John Browne
Question:105 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Education and Science if the need to submit a child dependency allowance certificate by a mature student seeking a top-up grant is justified. [22932/01]
Other Questions. - Higher Education Grants.
Paul McGrath
Question:106 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will clarify the condition which requires a mature student seeking a top-up grant to supply proof of a child dependency allowance payment. [22933/01]
Paul McGrath
Question:110 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Science if he has satisfied himself that the regulations set down for mature students seeking top-up grants can be fulfilled. [22934/01]
I propose to take Questions
Nos. 105, 106 and 110 together.
The national development plan provides for a third level access fund totalling £95 million over the period 2000 to 2006 aimed at tackling under-representation by students from disadvantaged backgrounds, mature students and students with disabilities in third level education. In September 2000 I established the action group on access to third level education to advise me on the most effective ways to increase participation by the three target groups. The group's report, which I launched in July 2001, makes detailed recommendations concerning the introduction of special rates of maintenance grants for disadvantaged students. The criteria set down for the special rates are in accordance with the recommendations of the action group on the basis that they can be implemented. The eligibility requirements for the special rates of maintenance grant will be reviewed on an ongoing basis with a view to extending eligibility. A first step will be to assess the coverage and effectiveness of the implementation of the special rates in this first year of operation.
The action group considered that the target group of those most in need could best be defined in terms of the child dependants of claimants of long-term welfare payments, in respect of whom continued child dependant allowance – CDA – is being paid, by virtue of their being in full-time education, that is, child dependants in the age group 18 to 22 years. The action group recommended that the special rates of maintenance grant should also be available to mature students, that is, students aged 23 years and over, but subject to specific conditions, namely, that he or she must qualify for one of my Department's ordinary maintenance grants; that total reckonable income, after allowances are applied, in the tax year to 5 April 2001, must not exceed £7,400; that as at 1 April 2001 the applicant's spouse or partner must be in receipt of one of the specified social welfare payments and be in receipt of full rate qualified adult allowance, or similar entitlement, in respect of the applicant, or the applicant himself or herself must be in receipt of one of the specified social welfare payments. In order to target those most in need the action group wished eligibility for the special rates of grant to be confined to students where family income derives from long-term social welfare payments or, alternatively, specific schemes such as the community employment scheme.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I cannot help, but say,
And still they gaz'd and still the wonder
grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.
Does the Minister accept that he has explained the reason the answers run out of time? He read out a list advertising the scheme, but I asked a simple question. Will he explain the need for the child dependant allowance? A student who called into the Department to find about it was told that he does not qualify because he is 28 years old. When I rang the Department, the girl to whom I spoke, who was very helpful, was so flustered that she said it was best to fax the details. I have them. Once an erudite journalist described me as erudite, but I read the document inside out and find it very complicated. How can a 28 year old mature student produce a child dependant allowance since it is cut off at 22 years? I ask the Minister not to go into the plan's details, but only to say if the student can do so and if it is necessary.
Just wait.
If the mature student is not married, he will not be concerned with the child dependant allowance.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): This may appear funny, but a student was told that he does not qualify because he cannot produce a child dependant allowance. It is not possible for him to do so. Did he get the wrong information? Can I tell him that he is entitled to it because once a person is over 22 years he cannot get the child dependant allowance? I know that this is complicated and I see the Minister flicking through the pages in vain. I read it 45 times and if CDA stood for measles, it would have broken out in a rash because there are CDAs everywhere.
I know how clever the Deputy is at listening and reading, but I carefully read out the word "or." The applicant must be in receipt of one of the specified social welfare payments.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): There are 11 requirements. Why are the words, “persons in receipt of CDA,” in brackets after most of the requirements, if CDA is not important? The Minister can see on his list that they are used in at least six of them. This is serious. Those who do not qualify must know.
The parents of students up to the age of 23 years are still paid CDA.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): If they are in full-time education.
That may sound strange, but it was extended from 18 to 23 years to accommodate them.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I refer to a 28 year old mature student returning to education. Will the Minister deal with him and not talk about a full-time student up to the age of 23 years?
I did.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister did not.
I did, as the Deputy can read in my reply. There are three questions involved whichrefer to CDA. The Deputy is discussing somebody who is not in receipt of CDA, but a mature student. That is covered by the use of the word "or." The applicant must be in receipt of one of the specified social welfare payments. Obviously, the person in question is not concerned with CDA in those circumstances. If the Deputy wishes to give me details of an individual case afterwards, I will look into it.
