Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 1994

Vol. 439 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Higher Education Grants.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

10 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Education if she has received the report of the expert advisory group on the administration of the third level grants scheme; if she will publish the report; if she intends to implement the recommendations of the report; if her attention has been drawn to the widespread public concern, especially among PAYE workers, at the disproportionate number of children of self-employed and farmers who seem to receive grants; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Theresa Ahearn

Question:

26 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Education the details and recommendations of the report from an independent advisory committee on the third level education grant system; the changes, if any, she proposes for the scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Mary Harney

Question:

46 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Education whether the group advisory report on third level grants will be published in February 1994, as promised; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Jim Higgins

Question:

60 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Education, in view of her commitment in Dáil Éireann on 14 December 1993 to publish before the end of February 1994, the findings of the expert advisory group on higher education grants, the reason for not doing so; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

I am taking Questions Nos. 10, 26, 46 and 60 together.

In March 1993 the expert advisory group on third level student support was asked (a) to recommend appropriate criteria for assessment of eligibility on grounds of means, with reference to equity and the financial capacity of parents and applicants to pay and (b) to examine and make recommendations for the most effective organisational arrangements for the administration of the schemes.

I recently received the group's report and further to the recommendations contained therein I have brought a number of major proposals to Government to improve the conditions and administration in the third level student support schemes. As a result the Government has agreed already to implement the following improvements: The establishment of a central agency to process grant applications and payments, and thereby dramatically improve the service to students — this will take effect for the 1995-96 academic year; the abolition of the separate attainments for eligibility for a grant — this will ensure that all students who have secured a college place will now qualify for a grant subject to their meeting the means test; the introduction of new rules for second chance cases — this is to ensure students who did not complete their initial studies will be eligible to apply for grants for second chance courses after five years; the provision of a discretionary budget in 1994 so as to set up a hardship fund with the third level institutions and an increase in the income limits in line with the average industrial wage and in maintenance grants in line with inflation.

A more streamlined system centred on the local authority offices will be put in place in 1994. The local authority will act as "a one stop shop", to facilitate students in submitting their applications for a grant under the existing three schemes. It is intended that local authorities will provide students with information, advice and the appropriate forms for the three schemes in 1994. In 1995 their role in advising students will continue and each authority will, through the use of specific officials, have priority access to CAO on behalf of the students.

The Government is continuing its study of the other significant findings in the report, and will be in a position to put forward a range of additional measures designed to ensure greater equity in the operation of the schemes and to improve access to third-level education. I am committed to publishing the report and will do so. However, I do not propose to do so until the Government has completed its deliberations.

I would remind the Minister that she undertook in this House last December to publish the report in February. I put it to her that the reason she has not published it is that it recommends significant changes in the method by which means are calculated for grant purposes, which would deal with the unfairness at present experienced by the children of PAYE workers who do not qualify for grants on grounds of means. Very often the children of well-off self-employed people and farmers qualify because of the way in which they manage their tax affairs.

I announced to the House the dramatic changes that would be put in place in response to the need for more effective organisational arrangements for administration of the schemes. I am satisfied that these administrative changes will result in great improvements in terms of accessibility to the system. The three schemes will be amalgamated into one which will be administered by one agency and the maintenance and fee element will be index linked. It was recommended that appropriate criteria be put in place for assessment of eligibility on the grounds of means, with reference to equity and the financial capacity of parents and applicants to pay. On the administrative aspect, having brought this matter before the House, I was able to put in place the recommendations of the report. Similarly, in this area when the Government has considered the recommendations I will publish the report and bring it before the House.

What is so sensitive about the recommendations in the report that prevents its publication? It should be brought into the public domain so that those of us concerned about the issue of student grants will see what is in it. Why does this report somehow constitute a State secret — it cannot be published in advance of the Government making a decision on it? We should have the kind of openness in Government which the Minister has been so keen to expound. In regard to the assessment of means, does the report recommend a change in the way means are assessed and income is calculated for the purposes of student grants so that the wealth and assets, rather than taxable income, of the self-employed and farmers will be assessed for the purposes of student grants?

There is no State secret involved in this——

Then the Minister should publish the report.

