Vol. 459 No. 7
5 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Education the plans, if any, she has to increase the level of maintenance grants for third-level students; if she has reconsidered her decision regarding the extension of the free fees scheme to night students; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18866/95]
27 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Education the plans, if any, she has to increase the levels of maintenance grants for third-level students in view of the fact that the current low rates do little to improve equality of access. [18777/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 27 together.
I share the Deputies' concern about the level of maintenance grants and I am committed to improving the situation according as resources become available. Third level student support involves a significant expenditure commitment in the Estimates for my Department. In 1995 the provision for student support amounts to nearly £100 million. In 1994 and 1995 I increased the level of the maintenance grants in line with inflation.
The abolition of undergraduate tuition fees was funded by the removal of covenant tax relief. Extending free fees to cover additional categories of students is estimated at a cost of £18 million.
I hope that at a future time, as resources become available, it will be possible to provide more Exchequer support for third level undergraduate students attending courses at night or on a part-time basis.
Does the Minister intend to continue to ignore the recommendations of the de Buitléir report? Is it not true that de Buitléir said it is not efficient to substitute public expenditure on higher education for existing private expenditure? I wonder why the Minister ignored that. De Buitléir emphasised the importance of horizontal equity by treating people in the same situation in the same way. What difference does the Minister see between the situations of night and day students which would justify different treatment? Has she not made a totally arbitrary decision in this regard? If the Minister could not afford to provide free fees to all undergraduates, what criteria did she use in making her decision?
I wish to put the de Buitléir report in context. It was commissioned to advise me on funding the third level sector as I shared with other Deputies some sense of scepticism as to whether the large sums of money involved were being administered in a fair and transparent way. There were many recommendations in that report and on more than one occasion in this House I detailed recommendations which we have taken on board. Since the report became available to me, the abolition of third level fees was introduced as a Government decision.
The abolition of income tax covenant relief was very important in terms of funding undergraduate tuition fees because it was through that relief that the vast bulk of people, particularly in the higher tax bracket, were funding their children through university. It became very evident, given the expansion of that tax relief, that by abolishing it one could level the playing pitch for all undergraduate students and allow all access to our universities and third level institutions.
With regard to night and part-time students, I am already on record as saying that I have no difficulty with their case but it is a matter of priority and funding. I met a delegation from the night students' campaign and I saw the recent surveys by USI. I hope to be in a position, as Minister, to open the doors of all our educational institutions from early start to post graduate level. However, I am sure that the Deputy, particularly given the party of which she is a member, will appreciate that there are priorities which must be dealt with in a proper manner, given the State's resources. Many night and part-time students are funded by their employers, although others are not. It is a slightly different challenge but I do not have a philosophical objection to it. It is a matter of priorities and one which will be dealt with by Ministers for Education as sufficient resources become available.
Perhaps I should answer the question as the Minister did not. What has she done about the de Buitléir report or has she ignored it? The answer, of course, is "yes" which is much simpler than the long non-answer which we just received. I am concerned about equity in education. Is it not the case that if the Minister had ensured that those who could pay did so, she would have had the option to extend the free fees scheme — if that is the way she wanted to go — to night students? Her handling of this and her decisions have been arbitrary. We now have an inequitable system operating at third level.
I remind the Deputy that the question she tabled does not mention the de Buitléir report. She asked me if I had plans to increase the level of maintenance grants for third level students, I said I am concerned about the level and hope to improve it as resources become available. She asked if I had reconsidered my decision regarding the extension of the free fees scheme to night students and I explained that while I did not have any difficulties with it, I had priorities such as ring-fencing for undergraduate fees the funding saved by the State by the abolition of covenant tax relief.
The Deputy and I have different philosophies about those who can afford to pay. I have never asked the credentials or the socio economic class of those who enter first and second level and I believe that our educational institutions should be open to all. In that spirit, the Government decided to ring-fence the income from the abolition of the income tax covenant relief and make it available for the payment of undergraduate fees. A Minister in any Department has to make resources available on a prioritised basis. The Deputy has already secured from me a comment about my concern about the level of maintenance grants, which was the subject of her question.
The time for dealing with priority questions is exhausted but Deputy Keogh may ask a brief question.
I do not think that the Minister was aware that my question in relation to the de Buitléir report was a supplementary question. Is the Minister not aware that practically every commentator has said that the way to establish equity in our system is by proper funding at primary school level? She can open all the gates she likes of third level colleges but she knows that many of our children will never have a chance of getting near them.
We are having statements now rather than questions.
I take it that the Deputy is referring to the question submitted by Deputy Clohessy on an increase in the level of maintenance grants for third level students. I hope she will convey my answer to her party colleague because I think I have already answered the question. I would welcome a specific question on the investment which this and the last Government made in primary education. Since I arrived in the Department of Education, there has been an increase of 7 per cent in those staying in the second level system. Unless those across the community avail of second level education, they cannot seek to avail of third level. We have set a target of 90 per cent of second level students completing their leaving certificate and we are very much on target.
That resulted from not only targeting second level education but out of a concern for the primary sector. While I do not want to take up the time of the House on that matter in replying to this question, I would welcome an opportunity to spell out precisely the investment in primary education in the past three or four years.
We will take No. 6 in ordinary time.
