Private Members' Business. - Report of Advisory Committee on Student Support: Statements. – Dáil Éireann (27th Dáil) – Tuesday, 4 Jul 1995

Private Members' Business. - Report of Advisory Committee on Student Support: Statements.

Minister for Education (Ms Bhreathnach)

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the Report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support and to indicate the steps that have been taken to date and the further steps I propose to take in the light of the findings and recommendations of the committee.

On taking office as Minister for Education I was already aware there was widespread dissatisfaction with the perceived inequities in the higher education grants scheme. Consequently, in April 1993 I set up an advisory committee to examine the third level student support schemes, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Dónal de Buitléir, to report back to me. The advisory committee operated under the following terms of reference: (a) "To recommend appropriate criteria for assessment of eligibility on grounds of means in the third-level student support schemes with reference to equity and the financial capacity of parents and applicants to pay. In so doing the group will examine the operation and application of the criteria for assessment of eligibility on grounds of means in the existing third level student support schemes. (b) To examine and make recommendations as appropriate on the most effective and efficient organisational arrangements for the administration of the schemes, including rationalisation of the existing schemes.

Subsequently I wrote to the committee and asked it to consider covenants and student loans and whether or not courses in private colleges should be included in the scheme.

I would like to put on record my appreciation of the careful and detailed consideration which the committee gave under its terms of reference to the student support schemes and to thank the members of the committee for the commitment and expertise they brought to their task.

Subsequently, in the policy document A Government of Renewal which was agreed by the Fine Gael. Labour and Democratic Left parties, a commitment was given to improve access to third level education. One cannot divorce access to third level education from matters relating to student support. In the policy agreement therefore there is a commitment that there will be: “New support mechanisms to increase participation by third level students from lowincome backgrounds including the abolition of third level fees, a comprehensive reform of the higher education grant scheme, the introduction of support for students on post-Leaving Certificate courses and an increase in the number of third level places”.

I will outline to the House how the student support schemes have evolved over the years. These schemes constitute the system of student support which had to be reviewed and examined by the committee.

There are three student grant schemes. The first of these — the higher education grants scheme was introduced in 1968 — following the enactment of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act 1968. The administration of the higher education grants scheme is entrusted under statute to the local authorities.

My Department prepares and issues on an annual basis a specimen higher education grants scheme to the local authorities. Moneys expended by the local authorities on grants under the scheme are also recouped by my Department to the 33 authorities currently administering the scheme. Each local authority prepares a new scheme each year which under existing legislation is submitted to the Minister for Education for approval. The scheme which has evolved since 1968 is now regarded as highly complex owing to developments in third level education, social changes and related improvements and amendments to the schemes over the years.

The vocational education committee scholarships scheme was established in 1971 to provide assistance to students following courses at certificate or diploma level in the regional technical colleges. Until 1981 vocational education committee scholarships were awarded on a competitive basis and subject to meeting the requirements of the means test. In 1981 the conditions were changed to provide that vocational education committee scholarships would be awarded to those who achieved specified minimum results in the leaving certificate, who also satisfied the requirements of the means test.

Because an increasing number of scholarship holders were going on to further education beyond diploma level, the scholarship scheme was gradually expanded to cover courses in other institutions. The vocational education committee scholarships scheme now covers courses in a variety of institutions, in addition to the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The European Social Fund training grants scheme commenced in the mid 1970s. The essential purpose of the European Social Fund is to assist in the solution of employment problems, by helping to provide skills for the benefit of those who would not otherwise be able to obtain good and stable employment. Certain vocationally-orientated courses in the education sector qualify for assistance under the terms of the fund.

The scheme covers the vast bulk of national certificate and national diploma courses in the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. For training purposes those courses are grouped into two distinct programmes. The middle level technician programme comprises courses at national certificate level while the higher technical business skills programme comprises courses at national diploma level. Since 1992 the ESF maintenance grants scheme for those pursuing national certificate and national diploma courses has been means-tested and the scheme itself administered by the vocational education committees.

I will now turn to the report of the advisory committee. I was prompted to establish the advisory committee by my concern to address the shortcomings in the student support arrangements.

The committee submitted its report in November 1993 and it was published in February 1995. There has been criticism of the time lapse between the submission of the report and its publication but Deputies should understand that it was not a case of its being left on a shelf to gather dust as has been the fate of so many such reports. There were some recommendations in the report which could be implemented immediately and others which required consultation with Cabinet colleagues before their implementation could be considered. The advisory committee also envisaged that a number of its recommendations could only be implemented over time as resources became available.

I was, however, in a position to implement a number of recommendations in the report immediately; I introduced improvements in relation to academic attainments requirements. Up to 1994 students had been required to have obtained a minimum of two grade Cs in higher level papers in the leaving certificate in order to satisfy the academic requirements of the scheme. With effect from 1994 the academic requirements of the scheme were deemed to be met by students who secured a college place; I introduced new rules for second chance cases; to ensure that students who did not complete studies at a particular level will be eligible to apply for grants to study again at the same level after an interval of five years; I provided a discretionary budget in 1994 to set up a hardship fund with third level institutions. An allocation of £120,000 was distributed to the colleges to assist students experiencing short term financial difficulties. This provision was intended to complement the existing student support arrangements. A further allocation of £80,000 was allocated to assist students suffering from disabilities; I took steps to have the student support scheme funds issued to the local authorities-VECs at end-April-early May in 1994 and 1995. This contrasts with the position in 1993 when the funds issued in mid-August.

