Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I wish to return to a section of the OECD report on page 30 which has already been cited by Senator Ulick Burke. In the context of part-time education, the report states that in many countries it is normally seen as an established route through tertiary education for students, often mature students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As Senator Ulick Burke stated, the report underlines that the attractiveness of such a route is dissipated by the fact that unlike full-time students, part-time students are not eligible for maintenance grants and have to pay fees. Tallaght was given as an example of an industrial area where there would potentially be a significant market for part-time programmes if fees were omitted.

It strikes me that the OECD is trying to have it both ways on the fees issue. It states that fees are a disincentive to part-time study while at the same time calling for one regime for part-time and full-time students. It is ludicrous to suggest that fees are a disincentive but if they were brought in for both full-time and part-time courses they would be less of a disincentive. That does not make any sense.

The initial reference I made to the OECD report brings me to a point I have made a few times in the Seanad, namely, that looking at and dealing with inequality in the education system involves not just the most recent year's group of school leavers. Approximately 50% of school leavers do not go to college. In the 1980s that figure was in the region of 80% and the percentage before then was higher again. In 1992, 64% of school leavers did not go to college. School leavers who left school in 1980 are in their 40s now and those who left school in the early 1990s are in their 30s. Most of these people are either actually or potentially in the workforce. They should have expectations to be in employment for many years to come.

I recently analysed some figures from the Central Statistics Office regarding educational qualification levels of adults in the workforce. They show that 46% of people aged between 40 and 54 left school with, at best, a junior or intermediate certificate. Of those aged between 35 and 45, only 36% left school with only either primary or lower secondary level qualifications. A substantial part of our workforce is disadvantaged in regard to their educational qualifications. We need them in our workforce but in order to have a competitive workforce we have to improve their qualification levels. That is a very central part of what we need to do in addressing the OECD report and the many other reports that have referred to the area of lifelong learning.

The promotion of lifelong learning is essential in tackling disadvantage. In addition to helping those who have lost out on our education system in the past it would also help those who cannot access third level education in the traditional way. The leaving certificate should not be the only route by which one can get into college and the traditional model of three to four years full-time study should not be the only way to pursue further education. If lifelong learning was central to the way third level education was delivered, we would not have the same pressures to get leaving certificate points and the points race would not have the pre-eminence it currently has in determining access to college. The most important part of the OECD report is the need to implement our White Paper on lifelong learning.

In order to put lifelong learning at the core of our education system, we must remodel the way third level education is provided. Third level institutes must be encouraged to provide a more flexible model of education that is credit-based. People should be allowed to study part time during the day or at night, go back to study or go from one level to another.

I have a small amount of experience in education in that I worked as a clerical officer in the admissions office of Bolton Street college which is part of the DIT. One of the things which most impressed me was how one would see students who started in the college doing a part-time certificate programme at night but who ended up doing postgraduate studies, having progressed through diploma stage and the full-time degree programme. The institutes of technology have led the way in that regard but much more needs to be done. UCD recently introduced its horizons programme which is based around the idea of building up credits. It is a flexible system which allows one to do different types of subjects, such as biology with an arts degree or whatever. I welcome that type of initiative. That has to become the way in which our education system is delivered.

The Department of Education and Science must do more to force the education providers to offer a flexible model of education. One way to do that would be to fund education courses on the basis of their provision of credits as opposed to the provision of years. The effect of that would be to blur the differentiation between part-time and full-time education and encourage mature students into the system. This would allow all students to be treated in the same way in regard to fees. Thousands of full-time course places that are currently vacant could be filled by part-time students if the provision of third level education was looked at imaginatively.

That type of model would also help reduce the number of people who drop out from college. If students could go from a full-time degree to part-time study along the way perhaps they would stay within our system. In the past it has very much been the case that if a person left a full-time degree course there was little chance of he or she returning to complete it. That was certainly the case when I was in college.

I very much welcome the Minister's statement that fees are off the agenda. I hope she will continue to take this approach. It is a Labour Party initiative that I do not want to see taken away. It has been an important step in improving access to third level institutions. Although a great deal of evidence is not yet available to show how participation levels in education have improved, the figures that exist point to an improvement and that is the important thing.

I hope next year's Clancy report will show increased levels of participation since 1998 when the last Clancy report was published. Even if it does not, different factors have to be taken into account such as, for example, the many school leavers who would have been encouraged during the healthy Celtic tiger economy to earn money for their families rather than enter third level education. In dealing with access it is important to look at the way education is provided as opposed to whether there are third level fees.

The Minister stated that the OECD report identified the fact that it now costs much more than it did in the past to provide third level education. It should be borne in mind that it is not the provision of third level education that has contributed to its increasing cost but the increasing demands placed on third level institutions, especially in regard to research and development. Business benefits in that regard. Those are the people we should look at in terms of providing more funding for the education system if the State cannot do so. Third level students are the State. They and their parents pay the taxes that are used to fund the third level sector. Students are not contributing to the increasing cost of third level education and they should not be landed with the burden of having to pay for those increasing costs. The business sector needs to be brought on board in that regard. A number of people in the institute of technology sector have told me that, in implementing this document, we must recognise the importance of the institutes of technology and the role they can play in delivering improvements in research and development. They have a great record of providing education which is based around applied sciences and can play an important role in delivering applied and enterprise-based research. However, they need the funds to enable them to do so.