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.