This debate arises originally out of the Minister's statement as reported at columns 1318 and 1319 of the Official Report of 15th April, 1970. The Minister said:
The provision for grants for the colleges of the National University and Trinity College in 1970-71 has been made on the basis that the total income of the colleges should be augmented by an increase of 25 per cent in the tuition fees.
He added that there had not been a general overall increase in these fees since 1963-64. As a result of that, certain representations were made to him and, in replying to the debate, which he had opened in those terms as reported at column 63 of the Official Report of 28th April, the Minister said that he would like to say a few words about university students' fees and, having spoken generally, he said he had had a discussion with a deputation from the Union of Students in Ireland recently. He had promised them that he would consider fully the representations they had made to him. He had done so and he was satisfied that there was validity in one particular point they had made. He said:
This relates to students in the faculties in which higher fees are charged and on whom the increase would bear most heavily. I am prepared in the case of students in these faculties to make funds available to the universities so that the increase in each case might be limited to £10.
This raises a number of questions as to what procedure is to be adopted here. The fact is that, although the Minister said in his reply today, in one of his replies, that the universities were quite clear about this, the universities are not clear about this.
The predominant view in the universities appears to be that what the Minister means by this very vague statement is that he will provide certain funds out of which the universities will be able in each case, that is individually, to give refunds to students of part of the 25 per cent increase in fees which is to take place. On the basis of that interpretation of what the Minister said, which I must say was not my own interpretation of what he said, the universities have decided to proceed to increase fees by 25 per cent despite the Minister's announcement.
The first thing we have to establish is whether the Minister intends to say here that the universities can increase their fees by 25 per cent and that he will not object to such an increase, and indeed that he will encourage it, except in the case of certain faculties where the increases will be smaller, and that he will then increase their grant above what it would otherwise have been by an amount sufficient to cover that, or whether he is saying that they should go ahead with the 25 per cent increase and that money will be available to give refunds in individual cases. These are clearly two quite different propositions. The universities understand it in the latter sense and my own understanding is in the former sense. For the Minister to say that the situation is clear is, I am afraid, quite unjustified. The situation is very far from clear. The universities should be told what the Minister has in mind.
I should point out to the Minister that some of the difficulties here arise from suspicions in the universities in relation to the validity of this promise. The universities have had some unhappy experiences here. When the university fee grant scheme was introduced, the Minister's Department communicated with the universities—at any rate I can say communicated with my own college, University College, Dublin—and it was proposed that, to replace the county council scholarships being abolished and to make some kind of scholarships available to students who did not qualify under the means test, new scholarships should be introduced. The Department of Education made it quite clear in the discussions that took place that they would finance them.
To meet this request—it seemed a reasonable one—the universities instituted a scholarship scheme forthwith and without any hesitation or preparation. In fact, when it came to the point, the Department refused to accept any responsibility for the cost of the scholarships which had to be borne by the universities. That failure to implement the undertaking of the Department left the universities with some hesitation about accepting this kind of verbal assurances.
There was also the fact that even in regard to the fees themselves, when the Department under a previous Minister about three years ago said to the universities that they should not increase their fees as they intended to do and that they would give an additional grant to make up for this, the method of payment of this grant, a long time in arrears, and the way in which it appeared to the universities that their normal grants were adjusted to take account of this extra grant—and this should not have happened—has left the universities very suspicious of any offer of this kind. Quite understandably and properly they want to have in clear form from the Minister what he is proposing in this instance.
It is quite clear from what he said today that he has merely thrown out a phrase in this House and he has not made clear to the universities what he means by it. He said it is unambiguous and quite clear. I have shown it is not clear. Indeed, an interpretation has been put on it by the universities which I doubt is the Minister's intention. This needs to be clarified at this point. I should like the Minister to make it clear when this money is to be paid because the universities will not operate any scheme unless they get the money before the scheme comes into effect. My college's unhappy experience in relation to the scholarships has created a situation in which, unless the money is there in cash in front of them next October, they will be very reluctant to implement any scheme on the basis of some kind of verbal promise.
