Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

I am not taking for granted the sincerity of the views expressed but it is important to go back to the beginning and see why the schemes were set up in 1996 and 1997. The entire ethos of the scheme was to encourage people back into education and to give them the opportunity of second chance education. The scheme is not gone. That interpretation could be taken from the debate here. What has happened is that two changes have been made. I refute the argument that people were not made aware of the changes, given that they were issued in a press release in November 2002. The two changes refer to postgraduates and payments in the summer. Those already in the scheme are not affected by the changes.

The reason people are encouraged into second chance education is to improve their job prospects. Initially, job prospects can be improved if people have a second level qualification, such as a leaving certificate, and a primary degree. It then progresses to a masters or a PhD. There are very few people who have gone through the system as we did who would not have had a job prospect by having a primary degree. Those with a primary degree have access to the jobs market. At many of the courses people are encouraged to go out to work and, if necessary, to get additional qualifications, such as a masters, PhD or whatever. Some go through the entire streamline of academia.

At present 600 people on the back to education scheme are doing postgraduate courses. In the context of the economic climate, choices have to be made in reviewing any of the schemes. I agree with many of the arguments made by Senators. If I take the €3 million which is needed and put it back into the scheme I have to take that €3 million from somebody else. Nobody has suggested any bright ideas as to where I can find €3 million in my budget.