Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the time limits for the debate are as follows: the speech of the Minister will be 15 minutes; the proposer has 12 minutes while each other Senator has eight minutes. The proposer will have five minutes to reply.
Third Level Education Fees: Motion.
Acting Chairman
I move:
That Seanad Éireann regrets the failure of the Minister for Education to abolish fees for evening and part-time students at third level and calls on the Minister to give a commitment to abolish such fees within a definite time scale.
I welcome the Minister to the House. We seem to be crossing each other a lot lately and I hope that we will be able to work together to get things right. We propose this motion because we regret the failure of the Minister to abolish fees for evening and part-time third level students.
While preparing for this debate, I asked when is free education not free, even in the White Paper scheme of things. The answer is that it is not free for students attending part-time or evening courses. The fundamental philosophy driving this motion is the pursuit of equality for all students attending third level education courses in respect of fees, grants and access to facilities. It is a philosophy which aims to increase participation rates in third level education among those groups in our society who up to now have not been participants, that is, those people who have effectively been excluded from our system of education.
According to the White Paper, a major policy objective of the Government is to promote equality and access to higher education irrespective of social class, age or disability for all who have the capacity to benefit from it. Where participation and achievement in the education system are impeded by physical, mental, economic or social factors, the State should seek to eliminate or compensate for the sources and consequences of the social disadvantage. These aims form part of the Government's commitment to equality through education. I understand that part of the process is the abolishment of third level fees. However, the Government's decision to exclude evening undergraduates doing the same degree as day students is a glaring inequality.
There was considerable anger and disbelief among mature students at the decision to exclude them from the Minister's budgetary package. They believe it is unfair that Labour Party Ministers, who should be the first to redress social inequality, have introduced this arbitrary action. All the reports commissioned over the last few years clearly highlighted the plight of students doing evening or distance learning. The de Buitléir report argues essentially for free fees for all. It argued that those who cannot afford to pay for third level education should be supported by grants while those who are better off, and therefore able to pay, should receive a less or zero grant.
It is widely accepted that the present third level grants system is totally inequitable and discriminates in an appalling manner against the PAYE sector. The de Buitléir report argues that the major beneficiaries of the student support system are not those families in the lowest income groups. The Minister has ignored the recommendation of the de Buitléir report relating to mature students. Mature students or part-time evening students are not entitled to any maintenance grants. Those studying in full-time day courses are eligible for higher education grants. The problem is that, regardless of the age of mature students, they are means tested based on their parents income if they are living at home. The de Buitléir report recommends that mature applicants over the age of 25 years should be means tested on their income, regardless of residence. It is very disappointing that this has not happened. In Northern Ireland students can get additional grants, not only for themselves but for their spouses, and child support.
The only reason offered for excluding evening undergraduates from the decision to abolish fees has been a lack of financial resources. Some have said it is because of the part-time nature of the courses. A student doing a modular arts degree over four years, with two modules each year, must attend ten hours of lectures per week, submit essays and also have continuous assessment. As well as holding down a job or rearing a family, the modular arts students would attend two or three hours four nights a week and submit essays. This could hardly be called a part-time course. A family with a fairly large income does not have to pay any fees for a son or daughter who is attending about ten hours of lectures a week at our expense. What is equal about that? It is hard to sustain that kind of thinking.
Much lip service has been paid to second chance education, but there has been little action. We are told that everyone needs to upgrade their qualifications and skills and it is time that more practical supports were put in place to facilitate this. Abolishing fees for night students would be a good start. Part-time courses entail full-time fees. This is evident when one compares the cost of night courses with day courses. For a day time arts students in UCD the cost is £1,600; a night time modular arts student will cost, per module, £644. A day time student over three years will cost £4,800; night time modular arts students over four years — it takes an extra year to undertake the night course — will cost £5,152, a difference of £352. Now that fees have been abolished for the day student, this discrimination against the night student is even more obvious. The night student still has to pay. Is this fair?
Night students also have to pay double taxation in that they are contributing from their taxes while a young day student, whose family is wealthy, can attend university for free. Ordinary taxpayers, who fund the abolition of fees and the education of such students, cannot avail of this. The Government, which contains the Labour Party and Democratic Left, who claim to represent the workers and ordinary people, is responsible for the present situation. Were these parties not aware of the anger of the PAYE sector when the Government did not address this matter?
A two tier university system has evolved from the present situation. There are people who wish to undertake a night course; for example, they may have to upgrade their educational qualifications for their present job or they may not be able to attend the day time course because of other commitments. However, while the day courses are free, those who must avail of night courses will have to pay. This does not encourage second chance education.
All reports from the universities indicate that those who are committed to a night course have, more often than not, obtained better results than day time students. By contrast, night time students must work to a time table and every hour is precious. Such students obtain better results, but they must pay while the day student does not — they are students at our expense. There is something radically wrong when we find ourselves in this situation.
I cannot understand why we did not take this further step which would have meant so much for those students who are dying for the opportunity to get back into the education system. Many women whose children are at school need to get back out into the working environment. They find themselves deprived because they must pay to do so. Very often they start courses but, within six months or so, they must give them up for financial reasons.
The Minister should consider the motion and make a commitment to ensure that night students, and those discriminated against, will be brought into the fold so that this time next year we do not have to make a case for them in the House. In addition, there are many VTOS students in a similar situation; they have the ability to pursue a third level course but cannot because of the fees, the cost of books, the time allocation and lack of grants. This motion presents the Minister with a golden opportunity to get this matter right.
I second the motion. At the outset, I compliment the Minister on the positive things she has achieved in the Department of Education since her appointment as Minister. The various initiatives in the area of third level education, which are outlined in the Government amendment to the motion, are all welcome, and the Minister is to be commended for their introduction.
However, I strongly support the case which the proposer of the motion, Senator Ormonde, has made to the Minister to abolish third level tuition fees for evening and part-time students. I do so for two reasons. First, in the interest of promoting equality of access to third level education and, second, to ensure that evening and part-time students in third level institutions will not see themselves and will not feel discriminated against vis-á-vis their full-time counterparts.
It is a fact that numbers in third level education in Ireland have grown almost five fold in the past 30 years, which is to be welcomed. It is also true that the percentage of second level school leavers who proceed directly to third level education is increasing all the time. However, the real facts are that this percentage increase, and the bulk of the increase in overall numbers, are mainly accounted for by the very high participation rate of students from better off backgrounds.
In addition, by comparison with other EU countries, the overall participation rate in third level education in Ireland has some catching up to do. The reason for this is that in Ireland, the participation of students from the lower socioeconomic groups in third level education has not increased at anything like the same rate as that of their better off counterparts.
Since it is, therefore, mainly students from less well off backgrounds who do not proceed directly to third level education, the likelihood is that it is from the ranks of such school leavers that the majority of evening and part-time students will later come. Many of these will be individuals who would have wished to go directly into third level but, for social or economic reasons, were unable to do so at the time. In view of their lack of qualifications, the likelihood is that, as a general rule, the employment which would be available to such persons would mainly be low paid.
The challenge, therefore, to people who champion equality of access to third level education is to devise strategies and provide incentives which will encourage as many as possible of these individuals to avail of third level as mature or part-time students. At present, the position is that participation at third level, either as a mature or part-time student, is seen as the exception rather than the rule. This is a perception we should be seeking to change, but it will never change if we put barriers or disincentives in the way of those whom we should be targeting as potential participants.
