Before Committee Stage commences I wish to inform the House that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been ruled out of order as they involve a charge on Revenue.
Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1992: Committee and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I have a very brief question to ask the Minister. It relates to the reference to the word "spouse" and to men and women who are not married to each other but are co-habiting as husband and wife. That category is accepted by the Department of Social Welfare. I seek clarification that the Revenue Commissioners have also accepted that category definition.
As I understand it, that is the position. The category will be accepted, as it is by the Department of Social Welfare.
It is the Department of Finance who is involved in these provisions. It had been my understanding that the category definition related only to the Department of Social Welfare.
My understanding is that the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied with that definition.
There was a division of opinion on this matter during discussion of the Social Welfare and Finance Estimates. Specific reference was made to two different types of definitions — one for social welfare, which reflects exactly the definition provided in this legislation, and one in the Finance Bill. From that point of view Senator Jackman's query reflects an anomalous decision that we have tried to address. If I remember correctly, the Minister for Finance refused to accept that particular interpretation. I am not sure whether that will have any implications.
The proposed legislation was discussed with the Revenue Commissioners and I understand that they are satisfied with the definitions included in the Bill. The social welfare definition was adopted because it is broadly accepted and the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied with the social welfare code. I therefore presume that they will be satisfied in this regard. I shall again draw the matter to their attention.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Last night the Minister spoke about ESF grants. I wish to repeat a point I made then as this is really my last opportunity to do so. The legislation still does not address the position of those in the case studies that I outlined to the House last night and about which I feel so strongly. The three people who came here in a deputation are just three of many who will not have access to third level education for their sons and daughters. The Minister referred to a sum of £2,000 for each student at third level education, but that provision will not apply to those involved in any of the three case studies I spoke of. Parents will face the agony of having to tell their children that they cannot go on to third level education. Students are still waiting for the results of CAO applications to know whether they have been accepted for the courses they applied for, but presuming that they will be accepted, I appeal to the Minister to postpone his decision. I am glad that the Minister recognised our use of the word "postpone".
Why were the results of the review not released ahead of the Minister's decision? In that way Members would have been able to determine the way in which the system is not working and would have recognised the inequity of the existing system for third level grants. We could then have examined the review and would be in a position to evaluate what the Minister has said about equity. As politicians we have a duty to serve the people; it is not for us merely to take one line or another of bureaucratic thinking as to whether a student should or should not be able to avail of a grant.
The emphasis in this case is on "catching" the higher earner. We have no difficulty with the self-employed or the higher and not so high income earners but it is impossible for me to accept the Minister's decision. Those involved are not nameless. Their children will not have access in September. Students opted for courses, basing their decisions on the position that pertained this February. It was my understanding that a certain amount of time had to elapse before new regulations could come into play. I state very strongly that it is my belief that the Minister might not have acted but for the lobbying, the letters that were written and the fact that a Private Members' motion, in the Dáil tabled by Fine Gael and supported by the Labour Party, implored him to postpone his decision.
In the beginning the word used was "abandon" because we did not expect that the report of the review committee would be forthcoming. I point out to the Minister that this decision was not originally his, it was a decision he inherited. Surely it is no big deal to think in terms of humanitarian reasons. I could agree with what the Minister is saying if I took a practical, realistic viewpoint, but not when it comes down to the real issue. As a teacher for a number of years I would find it very difficult to accept that just one student would be denied access to third level education. The figures speak for themselves. We should strive to make the very high earner pay, but the problem we have simply will not go away.
I gave an example relating to Limerick County Council and Senator O'Keeffe referred to the position in Cork. We are still talking about a 1991 level of 19 per cent participation of children of PAYE workers versus the 66 per cent participation level of children of farmers and other self-employed people. The level of participation of children of the unemployed still stands at 16 per cent, a very small number. I taught at an inner city school for 25 years and up until recent years, when the regional technical colleges emerged, I could count on my fingers the number of students from that school who went on to third level education. Such low participation levels do not result from a lack of intelligence but because the students come from black spot areas of 80 per cent unemployment in Southill, Limerick. In their wildest dreams those students could not go on to third level education. They still do not have access to third level education.
The dependency culture is continuous. People who think that there is equity in the system are fooling themselves. When I think of equity I do not think of 50,000 versus 15,000 only; I think of 50,000 and the students who come from a background of unemployment. Granted participation level of the unemployed sector improved from 11 per cent in 1990 to 16 per cent in 1991, but they are not getting access and that is what equity is about. It is mentioned numerous times in Education for a Changing World.