There were major recommendations on the other hand which required consultation with Cabinet colleagues. One such recommendation related to the question of covenant tax relief. The cost to the Exchequer of such tax relief increased from £3.5 million in the 1984-85 tax year to nearly £38 million in 1993-94. There was also the position whereby a parent with an income of £60,000 per annum could get tax relief five times greater than that of a parent with an income of £20,000.

The committee recommended that this tax relief should be saved and used to increase direct expenditure on third level education. The House will be aware of the provisions in sections 12 and 13 of the Finance Bill, 1995 regarding covenants and the abolition of fees. The measures being taken to abolish most tax covenant reliefs and redirect the resulting savings to fund the abolition of undergraduate fees represent a significant step forward. We are using the savings from the termination of a fundamentally regressive tax relief to promote a policy of free access to undergraduate courses at third level which is much more rational, equitable and efficient.

Further improvements are also planned to assist students to pursue third level studies. The Minister for Finance announced in the budget that provision will be made for tax relief on fees paid to private colleges in respect of approved courses. This relief will be introduced for the academic year 1996-97. It is also intended that maintenance grants under the higher education grants scheme will be extended to approved courses being followed by Irish students abroad with effect from the 1996-97 academic year.

Another important recommendation in the advisory committee's report related to the public's perception of the fairness of the system of means-testing and the serious disquiet expressed about this. In fact, the report states that "Public confidence in the equity of the system is very low and there is serious resentment by many sections of the community about the system". It goes on to point out that some students in receipt of grants are perceived not to need them compared with others who need financial assistance but do not qualify under the means test. The point most often made in submissions to the committee was that the PAYE sector was treated harshly and that students whose parents were self-employed received a disproportionate number of grants.

The committee recommended, therefore, that the means test should include a capital test on the basis that an individual's capital, or wealth is made up of all their assets, less any liabilities. They quote the Australian grants system under which the Australian authorities take into account income and assets in deciding on the level of grant assistance to be given to the applicant. I commend the group on having come forward with a very imaginative approach to dealing with the problem they identified. However, while I have not set the recommendation aside, I am concerned about its effectiveness in tackling the problems it was formulated to resolve. The valuation of farm land and business assets is a very difficult and subjective area. In any event, my decision earlier this year to abolish third level tuition fees is a much bigger step forward in effectively addressing the equity problems identified by the group.

Apart from perceived inequities in the system criticisms were expressed about the administration of the student support schemes. The advisory committee found that the present system is fragmented and very confusing for grant applicants in that there are three separate schemes administered by 70 agencies in all. The committee also pointed out that the three schemes have much in common — the same means test, the same rate of grant and other similar conditions of award. In addition, both the higher education grants scheme and the vocational education committee scholarships scheme have almost all courses in common. The committee concluded that there seemed to be no reason for having three separate schemes. They also recommended that the processing of grant applications and payment of grants should be transferred from the local authorities and the vocational education committees to a central agency.

Representations have been made to me to the effect that a central agency will be too remote from candidates applying for grants and that the present system enables the agencies at local level to assist candidates with their queries and grant applications in a personal and user-friendly way that a central agency will not be able to do. Moreover, since the examination of this issue by the advisory committee I have published the White Paper "Charting our Education Future" which includes a range of measures for significant change in the education system including the creation of regional education boards.

More recently the Government has decided to apply restrictions to recruitment in the public sector in the context of its review of the 1996 budget. The proposed central agency would, of course, have required additional staff to enable it to carry out its functions. It would be appropriate, therefore, to review the advisory committee's recommendation for a central grant processing agency in the light of the recent Government decision on public sector numbers and the changed education landscape planned for the future involving the establishment of regional education boards.

In assessing in a general way the necessity and significance of the report of the advisory committeee it would be difficult to over-emphasise the importance of the student support schemes in the context of promoting equity of access to education This aspect is underlined in the report where it is stated that:

Access to education is one of the most important factors in promoting equity in society and access to third level education in particular conveys to the individual a significant economic and social advantage. Thus there is a very close link between access to third level education and equity in our society.

On this basis the committee concluded that "because access to higher education had important influences on life chances the State has an interest in ensuring that those who can benefit from higher education are not denied it due to lack of means".

In the context it should be noted that the number of students receiving grants has steadily increased over the years. During the 1981-82 academic year 14,000 students received grant aid. This represented 32 per cent of the total enrolment of 44,000. By 1993-94, 60 per cent of the total enrolment of 88,000 were receiving grants. Our membership of the EU, of course, has had a major bearing on the proportion of students receiving grant aid. The European Social Fund training grants scheme, for example, covers the vast bulk of national certificate and national diploma courses in the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. Students attending these courses are not required to pay fees and may qualify for maintenance grants subject to their eligibility under the means test.

