Brian O'Shea
Question:18 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will introduce a scheme of graduated entitlement to third level maintenance grants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11308/98]
Priority Questions. - Higher Education Grants.
The current arrangements for assessing reckonable income under the higher education grants scheme were revised in 1992. When the new arrangements were introduced the reckonable income limits were increased by 40 per cent. Entitlement to a grant operates on a graduated basis. To qualify for a grant a candidate's reckonable income must be below the income limit which varies for the level of grant and in relation to the number of dependent children in the family. Where there are two or more children attending full-time third level education the relevant income limits are increased by £2,000 where there are two such children, £4,000 for three children and so on by increments of £2,000. The income limits vary with the number of dependants. Different limits apply where there are fewer than four dependent children, between four and seven, and eight or more.
Prior to the introduction of the new arrangements in 1992 the income limits were set by the actual number of dependent children in excess of two and up to ten. The income limits varied depending on whether a maintenance grant was payable and, if so, whether it was payable at the adjacent or non-adjacent rate and depending on the rate of lecture fee grant payable. These arrangements were cumbersome and difficult for the local authorities to administer while being extremely difficult for an individual candidate to understand. The new arrangements simplified the income limits, easing the administrative burden on the local authorities and making the system more comprehensible for candidates generally.
Further refinement of the present graduated system to provide tapering relief for candidates whose income exceeds the relevant limits would have implications for the administration of the scheme and also involve the commitment of substantial additional resources. In light of overall resource constraints I am obliged to have regard to the relative priority of all proposals for improvements and the many competing demands across the education system. I will, however, keep this question under review in the context of my Department's ongoing review of student support provisions and in light of the available resources.
It is extraordinary the Minister did not refer to the de Buitléir report of which he was fond in Opposition.
I still am.
The Minister said the changes were made to make the system, which is graduated, more comprehensible. There are two rates — the full rate and 50 per cent. Where the parents' gross income exceeds £17,740 a child will qualify for the 50 per cent rate. A 25 per cent and 75 per cent rate should be introduced. An arbitrary cut off point is not the way to handle the problem. Those who qualify for the 50 per cent rate are liable for the £250 registration fee which the Minister was kind enough to raise by £100 this year.
I accept the Deputy's view about the arbitrary cut off point. I have made the same point on a number of occasions. We are looking at ways to ameliorate the position in the context of the forthcoming Estimates. Some significant changes have been made in the past ten months. I identified the creation of additional places as my priority at third level. All the data illustrate that, as things stand in the economy, most people at third level will secure lucrative employment. Many still cannot make it to college because insufficient places are available. In the autumn we increased the number of places available by 8,000.
The previous Government ignored post-leaving certificate students and would not give them a grant for over four years. The previous Minister did not consider this a priority. This was inequitable. I believed the matter had to be dealt with immediately. In the 1998 Estimates we have provided for the payment of grants to these students. The number of places available on PLC courses was increased by 3,000 in the autumn. That was not a bad day's work. Priority has to be given to the creation of additional places and the improvement of infrastructure within the colleges.
While I welcome the fact that priority is being given to the creation of additional places, it is more important to ensure access. As the Minister is aware, many students cannot avail of the opportunity to take up third level places because they do not qualify for a maintenance grant. Those living in the university cities have a distinct advantage. The Minister's response is disappointing. It appears he has no intention of doing anything significant in this area this year. The system was improved by his predecessor who abolished third level fees.
Parents will continue to be assessed on gross rather than net income. A grave injustice is being done to many children. The Minister has an obligation to build on the good work done by his predecessor. It should not be forgotten that the cost of accommodation has increased dramatically and that students living away from home have the added expense of bus fares home.
I disagree fundamentally with the Deputy who referred to my predecessor and his party's policy in Government. He identified the students whom he considers to be in difficulty because of their inability to survive on the maintenance grant. The Deputy's party provided for the introduction of free fees benefiting those in the middle and high income brackets.
The Minister is wrong. Income is assessed differently.
In terms of the allocation of resources a decision was taken to increase the Education Estimate by between £40 million and £50 million to provide for the introduction of free fees, not the implementation of the de Buitléir report which recommended the elimination of covenants and the utilisation of the money saved in refining and reforming the grants system to make it more equitable for the less well off. I acknowledge the introduction of free fees proved beneficial for the PAYE sector but it did not lead to the creation of one additional place for a student on low income or from a disadvantaged background. We should stop pretending that it did.
Having discussed the matter with a number of organisations involved in this area there are a number of steps we could take to increase access and participation. For instance, the hardship funds available to the colleges could be increased. The support schemes, including scholarships, operated by a number of universities and institutes of technology produce far better results in terms of giving young people at second level in certain communities the wherewithal to participate at third level. Familiarisation trips are also organised. Much more work could be done with greater results in terms of access and participation than grand gestures.
The Minister has identified the problem and treated us to rhetoric. What exactly will he do about it?
With respect, I have not treated the Deputy to rhetoric. The creation of an additional 8,000 places at third level and 3,000 additional places at PLC level will make a significant difference in terms of access and participation. The scheme will be considered in the context of the forthcoming Estimates. Decisions have not been made yet in terms of the allocation of resources but I will take on board the Deputy's suggestions. I also have concerns about mature students and helping students in college who may be in financial difficulty.