If I were asked what I associate with the Minister, Deputy Brennan, I would say "equity". When it comes to the reality of that equity, what do I say to the man who had worked 30 years to allow his daughter access to third level education? He will not be able to send her to third level for which he has worked hard. If that were the only case I contend the provisions should be changed for that purpose. The Minister has put the cart before the horse. We should first have had access to the report when we would have been sympathetic to and in support of the Minister, pointing out that there are inequities throughout the system. We know that the means-testing within the traditional universities — if one might describe them as such — has not worked but we now propose to apply that system to the regional technical colleges. I do not for one minute believe that European money is thrown away when 65 per cent of European money is to be backed up by 35 per cent of ours.
I feel so passionately on this issue I would plead with the Minister to do something about it. I do not think the numbers of people involved would be huge or that the relevant expenditure would run into millions. I listed the people who will not have a hope — such as gardaí, nurses and so on, people barely above the income limit of £15,000; it is not a big figure. I am talking about people who worked all their lives and who themselves did not have access to third-level education but whose life's ambition was to provide such for their children. What will their children say? They will be utterly disillusioned and embittered. I predict they will end up taking the £50 on the dole queues — which is where they will have to go — or the £39 maintenance grant. I really appeal to the Minister to effect that change. If he can do so it will be even more important than the decision taken though the amendment tabled in the Dáil in respect of mature students. This really is a cry from the heart.
All of us very much welcome section 3 which involves the extension of the Principal Act to include mature students. Despite the Minister's efforts and the good ideas now being implemented in relation to raising the income eligibility — including the mature students and index linking — we have still not tackled the heart of the problem, that is that there are far too many in the lower category, socio-economic groupings, who simply do not make it to third level to which I referred on Second Stage. Can we adjust or expand the system and encourage local authorities, who provide the grants under the various schemes, to become more involved in identifying areas of lack of participation at third level, to adjust their powers in relation to the payment of grants, thereby assisting people out of the morass of illiteracy and poor levels of education?
Would it be possible for the Minister to write formally to all the local authorities informing them of their powers under the Bill, that while they must have a scheme approved by the Minister, nonetheless they could produce a specimen or pilot scheme themselves specifying how the higher education grants are to be used. Perhaps the Minister could ask them to come up with ideas in relation to the problems they may experience. Each local authority area is different. I am thinking of the area in which I would be involved as a local representative, that is the north inner city of Dublin, where there is an incredibly low rate of participation in third level education. I would have ideas about ensuring greater participation there. For example, I could suggest a link-up of primary schools with vocational schools and the third level colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology in the vicinity, so that they could co-operate and liaise with each other at an early stage. This would mean that at the end of the road students could foresee a possibility of participating in third-level education.
That is just one specific suggestion in the content of what this section is about, that is, extending the categories of students who come under the umbrella of the Higher Education Acts in local authority areas. I would be delighted if the Minister would invite submissions on how it might best be done. It is particularly relevant with our present very high levels of unemployment, there being many categories of people anxious to reenter the educational system, particularly women and community groups involved in education, whether it be the National Adult Literacy Association, Aontas, or whatever.
Now that the provisions of this Bill are extending grant eligibility to mature students we will probably have to do somewhat more to ensure that these grants are made available at an earlier stage. Mature students are more at the whim of funding arriving at the right time when other students dependent on their families and who would have some fallback. Certainly I have had a great deal of representation from the Union of Students in Ireland in relation to the great variation among local authorities in the payment of student grants — some pay the first moiety in September, others in October or November, and others still as late as December. The payment date of the second moiety may vary as well. In addition there are variations in relation to whether it be a first-time student or continuing student. We need to tighten up that provision in this section extending the grant to mature students.