One of the most effective incentives that could be provided to encourage people who had dropped out at second level or after leaving certificate to return to education would be the abolition of fees for evening and part-time students. Those members of the work-force who are sufficiently committed to become participants in third level courses should be encouraged, and their commitment should be recognised and acknowledged in a concrete and tangible manner. The best way of doing this would be by abolishing the tuition fees for such students.
If we are genuine in our desire to promote equality of access to third level education the State must facilitate access for mature and part-time students. These will mainly be people who wish to improve their skills or study for enhanced job qualifications while remaining in full-time employment. The objective should be to encourage more and more such students to avail of the opportunities which are offered by evening and part-time courses.
For the majority of such students, participation in third level education involves many sacrifices; some are married, rearing families, meeting mortgage commitments and so on and some are possibly working long hours in low paid employment. Not alone are there sacrifices for the participants themselves, there are also sacrifices for their spouses and families. Such students forfeit their free time and their weekends in order to study. For some, the distances they have to travel to courses involves considerable additional expense on top of the fees they have to pay. Many such students are taxpayers, and in most cases PAYE taxpayers. As such, in addition to paying their own fees, they will now be contributing, through their taxation, to pay for the abolition of fees for the undergraduates, many of whom would not be under anything like the same financial pressure as many of the part time or evening students.
In the context of equality of access to third level education, the abolition of fees in the case of part-time and evening students would have a far greater positive impact than the abolition of fees for full-time day students. Such a move would, in the long term, become self-financing to a great extent. After graduating with improved skills and enhanced qualifications such students would contribute far more than previously to the economy, both in terms of productivity and the taxes they would pay as a result of their improved earning potential.
There is another reason it would be desirable to have a substantial increase in the number of part-time and evening students in our third level institutions. Such a development would help to maximise the use of existing facilities. Surely that is something for which we should strive and which a Government should have as its objective. Our third level facilities and resources were provided at considerable cost and it is important that the maximum benefit to the public should be derived from them.
I am the first to admit that the blanket abolition of fees for part-time and evening students would benefit a small minority for whom the payment of fees would impose no hardship. However, in terms of percentages, that minority would be far less than the number of full-time students from extremely wealthy backgrounds who will benefit from the abolition of tuition fees. Accordingly, I appeal to the Minister to accede to the reasonable request being made of her this evening on behalf of third level evening and part-time students.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"commends the Minister for Education for her various initiatives in the area of third level education including in particular, the abolition of a separate attainments requirement for eligibility for student support, the introduction of new rules for grant eligibility for second chance students, the provision of a discretionary budget to set up a hardship fund with the third level institutions, and the abolition of fees for full-time undergraduate students; and welcomes her support in principle for the provision of more Exchequer funding for evening and part-time students at third level as soon as the availability of resources will allow."
I am happy to move this amendment. The Minister is becoming a regular visitor and I hope that will continue. Members have an abiding interest in education and we want every opportunity to discuss it. I welcome the motion proposed by Fianna Fáil because it offers us an opportunity to discuss an important topic.
Most Members will accept the validity of the amendment and particularly the last part in which the Minister makes a definite commitment to what is sought by the Opposition. I doubt that anybody could disagree with the last clause of the amendment. She is making a full and absolute commitment within the constraints under which she must operate.
The case has been well made by Senator Ormonde and Senator Mullooly. However, there are gaps in the information being presented to the House. The number of evening and part-time students attending third level colleges is substantial. A few years ago a survey was carried out on behalf of the Minister and at that time the number was 24,000 students. That is a large number. A further analysis of those students provides additional information which is necessary to fully understand the wide difference between the difficulties faced by full-time students and by the cohort of evening students. Many evening students have full-time jobs, for example, so their financial difficulties would be minimal. Many of them would also have support from their employers. When those factors and the fact that most people on evening courses would be available for daytime or part-time employment are taken into account, the necessity to abolish such fees is not the same as it is for day students. That puts the issue into perspective.
I agree with many of the points made by the previous speakers. Many people finish their education with the leaving certificate and for various reasons they decide not to continue to third level. Later — and this is particularly noticeable when speaking to past pupils — one discovers a motivation for such people to get back into the system. It is impossible for some of them because of where they live — whether they live near or far from a college — and their commitments. Given that we are interested in expanding third level education to the maximum limit possible, this issue deserves serious examination and the Minister is prepared to give it such a commitment.
Many people contact us at regular intervals when they apply for a third level grant and, because of their circumstances, they end up applying for an evening course but they cannot get it because of the regulations. I have been approached by a number of women who have young children and are trying to rear them alone. They are anxious to get into the education system by going down that route. However, it is blocked to them because usually they have little means and find it impossible to take on such a commitment on their own. If such people — and we can think of many others who are in different situations — were given some support they would be able to get back into the system and get great value from it. They would also add value to the communities and the economies in which they live and work.
There are compelling reasons we should ask the Minister to look at this. I have always held the view that we should try to expand third level education in a different way from the traditional way. It might be possible, for example, for the Minister to discuss with the universities the possibility of putting some day courses on in the evening. The cost of expanding the system might then be less. The buildings would be available because the day students would have left. That might be a cost effective way of achieving the objective. I am sure the Minister will look at that possibility.
I have no difficulty with the motion. The Opposition need not press it to a vote because the Minister accepts, given the constraints under which a Minister must operate, what is sought by the main Opposition party. I have difficulty with the amendment proposed by the Progressive Democrats. It is almost a negative of the original motion and appears to move away from the move the Minister has made to introduce free third level education this year. That was an important decision. It will make third level education more popular and enable more people to remain in education for a longer period and to secure better qualifications. I support that policy. The old system where non-grant aided people could use various mechanisms to educate their children was inequitable. The rich were the main beneficiaries. The new system is equitable and achieves an important objective — to make third level education more accessible. Eventually there will be a greater number of people in third level education.
I am disappointed with the attitude of the Progressive Democrats. However, there is no reason there should be a vote on this matter. Perhaps the main Opposition party will see that there is no point in being divisive. We are all agreed on the basic point.
I wish to share my time with Senator Lee.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is important to congratulate the Minister on the initiative she has taken in third level education. She is aware of my view that I would prefer if it was taken in a different way — if the threshold had been raised and a tax rebate had been given instead. However, this is second chance education for an important group of people. It is important to recognise what night students can and have contributed to Irish life.
The decision not to extend free fees to night students is a disincentive to study. This is particularly painful for the disadvantaged who would normally be entitled to free fees but who cannot afford to maintain themselves in college and, therefore, have to work during the day in order to get to college at night. They are being hit on the double as they cannot avail of free fees as day students and have to pay fees to attend as night students. I ask the Minister to put it to the Government that this is in direct contravention of the spirit and intention of a number of international conventions under the ILO on paid educational leave.
Next year, when the Irish Government shares the European Presidency, is the European year of life long education and learning. It would be extraordinarily embarassing for us, in a year when we are encouraging people to participate in life long learning, if they could not avail of free fees. In terms of Government policy and the policies of the trade union movement and employers' groups, which recognise the direct relationship between educational qualifications and employment, it is crucially important to establish that those who seek further qualifications in order to develop in employment are those who will create and gain employment. It is also crucial on this day, when the Government issued a statement about the low level of investment in research and development in this country, that we be seen to encourage people to continue to study and develop themselves.
