Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995

Vol. 449 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Education Grants.

Eamon Ó Cuív

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leat as ucht deis a thabhairt dom an cheist seo a ardú ar an athló agus freisin be mhaith liom buíochas a ghabhail leis an Aire Cosanta agus Mara as ucht teacht isteach agus éisteacht liom. Tá súil agam go gcuirfidh sé an méid atá le rá agam in iúl don Aire Oideachais.

Ceist í seo a d'ardaigh mé cheana anuraidh ar an dara lá d'Fheabhra agus caithfidh mé a rá gur údar díomá dom nach ndearnadh tada faoi ó shin.

I thank the Minister for coming in to listen to the case I wish to make. I raised this question last year in the House and I am disappointed that nothing has been done about it since. For a person living in a remote area, in other words more than three miles from a school bus, or on an offshore island that does not have a secondary school, their entitlement to free education is subject to a means test. The means test is pitched at £9,100 per year and there is an allowance of £299 per child. In the event of one's income being over the limit, one has to pay the maintenance part of the boarding costs which in the case of most children would be £794 per annum. A case has been made by the Department, in a previous reply to me, that this is reasonable in view of the savings involved in not having to feed a child at home. That is a rather weak argument.

My view on this case is simple. Islanders and people living in remote areas already face higher costs of living — transport costs etc. — than those living nearer the centre. With the advent of five day boarding, islanders have to pay expensive charges in aeroplane flights to the Aran Islands to take the children home at weekends. Between bus fares and flights, costs amount to at least £30 per weekend. On top of that to ask them to pay the maintenance cost of boarding is unreasonable.

The number of children involved is small. Last year I was informed that 87 children were boarding, 71 of whom were from the islands and 46 of whom were in receipt of the full grant. The cost of doing away with the means test, out of a buget of billion of pounds for Education, is £32,554 per annum, based on last year's figures. I put it to the Minister that the limit is unreasonable and should not be retained. Not only should it not be retained but its present level is irrational.

The income limit for a person with six children is £10,595; and the basic social welfare for a person with six children is £9,193 or £1,402 less. The Minister is saying to that person who is in receipt of less than £1,500 over the minimum social welfare level and who bear extra costs of living, that they can afford a boarding cost per child of £794.

A case was brought to my attention recently of a parent who was earning less than £60 per week from part-time employment. The father was in receipt of unemployment assistance. This was a perfectly legitimate set-up. All income was declared and the combined social welfare and the wife's small income of less than £3,000 per year, was in excess of the guideline. Out of that meagre income, based mainly on social welfare, the parents have to pay secondary school boarding costs.

For too long the islanders, and people living in remote areas, have been forgotten. I hope, following tonight's Adjournment Debate this issue will be taken seriously. It is a small matter and concerns a small amount of money. It is one scandal that could be finished forthwith.

Mr. Coveney

The concern of Deputy Ó Cuív in this matter is well known and has been articulated before. I do not have any immediate good news for him but I will pass on a copy of his contribution to the Minister because, on a personal level, I have an interest in and sympathy with the problem of people on islands and I know something about them.

As the Deputy is aware, when the free secondary education scheme was introduced in 1967, account was taken of the position of pupils who did not live within easy reach of second level schools or even of transport services to schools. A special provision was made for the payment of grants for boarding facilities for such pupils.

To qualify for this grant, an applicant pupil must be resident at least three miles from a second-level school where suitable free post-primary education is available, or from a pick-up point on a bus route to such a school, and be a recognised pupil in a boarding school in which the boarding fee charged to parents does not exceed a set amount, which is £1,700 per pupil per annum at present.

Where it is not feasible for a pupil who is eligible for a boarding grant to attend a boarding school, the pupil may receive a grant towards the cost of lodgings, within the above limits, while attending a day school.

In the case of a boarding pupil, the grant is paid directly to the manager of the school. In the case of a day pupil staying in lodgings, the grant is paid directly to the parents. All eligible students receive a minimum grant of eight-fifteenths of the total boarding fee charged to parents. This element is not means tested.

In the case of needy pupils, an additional allowance of seven-fifteenths of the boarding fee is payable, which brings the boarding grant to 100 per cent. This additional allowance is conditional on the parental income limit not exceeding £9,100 per annum, with a further £299 for each dependent child after the first child.

The income limit, and the maximum boarding fee the schools can charge, has been increased from time to time in step with increases in social welfare benefits and cost of living increases. These provisions apply to pupils of secondary and community-comprehensive schools; the arrangements for pupils of vocational schools are decided by individual vocational education committees.

I am satisfied that special provision should exist for needy pupils and that the current income limit of £9,100 per year is reasonable by comparison with income levels generally.

From time to time, it is suggested that, in addition to boarding grants, an allowance should be given to boarded pupils towards the expenses of returning home at weekends and on other occasions. The travel distance home, and the cost of a trip, would be greater than normal for boarded pupils, but as only one trip a week is in question, the overall weekly cost of travel should not be excessive in comparison to costs incurred by children who reside at home and travel to school by bus daily. In addition, I would expect that some savings in the cost of their keep must accrue to parents of boarded children so that it would not seem unreasonable to confine full-cost grants to pupils whose need is greatest, although I understood what the Deputy has said. Accordingly, no provision has been made for the payment of moneys in respect of travel costs to and from school in such cases.