The third and final point I want to make relates to European Social funding. Like Senator Jackman, I have been very concerned about the manner in which that development took place. What we have here before us forms part and parcel of the package declared to be introduced in January last. Legislatively, this part is now being introduced. The other proposal which did not have to be introduced legislatively — namely, the limitation in relation to the maintenance section of ESF funding — was implemented straightaway in January last to apply from September next. In that sense the Bill would be much better if the package were related to the future rather than being implemented piecemeal. I contend that the timing was wrong and has led to many problems. Indeed the £10 million the Minister mentioned is only 35 per cent, being the small amount of matching funding on the part of the State. It would be better if the Minister ensured a greater allocation of funds for this educational purpose from the European Community. After all, the Minister for Finance goes to Europe to argue his case for extra funding. As there is greater focus on education under the new European Union Treaty why should the Minister for Education not also go to Europe to argue his case? Ireland has a greater obligation, having a particularly young population and therefore the EC should be prepared to pick up any shortfall in this area. That would have been a better approach. Even at this late stage it would be much better from our point of view to ensure that all of those young people are catered for within our education system and none transferred to the dole queues.
I have a fundamental disagreement with Senator Jackman on the ESF question. I take Senator Costello's point about the timing but I suppose whenever you do something, somebody will be adversely affected. I hope there are not too many such persons. There has been valid criticism on the question of timing, not on the principle itself. The Senator is right in saying that there must be more access to third level education, greater care for the disadvantaged and increased participation rates from city centre schools.
We must include these measures in the Bill and when funds are short people on £50,000-£60,000 a year should not be grant aided to send their children to the regional technical college. We cannot have it both ways. If we argue for equity we must make sure that the limited resources for education are targeted where they are needed. That is the purpose in means testing the ESF grants. I know the Senator is arguing that perhaps the principle is right, but that we should put it off until next year. However, the new limits, as I said earlier, are the way to means test the grants.
It is important to do a lot more and Senator Costello argued very strongly yesterday and today to increase the participation rates from the disadvantaged areas. Some 50 to 60 per cent of all participants at third level will now be in receipt of some grant aid, which is a dramatically improved figure. We must remember that over the next couple of years we will be heading for a participation rate of about 45 per cent in the 17 years age group or so — age cohort as they call it technically — going on to third level. That is almost twice the number in the UK. It is close to the top of the league in the European Community and by most standards, measured against other western developed countries, the participation rate is extremely high. In Portugal, for example, about 20 per cent of students in second level go on to third level. We must appreciate that there is an increasing proportion of disadvantaged children and students included in our numbers.
Senator Costello made a point with which I agree and I will certainly augment it. At present I am having discussions with DCU, Trinity College and Tallaght regional technical college about a formal link with disadvantaged schools. I must be careful about designating schools as disadvantaged, because that in itself creates problems, but we are in the process of getting a third level institution to adopt a particular school in the city centre or other disadvantaged area and make special arrangements, in so far as they can, to bring students from that disadvantaged area into those colleges. We have been in touch with them again recently to establish their plans in that area and it is an important issue.
Proceeding to third level education is not just a matter of cash or grants; it is a much deeper problem involving background and attitude. One programme which will help is the new augmented home liaison scheme where teachers go into homes and talk to parents because very often a parental attitude causes a difficulty in relation to third level. Some homes — not through their own fault — do not have a history, a tradition or a background of respecting third level education and I hope the home liaison scheme will help to change that attitude. In some cases where the grants are available in disadvantaged homes they are not taken up; it is not just the financial aspect, it is the general background and an attitude which we must try to improve. It is not their fault and the home liaison scheme will improve the position and the links with universities.
Senator Costello asked about writing to local authorities. We are in touch with them regularly and perhaps I will write to them formally asking how the scheme is working and if they have any suggestions. In particular, in view of the Senator's query, will ask them to report to me on participation rates from various socio-economic groups in their county in so far as they can give that information which would be useful. As the Senator said, it is necessary to streamline the system.
I have some point to make on section 3.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have given the Senator a lot of time on section 3 but I will allow a question now.
It is very important it concerns a support structure and perhaps constructive help for the Minister. I am aware that the accessing of students from disadvantaged areas will not happen overnight and I would not wish to have that mixed with the question of equity because it is an educational matter which must begin in the home. It is a first level, second level and third level problem and it will be long term, there is no doubt about that.
As the Minister said, and it is true, there is not much value placed on education in certain areas and a support system within the community will help to change that as well as a smaller pupil-teacher ratio for disadvantaged children in schools, etc. It starts from the cradle, it is not a question of suddenly saying that everybody should have access to third level. There is always the option; people do not necessarily want to go, it may not suit them.
I do not think third level education is a panacea for all our ills because the Culliton report made the point very strongly that we are moving from the academic area and may be forgetting the basic skills and technology which one can get from post-secondary education and then moving on through certification and diploma. Obviously, we hope they will have access to third level, but that is something we will be debating again and again on the Green Paper.
