asked the Minister for Education if there are any proposals for incentives to encourage young people to stay in full-time education.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Full-time Education Incentive.
19.
There is a range of incentives to encourage young people to stay in full-time education beyond the statutory school leaving age, chief amongst them being the scheme of free post-primary education, the school transport scheme and the schemes of grants and scholarships for third level courses.
As pointed out in the Programme for Action in Education 1984-1987 the joint meeting of EEC Ministers of Education and Labour in June 1983 has led to new emphasis on the provision of vocational training for young people. The opportunity thus afforded for providing expanded courses of vocational training designed to cater especially for those who would otherwise drop out of full-time education is being followed up in conjunction with the Department of Labour.
Would the Minister agree that for young persons to stay in full time third level education, notwithstanding such grants as might be available to some, it would still render them to a large extent, if not entirely, dependent on their parents? Would the Minister agree that the best incentive to encourage young people to stay on at third level would be to make available to them a grant of a sufficient sum to enable them to live independently of their parents? Would the Minister take any steps in that regard to achieve an improvement in the grant situation?
I agree that the logic of the situation is that such a grant would be an incentive. The question of giving to all students at third level a financial grant on top of the very large subsidy already existing with regard to third level education obviously has enormous financial implications. Therefore, it is not something which one could readily consider. As I say, the new emphasis placed by the Ministers for Education and Labour on vocational training for young people may provide some leeway in that area. I shall be very shortly meeting the Commissioner in charge of that area in Brussels and discussing that and other subjects.
Would the Minister accept that under all Governments the term "free education" is a fallacy and a lie? Would she also accept that in respect of her identifying free transport as an incentive to young people to stay in school when it refers only to 100,000 out of 500,000 students, she is hard up for identification of ways in which to encourage young people to stay at school?
I do not accept that.
The Minister will have to accept that her non-acceptance of the truth does not make it a lie. Would she accept that out of the totality of school students——
I do not know exactly what the Deputy is saying. I did not catch it. I hope that it was not so subtle as to say that somebody was telling a lie.
It was a combination of a double negative and a mixed metaphor.
Would the Minister accept that what identifies as an incentive to young people to stay in school refers only to 100,000 out of the totality of our students?
As the Deputy is aware, it is one of several matters which I mentioned, including free post-primary education and a scheme of grants and scholarships for third level courses.
Would the Minister further accept that there is not such a thing as free post-primary education?
That is not really a question.
I wonder would the Deputy clarify that? I do not know what he intends to ask.
Would the Minister accept that in respect of every student attending post-primary education today there is a heavy financial demand on the parents?
Indeed there is and a very much heavier one on the taxpayer.
Are not the parents taxpayers?
It is not free. They are the taxpayers.