The Minister is well aware that, last year, 1,000 primary school students failed to transfer to second level and 13,000 failed to transfer from second to third level. Many of these failures were within the categories to which he referred and are mentioned in the amendment. I do not know why they have been referred to because they only serve to highlight the abject failure of the Minister in improving access at any level for the disadvantaged. If they cannot transfer from primary to second level or from second to third level, why does he make an issue of ringfencing finance for third level?