I am not suggesting that the whole area of disadvantage can be solved overnight. I was referring to the small numbers who will be victimised, as it were, this year. I understand the Minister has to make a specific decision, but I hoped he would have waited until we could have looked at the review and the decision. I am disappointed in that issue, but something may happen between now and September to solve the problem.
Line 9, section 3 (v) says that a mature student should comply with "such other requirements". It related to a point I made last night, particularly in regard to assessment procedures. The Minister answered some of the queries I raised last night and referred to the fact that the grant applicant goes with his or her documentation to the Revenue Commissioners. I hope I am right in my understanding of that.
There was a reference to the fact that a certain percentage of applications to local authorities would be forwarded to the Revenue Commissioners who would check them. How efficient are the Revenue Commissioners in evaluating cases? Earlier this year in the Dáil the Minister for Finance — I may not have the exact wording of his reply — said that a very low percentage of self-employed people were audited. He also said that the majority of that low percentage had made incorrect income tax returns. They are very valid points in relation to the Revenue Commissioners and the assessment procedures.
At present the most active people in local authority areas are accountants who are busily ringing up local authorities to find out what this new legislation means. I am sure they are assessing the best way to beat the system for their clients. The local authorities are inundated with telephone calls from accountants asking what exactly it means for the self-employed. The Minister did not refer to assets. The self-employed have very substantial amounts of income associated with them; will such income be included in assessment?
The next question relates to something done by local authorities over the last number of years. Will the Minister look at the idea — as I said, it has been forwarded to the Department of Education — of giving some resources to local authorities to employ accountants on a consultancy basis even for the month when the pressure is on in regard to assessment? There seems to be some block on that type of innovation, although it would be practical and it would not be very expensive. The local authority would employ an accountant on a consultancy basis. If the Minister is sincere in relation to equity, he must agree that having the accountant in situ working with local authority officials, just for that month alone, would be far more practical and that it would save much more money and the time of the Revenue Commissioners. The accountant would be working on the system in the place in which it operates. That might be a better way to operate. Of course, there would be some resources to be paid to local authorities to employ the accountant on a consultancy basis even for that month.
Both Senator Costello and I referred to the question of who is the final arbiter of assessable income. Statutory authority lies with the local authority. Will it be the Revenue Commissioners, or will it be the local authority? Will it come back again from the Revenue Commissioners to the local authority?
With regard to the drop out rate for students, universities are slow enough to give the first year drop out rate, but it is very high. Some people have had to drop out during the first week or two, which is the most expensive period of their college life. We know there are delays and that parents are ringing up asking the Minister to appeal to local authorities to have the grants ready by a particular time. There is going to be a whole new structure here. I would question the whole system if, due to slowness, one single student who had the points to gain access, was embarrassed socially and economically and could not survive for one week because of the cost of books or clothes and had to drop out. The £39 maintenance grant, which goes a long way towards helping the hard pressed student, would not pay for digs. The grants have to be in situ on the day before a student embarks on his or her career in either a regional technical college or university. We will be monitoring that situation, as will the parents.
Given the new scenario, would the Minister not have been wiser to take extra time to deal with this far more comprehensively and to have had the report, which we could have all studied. We could than have come in here with proposals. The social partners in the education would have had a chance to dissect the report and they would have come back in with positive proposals for the Minister to implement. I wonder if it is premature for the Minister to embark on a huge operation next September.
The Senator should keep to section 3. She should not make a speech on the Bill all over again.
It is relevant to assessment.
Acting Chairman
We are dealing with section 3. I have to ask you to stay with section 3.
I have finalised my point. I was trying to be positive and constructive to ensure that this would be implemented; but I see not grey areas but black areas and great difficulties ahead. I am not pessimistic by nature; I am realistic.
I am glad to hear the Minister say that his Department are pursuing the formal linkup with various schools between Dublin City University, Trinity College Dublin and Tallaght. Will the Minister consider extending that to the colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology where there are many specific useful courses? Kevin Street and Bolton Street, for instance, have courses in the areas of engineering construction and electronics. The College of Catering, Cathal Brugha Street, caters for a wide variety of activities. Those colleges are located in the heart of the city and they are accessible to everybody. They are located in areas where we probably need to try to break the mould of disadvantage.
