something which needs to be analysed and considered very carefully. The initiative in this Bill will, to some extent, help to change the balance although I would not be carried away in relation to the extent of the changes it will make.
There are special problems in relation to third level education for those families who have more than one member of the family in the system. It is very expensive to put somebody through college; I reckon it costs in the region of £5,000 to £10,000. That is a great deal of money for people on average incomes. Where more than one member of a family is in a position to go through college that creates a very great burden. The Bill will go some way towards shifting the balance in the right direction although I would not be particularly optimistic in relation to the extent of the shift which is likely to occur.
The final point to which I wish to refer raised by Senator O'Keeffe and relates to the manner in which the higher education grants are paid by some county councils. The Dublin County Council, of which I am honoured to be a member, have prided themselves on the efficient manner in which the money is paid to students who live in County Dublin. I understand there is a very serious problem in relation to some county councils. I am aware of the problem from students in the college who are left waiting until after Christmas to obtain their money. In effect, it means that students have to borrow money from banks and so on, which, in turn, means they have to pay the interest on it. It is a very serious problem. I agree with the suggestion that this whole business should be streamlined and I hope the Minister may be able to take some action in that regard.
This is a very welcome Bill. My main criticism of it is that it appears to exclude, across the board, those people who already have a third level degree. I urge the Minister to have another look at that aspect of the Bill to see whether some changes could be introduced, perhaps by way of regulation, which would allow that relatively small number to benefit from the provisions of what is a very progressive Bill. Because of the means test provision in the Bill the cost of making that change should not be particularly great.
On the last day of the session I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, and the Clerk of the Seanad, for your kindness, courtesy and understanding during this session.
I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. Many of the points I was about to raise have been covered very well by the Senators who have contributed before me, all of whom were very well versed on everything in the Bill. I am reminded of 1965 when the late P. J. Lenihan, father of two very eminent former Members of the Seanad and now Members of the Dáil, made a speech in Castlepollard in which he said: "The greatest scarcity facing Ireland is knowledge". Looking back 27 years on the progress we have made in our educational system all the legislators — Members of both Houses — the various Ministers and Department officials, may be extremely proud of the great contribution they made to generations of boys and girls in our schools so that they are now among the best educated young populations in the world.
I am very pleased to welcome this Bill. As someone who came from a not so well off family I left school at an early age because of a lack of grant funding and lack of transportation. Many students at that time could not get a secondary education, because of the distances involved, perhaps eight to ten miles. Transportation was a simple basic requirement. From that point of view I am delighted to welcome the Bill which provides for massive increases in the upper income limit for the many families who will be affected by it, particularly the low income and the middle income groups.
Under the new arrangements a family with 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 over 40 per cent, or £4,200. At a time when resources are scarce and when tightening the belt is the order of the day, not alone in Ireland but in every English speaking country, the Americas, Australia, Canada and Britain, this is a magnificant achievement by the Minister and his Department. This is an ideal opportunity for those who are unemployed to look at the situation.
We must be realistic and face the facts as they are presented to us. For a person who is unemployed or made redundant the outlook is not very bright. At a meeting two weeks ago a very senior gentleman told me that not since the war has America and England been in recession at the same time and that not until one or other comes out of recession will we get the help we need for an upturn in our economy. Apart from the financial disadvantage of being unemployed, the biggest disadvantage is not having a reason to get up in the morning. What better than to become a mature student for at least the next year or two.
I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Minister and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House.
I thank all the Senators who took part in this debate. I found it extremely interesting. I thank them for their thoughts and their contributions.
I am very pleased at the welcome given to this legislation from all sides of the House, including the Independent Benches. It is very heartening to see that.
I am particularly pleased that the legislation is being judged on its merits and that the changes in it are particularly welcomed and that the support and comments have not come purely from a political point of view but from the point of view of educational interests.
This is very progressive legislation. The package of improvements in third level grants which we announced recently and the changes in the criteria add up to one of the most fundamental overhauls of third level student support schemes ever carried out. If one looks back on the changes of the past few weeks and incorporates these proposed changes, one is looking at the most historic and dramatic overhaul and reform of the student grant system, and it will be seen as such through out the country.
Senators Jackman and Doyle appealed on behalf of students in the lower middle income families who still will not qualify for grants even within the new limits. As I pointed out in my introductory speech, the limits which we have introduced are dramatic and historic. It is about as much as the Exchequer can bear at present. The increased limits are up to 50 per cent and at a time of pressure on expenditure that is very dramatic indeed.
Senator Jackman also referred to the case of a family with two children sitting the leaving certificate examination this year and the difficulties this presents to their parents in relation to their proceeding to third level education. I am also introducing an improvement in the special increase and the limit of £2,000 in respect of each child after the first child attending third level education. That should help that type of family.
