Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Oct 1998

Vol. 494 No. 5

Written Answers. - Third Level Charges.

Emmet Stagg

Question:

152 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will give an undertaking that there will be no further increase in the third level student capitation fee; and if he will provide resources to third level education institutions to enable them to abolish these fees. [18931/98]

Liam Aylward

Question:

153 Mr. Aylward asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will approve the proposal (details supplied) by the students union at the Institute of Technology in Carlow to impelment an instalment payment scheme of capitation fees for students who are most at risk of financial pressure. [18932/98]

Pádraic McCormack

Question:

154 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Education and Science the proposals, if any, he has to put a cap on the capitation charge for third level students; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18933/98]

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. Martin)

I propose to answer Questions Nos. 152 to 154, inclusive, together.

In the context of the free fees initiative, the third level colleges levied a standarised charge of £150 in the 1995-96 academic year for examinations, registration and student services. This charge was fixed at a maximum of £150 for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 academic years and set for review this academic years. In the light of the arguments advanced by the universities that the true costs of the charges would on average amount to £400 in 1997-98, the need for improved student services and the fact that the charge had been frozen since 1995, I accepted that the third level institutions could increase this charge to £250 for the 1997-98 academic year. In line with the 4 per cent increase agreed for the third level tuition fees for the 1998-99 academic year, I also accepted a similar increase in the level of this charge to £260.

The distribution of the charge payable by students for registration, exams and student services, is a matter for the third level institution involved. When I accepted that the third level institutions could increase this charge, I was concerned about that portion of the charge, which is intended to fund student services and in particular, the lack of transparent procedures. Accordingly, I requested the chairman of the Higher Education Authority to reconvene the working group, which was previously established to review and make recommendations on the implementation of the charge, to prepare a framework of good practice in relation to this charge, with particular reference to the principles of transparancy and accountability. The Higher Education Authority issued the framework to the publicly funded third level institutions at the beginning of this year.

The framework consists of guidelines to establish an appropriate system of consultation with students in the allocation of funding from the charge and in determination of student services to be funded from this source. In relation to the issue of transparency, the framework recommends that each institution should provide iformation as to the allocation of the charge towards exams/registration and towards student services on an annual basis.

The Higher Education Authority is co-ordinating a review of the consultative procedures and their outcome.

As regards the financial pressure placed on students, I would point out that students who are eligible for maintenance grants under the means tested student support schemes do not have to pay this charge. In this regard, some 60 per cent of certificate and diploma students in the technological sector and 40 per cent of students in the university sector are eligible for maintenance grants. In relation to the proposal from the students union at the Institute of Technology in Carlow, the position is that the payment arrangements for the charge are a matter for the individual institutions.