Could I refer to the point made by Senator Jackman in relation to the Revenue Commissioners? That is a crucial area in establishing a transparent and equitable system. I welcome the fact that penalties are being imposed now for falsification of forms and so on. The point still remains that we would need to know what level of checking up of applications by the Revenue Commissioners will take place. We would require fairly substantial monitoring of the system to make it worthwhile. If the chance of being caught out is slim, obviously there will be inequity. There is an inequitable system in relation to the PAYE and other sectors applying for third level grants.
Does the Minister propose to publish an annual report of the findings of the Revenue Commissioners in relation to all the local authorities in this area and in regard to the higher education awards also? That would be perhaps the only sure way of ensuring that we have a transparent system so that we could view the statistics which came out as the Revenue Commissioners did their work.
In regard to the question of space in the colleges, that needs to be dealt with through the modularisation of courses. I know it is being discussed in the Green Paper. It needs to be treated with great caution. We would have courses where people would study for a period of time and then go elsewhere or do different courses in module form and that would have a credit system built into it. The experience of that is certainly mixed. It is something that we have not been used to in this country. It is something which happens quite a lot in Britain and in America. There certainly is quite a variety of opinion among educationalists as to whether or not it has a great value in terms of the equality of education it bestows. I would not like to see our system become fragmented, with a dilution in the quality of our graduates and the quality of our courses.
Senator Jackman asked me a few questions with regard to the efficiency of the Revenue Commissioners. I know what the Senator is getting at, but I have no doubt about their efficiency in this area of income assessment. In so far as we have any top experts on it, the Revenue Commissioners is where they are.
On the question of assets, that is not included in this phase of the criteria reforms. All we are doing here is bringing the Revenue in to the income assessment area. The asset based question is a very complex one. It extends not just to education but to social welfare and a whole range of other areas. I have undertaken to look at that between now and September 1993. I was keen to get something up and running this year, which we have done. Assets are not included in the current criteria, but I would not rule out looking at that over the next few months in preparation for them next year. It is a very complex area, as the Senator will know.
On the question of accountants for local authorities, we have regular discussions with local authorities about these matters. There is always pressure on for staff. I will review the overall staff at local authority level in the context of these grants. I cannot raise any expectations that I can fund additional staffing for them. If I am satisfied from talking to them that a major difficulty arises here and there, I will see what arrangements can be made for that local authority.
On the question of the final arbiter and whether it is the Revenue Commissioners or the local authorities, the job is firmly with the local authorities. The local authorities are the people who make the decision. The Revenue Commissioners are in aid of the local authorities, as it were. In the final analysis the local authorities will have to take on board the advice and opinions of the Revenue Commissioners.
A number of Senators have raised the question of speed. I have undertaken to look at the cash flow aspect of student grants as soon as I get an opportunity.
Senator Costello asked about linkages with the Dublin Institute of Technology. That is a good idea and I will discuss it with them. I believe they are doing something in that area but I am not clear what. Now the legislation is in place and the new board are up and running, I will discuss with them whether they can take on a similar project as envisaged by Trinity College, the Tallaght Regional Technical College, etc.
He asked also about the role of the Revenue. The onus will be on the applicant to make a full declaration of income on the basis of precise instructions. The purpose of bringing in Revenue, apart from their expertise, is to demonstrate that we are serious about the declarations made. There is no formal although there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that people are not declaring proper incomes.
We want to make it clear that there are penalties and the onus is on the applicant to make a clear declaration of their income because it can now be double checked not only by the local authority but by the Revenue Commissioners. Applicants should be aware that they are not making declarations only to the local authorities, they may also be making them to the Revenue Commissioners. That is an important tightening up of this system and it is only fair to people who approach it properly.
The question of modulisation is complex. Under the umbrella of the Green Paper we should discuss at greater length the question of fragmentation, credit transfer and how that affects the quality of degrees.
Will the Minister clarify whether the Revenue Commissioners will publish a report?
I would not like to commit myself to that at present. I would like to see how this works this year and whether it makes sense for the Revenue Commissioners to be involved. In any case, the Revenue Commissioners would probably let me have a report as to how the scheme is proceeding. One could consider publishing policy reports and some form of progress reports on how the role of the Revenue Commissioners is working. I do not want to commit myself to the Revenue Commissioners coming out with a report on the various groups. That may not be the way to do it. It might be better to let me have a report from an educational point of view, not from a revenue hunting point of view. I would prefer to hold on that until I see what their reaction to their work is. I would favour giving some form of information and I will do that.