The abolition of fees for full-time undergraduate courses must also be seen as a major advance in the area of student support. In this context the committee noted that many west European countries operate systems within which there are no tuition fees charged for full-time undergraduate courses and the issue of means-testing relates only to financial support for living costs. For example, students in the UK, have benfited from such a system since 1946 and Irish students in the UK have benefitted under the system since 1986.

In relation to the abolition of undergraduate fees, I established a working group to prepare a report and recommendations on implementation of the initiative. The working group was chaired by the chairman of the Higher Education Authority and included representatives from the universities, the regional technical colleges, the Dublin Institute of Technology, my Department and the Secretariat of the HEA. This group reported to me and I propose to issue an information leaflet on Thursday setting out the arrangements that will apply the benefit for students and their parents.

I assure the House of my commitment to improving access to third level education. The establishment of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support underlines my strong commitment to that objective. The advisory committee wisely expressed the opinion that no scheme will be perfect but I am always willing to listen to views expressed and to consider points made.

In the context of my initiative in abolishing undergraduate fees I would, for example, refer to my recent announcement that having reviewed the matter and taking account of recommendations made, particular courses in the Mater Dei Institute of Education, the Pontifical College, Maynooth, the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosphy and All Hallows College, Drumcondra, are now to be included in the free fee scheme. Similarly, in the student support area, I am aware that there are other part-time courses where grants are seen to be warranted. I will keep this and the whole area of student support under review and make further improvements as resources become available.

Mr. Martin

While welcoming the fact that at long last we are debating the de Buitléir report six months after I raised the issue of its publication during Private Members' time in January 1995, I regret that such an important report on the higher education grant system should have been discarded and essentially ignored by the Minister for Education.

It is important to realise that the de Buitléir report was completed in November 1993 but was published only in January 1995 and not one of its major recommendations has been implemented. The report underlining the necessity for urgent action, particularly the need to streamline the administration of the scheme, states that "early decisions are required if the new arrangements are to be fully or partly in place for 1994 grant applications". Due to the Minister's inertia, the new arrangements are not in place for 1995 grant applicants.

More fundamentally, however, the Minister in her budgetary package, particularly the free fees proposal, went totally against the thrust and fundamental principles of the de Buitléir report's recommmendations on student support systems. The de Buitléir report argues essentially against free fees for all. It argues that those who "cannot afford to pay for third level education should be supported by grants while those who are better off and therefore able to pay should receive a lesser or zero grant." It correctly put forward the view that, since the State's resources are inevitably limited, efficiency requires that grants should be paid only to those who need them to attend college, that it is not efficient to substitute public expenditure on higher education for existing private expenditure and that student support is only warranted where shortage of means demands it. It put forward the concept of vertical equity which, in the context of a student support system for third level education, means that the rate of grant given should vary from full grant support for those with low means to zero support for those with means adequate to support a student at third level.

At no stage does the de Buitléir report suggest that fees should be abolished. This important advisory committee established by the Minister for Education and reporting as far back as 1993 did not suggest that fees should be abolished but it did favour the phased abolition of tax covenants in education arguing that the resources generated by this move should be reallocated to increase direct expenditure under the student support schemes. It argued that the money yielded to the Exchequer by the abolition of tax covenants should be used, for example, to increase the means test eligibility threshold, to increase the maintenance grants rates, to introduce a system of marginal relief, to bring in specific measures to help larger families and to bring part-time students within the higher education grant scheme as well as improving the position of mature students in the student support system.

The report proposed the phased abolition of tax covenants arguing that existing covenants should be allowed to run their course on the grounds that families have already planned expenditure on their children's third level education. It felt morally that such agreements should be honoured by the State but the Minister and the Government have no such moral reservations and arbitrarily and immediately abolished these covenants for short term electoral gain. I repeat at no stage did the de Buitléir report suggest that the revenue gained from the abolition of tax covenants should be used to abolish third level undergraduate fees to the exclusion of all other categories of students.

In Private Members' motions and during the debate on the White Paper on education we outlined areas that have been starved of resources and categories of students in the third level system who are grossly underfunded and lack adequate support. Given the constraints on public expenditure I maintain that the £38 million realised should be redistributed equitably and in a socially progressive way.

Given that the main thrust of the de Buitléir report has not been adopted, why does the Minister bother establishing such committees and commissioning such reports if at the end of the day she will ignore its fundamental recommendations and go against its main policy thrust? Committee members obviously realised the existing scheme was very limited, inefficient and inequitable and the extra revenue generated should be used to bring about a more socially progressive and equitable student support system. The de Buitléir report highlighted in a succinct manner the inadequacies and inequities of the present system particularly in relation to the PAYE sector.