I do not want to put a report by experts into the public domain where an excited discussion will take place on it and after which it will join the many other reports in my Department. I cannot say that these reports are gathering dust because I do not know where they are in my Department.

The Minister promised to publish the report.

When I took the decision to ask an expert group to look at both sides of the scheme. I was very pleased to be able with Government support, to announce in this House very dramatic changes in the administration of the scheme. I want to give the Government time to study the other proposals so that I will be in a position not just to publish the report merely for the sake of publishing it or debate it merely for the sake of debating it but to be able to put in place——

The Minister is afraid to publish the report; it is too sensitive, too hot.

The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.

——the recommendations made by the advisory group. I am satisfied that I will be able to do so, but I wish to remind the Deputy that I had to put in place the administrative changes, some of which will not be fully operational until 1995-96. I wanted to ensure that those recommendations, some of which will take more than 12 months to implement, will be put in place by next year. That meets the recommendations on administration in the report.

I call Deputy Jim Higgins.

What about the second part of my question?

I have called Deputy Higgins.

On a point of order——

It is not in order to raise a point of order at this time.

A point of order is in order any time it is raised.

It most certainly is and I am raising a point of order. There were two parts to my supplementary question, the second of which concerned the recommendations in the report. I asked the Minister a specific question about this matter but she managed to avoid answering it in her rather lengthy reply.

The Chair does not have any control over Minister's replies.

Will the Minister agree that, contrary to what she told Deputy Gilmore, she did not recently receive the report? Will she agree that she told me in reply to a Private Members' motion on Tuesday, 14 December, that she had the report, was examining its recommendations and would publish it before the end of February? We are now in March, yet the report has not been published. Will the Minister agree that the recommendations contained in the report are so unpalatable and politically explosive that it has been decided to defer publication until after 9 June, in other words, until after the European elections, the two by-elections and the local elections? Irrespective of what is done at that stage, the recommendations cannot be implemented for 1994-95.

In my reply on 14 December I said I would expect to be in a position to publish the report and to set out my intentions on its conclusions and recommendations. I emphasised that I wanted to be in a position to address the shortcomings in the administrative arrangements. I am sure that like me the Deputy has a copy of the Official Report for that day. There was agreement on all sides of the House at that stage that the schemes should be brought forward. Deputy Higgins, who was Fine Gael spokesperson on Education at that time, welcomed the fact that I was able to do this. I will discuss the recommendations with my colleagues, put in place any administrative changes necessary and, most important, ensure that the recommendations do not gather dust. Any response by the Government to recommendations will be to the benefit of students.

I wonder when the Minister will be in a position to do anything. The easy part of the job has been completed but the Minister has not tackled the hard part, the publishing of the report. Where is the transparency in this? The Minister has broken the promise given in a debate in this House to publish the report. When will the Minister publish the report and why will she not publish it now? The Minister will not publish it now because of the difficulties it raised for her. How does the Minister believe the publication of a report will lead to it gathering dust in her Department? What kind of a non sequitur is that?

I take objection to the Deputy's suggestion that the easy part of the job has been done. I would refer Deputies to the welcome given by people outside this Chamber to the dramatic improvements which have been put in place — the establishment of a central agency, the abolition of certain attainment requirements, the establishment of second chance places, the allocation of a discretionary budget for hardship cases, increases in the income limits with the average industrial wage and increases in maintenance grants in line with inflation. To rubbish that sort of package is not fair to the students who will submit their applications this year and, more importantly, next year, and whom I am sure the Deputy hopes to represent.

With regard to reports gathering dust, I want to ensure that any recommendations brought before this House have the full support of my Cabinet colleagues. I will be in a position to publish the report when the other matters have been fully discussed——

Waffle. When will the Minister publish the report?

The Minister without interruption, please.

I will publish the report when the recommendations have been fully considered by the Government. I will come to the House with the recommendations.

I am very disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to publish this report as promised. There is a difference between publishing the report and the Government acting on the recommendations in that report. Why will the Minister not publish the report so that we can discuss it and talk to her about it? The Minister can then bring forward her proposals. What discussions did the Minister have with county councils and vocational education committees concerning the changes she proposes to implement in third level grants and in the processing of same? I am sure the Minister is aware that there is much expertise in local authorities in regard to the processing of grant applications. Will local authorities lose staff as a result of the transfer of this process from them to the CAO office?