Did the Minister consult local authorities? I understand he said he did not have much consultation with local authorities on the Bill.
Yes, the Department of Education in the context of these grants are in touch on a very regular basis with local authorities.
Did the Minister himself consult directly with local authorities?
From time to time. I have not had a formal round of talks with all the local authorities but from time to time I have discussed these problems with them.
I ask this question because the local authorities are the experts in dealing with grant processing. They have been doing it very effectively for a considerable number of years and they would be dealing with smaller numbers, whereas the Revenue Commissioners have a plethora of applications before them. While it is important that they liaise with each other, I think the local authorities have been hamstrung by limitations pursuing an applicant whom they feel is not bona fide and obviously the Revenue Commissioners will be able to help them in that area. That is very welcome. It would be important for the Minister to speak immediately to the local authorities in order to streamline what will have to happen to ensure that all students get their grants on time in September.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I had hoped the Minister, particularly in the light of European Union, would consider including open university courses, IPA correspondence courses — which now cost £2,000 — and students pursuing courses other than those covered in the Bill would be grant aided. I am being constructive because we do not expect things to remain static. Another area would be satellite courses perhaps co-operating with the UK because there is no language barrier.
I ask the Minister to look also at distance learning as this would help to keep people in their own localities. I would see no problem with a student in Mayo or Wexford for instance, counties which do not have a third level institution, pursuing a course through distance learning. We know from research that economic activity is stimulated by graduates staying in their own area, and the study courses could be linked with UCD, UCG, etc. I am asking the Minister to consider this so that he would not have to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas to introduce such courses.
There is only one post-graduate MBA course for mature students who are working in the University of Limerick. We have to look forward and try to stay ahead of the posse. I am concerned about four areas — open university; IPA correspondence courses, and the £2,000 fee makes this inaccessible for the unemployed; satellite courses; and distance learning. I hope the Minister will keep this in mind.
I notice a tremendous movement of students into the humanities. Is the reasoning behind connected with cost? Arts, unlike science or engineering courses, is not as expensive in terms of equipment, laboratory use, etc. Has this new surge towards the humanities more to do with the cost factor and taking students from the live register than with a love of the humanities? These are general questions but I would like the Minister to respond to the question of opening up courses for mature students so that we will be in line with our European neighbours.
I welcome the fact that mature students who are already attending approved courses and will continue in those courses in the 1992-93 academic year, will be eligible to apply for grants. These students will also benefit from the substantial increases in the income eligibility limits which were announced recently by the Minister. They will also benefit from the Bill's provision that any mature student who secures a place in a third level course will be regarded as satisfying the academic attainment requirements for the award of a grant. In the regulations which the Minister will be required to make under this legislation, will it be possible to make any exceptions in the case of mature students who have already secured a third level qualification or who completed part of a third level course leading to a third level qualification or, indeed, who may have participated in a third level course outside the country? Take, for example, the case of a mature student who pursued a third level course in a seminary and secured a third level qualification without the benefit of a grant. If that person subsequently decides not to continue in a clerical role, but to re-enter the lay workforce, will he be entitled to a grant as a mature student if he decides that his only means of securing employment would be to return to third level and secure an additional qualification or, perhaps, finish the qualification he was pursuing at the time he decided to opt out? Perhaps the Minister might clarify the situation.
We all welcome this section and the amendment that extended the system to those who are at present within the system as mature students. Once a mature student has the leaving certificate, satisfies age and income requirements, and has obtained a place, there should be no obstacle. There is no need to further divide it into categories and the amendments that Senator Jackman and I sought to introduce are unnecessary because the broad definition of mature students seems to encompass what we were referring to. Senator Mullooly put it very well when he said somebody may have been in a seminary and engaged in a course of studies that could have led to a post-graduate qualification. A person could have done a third level course outside the country many years peviously, may have engaged in a form of employment and become unemployed and then found the third level qualification was irrelevant to present needs. In that case a mature student may wish to avail of the grant to continue his or her education. Can the Minister clarify that that is covered in the Bill?
I agree with Senator Jackman that distance learning should be incorporated into the system. If somebody went abroad to do a module of studies would such people be covered by the grant scheme here? Can there be a link up with some of the European programmes that are coming onstream now — such as the Erasmus programme or Lingua programme or any future programmes — between local authority grants and funding from Europe?