There is a global understanding that the idea of a job for life no longer exists. There will be an increasing need for people to change and be flexible in their approach to their working lives. Many people will have to change jobs between four and seven times in the course of their career. The habit of studying to increase qualifications is very important and should be helped in every way possible. We have a duty to encourage people to take advantage of educational opportunities and reducing those opportunities is a move in the wrong direction. It is particularly difficult to accept when the Minister, as part of her project — for which she is to be complimented — in extending third level places, last year also made a point about increased places for evening and night students. That was a progressive move, but it is negated by the fact that those participating in it are treated as second class citizens in comparison with their day time colleagues.
Time and again the Minister has referred to second chance education, which normally refers to people who have not been able to get the most out of first chance education. She has made a very strong appeal and case for support for those people. However, there is another kind of second chance education which is for those people who do not have literacy or numeracy problems but who feel that they have a second chance to develop themselves, which should be encouraged.
I encourage the Minister to take the view of the House tonight and to take the Government spokesperson's advice and not push a vote but simply withdraw the amendment and accept the motion. That is the best advice which will be given here tonight. I thank the Minister and I want her to support the very valid points which we made here tonight.
I do not mind admitting that, while I admire a great deal of what the Minister has done in higher education, I am somewhat emotionally engaged in this issue because I teach extensive numbers of night students and, therefore, I see individual faces in front of me when I think of the sacrifices made by quite a number of them in terms of money, time and commitment. Any night lecturer will say that the motivation of evening students tends to be higher than day students. They are self starters and self selected and many of them put themselves at very inconsiderable physical, familial and other inconveniences in order to take up chances which were not available to them before. They could not avail of opportunities which a somewhat younger generation — perhaps only five or ten years younger — have now.
What I loosely refer to as "ageism" is one of the most important and underrated inequities in our society. We have an attitude towards education that it is somehow parcelled off from life and ends at a particular age — 14, 16, 18, 21 or 22 years. Once one obtains one's degree one has a further 60 years of post education life expectancy. We have to change our whole concept of the place of education in individual lives and society as a whole.
I freely admit to becoming agitated about the night degree issue because it is sending all the wrong signals to the whole adult education area. The sentiments of the White Paper are admirable. A major policy objective of the Government is "to promote equality of access to higher education, irrespective of social class, age or disability, for all who have the capacity to benefit from it". The capacity of the age category to benefit is demonstrated by those who sign up for evening degrees. One is talking about people who deserve that investment in individual terms and are worth it in societal terms. I will not linger over that and go into detail as that has already been done very effectively.
Senator O'Toole made the point about the necessity to adapt to change throughout life, which we must build into our whole way of looking at matters. Adult education is not simply a topping up luxury and must be regarded as integral to the whole education system. We have to change the mind cast we all inherited in terms of education being sectioned off from life.
The distinction between full-time and part-time occurs all the time in the departmental literature. The steering committee on higher education, which reported to the HEA, said that this is a very unhelpful distinction and does not exist in most European countries. It makes no sense pedagogically. If Senator Cotter's proposal to move some of the day students to the evening was taken on board, they would be redefined as part-time students, although they were doing the same intensity of work. For the money they pay, night students effectively gain no access to the whole range of university life experienced by day students. Introducing this discrimination creates a grievance where none existed and is charging for a lesser service than that received by the day students.
On a variety of grounds, I urge the Minister to give this the highest possible priority. As our amendment suggests, the timing is very apposite to try to get it through Cabinet this year.
I wish to confirm for the Senators my strong personal commitment to following the major policy objective of the Government, which Senator Lee has just quoted, to "promote equality of access to higher education, irrespective of social class, age or disability, for all who have the capacity to benefit from it". Much progress has been made over the last 20 years in opening up access to third level education to students from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds. I have, in turn, taken a range of measures to advance this policy objective.
Since I became Minister for Education, I have continued and intensified the process of increasing participation in third level. I have continued the process of improving and reforming the third level student support system. I introduced improvements in relation to academic attainments requirements. Up to 1994, students were required to have obtained a minimum of two grade Cs in higher level papers in the leaving certificate in order to satisfy the academic requirements for eligibility for higher education grants. With effect from 1994 the academic requirements of the scheme were deemed to be met by students who secured a college place.
I introduced new rules for second chance cases. This is to ensure that students who did not complete studies at a particular level will be eligible to apply for grants to study again at the same level after an interval of five years.
I provided a discretionary budget in 1994 so as to set up a hardship fund with the third level institutions to support students with disabilities. In 1995 an allocation of £100,000 is available to the colleges to assist students experiencing short term financial difficulties. The provision is intended to complement the existing student support arrangements. A further allocation of £105,000 is being allocated to assist students suffering from disabilities.
I have also ensured that the value of maintenance allowances for third level students are preserved by increasing the maintenance grants in line with inflation and the income limits for the means test in line with movements in the average industrial wage.
The awarding bodies were given discretion, for the first time in 1993, to renew grants and scholarships for repeat years, in exceptional circumstances, in cases of certified serious illness. This was in direct response to a need which was identified by me as causing serious distress and financial difficulties for such students.
I took steps to have the student support schemes issued to the local authorities and vocational education committees at end April-early May in 1994 and 1995. This contrasts with the position in 1993 when those schemes were not ready until mid-August. Further improvements are also planned to assist students to pursue third level studies. The Minister for Finance announced in his Financial Statement that provision will be made for tax relief on fees paid to private colleges in respect of approved courses. This relief will be introduced for the academic year 1996-97. It is also intended that maintenance grants under the higher education grants scheme will be extended to approved courses being followed by Irish students abroad with effect from the 1996-97 academic year.
The White Paper on Education highlights that during the period 1980 to 1992 rates of admission to higher education increased from 20 per cent to 36 per cent of the relevant age groups. The participation rates increased for all socio-economic groups except the salaried employees group. It was against this background and in accordance with the Government of Renewal policy agreement that I commenced the process of abolishing tuition fees for third level full time undergraduate courses this year. I was prompted to pursue this initiative by the widespread concern about the equity of the student grants scheme and by the regressive impact of the income tax relief for covenants.
This initiative marks a watershed in the development of higher education in Ireland. For the first time this year, we join the mainstream of European education in having higher education available to full-time undergraduates without payment of tuition fees. This is an achievement of extraordinary significance. It brings higher education centre stage. It demonstrates in the clearest way possible that higher education is for all, without barriers of income, social status or family background. Moreover, the abolition of full-time undergraduate tuition fees has been achieved at minimal cost to the State by linking it with abolition of covenant tax relief. Thus the highly regressive covenant tax relief which meant that high earners gained more has been replaced by the abolition of tuition fees which is of equal benefit to all.
I have also placed on the public record my commitment to improving the participation at third level of students from disadvantaged socio-economic groups. It is important to emphasise that ensuring greater participation by these students is not solely related to financial considerations. An essential prerequisite to fuller participation in third level is ensuring that these students stay in full-time education until they are 18 years of age. To achieve this a wide range of initiatives have been introduced and taken by me. These include targeting of resources on disadvantaged areas, the provision of educational support services for students, including psychological and guidance services, career guidance and remedial teachers, the continuing development of the home school-links service, a major restructuring of the senior cycle curricula to adapt it to the needs of a wider spread of ability levels and backgrounds proceeding to senior cycle and the introduction of alternative pathways for students to progress to post second level education and training.
The importance for students of completion of second level education is emphasised in the finding of the ESRI report Poverty and Time: Perspectives on the Dynamics of Poverty in its finding that:
the risk of poverty... is about five times as high for someone with no qualifications as it is for someone with the leaving certificate.