A number of Senators asked about the involvement of the Revenue Commissioners in the new criteria I am introducing. First, the grant applicant will authorise the relevant local authority to supply the Revenue Commissioners with copies of grant application documents. It will be in the hands of the grant applicant to authorise his or her local authority to do that; they will be expected to do it. The grant applicant would also authorise the Revenue Commissioners to make any necessary inquiries and seek any further documentation they consider necessary. The Revenue Commissioners will also be authorised to supply any relevant information to the local authorities. What would happen then is that a percentage of applications would be sent by local authorities to the local offices of the Revenue Commissioners. The local offices of the Revenue Commissioners will check the data against their own records and advise the local authorities who retain the function of determining grant eligibility. On that point, we have looked at the criteria.
Many Senators have pointed to what they regard as a bias in the system where students from particular backgrounds obtain grants and students from other backgrounds do not. As a first step — and this would not be my last word on it because there is a lot more in the reform area to be undertaken I was keen to have something undertaken which could be implemented this September rather than wait the two or three years which a more fundamental review might take. As a first step we have brought the Revenue Commissioners into the heart of the assessment process. That is not to frighten anybody; it is to bring those people who were charged in their everyday work with assessing income additional professional expertise to support the local authorities as they determine whether a particular applicant gets a grant. It is bringing in the Revenue Commissioners in aid of the local authorities.
What is being agreed now with the Revenue Commissioners is that a percentage of applicants will be sent by the local authority to the Revenue Commissioners every year for checking. I would expect that the local authorities, in selecting the batch of applicants to be sent to the Revenue Commissioners, would have a proper balanced profile and take a totally objective view in the selection of the batch that would go to the Revenue Commissioners. It will tighten up the process considerably. It is one thing dealing with the local authorities when it comes to income — there is income from all sources, non-businesses income, personal income, interest and all these matters — but it is another matter dealing with the Revenue Commissioners who can apply particular penalties. That is an important first step and it will go a long way towards removing suspicions and perceptions in regard to the scheme. It is not necessarily the final word on it but we will continue to review it to see whether that particular change results in the necessary improvements this year.
A number of Senators raised the question of providing more places for mature students. There is a number of other initiatives in the pipeline which will help mature students, particularly the modulisation of courses. That will facilitate part-time attendances; for example, people can study and progress at their own pace, can accumulate course credits progressively and carry those credits with them from institution to initiation in the future. This is all discussed in the Green Paper. That will give more flexibility in the system, not just in Ireland but hopefully throughout the Community.
The need for a comprehensive system of certification was mentioned by a number of Senators. That is dealt with fully in the Green Paper and we have to make more progress on that urgently.
Senator Costello suggested that in 1991, 20,000 applicants in the CEO did not get offers of places. I have been looking at those figures since the Senator made that suggestion and the facts, as I have them, are that the CEO had 40,000 applicants who had the required academic attainments and from that figure 33,000 offers were made. In fact, only 7,000 did not get offers. I may not be dealing with Senator Costello's point as he may be including people who have not reached the necessary academic attainments, but of those who achieved the basic academic requirement, 33,000 out of 40,000 received offers; therefore 7,000 did not get offers.
Senator Doyle raised the point of documentation of the review on the grants scheme being made available to the Oireachtas. We will be publishing full details of the outcome of the review. I do not think it is necessary to publish all the background papers. Once we publish the new arrangements, the new scheme and the entire procedures in detail, I think that will meet the Senator's point more than adequately.
The question of means testing the ESF grants has been raised by a number of Senators. I am heartened by the maturity of the comments of Members, even Members who oppose my decision to means test ESF grants. Their request is to postpone it. This is a more thoughtful approach than the blanket demand of some commentators to abandon it when the proposal first emerged. The position has been very well put by a number of Senators. We cannot, on the one hand, argue that we ought to have more people at third level and at the same time argue that we must not means test the regional technical college grants. It does not matter where the money is coming from. Just because it is coming from Brussels does not mean we should treat it like confetti or in any way differently from what we would do if it were money from the Irish Exchequer. It is so inter-related now and the offsets are so amalgamated that it does not make that much difference. The argument that it is European money does not stand up. In any case, the EC only provide a certain amount of it. Last year £10 million of Irish Exchequer money went into ESF grants. It was to control that that the means test decision was taken.
This is all about equity. I want to ensure that the same rules apply, whether one wants to send one's child to university or to an regional technical college. Taking a different view of regional technical colleges is putting them into a second-class category, and that is unfair. It is important that the same rules apply to all third level colleges. Regional technical colleges are very fine institutions. Last week's legislation on new governing bodies, more autonomy, nationally appointed chairmen and so on, will greatly enhance the standing of the regional technical colleges. We are also discussing a possible change of name for regional technical colleges. They will be greatly enhanced as a result of this and over time will gain the stature and status which the present university system has.
