asked the Minister for Education if he will review his decision on the recommendations from Cork County Council regarding the approval of qualified applicants who were late in applying for higher education grants.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Higher Education Grants.
32.
I presume the Deputy's question refers to applications received by Cork County Council after the 11th September, 1970, the closing date for the receipt of completed applications for higher education grants in 1970.
It is not possible to review the decision in this matter. The closing date applied to all the candidates and an exception could not be made in the case of certain late applicants without extending a similar facility to anyone else who might have been in a similar position.
It will, I think, take a number of supplementary questions to get this matter cleared up.
The Deputy could not give me any idea as to the number?
Would the Minister accept that the closing date for the receipt of applications was August 31st, 1970, and Cork County Council, in conjunction with other local authorities, were quite satisfied that that should be rightly upheld? Will the Minister not accept that, for some unknown reason, he wrote to the Cork County Council, and possibly to other local authorities, on 8th September advising that the date was extended until the 11th September? Will he not accept that the Department is responsible for flouting the regulations so far as the closing date was concerned and will he accept that this was done to facilitate some specials—I will not call them "B Specials" but "A Specials"—who missed out on applying? Because of this fumbling surely all the other applicants are also entitled to be considered? Will the Minister answer that question?
The Minister will be delighted to answer that question. I do not know into what flights of imagination the Deputy has gone in order to suggest that the Department had certain individuals in mind. What actually happened was that the closing date was fixed, as the Deputy said, at 31st August.
And everyone was satisfied with it.
They were until we had very considerable difficulty, as the Deputy may very well remember, in relation to the marking of the leaving certificate and, because the results of the leaving certificate were later than usual, the Department, to facilitate all the applicants, postponed the date to 11th September.
Will the Minister accept that this is the first time this imaginary difficulty has been put forward? This is a copy of the correspondence to the county council and will the Minister not agree that there was no question of the county council, or any other body, as far as I know, asking that the date should be amended? A firm date was set down. It was well publicised in the papers. This type of publicity was referred to by the Minister yesterday when referring to another matter in the educational field. Will the Minister not accept that there was an obligation on candidates to have their applications in the Department within a specified time as, otherwise, their applications would be deemed to be late? Does the Minister believe in upholding the regulations he makes himself? If he does not, then we will have to approach this from a different angle.
Even if Deputy Murphy did not get any complaint about the fact that the leaving certificate results came out late, I can assure him I got numerous complaints and it was for that reason, and that reason only, that the date was put back to 11th September.
Question No. 33. We cannot discuss this question at length. This is turning into a debate.
It is turning into questions. Will the Minister not accept that on the morning of 9th September local authorities received a letter from him stating that the closing date was extended until 11th September? Will he not agree that applicants who had inquired at local authority offices prior to that date and had been told they were late had then no chance of being informed between the 9th and the 11th September of the change in the date so that they would be in a position to have their applications considered in the Department in time?
I am calling Question No. 33.
In view of the bumbling, is it not fair and just and right that all applicants, whether late or otherwise, should get the higher education grants? This is a question of £300 a year and it is all right for the Minister to give it to the few specials. That is the reason why the date was changed—specials, specials, specials. I am a believer in adhering to closing dates and closing times. I am a believer in adhering to regulations. Will the Minister not accept that the Department bumbled? The Department notified local authorities on 9th September that the date was extended for two days and will the Minister not agree that the late applicants submitted to him by Cork County Council, or any other county council, are entitled to their scholarships——
Will Deputy Murphy restrain himself? There are 113 questions. I am calling Question No. 33.
The Deputy has put forward a fantastic reason which obviously is not sustainable——
It is sustainable.
——because my explanation is both reasonable and rational and the Deputy now wants to get himself out of this particular situation.
Question No. 33. We cannot continue this argument.
In order to give the Minister an opportunity of clarifying the position—he states he has been misrepresented—I wish, with your permission, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
It will be necessary for the Deputy to give notice on another day. It is too late today.
I will give notice that I want to raise it on another day.
33.
asked the Minister for Education if, in view of the increase in the social welfare income limit to £1,600, arrangements will be made for the maximum higher education grant for families with one child and upwards to be paid to parents with incomes of £1,600 or less with appropriate adjustments elsewhere in the schedule.
The position in this regard is under review at present.