Will the Minister give me a "Yes" or "No" answer to one straight question? In a previous incarnation, as Minister for Social Welfare, he knew the system inside out. Is it not true to say that one cannot get child dependant allowance if one is over 23 years? "Yes" or "No?" Can one get child benefit allowance if one is over 23 years?
The Deputy knows the answer is "No." A person who does not have a dependent child will not need child dependant allowance.
A person who is not married and who is a student cannot be the recipient of child dependant allowance. Does the Minister agree with that? "Yes"? Clearly, a person who applies for a grant in his or her own right as a mature student cannot possibly have anything to do with CDA. The regulations governing mature students' grants – special top-up grants – are speckled with references to child dependant allowances and the author of that document does not understand the system. That is the point of our questions. On another point, the Minister mentioned that if a person wishes to qualify as a mature student for the top-up grant, his or her income must have been less than £7,400 in the previous year.
That refers to reckonable income, that is not your—
A sum of £7,400 is equal to £142 per week, which is, at least, £30 or £40 per week less than the minimum wage. Does the Minister expect people earning less than the minimum wage to leave that job, however poor the job may be, go to college and survive on a grant of £1,890 a year?
There is a grant of £3,000.
But if there is an income of over £142 a week, the person will not get the £3,000. That is my very point.
First, in relation to the over 23 category, we are referring to the persons themselves, not to any child dependant allowances. The applicant must be in receipt of one of the specified social welfare payments. There is no confusion about that, it is very straightforward. Second, with regard to the figure of £7,400, that is the net reckonable income, after all allowances. The Deputy is familiar with it in farming terms, whatever else. That is not the gross income, although I have seen press statements which represented it as such. Reckonable income is the income which is included for the purposes of the scheme, after particular allowances are made. The Deputy is misunderstanding the situation. The group on access recommended a figure of about £6,600. We actually set a higher figure, as it happened afterwards. That is the basis of reckonable income.
Will the Minister tell us how many people, if any, have qualified to date? When he speaks of reckonable income, will he agree that the social welfare payment of a husband, a wife and two children amounts to about £7,300 per annum and if they have anything extra, they will not qualify for the special top-up payment? What are the standard deductions from income, to which the Minister referred? Will he give examples? I want to know what the standard deductions are, please.
The Deputy should put that question to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, with regard to the current standard deductions for reckonable income. In relation to the—
The Minister is digging.
No, I am not digging. What the Deputy is referring to is reckonable income in social welfare terms.
What is it?
If the Deputy tables a question, I will get the information for him. I have not got the detailed information with me. The Deputy can have the relevant income figure for each of the social welfare payments, if he wishes to go into questions on social welfare as distinct from questions on other areas. With regard to the question about numbers, this has been made retrospective to last year. About 7,000 came into the scheme, on disadvantage, on that basis. It is estimated at between 7,000 and 10,000, but the final figure will not be known until the assessment process has been completed.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Minister give a guarantee that this will be written in plain English next year in order that people will understand it, rather than having all kinds of ideas about their entitlements? I am quite serious – the present document is not understandable.
A question from Deputy McGrath before the Minister's final reply.
Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. When the Minister refers to allowable deductions, before taking the £7,400, that relates to social welfare payments. In the case of a single person going to college as a mature student at 25 or 26 years of age, if the income from employment is more than £142 per week, that person will not qualify for the special top-up grant. That is the bottom line. Will the Minister agree that it is very mean to set the limits so low that a person is excluded if his or her income is over £142 per week, which means they would have to be on considerably less than the minimum wage? Is it not ridiculous to set a wage limit so low, no matter who recommended that to him? If some group recommended it, it was totally out of touch. I urge the Minister to have a decent look at it, have it written in plain, understandable English and bring forward proposals that will help students to get into college, rather than having them tied up in regulations and outdated financial criteria with which they cannot possibly comply.
In reply to Deputy Browne, I will see if we can produce simpler English, but one still comes back to concepts such as reckonable income. That will differ as between farmers and city people, between income from self-employment and income as an employee.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies should allow the Minister to reply.
It is not all about mature students. I was asked to explain child dependant allowance, which I have done.
The Minister is totally lost.
On the issue of simpler English, it is noteworthy that 7,000 disadvantaged students were able to read the documentation and make use of it. Perhaps they are a little brighter than the students of the past – I do not really know. They certainly did not appear to have any difficulty in that regard. In relation to the £7,400 figure, that is the reckonable income for social welfare purposes. It is not the gross income, it is misleading to refer to it as such and I appeal to Deputies not to do so. The Deputy knows quite well, from his experience in social welfare and farming, in particular, the allowances that are made in that situation. The relevant figure is net income after those allowances are made, not gross income. He should not confuse people by suggesting otherwise.