Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997

Vol. 485 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Higher Education Grants Scheme.

Mr. Deenihan

I thank the Minister of State for being in the House. Despite the introduction of the free fees initiative in 1996 and the availability of a means tested maintenance grant, a large number of young people cannot afford to attend college. This is reflected in the decrease in the number of students who accepted places on CERT and diploma courses last year. According to CAO figures, last year 14,341 students accepted offers on CERT and diploma courses compared to a figure of 16,741 for the previous year. The Union of Students of Ireland is convinced this is due to the very high cost of attending college.

Students on a maintenance grant living away from home receive the ridiculously low sum of £45.13 per week. It is estimated that a student needs £137 per week to survive. The escalating cost of rented accommodation means students have very little left in their grant cheque after they pay their rent. Students have to take out loans and take up part-time jobs to fund their way through college. This leads to other problems such as exhaustion among students who have to juggle study and work. All too often student fall into debt. There is also a high failure rate among students who have to take up part-time work to support themselves.

A full maintenance grant is £1,625 per annum or £45.13 per week. In most cases rent is approximately £40 per week. The school year is usually 36 weeks but some students secure their accommodation before the term begins which means they pay rent for longer. They also have to pay for their accommodation during the mid semester breaks and Christmas and Easter holidays. In some cases students pay rent during the summer holidays to ensure they have accommodation for the following school year.

A student pays at least £32 per week on food and groceries, £25 on ESB, fuel and telephone bills, £5 on travel in the city, £15 on clothes, medical and laundry expenses and approximately £20 on entertainment and other expenses. This amount to £137 per week, yet students only receive £45. The cost of keeping a student who lives away from home is approximately £5,617 per year, excluding fees. A large number of students, particularly those from rural areas, are suffering much hardship. Even though they do not pay fees, their parents cannot afford to borrow money to help them.

Many students are looking at options other than college. For example, young people in working class areas believe they are better off on the dole and are prepared to take their chances on it. It is important to review the entire grant system. An increasing number of students are questioning if they can afford to go to college. This is a sad reflection on all of us. The only feasible option for some students is to give up college as they cannot survive on £45.13 per week. They should not be asked to live on this inadequate amount of money. Will the Minister say if a review will be carried out in the near future into this very important matter?

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Mr. Treacy)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil don Teachta Deenihan toisc an ábhar tábhachtach seo a chur faoi bhráid na Dála.

We are engaged in an ongoing review of all aspects of higher education grants, including the eligibility rules. Maintenance grants have been increased in recent years in line with changes in the consumer price index. Similarly, the reckonable income limits for grant eligibility have been increased in line with movements in the average industrial wage. The maintenance grants rates for the 1997-8 academic year are: full maintenance, non-adjacent rate, £1,624; full maintenance, adjacent rate, £647; part maintenance — 50 per cent — non-adjacent rate, £812 and part maintenance — 50 per cent — adjacent rate, £324.

The question of increasing maintenance grants and income limits will be considered early next year in the context of the annual review of these schemes and in the light of available resources. In this context, I would point out that in the 1995-6 academic year approximately 26,000 students received grants under the higher education grants scheme at a cost in 1996 of more than £51 million. Furthermore, more than 28,000 students benefited under the free fees initiative in 1995-6 at a cost to the Exchequer of £54.5 million in 1996. Under this initiative the State meets the tuition fees of eligible students attending full-time undergraduate courses which must generally be of at least two years duration at approved colleges.

It is estimated that a £200 increase in the maximum maintenance grant and a proportionate increase in the other levels of grants would cost approximately £7 million per annum. An increase of 2 per cent or just over £30 to compensate for inflation would cost approximately £1.2 million. The question of increasing grants levels under the student support schemes has to be considered in the context of the overall level of funding and the many competing demands in the education sector. On the question of student support, the programme for Government, An Action Programme for the Millennium, provides a commitment to the introduction of equitable support of students attending PLC courses. This commitment reflects one aspect of the importance which the Government attaches to students in the PLC sector.

It is our intention to introduce grants, which will be at the same level as the third-level maintenance grant, as soon as possible for students who are registered on PLC courses as of September 1998. While the method and timing of these payments may take some time to finalise, they will be made and they will fully meet our commitments.

On the general issue of student support schemes, the report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support, chaired by Dr. Donal de Butléir, was published in February 1995. The advisory committee found the present system of student support to be fragmented, cumbersome and very confusing for grant applicants. It identified overlaps and duplication with up to 70 different organisations involved in the administration of the grant schemes. It also found that payments were too frequently delayed and students were often disadvantaged by various administrative problems in the system.

The advisory committee recommended that the three existing schemes, which have the same means test, the same rate of grant and cover virtually the same courses, should have a single application form. It also recommended significant changes in the processing of grant applications and payments. In August 1997 a joint working group involving officials from my Department and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs commenced an examination of various options for the future administration of the student support schemes, including the case for and against transferring this activity to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. I accept the current administration of the student support schemes needs to be improved. Apart from reservations about the need for a new body, we have an open mind as to the best and most appropriate options for a new centralised system. Our priority is to ensure that the system properly addresses the concerns of students and parents.

It is important to point out that more than one million young people attend educational courses at primary, second level and third level. Only today the Select Committee on Education and Science passed the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Bill under which £250 million will be provided over the next three years for major technological developments in the education system. We will continue to support the education of young people as this is the engine which will underpin economic sustainability in the future.