I do not expect local authorities to lose staff as a result of this transfer. I know this expertise exists within local authorities and that is why I am very happy to leave responsibility for the latter part of the process with them. All of us know officials who, from their dealings with the three schemes and answering the multiplicity of queries which arise, have developed an expertise in this area. This expertise can be utilised. Information on problems raised by students who have passed this hurdle and who are now part of the system is of more benefit to students who come on stream in later years. The recommendation for a one stop shop is to ensure that such expertise is and continues to be available to students, although the central processing office would now be located with the CAO. The expert committee invited people to give their views about the administration of the scheme and I have now asked the Department to communicate with the local authorities regarding their role. This year is slightly different in that we continue to administer three schemes.

As I said in the House last December, we are bringing forward the schemes to May which will relieve some of the burden. Because of the lateness of the schemes and the different choices being made by students, the schemes have been a great burden on local councils. In the streamlined scheme it will be much easier for students to tap into the available expertise. Information will be provided not only at the form stage; we will be asking each of the councils to identify one or two officials to the CAO so that they can gain access to the CAO on behalf of their students. That would be a priority access over the individual queries that would be handled by the CAO.

Would the Minister agree that the real problem with the higher education grants scheme is that families with modest incomes continue to be ineligible? Apart from the streamlining of the system, which I welcome, can the Minister confirm that as a result of her report more students from families with modest incomes, in particular the PAYE sector, who justifiably consider themselves victims of this system, will be eligible for higher education grants?

There are two problems facing people requesting grants, one of which relates to administration. I have given lengthy replies here which indicate that people on incomes up to £20,000 and over — depending on the size of the family — qualify for these grants. Prior to my coming into office in 1992 generous increases were made in that year to the scheme. In the announcement that I made this year, we have linked the maintenance and fee elements to increases in inflation. As Minister for Education I have a responsibility to ensure that access to third level education is available to more students and I can assure this House that that is my main concern.

Has this report and its recommendations been brought before Cabinet and have they been discussed by Cabinet?

I have brought forward the administrative recommendations of the report.

Has the Minister brought forward the report in its entirety? Yes or no?

I have brought the administrative recommendations to Cabinet.

Has the Minister brought forward the recommendations in relation to changing the guidelines and the complete restructuring of the scheme? Yes or no?

I have brought the administrative changes to the Cabinet and have announced them.

The Minister will not answer the question.

The Minister should answer the question she is being asked.

The Cabinet threw them out.

I commend the Minister for bringing the administrative details to Cabinet but would she accept that the key defect in the system continues to be the disparity, in terms of eligibility, between students whose parents are PAYE workers and other students? Despite the modest improvements the Minister has outlined, grant-aided students can drive to lectures every day in the second, third or fourth car in the family while PAYE workers have to remortgage their houses to pay for third level education for their children. All the welcome improvements the Minister has made are only minor adjustments in comparison to the key issue that must be addressed and brought to Cabinet. Not only must the report be fully published but its recommendations must be acted upon.

I am calling Deputy Gilmore for a final supplementary.

I am asking the Minister to acknowledge that.

I did not notice that Deputy Quill had asked a question.

Is it not the case that all the refined administration in the world will be poor consolation to a teacher, for example, who has five children, who earns half the Minister's salary and who will not qualify for a student grant? Did the Minister bring to Cabinet the recommendations made by the expert group dealing with equity, the assessment of means and the problem that most people are experiencing, which is that despite all the good administration, they will not even reach the starting blocks with regard to an application for a student grant because of the inequity in the system?

Because I am aware that there is not and has not been proper equity, not only in regard to administration but also eligibility, I requested that the matter be examined. I share the Deputy's concern and I would inform him that I have secured the Government's support for the administrative changes I have announced.

Why is the Minister sitting on the rest of it? Is she still in the Labour Party?

If the Deputy wishes to listen I will repeat what I said in answer to the question: I am committed to publishing the report and will do so. However, I do not propose to do so until the Government has completed its deliberations.

Top
Share