Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Oct 1999

Vol. 508 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Higher Education Grants.

Mr. Enright

My reason for raising this item on the Adjournment is that a number of students who attend third level institutions are, for one reason or another, unsuccessful in their examinations. When these students decide to change course they are refused maintenance grants. I believe this policy should be rectified. Some young 17 or 18 year old students who make a mistake in their choice of third level course are unable to cope with third level education or with the course they have chosen. Sometimes this is due to a lack of maturity or because they do not get down to study. Having spent a year or two in college, if the student is unsuccessful in his or her examination, he or she may leave college and commence working or drop out of the system altogether. This could happen to someone of 19 or 20 years of age. Having spent two or three years in a third level institution, these students may find that their future in education is totally closed off. I believe the regulations need to be rectified and changed to allow a student, if that student is serious about getting back into education, to be paid a maintenance grant. It is wrong to cut off students at this important and critical time for a young person's future.

I am certain the Minister is aware that that student can, at a later stage, come back into the system as a mature student and can be paid a maintenance grant. In these instances we should not wait until such students are mature. Why are students or their parents compelled to pay maintenance grants? If they are unable to pay the grant, students may drift out of education.

While a number of legislative measures in the educational sector have come before the House, this matter has not been addressed. I have consulted the relevant VEC regulations and those of local authorities and the Department of Education and Science, but there is no way such a student can be readmitted to a course other than as a result of serious illness. It is a short-sighted policy which is mean in its approach and represents penny-pinching at its worst. I have come across a number of people in these circumstances and I am sure there are quite a few in every constituency. We have a duty to ensure that students are protected and assisted in every way possible at a critical time for their future lives. Rather than have students drifting and dropping out of education, we should go out of our way to make sure such people get back into the education system.

I hope the Minister will examine this matter. It is important that the system is changed. The Minister should let me know whether he agrees to this course of action which would ensure that full-time students who are serious about resuming third level courses are paid maintenance grants. Such grants should not be paid, however, until the student has been confirmed in full attendance at lectures for a period of two months.

Mr. D. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I apologise for the absence of the Minister for Education and Science who has asked me to deal with this Adjournment matter on his behalf.

Since 1994 the higher education grant scheme and vocational education committees' scholarship scheme have included a concession for second chance students returning to college after a break of at least five years having previously pursued, but not completed, a third level course. This concession allows such students to be funded again for periods of study at the same level. Prior to 1994, students did not receive financial assistance until they had completed the equivalent amount of time spent on their original course, irrespective of the length of time which had elapsed between the two periods of college attendance. These arrangements for second chance students are in line with the recommendations in the report of the advisory committee on third level student support.

The question of what arrangements exist for second chance students in other EU countries was raised recently, and while data is not readily available in this regard, the Minister for Education and Science has asked his officials to review the position of this category of student having regard to the practice in other EU countries. If Deputy Enright has encountered any particular difficulties with the operation of the arrangements for second chance students, I suggest that he forward the relevant details to the Minister's office.

Apart from these arrangements for second chance students, maintenance grants under the various student support schemes are not provided in respect of attendance on the repeat year of any individual course. This provision can, however, be waived by the grant-awarding authorities in exceptional circumstances, such as certified serious illness.

I would point out that students may have their grant aid continued for the remainder of the course once they have successfully completed the repeat year. The arrangements are somewhat different under ESF-aided maintenance grant schemes for trainees. This scheme applies to trainees under the middle level technician programme, which consists of one or two year courses up to national certificate level and the higher technical-business skills programme which consists of the three year national diploma and one year add-on diploma level courses. These programmes apply to those who require higher level initial education and training to enhance their employment prospects. In general, this scheme provides for a means-tested maintenance grant for the approved duration of one ESF-aided course only. However, subject to a maximum duration of four years in all – where trainees have passed, failed or not completed the first year of a course – they are allowed to transfer to a different course and receive a grant for the normal duration of the new course. Trainees who have completed not more than the first year of a degree level course are eligible to receive maintenance grants for a maximum of three further years on an ESF-aided MLT-HTBS course.

The regulations governing the payment of tuition fees and maintenance grants for ESF-aided MLT and HTBS courses form part of the operational programme for human resources and are part of the community support framework 1994-99. Obviously, any relaxation of the current arrangements applying under third level support schemes can only be considered in the light of overall resource constraints and competing demands within the education sector. In this regard the Programme for Government, An Action Programme for the Millennium, contains a commitment to the introduction of equitable support for students attending PLC courses.

The Minister for Education and Science has honoured this commitment with the introduction of maintenance grant schemes for students attending PLC courses with effect from the 1998-99 academic year. The grants are means-tested and the rates for grant income limits and other eligibility criteria are similar to those which apply to third level student support schemes.

The Minister's other priority has been to address the position of mature students in general and independent mature students in particular. Under the student support schemes the rate of maintenance grant payable is determined by reference to the distance from the student's normal residence to the college which he or she is attending. If the address is 15 miles or less from the college, the adjacent rate of grant is payable and if the address is more than 15 miles from the college, the higher non-adjacent rate of grant is payable. In the case of independent mature students, their normal residence is taken as their address while in attendance at college. Accordingly, a large proportion of independent mature students only qualified for the lower adjacent rate of grant. With effect from the current academic year, all eligible mature students will qualify for the higher non-adjacent rate of maintenance grant at an estimated cost of £2.4 million over the next two years.

I will bring the Deputy's comments to the attention of the Minister and his office.

Mr. Enright

I will take the Minister up on his offer to do so, although I have already sent a letter to the Minister for Education and Science.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 October 1999.