It is widely accepted that the third level grant system is totally inequitable and discriminates in an appalling manner against the PAYE sector. Deputies have been inundated with calls of complaint from PAYE workers who have received no financial support whatever in the past because of the harsh and arbitrary nature of the schemes. The income limits are simply too low and larger families, in particular, suffer. In addition, the scheme is too rigid and people who are marginally over the income limits suffer unduly as a result. No marginal relief provision exists. Study after study confirms that other sectors of the economy benefit more proportionally than the PAYE sector and this needs to be addressed quickly. The de Buitléir report confirms this and argues that the major beneficiaries of the student support system are not those families in the lowest income groups and that the top 20 per cent of income earners obtain over 16 per cent of expenditure.

The report in its assessment of the existing scheme highlighted the main defects with the means assessment system as the inadequate definition of means under the existing schemes, the steep reduction in grants payable to those marginally in excess of the income limits and the less favourable treatment of larger families. It proposed an improvement in the position of larger families and the introduction of fair and acceptable provisions for withdrawal of grants to apply to those just over the income limit. The report put forward the view that in any means tested scheme there must be special arrangements for dealing with cases which are marginally over the income limit. It argued correctly that some relief is necessary under the income test to cover cases in which applicants are marginally over the threshold.

In relation to large families I support the contention made in the report that the allowance in the present scheme for larger families is too low. It is clear that some children from smaller families who receive grants are better off than children from larger families who are denied them. I agree with the recommendation in the report that appropriate equivalent scales be used to establish the appropriate income limit for different family sizes. Furthermore it is widely accepted that for families living distances from third level colleges the real cost is not fees but the maintenance of students at college.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the maintenance grants bear no relationship to the actual cost of maintaining a student away from home. The Union of Students of Ireland has estimated that the average cost of putting a student through college in 1994 was about £5,250. These realistic calculations can be considered modest. The average maintenance grant still works out at £40 per week which would hardly pay for rented accommodation. Having listened to my colleagues it is clear that the level of maintenance grants is critical. In her Budget Statement the Minister made no real attempt to improve maintenance grants significantly. It is becoming very difficult for many students to survive in college due to the low level of maintenance support. The Minister allocated the entire yield from the abolition of tax covenants to undergraduate fees alone and made no attempt to deal with the issue of maintenance.

Because of this Government's mismanagement of the national finances and the cutbacks mentioned in her speech, the Minister's capacity in future to do anything effective on this issue is significantly reduced. She did nothing in the recent budget to assist mature or part-time students. She ignored, in particular, the recommendation of the de Buitléir report in relation to mature students who, if attending part-time or evening courses, are not entitled to a maintenance grant. Those studying in full time day courses can be eligible for higher education grants. The problem is that mature students, regardless of their age, are means tested on their parents' income if they are living at home. Many mature students who have given up jobs to go to college move back to their parents' homes as a consequence and, because of the means test provision, are in a catch-22 situation.

The de Buitléir report recommends that mature applicants over the age of 25 years should be means tested on their own income, regardless of residence. It is disappointing that this has not yet happened. In Northern Ireland students can get additional grants for spouse and child support. Olive Keogh, in an excellent article some time ago on the issue of mature students in the "Education and Living" supplement of The Irish Times, said: “For people already working or recently unemployed the financial support to upgrade their qualifications is woefully inadequate”. She concluded the article by saying that for many mature people considering going to college to upgrade their qualifications “the prospects are very bleak indeed”.

It is also clear that the student support system must be dramatically improved for postgraduate students who make incredible sacrifices to pursue further research. The recently published report of the Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council highlighted serious under-provision in the postgraduate area. Indeed, the report painted a damning picture of under-provision in this sector. It recommended, for example, that basic research funding for higher education should be increased from £1.5 million to £6 million per annum and that a further £5 million should be made available to redress the deficiencies in research equipment. Furthermore, it argued that each PhD scholarship should be funded at a level of not less than £3,000 per year.

Any postgraduate student can tell tales of obsolete equipment, poor library facilities, overcrowded laboratories and inadequate research grants. They still have to pay their fees and the budget education package serves only to worsen their situation. Yesterday, I received a letter from a postgraduate student who said that the abolition of undergraduate fees was a cynical political exercise to appease the floating voters in certain constituencies where the Labour Party has new TDs. Many students from the postgraduate and PLC sectors are writing to Deputies condemning the lack of provision in their areas. Recently I was alerted to the fact that the UCD library committee in the postgraduate scientific research area proposes to reduce the number of scientific journals from 300 to 200 per annum.

There is critical and scandalous under-provision in the postgraduate sector and, despite the budgetary statement and the de Buitléir report, there has been no response from the Minister or the Government in terms of increasing subsistence and financial support for the students concerned. Parents who are covenanting to postgraduate children, for example, will lose their covenant savings as a result of the budget and will gain nothing since those fees have not been abolished. It is regrettable that the Minister did not give priority to the plight of postgraduate students in the context of the student support system.

