Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Sep 1995

Vol. 456 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Third Level Charge.

Micheál Martin

Question:

5 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for Education the reason an exact portion of the new £150 service charge for third level students was not specifically allocated to student services to be distributed in a democratic fashion by the students themselves in the context of their own democratic structures; and the reason the national students union, the USI, was not represented on the subcommittee of the Higher Education Authority that proposed this change. [13621/95]

At the outset I must correct the view that this is a new charge.

Before I introduced free undergraduate tuition fees the standard practice had been that the universities had included the charge for examinations, registration and student services with their tuition fees as a single payment. In the Dublin Institute of Technology-RTC sector, tuition fees for ESF funded courses did not include this charge and most Dublin Institute of Technology-RTC students paid the charge directly to the colleges.

Students eligible for means tested support will have their grant increased by £150 to meet the cost of the charge.

The working group did not recommend a specific breakdown of the £150 charge but rather that each college should set out publicly for the information of the student body how this amount is allocated as between examinations, registration and capitation for student services.

In coming to this recommendation the working group had regard to the fact that the arrangements that apply in relation to student services vary from college to college. In accepting its recommendation I was anxious not to be over-prescriptive but rather to allow flexibility to the colleges and their student bodies to arrive at arrangements most appropriate to their circumstances.

The working group was established to make recommendations to me on the overall implementation of the free fees initiative. The issue of the £150 charge was only one element in its deliberations.

There was consultation with USI prior to the submission of the working group's report. I personally met the USI in January and March. After receiving the report I also met them in July. There was also a meeting involving an official of my Department and a USI representative in April.

The working group had regard for student concerns in recommending that (a) colleges should not be permitted to demand from students more than the maximum amount of £150; (b) colleges should set out publicly for the student body how the £150 would be allocated and (c) the arrangements to be put in place should not adversely affect the funding of student unions, clubs and societies.

The Minister's decision not to specifically allocate a portion of the £150 to students directly has resulted in, for example, the students' union in UCG getting £5.80 out of every £150, the one in Carlow regional technical college getting £5 and the union in UCD getting £7. Does the Minister consider those figures adequate to support student services in those colleges having regard to the amount they received through the system prior to the introduction of free fees?

Regarding those figures, we indicated to students and to the Higher Education Authority which was involved in the working group that we would try not to be too prespective at the outset. There is a good student administrative committee in UCC where these matters are easily discussed. I thought it would be better if the colleges involved provided details of how the money is being divided and at the end of the year we could consider the success of this initiative. We, in Marlborough Street, could have adopted a centralised approach to this area, one in which the Department of Education never had a role. It is new territory. A working group considered the matter. We had a good deal of consultation with USI. The anecdotel evidence of the effect this year will——

It is not anecdotal, it is factual and represents the reality on the ground.

I would remind the Deputy that when this was introduced we said it would be reviewed at the end of the year when the overall figures were available to us and we could compare those against past experiences in the funding of student activities.

The Minister's decision and the manner in which this was organised has rolled back the clock ten years in so far as student unions are concerned. I was a member of the students' union in UCC ten years ago which initiated a referendum to bring in the capitation system whereby a certain portion of the fees were allocated to the students to be distributed by them under the aegis of their own democratic structures. The Minister had that option. It is not a case of centralising——

A question please, Deputy.

I am putting it to the Minister that she had the option of giving the students the power to receive a certain portion of funding and to redistribute it. I put it to her also that some members of the Government were successful administrators of the national students union, including the Ministers of State, Deputies Rabbittee and Gilmore, and others in the Labour Party. Is the Minister now trying to crush the power and influence of students unions? That is what the students believe. They believe that the authorities are taking over the allocation of funding to student services. The power and influence of the union is being whittled away because of the decisions taken in relation to the £150 charge.

I have no intention of whittling away any power and indeed I have always maintained the position of recognising USI as the group which represents the student body. When I was involved in student politics all the higher education colleges were members of USI and the smaller colleges were beginning to take their place. This decision was made following consultation and a degree of concern expressed by the student body that the £150 would be buried in the fees initiative and the need to separate the two. I have made the announcement. We have capped the £150 and we have asked each college to set out publicly for the information of the student body how this amount is being allocated between examinations, registration and capitation for student services. I await the effects of that.

I put it to the Minister that publishing the fact that she is getting nothing is not much consolation for the people involved. That is not accountability.

Transparency.

It is transparency, it is not accountability.

Will the Minister accept the principle — it is too late now in relation to this particular issue — that in future a body such as USI should be represented on any committee making decisions that affect its members?

The students union was given a place on the recently established body, Teastas. Other bodies are open to such representation and in that regard we can also look forward to the promised legislation on universities. I am open to the idea of including all the partners in education. At the National Education Convention in Dublin Castle the procedures were brought to a close with a contribution made by USI on behalf of the students of Ireland. I wish USI well as it seeks to become a fully representative body of all the student organisations.

Top
Share