With the permission of the House, I should like to share my time with Deputy Penrose.
Adjournment Debate. - Higher Education Grants.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue and the Minister for Education and Science for coming into the House to reply. I hope it augurs well for a positive response.
Access to higher education should be available in a fair and equitable manner to all third level students, whether in urban or rural areas. The 15-mile rule, as at present administered, determines the rate of maintenance grant payable to qualifying students and discriminates blatantly against those living in rural areas.
The adjacent rate, amounting to approximately £600 per annum, is payable to qualifying students who live within 15 miles of their college while grant aid of approximately £1,600 is payable to qualifying students outside the catchment area.
Originally determination of the level of grant aid payable was decided by the relevant local authority, taking into account the distance between the student's home and the relevant educational institution and the availability of public service transport. Subsequently, the 15-mile rule was introduced, which removed the discretion previously available to local authorities to assess local factors such as the availability of public service transport in determining the level of grant aid applicable.
Regrettably an incorrect decision was taken in 1995 that students living in many villages not readily accessible to colleges and universities would henceforth receive reduced grant aid. One such example is my village of Ballymore in County Westmeath. I am aware of a female student, whose home is located a fraction of a mile within the 15-mile limit from the regional technical college in Athlone. Her grant aid amounts to approximately £15 per week throughout the college term instead of the £40 per week she would receive if her home were located one mile further east.
Flats in Athlone cost approximately £28 per week, leaving an unbridgeable financial deficit in the case of this female student and her family. This means she is faced with either abandoning her course at the regional technical college or hitching the 14-mile journey twice daily to and from Athlone. Would the Minister allow his 18 year old daughter to hitch a lift to college daily in this manner? Certainly I would not want any daughter of mine to do so. Is this the type of choice that should be foisted on 18 year old students? There has been a huge number of attacks on hitchhikers and this young girl is in the precarious position of having to commute daily to college. It is totally unacceptable to expect her and other young people to undertake such hazardous journeys daily.
I call on the Minister to review the position immediately, to allow commonsense prevail on an issue crucial to the future well-being of many young people. I know he will take an interest in this case. I hope his response will not be a rehash of his reply to a recent parliamentary question but will set out his clear commitment to amend this discriminatory rule.
I thank Deputy McGrath for sharing his time with me. When the higher education grants scheme was introduced in 1968, such grants were payable on the basis of adjacent or non-adjacent rates. At that time and for some ten years thereafter no specific mileage criterion was applied. The sole arbiter of whether a student qualified for an adjacent or non-adjacent rate of grant was the relevant local authority. That criterion was changed in 1978, when the adjacent rate of grant was applied in the case of every candidate who could reasonably be expected to travel daily between his or her home and college.
The 15-mile criterion for determining which rate of grant should be payable was introduced in 1979 to facilitate a standardised approach by local authorities in determining which rate should be paid to an applicant student. If a local authority determined that an applicant could be reasonably expected to travel daily to his or her college, the adjacent rate was payable implying the availability of a public transport system. The availability of a regular public transport service was implicitly recognised within the provisions of the scheme.
Surely the same force of argument applies to persons who live in isolated rural areas, within the 15-mile criterion, where there is a clear absence of a public transport scheme. Students in that position will be obliged to reside in the town or place where their college is located and, in such circumstances, should be eligible for the non-adjacent rate. A change was introduced in 1995 which stipulated that, once a student resided in excess of 15 miles from his or her college, the non-adjacent rate was paid automatically.
I concur with Deputy McGrath that it is ridiculous that a student in a rural area such as Ballymore, some 13.5 miles from the regional technical college in Athlone, who has no public means of transport and whose parents do not have a vehicle to bring her there, is deprived of the non-adjacent rate, despite the fact that she clearly must live in Athlone. The same applies to students living in Drumraney, Tang and so on.
The Minister is a practical person. I would remind him that his Department is saving peanuts but that these criteria are causing major financial headaches for those unfortunate students caught in the trap. It involves an almost 60 per cent reduction in grants to students, many of whose families are in receipt of social welfare assistance.
I exhort the Minister to see sense and give these parents and students an even break. Let us distribute a small proportion of the spoils of our buoyant economy among them.
The Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Acts, 1968 to 1992 provide for the award of grants by local authorities to students pursuing third level studies under terms and conditions that may be prescribed from time to time by the Minister for Education and Science with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Under the student support schemes, maintenance grants are payable at either adjacent or non-adjacent rates. The adjacent rate of maintenance grant is payable where the grant-holder's normal residence is 15 miles or less from the college he or she is attending. The non-adjacent rate of maintenance grant is payable in all other cases.
When the higher education grants scheme was introduced originally in 1968 provision was made for the payment of maintenance grants at the adjacent and non-adjacent rates. The adjacent rate of maintenance was paid to a grant-holder whose normal family residence was adjacent to the college being attended. In all other cases the non-adjacent rate of maintenance grant was payable. No specific mileage criterion was applied and the decision on whether grants would be paid at the adjacent or non-adjacent rate was a matter solely for decision by the relevant local authorities.
In 1978 a new provision was introduced which required a local authority to decide, first, whether a grant-holder's normal family residence was in or adjacent to a university town or, second, whether the grant-holder's course was provided in an educational institution adjacent to his or her normal family residence, in the light of the distance and local public transport services. The adjacent rate of grant was applied in the case of every grant-holder who could reasonably be expected to travel daily between his or her home and college.
The 15-mile criterion for determining which rate of grant was payable was introduced in 1979 to standardise the approach taken by local authorities. This followed an examination by the Committee of Public Accounts of the manner in which some local authorities were administering the adjacency provision. In addition to the 15-mile criterion, a local authority also had regard to whether the grant-holder could reasonably be expected to travel to college daily where his or her family residence was located more than 15 miles away. If the local authority determined that the grant-holder could reasonably travel, the adjacent rate of grant only was payable. Apparently differences of interpretation had led to difficulties.
In any such grants scheme terms and conditions have, of necessity, to be introduced and I appreciate that in some cases students may experience difficulties in the implementation of this adjacency requirement. In the 1995-6 academic year, 72 per cent of all grant-holders were paid grants at the non-adjacent rate, and 28 per cent were paid grants at the adjacent rate. In general, it is accepted that the 15-mile adjacency condition is applied fairly and reasonably.
I am prepared to examine cases, such as outlined this evening. I will agree to review the situation without any commitments at this stage and in the context of clearly definable scheduled public transport being available. We have to combine the issue of balance with some degree of standardisation around the country in different local authority areas. I would be concerned about a disadvantaged student, who did not have access to public transport and neither she nor her parents had transport of their own, being denied a grant. If the Deputy can give me the individual cases which have caused this matter to be raised, I will see if we can be of some assistance to the students concerned.
I welcome that.
I recently announced that arrangements have been made to examine the question of rationalising the various student support schemes with a view to having them administered by a single agency. A joint working group involving officials from my Department and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has begun an examination of various options and the possible role of both Departments in any new system. When I have the report I will give it full consideration with a view to having any recommendations for improved and more efficient and effective administrative arrangements implemented as soon as possible. I intend to continue to seek ways of improving support for students attending third level institutions, and I will consider a range of options to achieve this objective. That said, the Deputy will accept that changes inevitably have financial implications and will have to be dealt with in the context of the wider Estimates provisions for third level education.