Their plight is set to worsen with colleges about to announce savage increases in postgraduate fees. In May it was revealed that UCD is proposing a general increase of 12 per cent in post-graduate fees and a savage 40 per cent increase for PhD students. The latest indication is that the general fee increase will now be about 10.8 per cent in UCD and 8 per cent in Maynooth for postgraduate students. That is intolerable and unacceptable and well above the rate of inflation. It is inexcusable and absurd, given all the hullabaloo about free fees for undergraduate students, that fees for postgraduate students should be increased to such an extent. These increases represent a damning indictment of Government policy on postgraduate education. In any reform of the higher education grants scheme, special measures must be introduced to improve the provisions for postgraduate students. The research capacity of the higher education system is an important national resource. It is important that society acknowledges this and gives this sector the priority it deserves.

The most controversial proposal in the report is the proposal to introduce a capital test, in addition to the existing income test, to qualify for a third level grant. I have no desire to engage in a witch-hunt of those who currently qualify for grants. However, in the context of improving the student support system I am specifically interested in broadening the scope of the existing scheme to embrace students and families from the PAYE sector who up to now have been the clear losers. The report engages in considerable ideological debate to justify the introduction of a capital test as well as an incomes test. We must remember, however, that assets in many cases are required fundamentally to produce income. Their dilution or sale inevitably will reduce the capacity of asset holders, particularly farmers, to generate sufficient income. Such proposals must be discussed in the public arena. The interests involved have a right to make submissions and to have an input into these proposals. Has the Minister invited submissions on the recommendations of this report from the interested bodies concerned?

The implications of such a test are obviously serious for a farm family that depends on assets to generate income, and in some cases we are talking about very moderate levels of income. A farm family with four children, two of whom are already in college, on an income just over the average industrial wage would satisfy the means test but would fail the capital assets test applied in the manner and at the thresholds proposed in the report. The situation could be worse for farm families involved in dry stock production because of the lower profitability of the dry stock enterprises compared with dairying and the larger amount of land and stock required to generate an equivalent level of income. We must be extremely careful in considering this proposal. The Minister should clarify her position on the matter during this debate. We were given minor clarification this evening although the Minister said that she has not put the proposal aside.

The preferable course of action is to continue to use a proper incomes or means test mechanism operated by the Revenue Commissioners, who have been particularly successful in recent years in ensuring greater tax compliance. I understand the frustration felt by many on hearing about and seeing the appalling anomalies of people with expensive lifestyles who somehow qualify for grants. That is unacceptable and it is important to introduce proper mechanisms to prevent such anomalies. The involvement of the Revenue Commissioners in assessing and overseeing applications should help enormously in this regard.

One recommendation of the report with which I strongly disagree deals with post leaving certificate students. It recommended that the scheme should not be extended to include PLC students. Perhaps at the time of the committee's deliberations the impact of the PLC phenomenon had not manifested itself clearly to the members. I have argued on more than one occasion that the forgotten people of our education system, in so far as the present Minister for Education is concerned, are the post leaving certificate students. This sector has been the most exciting and radical development in education for decades. There are approximately 17,500 students attending post leaving certificate courses this year. These students receive no maintenance grants and the Minister refused in her budgetary strategy to use some of the resources realised by the abolition of tax covenants to provide maintenance support for them.

Students in further education courses in Northern Ireland, who are doing the same courses as students in the South, receive such maintenance support. In the budget the Minister allocated £2 million towards the abolition of fees in the PLC courses. This proposal caused considerable confusion and is leading to administrative chaos in the colleges concerned. They simply do not know what they can put in their promotional brochures.

The Department is currently surveying the colleges to find out the levels of fees charged and the charges levied by professional bodies involved in the certification of these courses. Why did the Minister not do her homework in advance? Why announce the proposals without dotting the i's and crossing the t's? The Minister is prone to making popular announcements without proper research and preparation, resulting in confusion and chaos. Many of the people involved in these courses would normally have brochures ready in May or early June for the following autumn and would include information concerning fees and so forth. I have heard considerable criticism from staff in the colleges concerned about the present position. It would have been far easier and simplier if the Minister had provided some level of maintenance support to students attending PLC courses instead of eroding a useful revenue basis for the PLC colleges themselves.

The treatment of PLC students has been inequitable and unjust. It is absurd that it is now cheaper for some students to go to university than to a PLC college. That is the Labour Party's concept of fair play and social justice.

On the administration side, the de Buitléir report makes far reaching and laudable recommendations which I endorse and fully support. What is inexplicable is the Minister's failure to implement many of them. Its most important proposal is the creation of a centralised single agency supported by an information system provided through schools, local authorities or vocational education committees, supplemented by free telephone information lines at appropriate times to operate the schemes. It argued that the most appropriate agency to carry out the routine administration of the scheme is the Central Applications Office. Indeed, the de Buitléir committee discussed the issue with the CAO and came up with a feasible timetable in the report. This would mean, for example, that the CAO would be able to advise students whether they would be eligible or not by July of every year. It also recommended the payment of monthly instalments of the grant from October onwards, ending the enduring saga of late payment of grants.