Like other Senators, I welcome this provision. I appreciate Senator Jackman's concern about distance learning. Senator Mullooly made a very good point in relation to a specific category of people who may seek a total change of direction in relation to future employment. There is also a category in which the vocational education committees were very much imvolved over a number of years. One specific course, diploma in social science, was undertaken in quite a number of community colleges and vocational schools in the Munster region.
In relation to the whole area of adult education and the necessity for certification a substantial number of people came back into the education system, through those types of courses. Having got a taste for further education they would welcome the opportunity to do a degree or some form of third level course. This would entail a substantial amount of money. One has to recognise that courses of three hours duration each night for three nights per week cost people money but if they wanted to further their careers in terms of full-time education it would cost a greater amount. I would expect that those mature students would not be precluded from taking on those courses and would not be excluded from this provision.
Senator Jackman raised the issue of distance learning. This is an area which is developing rapidly. New courses are provided for under the existing provisions if a course is full-time. A full-time day course can be included in the grant scheme.
As it exists.
There is provision for the approval of new courses. Therefore, new courses which are full-time day courses could be approved under the existing legislation.
Would that extend to the boy or girl in Mayo who wanted to tune in because it would cost them a fee of £2,000 or whatever?
If the particular course is approved——
Who will approve the particular course?
Acting Chairman
Can the Senator allow the Minister to reply, because I will have to conclude the business in another two minutes and the Senator will have no answer.
The Minister for Education would approve it. That is a rapidly developing area and it is one about which I want to develop my thinking. I am advised that regulations are not necessary under this legislation. Under the provisions of the 1968 Act there is power to make regulations. On reflection, it might have been useful to have such powers here but at this juncture it is not essential to insert them.
Senator Mullooly and Senator Costello asked me about the exceptions to the scheme. I want to make it clear that the scheme which exists can be changed without coming back to the Dáil or the Seanad. There is provision to develop and amend this scheme within certain parameters without necessarily legislating. The present legislation and the 1968 Act refers to first-time students. If it is that person's first time at third level then he or she can apply for and receive the grant provided the means test is met. That person can be someone who goes back to do a BA and then an MA and they will get the grants for both degrees.
There is no bar on post-graduate work. The test under the scheme as at present drawn up is for a first time student. For example, a person who would be ruled out would be one who does a BA, comes back and wants to do a BComm. We have drawn the line at that point as we cannot do everything. This is the first time mature students have been formally recognised in legislation. It extends the grants to them but it is asking too much to pin down every corner. That may develop in time. At this stage our duty is to ensure that somebody who comes back into third level education can obtain a degree or a qualification. We have to stop somewhere.
I take the points that have been made but it is simply a matter of where we draw the line. I have taken the view that our duty is to permit someone to get a qualification. I do not think it is our duty to carry on that assistance and help them get a second qualification at the same level. They may do a BA, then a BComm and then come back the next year and do a BSc. One may ask, why not? There is no real answer to that. Education is always useful, always important and always valued, but from the point of view of funding the State will support them in getting one qualification at that level but will not extend that support to another qualification at the same level.
Many queries and anomalies will arise. All I can say to the House at this stage is that it is a brand new scheme and we will have to see how it works. If anomalies appear we will look at them. I will see if I have power to amend the scheme to include the category referred to earlier. However, there is no automatic exclusion in the legislation of the type of person referred to by Senator Costello. There are many examples that could be given but the basic point is that if a person has a qualification at one level, a B.Comm., for example, the State will not help that person to get a BA. Anomalies will arise and we will monitor them and, in so far as we can, we will take account of them.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 1 p.m. in accordance with the Order of Business today I must now put the question: "That sections 5, 6 and 7 and the Title are hereby agreed to; that the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and reported to the House without amendment; and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
Question put and agreed to.
I thank the Minister for being so co-operative and responsive to all the queries and compliment him on bringing in this important legislation. It is a revolutionary Bill.
I wish to thank the Minister for his courtesy and co-operation and the interesting replies he made in areas we explored. I thank him for his willingness to take on board suggestions.
I too thank the Minister. I have eternal hope burning and I hope when the Commissioners do their job we will find out who the "at risk" people are, that they are genuine and will be looked after. It is excellent legislation and we will wait and see how it develops.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.