Vol. 529 No. 3
3 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Education and Science the proposals he has to restructure the third level maintenance grant scheme; if he intends to increase the maintenance grant level to recognise minimum social welfare maintenance levels; if he further intends to remove obvious anomalies in the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2776/01]
I announced late last year that I was setting up a special project team to carry out a comprehensive review of every aspect of the maintenance grants and other student supports to ensure their relevance to the needs of present day third level students. This review will include the level of grants, the methods by which they are paid, eligibility and income limits, accommodation needs, student support services, the most suitable paying agency, the provision of an appeals system, student loans and taxation measures. In this context, issues which figure prominently in representations about student support will also be examined by the team. I will consider the appropriate response when I receive the team's report.
Expenditure on student support, including the cost of the free fees initiative, amounted to approximately £250 million in 2000. Some 40% of third level students qualify for maintenance grants. Accordingly, any proposal that student grants be brought in line with social welfare payments for the unemployed would give rise to considerable additional cost, estimated by my Department to be in the region of £64 million per annum.
There is provision within the national development plan for a third level access fund totalling £95 million over the period of the plan, aimed at tackling under-representation by students from disadvantaged backgrounds, mature students and students with disabilities. I established an action group on access to third level deduction in September 2000 to advise on the development of a co-ordinated framework to promote participation at third level by such students. I expect to receive the group's report in the near future.
As an indication of the Government's support of promoting equity in access, and as an initial step pending the findings of the action group, I announced the introduction of a special maintenance grant payable to disadvantaged grant holders, targeted at those most in need. The full rates of the special maintenance grants entail increases over the standard rates as follows: from £1,775 to £2,000 for students residing more than 15 miles from college; and from £710 to £1,000 for students resident within 15 miles of college.
When does the Minister expect to receive the report? Has he put aside any moneys from the Estimates for the implementation of any of its findings this year? Will he define what he means by a "disadvantaged student" in terms of these special grants? Does this refer to students disadvantaged by area or by social-economic status?
In view of the fact he has asked for a report, does the Minister intend to contract out or hive off responsibility for maintenance grants to an agency or body outside the Department of Education and Science?
The Deputy's latter question is one of the issues being considered and we will examine it as soon as we receive the report which is due at the end of March.
Access officers have been appointed in most institutes and universities. Some of these appointments were made very recently. These officers will deal with issues as they arise. In general terms the students involved will come from a disadvantaged background per se, particularly from disadvantaged areas.
Is the Minister aware that student union campaigns resulted in over 18,000 students campaigning on the streets because of the inadequate level of maintenance grants? Does he accept that a grant of £49 is ridiculously low in view of the increased cost of living, particularly in the private rented sector? Does he propose to increase that grant to the level of social welfare benefits, in line with the central element of the student union campaigns throughout the country?
I am giving priority to those who are disadvantaged. Once the report is available, we will be able to move fairly quickly in that area.
In relation to the general level, I have increased the rate for the current year. The rate of increase in 1996 was 2.4%; in 1997, 1.6%; in 1998, 3.2%; in 1999, 4.6% and in 2000, 5%. Given that the reference figure at that time was just over 4%, those figures were a reasonable increase on that. A full examination of the situation is being carried out. A member of the union of students is on the task force to examine the area of disadvantage and those most in need in that regard. I am awaiting the findings of the general study in that respect and we will see what can be done at that stage.
