Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Oct 1994

Vol. 445 No. 8

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

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

5 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Education, in view of her statement of 26 July 1994, the proposals, if any, she has for the abolition of third level fees; when it is proposed that this will take place; if the Government has approved this proposal; if, pending this move, she intends to make any improvements to the current grants system; if she will publish the report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1031/94]

Godfrey Timmins

Question:

22 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Education the proposals, if any, she has to ensure that all students wishing to enter third level education have an equal opportunity of receiving grants, irrespective of whether their parents are PAYE workers or self-employed. [102/94]

Michael McDowell

Question:

61 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Education if she will publish the report of the de Buitléir Committee which sets out a fairer system for eligibility for third level grants. [1065/94]

Peadar Clohessy

Question:

72 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Education if she will publish the report of the Advisory Group on Student Support; whether it is proposed to increase third level maintenance grants; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1062/94]

Frances Fitzgerald

Question:

118 Ms F. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Education when she intends publishing the report of the de Buitléir Committee. [308/94]

Liz McManus

Question:

150 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Education when she will publish the report of the de Buitléir Committee on eligibility for third level grants. [1285/94]

I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 5, 22, 61, 72, 118 and 150 together.

I have already dealt with those aspects of Deputy Gilmore's question relating to the abolition of third level fees in my answer to priority questions.

The Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support reported to me on 11 November 1993. Arising from my consideration of the committee's report I have already implemented a number of improvements in the student support arrangements such as 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 rise in the average industrial wage and in maintenance grants in line with inflation.

I also propose to implement the following further improvements: the processing of grant application and payments by the Central Applications Office; transfer of the means test to the Revenue Commissioners and transfer of the appeals function from the Minister for Education to the Appeal Commissioners appointed under tax law.

The group have made a number of other important recommendations which extend beyond the remit of my Department. I am addressing these recommendations in consultation with my colleague in Government. I intend to publish the group's report when the Government has completed consideration of its recommendations.

Subject to resource constraints I intend to continue to develop the schemes of student support particularly with a view to making them as equitable as possible.

I have two questions to put to the Minister. On 26 July the Minister announced that she intended to abolish all university fees within three years. Does that mean that in 1997 university students will not have to pay fees? Does it mean there will be a reduction in student fees in 1996 or a reduction in student fees in 1995? I would like some clarity in the Minister's reply to that question. Second, on 14 December last the Minister promised in this House that she would publish the report of the de Buitléar group on third level grants in February of this year. It is now October and the report has not yet been published. When will the Minister fulfil the promise she made to the House to publish the de Buitléar report?

I stated that I had dealt with this part of Deputy Gilmore's question in an earlier reply. The Deputy asked for specific commitments in specific years. I refer him to the answer I gave. I am committed to see, within the time of my Ministry, the abolition of fees in order that students may have free access to first, second and third level education.

I commissioned the report on the grants system in which there was not much confidence at the time. I asked the advisory committee (a) to look at appropriate criteria for the assessment of eligibility of means with reference to equity and 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. When the report was made available (b) was within my remit and it must be acknowledged that the administrative changes made ensure that the organisational arrangements for the administration of the schemes is not only tidied up but streamlined to the benefit of pupils, parents and guidance counsellors.

The advisory group made a number of recommendations regarding (a) which extended beyond the remit of the Department. They are being addressed on consultation with my colleagues in Government. I intend to publish the report when the Government has completed consideration of all recommendations.

The Minister on her own admission had the report in her possession last December when she promised the House she would publish it in February. Why is it taking so long to publish a report commissioned by her Department? Is there, as is widely believed, a degree of political difficulty between her and her colleagues? I ask her to publish the report as promised in the House last December.

Her announcement to abolish university fees was made voluntarily. I ask her to put herself in the position of a student or parent who heard her announce in July that she would abolish university fees and who now wants to know whether they will have to pay fees next year, the year after or in 1997. She announced specifically that they would be abolished in three years.

The Deputy has made his point adequately.

I note the term the Minister now uses: that she intends to do it within the time of her ministry. Does she expect to be Minister for ever and ever? Will fees be abolished within three years?

Dictatorship.

The report contains many recommendations some of which are outside the remit of the Department of Education. Hundreds of reports have been published which gather dust on shelves.

The Minister promised this one.

What happened to transparency?

It went the way of accountability.

However, I value the work of the advisory committee and wish to be in a position to implement as many of its recommendations as possible. I do not intend to be here forever.

The Minister was not allowed publish the report.

Very welcome administrative and organisational changes were made. Each time we discussed it we have been able to announce further improvements on the delivery of the grants scheme. I want to be in a position to respond to recommendations positively with action.

Will fees be abolished in 1997?

It is a straight question.

The Deputy may not put a question from a seated position. I will call Members of the House. Deputy Keogh.

The answer the Minister gave to Deputy Gilmore is extraordinary and at odds with a reply she gave to a question I put earlier this year. Is it not true that the Minister said she would publish the report, she did not wish it to gather dust, it was before Government and would be published? There was no mention of the politically embarrassing part (a) of the report not being within the remit of the Department of Education. Is it not extraordinary that this is now the case? I question the Minister's commitment to free third level education. Will the Minister be here after 1997 and will the Government make her an honorary Minister for Education?

I am not politically embarrassed by any of the recommendations.

The Minister should be.

I should not.

The Minister ought to be embarrassed.

The Minister must be allowed complete her statement without interruption.

She was not embarrassed by the Labour manifesto either.

I am not politically embarrassed by the contents of the report. Some of the recommendations do not come within the remit of the Department and I am having consultations with my colleagues on them. I suggest to Deputies that the report will be worth waiting for.

Can the Minister clarify for young people who have an expectation that fees will be reduced next year and in 1996 leading to their abolition in 1997 that she is definitely giving a commitment to reduce them in 1995 and 1996 and abolish them in 1997?

There is an amount of repetition. These questions were asked earlier.

They were not answered.

History seems to be rewritten. In reply to a question posed by Charlie Bird regarding bringing the appeals system under the remit of the Revenue Commissioners I replied:

Well today the Government took the decision to introduce the Revenue Commissioners with the CAO in order to process applications for the present fee and maintenance system and that, I think, will be widely welcomed by people who were dealing with over 70 agencies up to this, so next year students filling in a CAO form for their place in university will, we hope, be able to fill in at the same time their application for their fee and maintenance. Now I want to widen the access of people who qualify for free fees and maintenance, a family income of £15,000 is the cut off point for a full free fee and maintenance grant and I believe as a teacher and as somebody involved in Government that investment in education and in jobs and for our community that quality education is what we need and as Minister for Education I will see, in the lifetime of my Ministry, free access to all who can avail of further and third level education.

I repeat I am actively preparing proposals. That is what I said to date and we should not rewrite history for anyone.

We are trying to establish what the Government is doing about university fees. Will the Minister state that university fees will be abolished by 1997 as promised in July or will she admit that she misled the public in July when she announced that university fees would be abolished within three years?

I put on the record of the House what I said in July and I repeat again that I am actively working on proposals.

Is the Minister denying they will be abolished by 1997?

I am not denying anything.

The Deputy may not cross-examine the Minister. He asked some questions and should be good enough to listen to the reply.

The Minister is not replying.

Top
Share