All of this was proposed as far back as 1993 and there has been no action since. The Minister gave the lame excuse that action could not be taken on this matter because of the White Paper on education, the new regional education boards and the public sector embargo announced recently by the Minister for Finance. This is an appalling situation. No one can deny that having 70 agencies involved in the administration of the grants schemes with three separate grant forms to fill up is ludicrous. We all accept the concept of retaining local advisory bodies. The new REBs, when they are formed, or the existing vocational education committees, could provide such local advice and help in filling in these forms.

The de Buitléir report called for a simplification of the higher education grant forms. The forms have not been simplified. Only last week I had to help parents to fill in a number of these forms. They are appallingly complicated and are intimidating to many parents. It is scandalous that even on that basic issue we have not had a simplification, despite the fact that the de Buitléir report was completed in November 1993.

As the report points out, there are three separate schemes administered by over 70 agencies. There is no reason for the continuation of three separate schemes. I support the recommendation that the requirement for grant recipients to pay a deposit to reserve a college place and subsequently to pay their fees at registration should be dispensed with. According to the de Buitléir report, a certificate of qualification should be issued to the student in advance.

I also strongly support the recommendation that the maintenance grant should be paid in equal monthly instalments in advance into an account of the financial institution of the student's choice. This would allow the student some degree of financial certainty and alleviate the type of budgetary problems which the present system creates for many students.

An independent appeals procedure is urgently required. Again I am at a loss as to why the Minister has not introduced such a procedure — there is no reference to it in the Minister's speech. Under the existing system, the Department and the Minister for Education effectively exercise a decision making as well as an appeals function. This is clearly unsatisfactory and I support the recommendations in the report that the appeal commissioners appointed under tax law be given to the power to decide all appeals on grant eligibility and that appeals should be decided within two months from the date of the appeal.

Some colleges already had hardship funds or fee concession schemes in place when the de Buitléir report was finalised. There has been a fee concession scheme in operation in UCC for many years. However, it is difficult to see how the colleges can supplement these funds on an ongoing basis without assistance from the Minister who seems intent on eroding the revenue base that colleges currently have through fees.

On that point, it would be useful if the Minister would clarify — I welcome the announcement that there will be some clarification on Thursday — whether colleges will be charging registration, capitation and library fees this autumn and whether, despite the free fees proposals, students will still be paying fees of a sort while attending university and will not have the benefit of the students support scheme to avoid paying these charges. Essentially, new charges will be introduced. They will be called registration or library charges, but they are new charges and they will form a revenue base for the college which, as day follows night, will inevitably mean that they will become the new fees in the years to come. It may also involve a recognition by the Minister that one of the most critical problems facing colleges is their revenue base for future capital development and it is important that such a revenue base is retained.

I wish to pay tribute to the work of the de Buitléir committee. By and large, its recommendations are simple, straightforward and progressive and I support the majority of them. It is totally unsatisfactory, however, that the Minister has failed to implement most of its proposals and has in fact implemented policies that run counter to the fundamentally egalitarian principles of the report. The de Buitléir committee genuinely sought equality of opportunity for students. The Minister has ignored that route and has pursued a different one in the false hope of electoral gain. However, the pursuit of electoral gain on its own is no basis for a sound and socially progressive education policy.

Ms Keogh

I wish I could say that I welcomed the opportunity to speak on the Report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support. That is what I had hoped to do months and even years ago because I believed that it was the basis for the restructing of our third level maintenance and grants system. Initially, the administrative or housekeeping bits and pieces of the report were published and the Minister said at that stage that she was taking them on board. Unfortunately, we are still awaiting the results of much of that and there has not been the implementation we were promised when we debated that part of the report. I found it remarkable that the rest of the report was not published when we debated a portion of it. It is a little disingenuous of my Fianna Fáil colleagues to disclaim all the blame for that. Notwithstanding that, however, the Minister should have taken the lead. She did not and therefore she has to take the blame.

The background against which this committee was established is one where there is grave discontent with the grants and maintenance system. People, especially those in the PAYE sector, believed they were being discriminated against. There was much concern that sons and daughters of big farmers received grant maintenance while the sons and daughters of those in the PAYE sector, such as teachers or gardaí, did not receive what they believed was their just desserts and would find themselves over the margins as far as grant limits were concerned. It was a limited public scandal in the sense that it was referred to every year at the time when students had aspirations to go to college.

There was also the continuing difficulty about the maintenance grants allocations. The administration section of the report purported to deal with that problem. While there are still some difficulties, it has improved thanks to some extent to the recommendations of the report, even though many of these recommendations were not taken on board. At least it focused the mind on the difficulties the students faced. They would be in college for many months and there would be no sign of their maintenance grants, which had enormous knock on effects in terms of hardship for those children. They had to borrow and soon found themselves at a disadvantage at an early stage of their academic careers. While the situation has improved, much more needs to be done. However, we all accepted, when we debated that aspect of the report, that this was not the crux of the matter. The nuts and bolts could and should be dealt with since we were dealing with equity in the system.