The operational programmes for the use of Structural Funds contains resource provision for a range of initiatives, ranging from early childhood intervention programmes, up to the restructuring of the senior cycle with the objective of having a 90 per cent completion rate of senior cycle education by the end of the decade. As the objective is attained the participation rates of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in third level will inevitably increase.
I have also supported the development of links between disadvantaged schools and third level institutions. Initiatives in this area include arrangements between Ballymun Comprehensive School and Dublin City University, between Southhill area in Limerick and the University of Limerick, between schools in Tallaght and the regional technical college, between Trinity College and Dublin inner city schools. These links are in line with the commitment in the White Paper which indicates that
Each third level institution will be encouraged to develop links with designated second level schools, building on existing good practice.
I have also taken a number of steps since coming into office to provide more places, more buildings and more facilities in all third level institutions. Funding of the universities since I became Minister for Education has increased from £137 million to £179 million — an increase of more than one third in three years. Even more dramatic has been the increase in grants for the running costs of the regional technical colleges — up from £86 million to £132 million since I came in to office — an increase of more than half.
This increased funding has facilitated a major expansion in the number of third level places. In the universities, since I came into office the numbers have risen by almost one sixth. In the regional technical colleges, the numbers have increased by more than one sixth. Thus in the last three years alone, some 14,200 additional third level places have become available to our young people.
In addition to these places, I announced in mid-September the provision of a further 6,200 places in the university sector over the next five years. These places will be allocated among the seven universities and will be funded by a combination of public and private sector finance. This is the first time that public and private funding has been used in this way and it marks a new departure in the development of third level education.
Increases in recurrent grants have been matched by increases in capital funding. Under the 1994-99 National Plan, more than £120 million, at 1994 prices, will be spent on improved facilities in third level institutions. The programme is targeted at 23 separate third level institutions. I am pleased to say that a number of the new projects, involving an expenditure of around £36 million in 1995, has already been commenced and that others are at an advanced stage of planning. On completion, these important new facilities will ensure the continuing relevance of programmes to the needs of the individual, society and the economy and bring about improved economic growth and job creation.
In 1992-93 almost 24,000 students were registered for part-time programmes in higher education. About 60 per cent of the total were in the non-university sector. About 58 per cent were attending certificate or diploma programmes, 25 per cent undergraduate degree programmes and 12 per cent post graduate programmes. Almost 90 per cent of part-time students were in employment.
I emphasise that I recognise that part-time courses constitute a significant and important part of our higher education system. The importance of the role of part-time third level education has not been fully appreciated in the past. One has only to consider how the concept of life long learning is now firmly established as an imperative for any society which wants to adapt to social, economic and cultural change. Part-time courses fulfil many important roles, including providing educational opportunities for those who missed the opportunity of benefiting from further or higher education before entering the labour market; enabling people to enhance or update their existing expertise or qualification levels; enabling them to qualify in a new field as part of career advancement; and enabling them to broaden their own expertise by adding another qualification or enhance their general education.
For a great many part-time undergraduate students, the great majority of whom as already mentioned are employed, the tuition fees are met by their employers. The extra cost of extending free tuition to all part-time undergraduates could be up to £13 million per annum.
There is a limit, dictated by the availability of resources, to the number of progressive initiatives which may be introduced at any one time by a Minister for Education. Choices have to be made. Resource constraints required me to confine the abolition of fees initiative to full-time undergraduate students attending publicly funded and certain other designated third level institutions.
I hope, however, that as resources become available it will be possible in my time as Minister to provide more Exchequer support for third level undergraduate students attending courses at night or on a part-time basis. I am aware of the importance of part-time courses. Through providing more funding, more places and more facilities, I have supported these courses in the past. I will continue to support them in future and I will need the support of Senators in that initiative.
I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. She is trying to achieve things in education and we all have to listen when she speaks. I share Senator Lee's passion for night-time students. Due to economic circumstances I was unable to study for my leaving certificate as a day student. I studied as a night student for my A levels, B.Comm. and other post-graduate qualifications. I lecture to night-time students. I am biased in this regard but I believe night students are a special breed.
I am disappointed that throughout the Minister's speech the discriminatory attitude with regard to full-time and night-time students, which has always been observed by the Department, is reflected again. This is reprehensible. The promotion of equality of access to higher education, irrespective of social class, age and desirability, for all who have the capacity to benefit from such education, is a noble aspiration and it should be politically supported by all. Students who attend colleges and universities at night are also entitled to sign up for this aspiration. The Minister's conscious decision to exclude part-time and night-time students from the decisions on third level fees is particularly mean spirited and illogical.
Other speakers have already highlighted the sacrifices night students make. Their cause has been eloquently espoused, particularly by Senator Lee, Senator O'Toole and Senator Mullooly. Their cause was articulately put outside Leinster House last night by representatives of the faculties of different universities. In third level education there is a real commitment to supporting students who cannot attend during the day.
Senator Lee is correct when he points out that night-time students are particularly discriminated against. They cannot participate in the life of universities, they cannot use the libraries in most universities, their access to support systems is limited and through their taxes — the Minister correctly pointed out that the bulk of night-time students are in employment — they contribute not just to education in general but to the third level education of those who, for whatever reason, are more privileged than they and can afford day rather than night education.
The decision is illogical. As the dean from the arts faculty in UCD pointed out at a public meeting outside Leinster House last night, the capital investment has been made by the State — this was implicit in Senator Cotter's contribution — in the machinery and physical features of our universities and third level colleges. The intellectual capital is already in place. One of the huge assets we have in third level education is an extraordinary amount of spare capacity after conventional hours. This unfortunate and reprehensible decision is a step backwards because it does not encourage universities, third level colleges and other institutions to think creatively about how we can provide places for a wider range of people.
As Senator O'Toole correctly pointed out, if Senator Cotter's sane suggestion was implemented, the people who would attend third level during less conventional hours would be classified by the Department as part-time students and the decision with regard to fees would not apply to them.
People who have been hit by this decision cannot afford to be so affected. By their feet and actions they have indicated their personal interest in education. It is particularly cruel that the Department should deny them access to all the supports the State provides to people more privileged than they. Second chance education is important and I compliment, support and acknowledge the Minister's efforts in this regard.
A high proportion of people who go to university by night are women; they cannot afford to attend during conventional hours. This decision discriminates against not only people who already pay taxes but also against many women who are not allowed the opportunity to go back to college. I have spoken to many women who participate in part-time courses provided by colleges. They yearn to attend third level education and would delight in the intellectual challenge of taking a degree course but they cannot afford it. Even though the Department — I compliment the Minister on this — has made specific efforts to give a small proportion of women the supports provided by special schemes, it is denying many women the opportunity to participate in third level education.
I would also argue, without in any way wishing to be personal, that certain of the arguments put forward by the Minister are not logical. As was eloquently argued last night by a number of academic contributors, the physical and intellectual capital has already been invested. The Minister pointed out that some 90 per cent of part-time students are in employment. My response to this is, so what? A high proportion of them are public servants whose fees are paid. The net additional imposition on the State's coffers of moving in the direction we are urging the Minister to go would not be that great because a high proportion of these students are already being paid by the taxpayer.
The Minister is doing her best within the constraints of budgets. Every Minister for Education would wish to do more than the constraints imposed by the Department of Finance permit. I strongly suggest to the Minister that it should not be necessary to press this issue to a vote because we are asking for logic, justice and a fair break for people who have made great sacrifices. The Minister, the Government and the Department should recognise this.