In that context it does not make any sense not to means test entrants to regional technical colleges and to universities. What does one say to people who are on a very large income and send their children to the regional technical college, while three or four doors away people who are a few thousand pounds over the limit, receiving maybe a fraction of the income of their neighbours, cannot send their child to university? It does not make any sense, apart perhaps from some short term political advantage, not to means test the regional technical college grants. The universities and the regional technical colleges are being put on a level playing pitch and that is critical. More importantly, the alternative is to turn away students. If grants are not means tested there will be fewer places and students will be turned away.
The new grants scheme is much fairer. It applies the same rules to everybody and raises the threshold across the board. That threshold has gone from £10,700 to £15,000. That is a very dramatic increase by any standards. The new scheme is much fairer and much more equitable. I do not see the need to postpone it. It is important that we get started in September.
I take the point that some students may have been making arrangements some months ago before the ESF grants scheme was finalised. It is some months since I said publicly that the way to tackle this is to continue the means testing and get the threshold up for everybody, so that the same rules will apply, whether one wishes to go to university or to a regional technical college. We are playing rules at a higher level because there is a higher threshold for everybody.
I listened very carefully, and with a very open mind, to the arguments on ESF grants. I have tried to be extremely objective about that but any deviation from that decision would not be equitable. It would not be fair to students who need grants to go to universities. It would be wrong of me to perpetuate the notion that the regional technical colleges will cater for the less well off and the universities will cater for the well off. That is what I would be doing if I took the decision not to means test grants for one institution and to means test grants for another institution. I am keen that universities and regional technical colleges are given the same stature and status. This is the way to do it.
Senator O'Keeffe asked about the CAO in relation to mature students. That is not a problem because it is a matter for the individual institution. They will not have to avail of the CAO application system. He also expressed a wish that regional technical colleges would be truly regional. I accept that point but they also have a national perspective, which they must continue to develop. He pointed to the advantages of "Outreach" which we must keep in mind. He also suggested that we make preparation for additional mature students. We will continue to monitor that situation.
Senator Upton and others discussed the delay in payments. We need to be realistic and anticipate some teething difficulties, particularly in regard to new applications for grants this year because of the very large number of changes in the scheme. Every effort is being made to give local authorities the best help avaialable.
Senator Costello mentioned yesterday the surge of legislation from the Department of Education. It is important in the context of the Green Paper that we try to establish a legislative base across the board. This seems to be greatly lacking in the education system, which operates on precedent and is very ad hoc. There is need for much more legislation. Hopefully the regional technical colleges Bills and mature student Bill will pave the way for a series of Education Acts or one major Education Act. I have not finally decided on the road to take but I will listen to the debate on the Green Paper and see what emerges.
Senator Costello also spoke about the timing of ESF grants. I have dealt with that as best I can. He put particular emphasis on tackling the problem of disadvantage in the education system. I totally support that. This is the first of six aims of the Green Paper. We have put the tackling disadvantage in education at the very top of that list. That is not just a platitude; we must give effect to this, and one way to do it is through the mature student legislation.
Senator Mullooly was very supportive of the legislation. I thank him for that. He put forward some interesting ideas. Senator McKenna spoke about second chance education and adult education, particularly the link with employment. It is quite clear — Senator Doyle gave some statistics last evening — that the longer one stays in the education system and the more qualifications one gets, the better chance one has of getting meaningful employment. A recent analysis of the long-term unemployed on the unemployment register shows that a very high proportion of the long term unemployed did not proceed beyond the intermediate certificate level of education. So there is a clear link between education and employment.
Senator Cassidy made the very same points about the link with employment. A number of Senators spoke about the need for a social partnership in education. I think the Green Paper will go a long way to achieving this. Senator O'Keeffe asked me to look at the position of single parents and returning students. I will certainly do that. He also asked me to re-examine the criteria. Senator Doyle made a number of points about eligibility. I hope my comments today explain the position with regard to that.
There is much to be done within the education system and I look forward to playing my part. I hope we will have a lot more legislation in the not too distant future. We have come a long way. We have a superb education system, one of which we are extremely proud. The Irish education system is renowned for its quality all over the world. My aim in enhancing, developing and building that is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I want to cherish the best of what we have built over many generations. Because we, the Irish, value education, we must continue to develop and enhance our system and prepare it for the changing world, as the Green Paper suggests.
Twenty per cent of all Government expenditure is on education. One pound in every £5 of Government expenditure goes on education. Twenty five years ago that was only 13 per cent. Third level education particularly has benefited. Third level education now gets 22 per cent of the entire education budget, compared with 8 per cent in 1966. A dramatic emphasis has been placed on third level education in the past 25 years — and rightly so; we do not deserve any thanks for that. The value which we Irish place on the education system has been underlined.
Access is being improved under the legislation. I hope that the issue of equity is being addressed in some way. It is certain that transparency has been addressed. I thank Senators for their support for the Bill. If Senators have any further queries, I shall try to deal with those on Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.