The Minister said she wanted to put on record her appreciation of the careful and detailed consideration which the de Buitléir committee gave, under its terms of reference, to the student support schemes. She thanked the members for their commitment and expertise in producing a good report. She also said the committee submitted its report in November 1993 and that it was published in February 1995. I was and am critical of the time lapse between the submission of the report and its publication. However, the Minister asked Deputies to understand that it was not a case of leaving it on a shelf to gather dust, which was the fate of many such reports. There were many layers of dust on that report when one considers what the report states and what subsequently happened.

The overview of the report states:

Participation rates in higher education differ among socio-economic groups. Equal access to higher education is important. Those who complete third-level education have higher earnings, experience less unemployment and exercise more power and influence in society than those who do not.

We were talking about a just society and equity in the system. The approach of the committee, therefore, was to devise a system which was fair, economically efficient and simple. The Minister congratulated it on its approach.

As regards student support systems, the report states:

To deny large segments of the population access to third-level education because they have inadequate means to finance the costs of such education which must be borne by the family, is to deny the opportunity to many to realise the significant financial benefits of this education ... However, since many of the gains arising from third-level education are captured by private individuals, in terms of improved employment opportunities, higher earnings and greater job satisfaction, student support is only warranted where shortage of means demand it.

That is the crux of the issue as far as I am concerned. The report continues:

Because access to higher education has important influences on life chances, we conclude that the State has an interest in ensuring that those who can benefit from higher education are not denied it due to lack of means. We also conclude that those who have the means to do so should contribute towards the cost of their higher education.

However, the direct opposite happened. The Minister announced the free fees scheme for third level education, which showed political expediency, rather than equity. This flies in the face of the report's recommendations. The issue of debating the report never arose. When the scheme was announced by the Minister I endeavoured to contact the Department, but I was told it knew nothing about it. I contacted the Department of Finance, but it also knew nothing about it. I was then directed to the Minister's private office where her officials knew something, but not much about the scheme. No one could have known much about it because it was not thought through nor was it the result of deliberations on this report. It was a politically expedient move which was directed towards the middle class voters which the Labour Party wanted to attract.

The Minister knows from the long debates we have had since the announcement of the scheme that this has nothing to do with equity. Educationalists — who should know what they are talking about — and anyone who knows anything about deprivation have stated that this was not the right thing to do. If spare money is available or if the Minister takes resources from the education system through abolishing tax relief on covenants, etc., she should use it to educate children at primary school level where our system is not good enough. Many primary schools are being supported by cake sales.

I assume my children will be the lucky beneficiaries of this scheme. During this debate I listened to the cogent argument made by Deputy Dukes that someone on an income such as his should be able to afford to put his children through third level education. I am delighted, as any parent would be, that I do not have to pay university fees if my children are lucky enough to go there. It is natural to be thankful for not having to provide for that, but it is not right and nobody I have spoken to says it is. We will all accept it, but we know it is not right.

By having statements on this report, we are operating in a never never land. What recommendations will the Minister implement? The Minister will choose small sections from this report so that she will be able to say she took on board what the report said about third level student support. It means nothing.

As Deputy Martin said, there is total confusion about post leaving certificate courses. For example, in Dún Laohgaire, which is the Minister's and my constituency, the vocational education committee post leaving certificate courses are excellent. As the Minister knows, the fee for such courses is only £25. However, there is a charge which can amount to several hundred pounds depending on the course. There is total confusion about what will happen in this regard. Students are under the impression that they will have free fees and they will assume that charges will also be free. They have not been given any guidelines from the Department on this. These charges will be difficult to collect because parents who contribute to them will assume that the charges are free. This will result in confusion in Dún Laoghaire. Students taking post leaving certificate courses in a few months' time will not know where they stand and that is unfair. This system is supposed to be based on fairness and equity, but it is a joke.

We are all singing from the same hymn sheet here because we are aware of the problems. For example, there are problem with regard to what charges the universities will impose. They will have registration charges which have been likened to the road tax which is a creeping charge. Will they also charge exam fees? On the question of post-graduate fees I wish to quote from one of many letters I received. It states:

I am writing to you in reference to the proposed fee increase for post-graduate students at University College Dublin. The levels of the increase are in some cases up to 12 times the current rate of inflation. This will result in hardship for postgraduates who are already struggling financially.

It goes on to make a very important point:

Moreover these increases will make it even more difficult for students to enter and pursue post-graduate studies in Ireland. This is a serious threat to the future of all research in this country.

Much critical research which should be carried out by post-graduate students and others will be neglected as a result of the increases. Everyone knows that research is essential for development and this area will — at the very least be diminished and — at the worst — lost. The universities will have no option but to follow the course because they do not know where they stand. We are talking here about the people who at a certain level should be the intellectual leaders in society and who should be challenging us during the next century.

The report concludes that public confidence in the equity of the system is very low and that there is serious resentment among many sections of the community about it. It goes on to say that the administration of the system needs substantial improvement, it is complicated and confusing for the applicant and the quality of service is unacceptably low in terms of timing of the notification of grant eligibility and payment of the grant. There is no renewed confidence in the equity of the system; rather there is more dissatisfaction with it.