I welcome the Minister. Was amendment No. 3 proposed and seconded?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Until amendment No. 1 is disposed of no other amendment can be proposed and seconded.
It is a matter of procedure. There is a difference between the amendment tabled by Senator O'Toole and the one in the name of Senator Lee.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Only amendment No. 1 has been proposed and seconded. The other amendments will be dealt with separately when amendment No. 1 has been debated.
May I speak to that amendment?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You may speak to all the amendments.
I wanted to clarify that point because I look askance at this issue.
I support the call to abolish fees for third level students who study at night or on a part-time basis. I realise the imposition they place on people who are working and struggling to pay fees. The Minister can only take one step at a time and she is taking enormous steps in pre-school, primary and secondary education. The abolition of fees was a major step in third level education. The Minister's decision to abolish fees for third level undergraduates was not intended to discriminate against anyone; it should be seen as a first step towards improving this area.
Senator Ormonde outlined the fees being paid by night students. She proved that night students pay more for the same degree than day students. Universities should consider this point. Senator O'Toole mentioned that night students cannot avail of the facilities offered by universities, including libraries. It seems that the universities are charging more for a product which is less than what they are offering to day students. The Director of Consumer Affairs should examine this issue. Universities should also examine the impact of the abolition of fees for night students. Will they be able to cope with the increased demand for evening courses? Will they be able to cope with the influx of students if fees are abolished?
The point has been made that these students would be better educated and would, therefore, be able to contribute more to the economy. Businesses should have an input into the courses available for night students. If courses were tailor made to suit particular industries and they benefited from them, they should contribute to the costs. The State should not have to support everything. Industries should underline the achievements made at third level.
This debate has focused on third level education, but little attention has been given to adult education. We take it for granted that people who study at night have passed second level education, but many people only have primary education. If I was the Minister and had £13 million to spend, I would try to help those who only have primary education, the intermediate certificate or a pass leaving certificate so that they could improve their skills at second level before concentrating on third level education. We are putting the cart before the horse by placing so much emphasis on third level education, although it is essential in any society which wants to move into the 21st century. We need to keep up with our counterparts in Europe. I do not want to underestimate the value of third level education, but the debate should also include other aspects of education. We should examine where the money can be used and we should not expect it to come from the State. We need a more focused approach to the issue.
I wish to share my time with Senator Henry.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister. Although I was impressed by her speech, I sympathise with her because when she does something which is welcome, she is blamed for the things she has not done.
That is politics.
She said that choices must be made, therefore she had to discriminate. However, is it right to discriminate against night and part-time students? Part-time students are not the only issue. Another issue is whether the money should be spent on maintenance support. The students whose fees are paid for them still cannot afford to go to university because they do not have maintenance. There is a maintenance grant system, but even that puts a burden on the students and their family. Should the money be better spent in this way?
Post-graduate students are often research students. We are in danger of investing heavily in education while the brightest students go abroad. Yet these are the people we need if we want to create high technology jobs and entrepreneurs in this area. We will invest money to educate these students to a certain level, but we will not allocate money to them to continue their research. As a result, they will leave this country.
The problem has many facets. The first is free fees at university level, and I welcome the Minister's decision in this regard. The second is maintenance support for disadvantaged students, but we have not moved far on that point. The third is free fees for postgraduate students and the fourth is free fees for part-time and evening students. We could also add those who participate in distance education. These four areas have worthy claims on whatever resources are available.
How will we pay for this proposal? Since I came into this House almost three years ago I am reluctant to propose or support anything without clearly stating where we will get the money to pay for it. Will we raise taxes to pay for it, cut back in another area or remove a tax concession, which the Minister said she would do to pay for undergraduate fees? How much money will be saved by removing the tax concessions on covenants?
I listened to this debate with two issues in mind. First, on the assumption that we cannot do everything, should this issue take priority? I suggest there are at least two or three other issues. Second, if this is the issue to which we should attach priority, how will we finance it? I would be happy with this proposal if we stated how to finance it.
I thank Senator Quinn for sharing his time with me. Nobody underestimates the Minister's commitment to improving the participation of students from disadvantaged socio-economic groups at third level. I have experience — if in a small way — of how the Minister provided help to the College of Marketing and Design in the Summerhill area to encourage women to participate. The Minister has done much to encourage the participation in part-time third level education of women from that area, which is one of the most deprived areas in the city.
It is important to point out that it is often people from disadvantaged areas who are in part-time or night time education. The Dublin Institute of Technology has more part-time students than full-time students, although admittedly a large number are apprentices. They are genuine students and some are funded by Departments or the industries for which they work. However, for many it is a serious strain on their pockets. It is a ladder of opportunity and means that people from these areas who could not have become involved in third level education previously have been able to go to the various colleges of the institute and take part in all types of courses from professional degrees in science, law, engineering and business to music, the arts and arts subjects in general.
We must not under-estimate the trickle down effect of people participating in third level education. It is beneficial if children at school see their parents and older brothers and sisters becoming involved in education. They may not have been in a position to go to college the first time around, but they are able to return to get further qualifications. The Minister is aware this aspect is important in terms of employment nowadays.
I agree with Senator Quinn's point about post-graduate fees. This is a serious problem and I wrote to the Ministers for Finance and Education about it. We are losing a considerable number of post-graduate students because they can no longer receive the benefit of covenants from the point of view of tax. I realise covenants were being abused in other areas, but I am sorry they were not retained for post-graduate students. As Senator Quinn said, we lose some of our brightest and best students. Although we do not want the universities to be the same as science parks, they are setting up an enormous number of projects which are of benefit within a short time to industries in this country. As the Minister is aware, I am of the view that they should be involved in long-term basic research also because Ireland cannot just look at short term prospects.
I wish to share my time with Senator Ross.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I congratulate the Minister on her work in the entire area of education. I agree with previous speakers that the more one does, the more one is asked to do. This is the nature of our business. We should not under-estimate the importance of part-time third level education and I wish to inform Senator Roche that he is not the only person who studied in such a fashion. I was in my mid-20s before I had the opportunity to go to third level. I enjoyed the opportunity to spend six years studying and I was glad to do so at that time.
We cannot under-estimate the value of part-time third level education in the present day. It is accepted by those who understand developments, particularly in industry from where I came, that careers, industry and commerce are changing so fast. If people's qualifications are not updated or they do not obtain other qualifications, their information, qualification and training can become redundant in anything from ten to 20 years. In the future people will retrain on an ongoing basis. They will have several career changes throughout their working lives. The day when people opted for secure, pensionable jobs after they did their degrees is gone. People will now have to take several degrees, continue in education and continually update their qualifications. This will be the norm if one is to survive in the employment area in the future.
Senator Kelly made a good point about the contribution of industry. However, industry is contributing and always did so in this area. Many good firms, especially in the private sector, supported their employees in taking degrees at night and paid their fees. This should be encouraged, but we should also recognise that it has been happening for many years. Companies have policies in this area and they should be encouraged to do so. Progressive companies view it as an investment from which they will profit and there is a plus to the organisation from doing so.
