asked the Minister for Education the number of holders of higher education grants for each academic year since 1977/1978; the reason for the reduction in numbers; if he intends to amend the scheme to make it more effective; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Higher Education Grants.
14.
The number of higher education grant holders for the period in question is as follows:—
|
Academic Year |
Total No. of Grant Holders |
|
1977-78 |
5,848 |
|
1978-79 |
5,541 |
|
1979-80 |
5,219 |
|
1980-81 |
not yet available |
The total number of grant holders in accordance with the provisions of schemes under the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968 in any academic year comprises new awards in that year and renewals of awards from previous years. The number of new awards fell in each year in the period from 1973-4 to 1976-7 and the number of renewals fell in each year in the period from 1976-7 to 1979-80. The fall in the number of the renewals in the years in question would be related to the fall in the number of new awards in previous years.
This scheme is complemented by the scheme of scholarships administered by vocational education committees for students in third-level courses in the regional technical colleges and in the colleges of technology and also by the scheme of assistance under the European Social Fund Training Grants Scheme. The number of grant and assistance holders under these schemes rose from 2,954 in 1977-8 to 4,132 in 1979-80.
In connection with the question of an amendment of the schemes formulated in accordance with the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968, I would draw the attention of the Deputy to paragraph 10.34 of the White Paper in Education Development, which is as follows:
In order to encourage schools to provide and students to follow courses in certain subjects at Leaving Certificate level and also bearing in mind the need for additional output from scientific and technological courses at third-level institutions the existing grants scheme will be amended as follows: Students who secure at least Grade C on a higher or common level paper in two of the subjects listed hereafter will be regarded as meeting the academic requirements of the schemes provided that they are accepted for and follow approved courses in science (including Agricultural Science) or engineering at a recognised third-level college. The subjects involved are Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Physics and Chemistry, Agricultural Science, Technical Drawing and Agricultural Economics. (The subject Physics and Chemistry may not be reckoned with the separate subjects of Physics or Chemistry for this purpose).
The fact that the number holding higher education grants has fallen from 5,848 to a little over 5,200 in the period in question is an obvious reflection of the failure of the scheme. Is the Minister aware that there is now grave need to improve the eligibility limits and to improve maintenance grants and does he intend to do so in the immediate future?
I have doubled the eligibility limits and doubled the grants since I came into office. The falling off, as I indicated, is as a result of new awards falling in each of the years from 1973-1974 to 1976-1977 which had an effect on the total as they were renewed each year between 1976-1977 and 1979-1980. I also indicated in my reply that the huge increase in scholarships available for the regional technical colleges and the national institutes in particular and the huge increase in the European Social Fund grants have had an effect on the number taking up the grants in the universities. I think the amendment that I propose to make as outlined in the White Paper will have a very significant effect on the number of grant holders particularly in the colleges of technology in Dublin and outside it.
On average I should imagine that a grant holder is eligible for a grant for a period of four years and therefore anything prior to the 1976 academic year would be irrelevant, so that the figures being quoted by the Minister are irrelevant. Is the Minister aware that the statistics he is using are purely a ploy to get the heat off and the fact is that the higher education grants scheme is not now a success? Is the Minister further aware that the moneys provided in the current budget are inadequate to allow for any increase in maintenance grants in the coming year?
I am at a little bit of a disadvantage here——
The Minister can say that again.
He is at a great disadvantage.
I am at a little bit of a disadvantage if Deputy Collins asks me for figures from 1977-1978 and then goes on in a supplementary to say that the figures I give him are irrelevant. I gave him the figures he asked for.
How can the Minister justify a figure of just over 5,200 for the academic year 1979-1980 and then quote figures for new holders going back to 1973-1974? Where is the logic in that?
Because the Deputy asked me about the numbers held from 1977-1978 to the present time and when I was giving those being held from 1977-1978 to the present time I indicated that in those sums were the repeats from the earlier years. If the Deputy cannot see that or if the Leader of Fine Gael says there is any lack of logic in that, I fail to see it.
Arising out of the Minister's smokescreen, I invite the Minister to accept the view that the part of his reply dealing with the White Paper is based on a fallacy. Would he not agree that the shortage of technicians and those with that type of training in our society is not due to the structure of the grants system and to the choices exercised by students but to the fact that sufficient places are not available in third level institutions? Would he not agree if this is the case that his particular change will be irrelevant in determining the supply of technological people and technicians?
The Minister would not accept any such thing. If the Deputy had been listening to my answer to Deputy Browne's question he would see that I am making provision for 2,000 extra places in that field.
I want to make the point again that the Minister's use of figures of entry in 1973-1974 and immediately after that must necessarily be irrelevant in supplying the number holding grants six years later since, apart from the single exception of medicine, there would be no students from the earlier period who would still be there and that therefore his reply is a smokescreen.
I would not accept that. If the Deputy adverts to the fact that I was asked for the numbers of holders of higher education grants for each year from 1977-1978.
And you gave 1973.
1977-1978 is highly relevant.
1973 is irrelevant to 1979-1980.
Of course it is, but not to the total.
We have that much anyway for the record.
Would the Minister please answer Ceist 15?