asked the Minister for Education if he will give details of the costings used to arrive at the estimate of £7 million as the cost of implementing the proposals of the Union of Students in Ireland for a comprehensive grant scheme for higher education.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Higher Education Grants.
33.
The figure provided by the students as the cost of a comprehensive scheme was calculated on (a) 47.9 per cent of qualified students getting grants, (b) an average grant of £329 per annum, and (c) an average course duration of three years.
On the basis of the modified means test suggested by the Union of Students the percentage qualifying for grants would greatly exceed 47.9 per cent; the average grant under the student's suggested scheme would be far greater than £329 and the average duration of courses would exceed three years.
Going on the rates of grant suggested by the Union of Students, £416 plus fees for those residing away from home and £320 plus fees for those residing at home and taking the number that would qualify for grant into account an estimated cost of £7 million per annum would be a conservative one.
The Minister has not answered the question as to how the figure was arrived at. He has told us how the USI arrived at their figure but that was not my question. May I ask the Minister to explain what he means by the percentage of 48 per cent being higher if that is being applied? Surely that percentage would be lower, because if you lower the standard of qualification the proportion taking it up is likely to be lower although, of course, it would be a proportion of a bigger total? Would the Minister clarify that point?
If the means test level is raised the level of income is raised and obviously a greater number will avail of the grant, particularly if it refers not only to universities but to other higher education institutes.
The Minister has missed my point—I am afraid I phrased it badly. Given that as well as changing the means test and that you are lowering the standard of qualification to two honours to get the grant, would the Minister not agree that the proportion of those entitled under the means test would fall because if you bring it down to two honours there would be a higher proportion of people who are not very much orientated to university than at the four honours level. Has the Minister taken account of that important factor in his criticisms?
The Deputy is not taking into account the fact that it is a comprehensive grant scheme for higher education, not specifically for university education.
I am taking into account the fact that the Minister has not answered my question.
The Deputy is not taking anything of the sort into consideration.
Both of us are not taking certain things into account and we must have another go at it.
34.
asked the Minister for Education the cost incurred in extending the higher education grant scheme to teacher training colleges.
The higher education grant scheme has not been extended to teacher training colleges. A grant scheme applicable only to a teacher training college students is in operation for eligible students who enter the colleges from the 1971 and subsequent recruitment competitions.
As examination of the application forms has not been completed it is not possible to state precisely the cost of the scheme: indications are, however, that it will be of the order of £35,000 in the current year.
Will the Minister state the reason the figure is not available?
An examination of the application forms has not been completed.
I thank the Minister.
The remaining Questions will appear on the next day's Order Paper.
May I ask the Chair the reason we are not finishing Questions?
Standing Order No.33 provided for one hour on Thursday for questions.
Last week we had questions completed in this House. Who changed this?
It is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair.
Did the Government say that this morning?
The Government said Questions were at 2.30 p.m.
That is all they said.
Having consulted the Standing Order, I read that on Thursdays on hour is allocated for Questions.
I do not like this kind of thing happening in this House. Nobody has to put up with this kind of thing.
It is the Standing Order.
We represent the people. The Chair can say what he likes.
I am not saying what I like.
Why was it changed?
I agree——
If the Minister agrees——
The Minister is not in now. The Chair is in.
That is the Standing Order.
(Interruptions.)
We finished Questions on other Thursdays.
The Government allowed the time.
We could spend the rest of the evening on a supplementary question.
That was not announced this morning and I do not agree with this Dáil being treated like dirt in this fashion.
It is according to the Standing Order.
It cannot be changed from the one week to another.
We are not changing it. I am sure the Deputy has great respect for Standing Orders and the Standing Orders allow one hour for Questions on Thursday.
I have great respect for decent treatment, unlike the way the Ceann Comhairle is behaving now.
This is a matter for the Government.
The Government did not say that this morning.
(Interruptions.)
I think the position is that it was not ordered this morning but I am now agreeing.
Thank you very much, but that is not what was said a few minutes ago by the Chair.
It is exactly the same as what the Chair said.