The abolition of third level fees was a most important move for many people on the margins of qualification. People within the income levels obtained grants and those who were rich had covenants. The fees were paid for both groups. However, those in the middle pay for everything. They do not have medical cards and they pay their income tax. They are trying to survive on moderate incomes and these people will benefit from the measure. They benefited from very little in the past and this is the first substantial concession for people in that bracket in many years. I assure the Minister that people in that situation to whom I spoke appreciate that their position and difficulties have been recognised. One of my family is attending third level and I speak to parents in a similar situation. They recognise that some of the burden has been removed from them. There are still many expenses, especially if there are three or four children at third level, a position experienced by many families.
Senator Kelly commented on the development of second level education. but I would move it back to primary education for many people. In our work we encounter people who are illiterate. I come across many such people in my area because there are many travellers there. Many people come to me and say they cannot fill out forms because they are not scholars. I encounter this all the time and many people at primary level need encouragement and investment in their education, as Senator Kelly said. It is a question of the allocation of resources. The aim should be that all third level education should be funded, but when we can afford it and we can ensure that our priorities are right.
The proposers of the motion have astutely spotted and put their fingers on a glaring anomaly in the Minister's education policy. This was not properly thought out when, in a grand gesture, the Minister decided to announce free third level education for all. Suddenly, there is now a case of discrimination, which was not thought out either. I do not approve of the grand gesture in itself because it is not enough. It defies and contradicts the principle contained in the Programme for Government which states:
A major policy objective of the Government is to promote equality of access to higher education, irrespective of social class, age or disability, for all who have the capacity to benefit from it.
However, those who possess more money and higher incomes can benefit more easily; those who possess smaller incomes and less money cannot benefit. People who have made a dedication in terms of evening and part-time education are being discriminated against because the Minister has stated that the resources are not available. Of course the resources are unavailable. Resources are not available to pay for free education as announced. Free education as announced by the Minister discriminates in favour of the rich.
By not conceding to this motion the Minister simply underlines that particular problem which she created when she announced free education. We should return to the drawing board and reconsider education policy for third level specifically. We should consider those people whose situation has been made worse by the Minister's education policy and begin again. This motion is laudable. It identifies one of the real anomalies and problems that are the result of a policy which was not properly thought out in the first place.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. The Minister recently stated that there were 88,000 full-time enrolments in third level colleges in the year 1993-94. This means that the figure has quadrupled since I entered university in 1969. As one who availed of the third level grants scheme, I must acknowledge the benefit it represents for many people. However, the Minister has been discriminatory towards a certain section of the population in the proposals she has introduced.
When she became Minister, Deputy Bhreathnach established a committee to consider the question of third level student support in April 1993. As part of its terms of reference that committee was required, among other things, to consider third level support schemes with reference to equity and financial capacity of parents of applicants to pay. The committee promptly completed its work and published its report later that year. The report, known as the de Buitléir report, is an excellent document. It points out that the existing system was unfair and sets out a clear list of practical proposals to make access to higher education more equitable. This is something all Members would desire.
The report proposed radical improvements to the administration of the present grants system and a significant extension of that system. It recommended that eligibility for grants should be extended to students attending courses at private colleges and those involved in distance learning courses and certain courses outside Ireland which are not available here. The Minister appears to have largely ignored the advice of the committee which she established. Since the publication of the report the Minister has embarked on an entirely different course of action to that recommended by the expert committee. She abolished third level fees, an action which will be of benefit to those who already have access to third level education. However, this measure does nothing to promote equity.
The de Buitléir report, which focused much of its attention on the subject of equity in educational funding, made no such recommendation. People believed, and the report recommended, that a reform of the grant system was required to make it fair and transparent. As public representatives we are aware of cases where people with considerable wealth appear to qualify for grants while many with modest means are unable to satisfy criteria for qualification. While serving as a member of Laois County Council I was provided with a list of those receiving grants from the Department of Education through the county council. I was shocked by what I found. The de Buitléir report highlighted the inadequacies of the present system in this regard because it pointed out that the current means test took no account of accumulated wealth in assessing ability to pay. Consequently, the means test was defective.
Rather than changing a defective system, the Minister introduced a free fees system and people who are extremely well off can avail of it. Anyone with children who will hopefully attend third level will not look a gift horse in the mouth. However, there are many students who receive a full grant and still find it extremely difficult to attend college. People whose parents claim social welfare and who do not live in a town or city where there is a third level institution have no hope of attending college. If we are seeking equity in education, the issue should have been addressed in the way recommended by the de Buitléir committee.
It seems unjust in the extreme to exclude evening and part-time students in third level institutions from the free fees scheme. If the Minister is providing a free fees scheme, it is a total anomaly, as Senator Ross stated, to exclude one sector of the community from it. The free fees scheme is being used as a vehicle to introduce further inequities into the education system. Evening students in particular are among the most highly motivated people in the third level education system. It takes much commitment to hold down a day job and face into a full schedule of lectures and tutorials following work. The situation is even more difficult for those living some distance from a town with third level institution. They often face long journeys by car or public transport to travel to and from college. Those attending evening courses make substantial personal sacrifices and many of them pay income tax. Surely it is incorrect that they be placed at a disadvantage, relative to day students, by being excluded from the fees scheme.
An anomalous position also exists in relation to some private colleges. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland is one of our foremost education establishments. It has an international reputation for academic excellence and its students are drawn from a variety of social and economic backgrounds. This college is excluded from the new scheme on the grounds that it is not State funded, is not part of the CAO and is a private college. None of these criteria take account of the social and financial circumstances of the students attending that college. If certain students attending the college qualify for maintenance grants there must be a case to extend eligibility for the free fees scheme to the Royal College of Surgeons. Otherwise, we are building an unnecessary element of discrimination into the workings of the system.
What is the current status of the de Buitléir report? Does the Minister intend to implement the recommendations of the committee in relation to the administration of the grants system? Does she intend to act on its advice with regard to revising the means test for third level grants and introduce capital test in addition to the existing test? The committee received submissions from virtually every important body involved in third level education. Its report contains practical and sensible proposals for introducing greater equity into the system. It would be a shame if the recommendations of this valuable and important document were to be discarded.
I welcome the Minister. Senator Quinn was the only Member to face up to the real question of where the money for this will be obtained. You cannot sign the Maastricht agreement and then come to this House at 6 p.m. and obtain £13 million by 8 p.m. That cannot be done, it is not political reality. If that is the cost then we, as practitioners of the political art of the possible, know full well that the only way this Minister can win this vote is to tell a lie. She could give Members a date but that would be meaningless because she is in no position to do so.
What do we in this House have in common? What we have in common is that every Member subscribes to the belief that all part-time students should have free access to third level education. There is no disagreement on that whatever. If I remember rightly it was not Fianna Fáil but Senator Lee who proposed this motion initially. If Fianna Fáil had proposed it, then what the party has been doing since the foundation of the State, when this was obviously still a problem, amazes me.
They learned since then.
I will deal with Senator O'Toole in a moment. The proposer of this resolution was Senator Lee but it was stolen by Fianna Fáil on the basis that this confluence of interest would result in a defeat for the Government, and it probably will. However, it does not change the reality that it is impossible to get a commitment to drop third level fees for part-time students on a specific date.
The Minister's speech is littered with many millions of pounds, the same millions that were claimed by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy de Rossa, and every other Minister sitting around the Cabinet table. The astounding increase in money going to third level education is an indication of the Minister's success in bargaining that would do credit to Senator O'Toole, if I may say so.
I am not sure who the Senator is complimenting.
