Vol. 427 No. 8
1 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Education if it is proposed to amend the various higher education grants schemes so that eligibility will be based on net income rather than gross income; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Following a detailed review of third level student grant schemes, a range of improvements was introduced in 1992. One of the principal improvements was the substantial increase in the income eligibility limits.
Now, for example, a family with one to three dependent children qualifies for full fees and maintenance grants on an income of £15,000 compared with the previous income limit of £10,787 and that was an increase of 40 per cent.
There were other improvements in the 1992 schemes — the income limit for families was increased by £2,000 for each additional child after the first child attending third level education. In other words, the ceiling is £15,000 income if a family has one child at third level and if a second child goes to third level the income ceiling becomes £17,000 and so on.
Income is now assessed in the year in which the student actually enters third level, before 1992 income was assessed in the year the student sat the leaving certificate. In relation to giving support to people who need it most, this has to be a significant improvement because the family income is now assessed at the time the student is proposing to enter third level.
Mature students who secure a place in third level institutions are automatically considered when they meet the academic requirements for the award of a grant. Previously, they could not get a grant under the law, if they did not have a leaving certificate. Mature students may be assessed on the basis of their own incomes rather than on their parents' income which had been the case. Lone parents welfare payments under the lone parents allowance scheme are now excluded from the assessment of income. Maintenance grants were increased in line with CPI increases and fee grants were increased in line with increases in third level fees. In order to further strengthen the equity of fairness of the income assessment process the Revenue Commissioners are — since 1992 — involved in the process of income verification.
There was a significant attempt in 1992 to broaden eligibility and to ensure fairness. We must remember the original purpose of this was to ensure that students in need of support are identified and provided with assistance to pursue third level studies, and Exchequer resources are thereby directed to those most in need. I am aware of the discontent in regard to the eligibility criteria for these schemes.
I suspect that most Deputies will agree that establishing criteria which will satisfy all sections in the community is extraordinarily difficult. However, the schemes are making a significant contribution to meeting the policy objectives which I have just set out. Preliminary figures from 1992-93 indicate that approximately 50 per cent of new entrants to university this year qualified for assistance under the higher education grant scheme.
I am committed to ensuring that schemes operate in the fairest and most equitable way. In accordance with the programme for Government, we are committed to continuing improvement in these schemes. Specifically in relation to student support, the programme states:
We anticipate that under the new structural funds extra resources will be available to assist with the cost of third level education. On that basis, it is the Government's intention to ensure that these additional resources are used to widen the access of all students to third level education in the interests of social justice and equity. The promotion of social justice and equity will include continuing improvement of the higher education grant scheme to ensure that no student is deprived of access to third level education because of his/her financial circumstances.
Obviously, before making any further changes, it is common sense that we should first assess the impact of the 1992 changes.
I have a simple criterion here, if there still remains obvious cases of injustice the scheme will be changed within the constraints of Exchequer resources. I am not sure that a change from an assessment of gross income as distinct from net income would make the scheme any fairer. For example, let us take two families with the same gross income, one with a large house and a large mortgage and the second with a modest house and a small remaining mortgage. If income is assessed on the basis of net income, the first family could benefit under the scheme while the second might not. Is it fair that a family should qualify because they have a larger house and a larger mortgage? Obviously, this also raises the question as to what is meant by net income.
In summary, I have an open mind about the gross and net question at this stage. In addressing this issue I will first review the impact of the 1992-93 changes and in that review I will draw on all expertise necessary to fully assess it.
The Minister has learned the old tricks very quickly. I never thought I would see a Labour Minister reading word for word a Fianna Fáil Minister's script.
Does the Minister not realise that the Labour Party's manifesto, ironically misnamed Putting Trust into Politics, contains a clear commitment in the boldest possible print that the Labour Party proposes that income limits for higher education will be based on net rather than gross income? Why is that clear unequivocal commitment not being honoured?
I am committed to the education section in the Programme for Government portion of which I read for the Deputy. I am satisfied that under that every Member shares our aspiration about social justice and equity. It will not remain an aspiration. I have asked to be allowed review the implications of the major changes made in 1992-93. I will call on expertise to evaluate the impact of them and report on where changes are needed. I am prepared, within the budgetary constraints, to introduce changes where necessary to ensure that students are not excluded from third level places because of their financial circumstances.
Has the Minister no conscience in relation to this issue in view of the fact that thousands of people voted for her party on the strength of these commitments? Before I consign this document to the scrap heap, is the Minister aware that 65,000 students will do the leaving certificate in less than three months time when the whole third level grants system is in total disarray in terms of ESF grants, mature students' grants and higher education grants and that students have not a clue what they are entitled to? Does the Minister realise that this is not fair to the people who will have to wait until she decides whether or not the scheme is to be rationalised?
I do not agree with the Deputy's suggestion that the system is in chaos. After much discussion new, rational proposals were introduced in 1992 and this resulted in an increase in the number of pupils taking up the grants scheme. As I said, the figures indicate that 50 per cent of those who took up this scheme did not realise they were eligible for it. I repeat that it would be more commonsensical if I was allowed to consider the impact of that scheme and if changes are necessary I will review the matter. I disagree with the suggestion that the grants scheme as revised in 1992 is in a state of chaos.
Is the Minister admitting——
I am anxious to facilitate Deputy Higgins but I am concerned that we have of now expended almost half the time available for priority questions on this one question, with three questions remaining.
The reply to the first question was very lengthy.
I fully accept that.
Is the Minister admitting that the commitments in this document have been thrown overboard and that effectively she has conned the people who voted for her party on the basis that they would be met?
Maybe I will be permitted to reread the first reply in terms of the Government's commitment in this area.
The Minister should circulate it.
I shall circulate it if the Deputy so wishes. I have already referred to this matter twice. The Government is committed to ensuring that no students fail to take a place at third level on the grounds of financial hardship. I am confident that the grants scheme as reviewed in 1992 deals with that matter. If the Deputy wished to draw particular cases to my attention I will be more than satisfied to have them examined urgently.
I have thousands of them.