It would appear that the Minister's communications to the universities on this matter have been very limited. It appears that what has happened is that a copy of the relevant bit of his speech was sent to the universities. There was no accompanying letter, nothing to indicate how it is to be implemented and, according to the Minister today, it would appear that there will be no further discussions with the universities. This is a quite improper way to do business with any kind of body.
It is up to the Minister's Department now to draft a scheme or to make some kind of clearcut statement and to communicate in writing with the universities who, after their experiences with the scholarships, will not be satisfied with verbal arrangements of this kind, saying whether it is intended that they should not increase the fees and that he will provide money by next October to replace the amount of money they would have raised by a 25 per cent increase in the fees of the higher fee faculties, or whether they are to go ahead as they now intend to do and increase the fees and whether there is to be a scheme under which refunds will be given to students of the difference between the £10 increase in these faculties and the 25 per cent increase. That communication should be made.
I should also like to ask the Minister on what basis he arrives at this figure. He will be aware that the fees charged by universities range from about £65 to about £100. A £10 increase in fees in the higher fee faculties would clearly be a much smaller increase than a 25 per cent increase on the lowest fee. The lowest fee of £65 is such that a 25 per cent increase will give a fee increase of £16 5s. Was it the Minister's intention not alone to mitigate the bigger increases that would occur in absolute money terms in applying 25 per cent to the larger fee, but to go beyond that and actually to reduce the amount of the fee increase in absolute terms to a lower figure in the case of these faculties than in the case of the Faculty of Arts, and if so, why?
What thought or study has gone into this? What costings has the Minister studied that have led him to the conclusion that the fees should be increased in the case of arts students by £16 5s on £65 in the case of my college and by £10 on £100 in the case of some of the higher fee faculties? Is there some rationale behind it? If so, the Minister should explain it to us. Certainly Arts students will find it very difficult to understand why when, in fact, they are probably paying in the case of general Arts students a higher proportion of the total cost of university education already than any other group, because in view of the large scale of the classes in question and the limited number of lectures, the cost of education in a university for a general Arts course is very much less and is, in fact, a tiny fraction I suspect of the cost of a course in science.
The amount they are now paying, £65, probably represents quite a high proportion of the total cost, whereas the students in the more expensive faculties are already paying a much smaller proportion. Would the Minister like to tell the Arts students why it is that they who are paying a much higher share of the cost already, should have to pay a bigger increase, a two-thirds bigger increase in absolute terms, than the increase payable by students in the more expensive faculties who are contributing a much smaller share of the total cost? If there is a reason behind this, if it is a thought-out policy, let us hear it because all we have had so far is a throw-away remark from the Minister which is open to several interpretations and not yet formally communicated in any explicit form to any university.
Finally I should like to make a general point. The whole system of fees is quite unsatisfactory. The Minister will be aware that in the Investment in Education Report and, indeed, also in the Fine Gael policy, the method of financing university education at present has been severely criticised.
Under the present system, the position is that direct grants are paid to the universities which enable them to charge fees which are a certain fraction of the total cost of university education. This means that parents living in Dublin who have a reasonable income and who can afford to pay a fee of £65 and to keep their children at home can easily provide university education for their children. But other parents are still not able to get it so easily as they are living down the country. Even with the grants now given for children living down the country, and even if the parents are entitled to these grants because of their means, there is much more hardship attached.
The Investment in Education report advocated that university education should be available on the basis that fee grants should be given to each student to pay the full fee—that the full cost should be charged, averaging about £400 to £500 per student, varying with the faculty; that there should be no direct grant covering undergraduate education but that, instead, the students should get a fee grant of this amount which would entitle them to purchase university education at the university of their choice—direct grants being confined, then, to post-graduate and research work. This would have the additional advantage of ensuring greater autonomy for the universities who, by receiving the bulk of their funds via the students, would not be subject to the kind of direct controls implicit in an arrangement under which bloc grants are given and which is antisocial by creating a situation whereby parents who can afford to pay a threshold figure of £65 can provide university education for their children whereas other parents cannot. The whole system of fees needs to be reconsidered.
We should like a clear statement from the Minister on how this scheme is to operate and what steps he intends to take other than sending the universities a copy of an extract from his inexplicit speech in order to get this scheme under way.