I am complimenting Senator O'Toole because he has an ability to secure money when it is scarce. The Minister has demonstrated the same ability. I quote from her speech: "Thus funding of the universities since I became Minister for Education has increased from £137 million to £179 million". I did not go to third level; to be honest, I hardly got out of second level. The fact that I was not able to participate at third level, even though I paid for it all my life, did not make me bitter but it made me realise all the more that third level education is a precious gift. It is the only way people can be really free. I fully support the sentiments expressed by Senator Lee, so much so that I sent one of my children to his tender mercies at UCC where he got a good degree in History and English.
I subscribe to the objectives of the motion. When I put my son through university I did not get a penny from anyone and things were not easy. Anybody who says that the abolition of third level grants for full-time students is not important, as Senator Honan implied, must be living on a different planet, but then, being a Progressive Democrat, she probably does not occupy the same space as I. To make a nonsense of it is a non argument.
I am old enough to remember when Donough O'Malley introduced free secondary education. That was wholesomely welcomed by members of the Labour Party who saw it as the emancipation of working class people. However, for the majority of the history of this State, Fianna Fáil has presided over a situation where fewer than 2 per cent of working class children got through the doors of these expensive institutions. Fianna Fáil did not contemplate removing fees for anybody, full-time or part time. Successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for Education never attempted it.
Senator Ormonde knows, as I do, that if we switched seats she would probably make a better argument against this Fianna Fáil motion than I would. She would say exactly the same thing. Members of the Opposition cannot come in here day after day demanding money over a range of areas all of which deserve priority without addressing the fundamental question posed by Senator Quinn: where do we get the cash?
I am satisfied, the Seanad should be satisfied, and even Senator O'Toole — who is never satisfied — should be satisfied. I am not confusing him with Senator Ross whom we dispatched.
He is on our side, by the way.
He is supposed to be on our side, but he got confused that time.
He went to Trinity. He is confused.
You will note that he got two minutes. If a Minister of any hue came in here and said: I wish to confirm to the Seanad my strong personal commitment to the following major policy objective of the Government, cited in the White Paper, i.e. to promote economy of access to higher education irrespective of social class, age or disability for all who have the capacity to benefit from it. I would accept that. The Opposition is tactically wrong because if the motion is withdrawn it will keep on coming back.
The Minister for Education will have to remind her Cabinet colleagues that the Opposition took a view that the Minister obviously could not give a commitment because she did not have the sanction of the Cabinet. The Minister can fight that cause better without a defeat however.
Senator Lee thought up this motion after looking at the issue and deciding he wanted to do something about it. Fianna Fáil then said: Thank God for that because we will get these university guys with us and defeat the Government, but to what effect? Tactically you are better off ignoring the PD motion because I do not think they envisage the abolition of fees for full-time students.
Nobody who is fair minded and impartial could do other than concede that the Minister, Deputy Bhreathnach, has done an excellent job in persuading the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, and others to come up with the cash to fund many of the things she has done. I ask Senator Ormonde, as the newly appointed assistant Whip in Fianna Fáil, to score a victory and withdraw the motion.
It has nothing to do with me.
The Senator will live to fight another day as we will.
I wish to add a few humble words to this important motion. I compliment the Minister for all her hard work since she took over the Education portfolio. She has worked very hard. Senator Magner asked why Fianna Fáil has not done this and that. If he reflects on the state of the economy from 1982 to 1987 he will see we could not afford many luxuries because the World Bank was about to move in and take over our country since we were sunk in debt——
From Dr. Martin O'Donoghue.
——from the carry on of a Government that was like two goats going over a hedge. It sank the country in debt through irresponsible borrowing and spending.
It abolished tax on motor cars.
It took many severe measures and we got support.
Not from us.
In fairness to Deputy Alan Dukes, in the national interest he supported a minority Fianna Fáil Government to save this nation from national bankruptcy. We took over after an irresponsible Government led by Dr. Garret FitzGerald.
You made up for it in 1989.
That Government took all the tax off Mercedes Benz cars.
We could make very little progress towards the education that our people of all classes need today. We had to get our priorities right and thank God we did. The present Government would not be basking in this situation were it not for the hard work done by Charles Haughey and Deputy Albert Reynolds to straighten out the economy with the support of Deputy Dukes and the Progressive Democrats.
A bit of common sense prevailed for a few years and, as a result, the international standing of our economy improved and the World Bank did not have to keep a sharp eye on us. It is very easy to ask why Fianna Fáil did not do this or that. We had to clear up the mess and I hope there will not be another mess for us to clear up when this Administration retires or is run out of office. Which part will cause the election? There is a competition between the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy de Rossa, to know who will pull the chain this time.
It could be Deputy John Bruton.
The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, may be deprived of the opportunity of dumping another Government because Deputy de Rossa is on a spending spree.
Now it is coming out.
He is going to see that he gets his pound of flesh; no end to the money. He does not care who has to pay.
That is a vicious attack on the Tánaiste.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Byrne must refer to the Minister for Social Welfare as the Minister for Social Welfare.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy de Rossa.
Maybe he will say something about education.
He has a gold mine, or perhaps it is old money he has buried. I wish him well. I did not get the opportunity to receive second or third level education; I do not apologise for that. It is far more important to provide these funds for our young people, the lifeblood of this nation, than to pour millions of pounds into the arts. That is no reflection on the Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy M. Higgins. The arts are important as they create jobs, but we should divert some of this money so that our young have the opportunity to study art. Is this wagon only going down one boreen? In recent months the Minister for Finance told Ministers to tighten their belts, and some have done so better than others. It looks as if this Minister's allocation of funds was chopped.
We should thank God that the parents of those who received third level education were in a position to pay. Many thousands did not have that opportunity and travel long distances to vocational education committees to improve their education and to qualify for jobs in industry. People need this opportunity, given the importance of technology, particularly in the computer area. It is sad that we are not giving these young people a chance.
I appeal to the Minister to abandon the proposal to regionalise vocational education committees. This has happened in many other fields — for example, in regard to the health boards — and it leaves a lot to be desired. It will create another layer of bureaucracy where nobody is answerable and matters are passed from one person to another. There will be a need for a whole lot of managers, including regional managers. The poor student will be worse off by the time these people are paid. The vocational education committees have proved themselves since the early 1930s. The chief executive officers and teachers are a credit and have given a great opportunity to families those who have not had the opportunity to get on due to family circumstances.
I appeal to the Minister to steer clear of this idea of creating regional authorities, which will take the power from people in the vocational education committees and give it to bureaucrats in the Department of Education. This happened in the agricultural area. The agricultural committees were abolished because they asked relevant questions about agriculture. I appeal to the Minister, as a teacher and a mother, to forget about the bureaucrats in her Department, to look at the record of the vocational education committees and not to regionalise them. I appeal to her to get some of the millions of pounds from her colleague, Deputy M. Higgins, to give young people the opportunity to go to night classes and to improve their lot in this tough world. It would be better than allocating it all to the arts.
There is an old saying that if one does not have a good case to make the best form of defence is attack. Senator Magner made a great attack.
What was Senator Byrne doing?
Senator Magner has a short memory. Fianna Fáil has done everything in terms of education in this country from secondary education onwards. It built the regional colleges and gave the sons and daughters of people in rural Ireland the opportunity to get into third level education. Fianna Fáil built Dublin City University and it has a good record on education of which it can be very proud.
Its problem is that it does not acknowledge anyone else.