We are debating the report in a vacuum and I wonder how meaningful these statements can be. The report recommends that means testing for third level grants should be based on an income and capital test and sets out how this could operate in practice. Much of what is contained in the report is valid and I take on board Deputy Martin's arguments about assets etc. However, there should be a degree of flexibility in regard to the grants and the level of income. Far from ensuring that we have an equitable system we are perpetuating the inequities in society.

Most of us are middle class and, like our parents, want to give our children the best education possible. I am very surprised at the Minister who knows more about disadvantage than I do although I have worked in disadvantaged areas and in schools which suffer enormous disadvantage. I know that people working in deprived inner city areas will ask why, if we did not find favour with the solutions we did not debate them and come up with a balanced solution. This has not happened and this expensive publication might as well have been left on the shelf for all the attention that has been given to it. It is a joke to be discussing it tonight because the goalposts have been moved and a totally different element has been thrust on top of it. As I said, maintenance grants are essential for students living away from home and if we worked within the broad framework in the report there would be greater equity for them.

Kathleen Lynch

This debate has been deferred so often that I have had to constantly check my script to see if it is up to date. In terms of access to third level education and funding, this excellent report should be the blueprint for the future. However, we are debating it in a vacuum as the way forward for third level education has already been decided. Nonetheless it is a good report and it will be as relevant to the future of education in five or ten years' time as it is today.

The majority of Members do not have the same attitude to education as I do. I regard education as the only means by which people living in areas which are socially, environmentally, economically and educationally disadvantaged can get true representation and can be in a position to say "this type of representation is not good enough for me and something must be done about the area in which I live and about unemployment". Until we get to the point where people have access we will never have equality.

I listened with interest to the previous speakers and I am sure they believe passionately in everything they said. They are as much to blame as anyone else for the neglect, the deprivation and the lack of access. For over ten years I have been speaking about areas where children who do not even finish secondary school, let alone think about third level, and have been totally ignored. Why should people think they would listen if they were in power? To give people power, information, the right to govern themselves, to stand up and to assert their right to be heard and the type of representation they need would be a frightening prospect for politicians. Politicians might think they would not be needed if the voiceless had a voice. Politicians can pretend to be the voice of the voiceless when it suits, but when in office they do not give to people the power to order their own lives.

I take with a grain of salt these grandiose speeches I hear from people who could have put in place the mechanism to begin to deal with the problem which comes from generations of neglect. I am not foolish enough to believe that one, two or three terms in Government would rectify the neglect of these people. It was perpetrated neglect, for which we are beginning to pay the price in terms of the breakdown of society in certain areas. The fabric of society is breaking down in areas where people do not go to third level or have difficulty in remaining to the end of second level. It is not breaking down in areas such as Dun Laoghaire or Foxrock.

Mr. Martin

That is because they have a Minister.

Kathleen Lynch

Fianna Fáil had power for a long time.

Mr. Martin

When the Deputy's party became responsible for social welfare it gave £1.50 to old age pensioners. That was its commitment to the old.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Lynch without interruption, please.

Kathleen Lynch

I allowed the Deputy to speak for 35 minutes without interruption. He cannot listen to the truth for five minutes.

Mr. Martin

The Deputy was not listening.

Kathleen Lynch

He is smarting. He was never any different.

Mr. Martin

The Deputy is getting very personal. I am interested in policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us have no further interruptions.

Kathleen Lynch

The Deputy is interested in power, not policy. The de Buitléir report still holds out enormous hope for the people for whom it was meant to give hope. It can be implemented on a phased basis. There are huge problems associated with getting people from second level into third level. The people we need to get to third level, in order to have a balanced society which looks after all its children, need to be supported financially, not only in relation to fees but in relation to maintenance, the home liaison scheme and attitudinal changes. We need to examine the whole area of third level education, including the post leaving certificate courses, before September.

It would not have been my choice to give fees to third level students. On the other hand I have been approached by many people who have told me they are delighted with the move and that they will benefit. These are not the multi-rich but hardpressed PAYE earners, as I was until recently. They will benefit enormously. There is a section of society which will insist on their children going to third level education. In the past they had to pay through the nose, as well as paying heavy taxes.

The eligibility threshold should have been raised but I am not the Minister for Education and I do not claim to be an expert in all fields. The de Buitléir report, if implemented, will lead the way forward to third level but other things need to be done. We need to start with pre-school, secondary school, home liasion schemes, encouragement, structures, being determined and choosing people whom we know have ability to go forward.

I may appear to be opposed to everything tonight but I do not believe in gender quotas. They are necessary for a short period. When it comes to bringing people from certain areas and certain backgrounds through to third level we need to take positive action and there needs to be positive discrimination. If that means hand picking people in order to give example I do not have a problem with it because it would only be necessary for a short period.

Miss Coughlan

I have been listening to the previous speaker and wondering how the Minister manages. It is probably hard enough to listen to the Opposition but when the Minister is knifed in the back by some of her own partners——

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 4 Jul 1995

Private Members' Business. - Report of Advisory Committee on Student Support: Statements.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Jul 1995