Why should we? We were in power when this was done; it was no trouble to us. If Senator Magner was in Opposition he would be talking differently. Like Senator Magner, I did not get further than second year in the technical college, but we were brought up in a different age. I trained a young man as a fitter. He had 30 years' experience but he had to go to Moorepark to train for six months at his expense. If he did not pass an examination he would have had to pack in his job and go on the dole. He is in his forties and fits milking machines, which is how I made a living for years. He told me he would not be given a chance today because he would not have the qualifications.
People must be educated, whether we like it or not. It is sad because many of us who left school with a basic education had enough to build on and we did well for ourselves and others and never had to go on the dole. However, things have changed. Those who attend night classes to get a degree are dedicated. I knew people who worked in Sligo County Council who drove to Galway three or four nights each week and they were back at work at 9 a.m. the next morning. It costs these people a lot of money to do those courses. They want to improve themselves and we should do everything we can for them. These people did not have the wherewithal to go on to third level and they were glad to get a job with their leaving certificate. However, they had potential. We talk about the long-term unemployed and mature students grants. However, these people have jobs, pay taxes and want to improve themselves. They have a goal and determination and will. The problem is that we are not helping those with get-up-and-go. Yet we give those who do nothing another cushion for their armchair. That is a mistake.
This report stated that a UCD night student could not afford next year's fees. Although she was confident she would pass, her financial situation had radically changed. This woman is in her thirties and earns £10,000 per year. Obviously, she is brilliant because she has gone so far. Whether we like it or not, things are getting more expensive each day. We cannot deny people who are willing the right to further their education.
This Minister is considerate and caring. When she became Minister I said that the one great advantage she had was that, unlike those who were in the system before her, she was not contaminated by bureaucrats. The Minister should think of those people who are trying to further themselves. They pay taxes, PAYE and PRSI while they are still students. Some of them cannot even take a holiday. They cannot stay at home with their wives and families. They cannot go out socialising because they are dedicated to achieving their particular aim.
I know of one lad from Sligo who went through it and is now a barrister in the Four Courts. I often asked the boy whether he would stick it or whether he would get back safely from Galway, considering the hours which he worked. He never missed one hour's work and he went to classes four nights per week in Galway. That lad, who came from a humble home near Carrick-on-Shannon, has made a success of it. He is an able barrister today. This is the type of person I want helped, because we have lost the work ethic in this country. Whether we like it or not, we are a dependent society.
I see the same thing happening elsewhere, and this example will illustrate my point. There are people who work hard all their life. When they reach 65 years of age they must undergo a means test for a pension. If they have saved a few pounds, we penalise them because they worked hard all their life. The fellow beside them, who drew the dole all his life, is given a council house and will be entitled to a full pension; but we penalise the people who do good for this country and who put muscle and money into this country.
I appeal to the Minister to think of the cream of society. They have a goal in mind, they know exactly what they are about and are paying their way to the best of their ability. In no way should we militate against them. I appeal to the Minister to get the money somewhere. We have seen Governments get money for tribunals and millions of pounds for barristers, etc. It is sad if we cannot find some way to get a few million pounds to pay for these people's education when they have the will and the way to do it.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly. I add my support to the motion this evening. I appreciate the efforts which the Minister has made. Like every other Minister, she has worked hard in difficult circumstances and, having been through the Estimates process on numerous occasions, I appreciate fully the difficulty which the Minister will have in trying to decide how to allocate the funds which are available to her.
The case has been adequately made by my colleagues. It is necessary to look again at an agenda where the opportunity is presented to a number of people who wish to pursue third level education. In particular, I want to make a case here for people in towns like Ennis, where huge numbers are endeavouring to avail of third level education at a time when they do not have an educational institution within easy distance. I am speaking especially of employed people who see the opportunity for further advancement with further qualifications not only for themselves but also by creating employment opportunities by establishing small businesses, especially in the high-tech area.
I compliment University College, Cork, which has over a number of years organised third level courses in Ennis. The benefit of this has been enormous, especially to those who are working all day and do not have time to travel long distances to university. I have made the case that this area of activity should be expanded to areas where the availability could be provided through existing institutions, such as St. Flannan's College, Ennis. The possibility of creating further opportunities in small businesses as a result of the advancement of skills in the high-tech area is apparent at the University of Limerick. Exciting developments have taken place adjacent to the Limerick campus, especially with young graduates who have been able to establish their own small businesses, some of which service larger industries in the region.
One of the major challenges facing people in education and in business generally will be keeping abreast of the changes in the whole area of technology and keeping skilled personnel capable of dealing with it. These challenges are enormous; they are mind-boggling. I have seen some of the work undertaken by the University of Limerick and some of the benefits which can accrue from the development of that type of education, especially in the creation of small enterprises and in openings and opportunities for people with degrees in computer science or whatever. Many of these people are already working in low-paid jobs. They need the opportunity of attending university to get into the higher bracket and, where they are already contributing to the Exchequer, a genuine case can be made.
Within the overall finances available to the Minister, this motion strengthens the Minister's hand in her dealings with the Department of Finance. Everybody who has been a Minister knows the stranglehold which the Department of Finance has on every Department. In agreeing this motion we are strengthening the Minister's case at the critical time of the final detailed negotiations on the Estimates. I am sure they have not concluded yet. They will probably be concluded the night before the budget. In recognising and providing for this category of student, the Minister is making a very valuable contribution not only to the advancement of their careers in many cases but also to the prospect of creating many more small businesses which could enhance the prospect of many jobs for people who are unemployed at present.
The move by the Department of Finance to give tax breaks to people who pay their children's educational fees is welcome and long overdue. I have had the task of paying for two of my children in higher level institutions without any relief whatever. It is a crippling burden on many families and it puts them to the pin of their collars. The Minister can make a valuable contribution to the education agenda. It would be widely applauded and welcome.
Let us get back to the motion. I acknowledge what the Minister has been doing with second level education. This comes across in the White Paper in how she is trying to target disadvantaged second level student's access to third level education. I go along with that, but we need the props, and there is no prop left when they try to get into third level. The main prop is if they do not have to pay the fees. That is the greatest motivator of all.
The Minister mentioned that choices had to be made. It is unfortunate that she had to use that line because choices should have been made to prioritise those students who need the props most. The penalised students are the ones who had to make a huge commitment to get into third level and who had to find the money through bank loan schemes or in other ways. The main prop which I, as a guidance counsellor, could offer students is that their fees will be paid. If I could say that to students taking the leaving certificate, and particularly the disadvantaged ones, I could guarantee great leaving certificate results. I cannot advise them go out and get a job and then go on to third level or do an evening course.
The crux of the matter is that they would have to pay their fees. The Minister made the wrong choice. It is a pity we did not prioritise and look after those people. I am batting for them tonight. I take cognisance of everything Senator Lee said. He knows what he is talking about because he deals with these people. Having tutored in university, I know what people go through to get into third level education. We need this measure if we want a better society.
I have heard nothing to indicate that I should withdraw my motion. I regret the Minister made no commitment to a certain time scale as we requested. It is a pity that we have to go down this road. In the near future the Minister might go back to the Cabinet. She now has all the arguments to advance a good case. We penalised those students. I recognise that we must make a choice and that choice should have been to prioritise these students.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Seán.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lee, Joe.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Fitzgerald and Ormonde.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
To delete all the words after "third level" and substitute the following:
"and `recognising that 1996 is the European Year of Lifelong Education and Training calls on the Minister to abolish such fees with effect from the current academic year'."
I second the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lee, Joe.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Seán.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lee and O'Toole; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Magner.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
I suppose some people will have to consider their positions. It is proposed to sit again tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.