Skip to main content
Normal View

Higher Education Grants Eligibility Criteria

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 7 March 2013

Thursday, 7 March 2013

Questions (1)

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

1. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills when the report of the capital asset implementation group will go to Cabinet; if he is considering proposals that children from a farm with net assets of more than €750,000 will be excluded from third level maintenance grants; where such a figure originated from; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12114/13]

View answer

Oral answers (7 contributions)

The capital assets test implementation group report will go to Cabinet in the coming weeks. Due to timetabling issues I cannot be more specific about a date at this time.

The Deputy will understand that I am not in a position to provide details of the contents of the report until I have completed my own consideration of those details and discussed them with my Cabinet colleagues. I can say, however, that no decision has been taken on the treatment of farm or other business assets or on the setting of a limit on the value of assets that may be included in any new means-testing arrangements. Any such decision will be a collective Cabinet decision requiring legislative change.

I am disappointed the Minister did not answer the question I asked, whether he is considering the introduction of a capital assets test that would see productive assets in excess of €750,000 included when assessing families for a maintenance grant. I would like a direct reply to that question. It has been given wide coverage in newspapers. If it is the case, where did the €750,000 figure come from, especially for agricultural land? There was speculation in the media that the figure was provided by Teagasc. Is that the case and can the Minister give a breakdown of the figure?

It might help if the Minister could provide some reassurance to some of his coalition partners in Fine Gael that it is not his intention to create a communist state, about which some of them seem to be alarmed. That might be a bit over the top, even for the Minister. It indicates, however, the serious alarm among farmers and the self-employed about the Minister's plans. The Minister must be clear today because there has been a lot of contradictory comment from Government Deputies and Ministers on this. Will he inform the House that he will not include productive assets for the self-employed? There is only one way to assess people's income and that is to look at the real income.

I am not in a position to answer the Deputy's supplementary in the way he would like. It is part of the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility that I must bring proposals to that group in the first instance for their consideration. It would be improper of me to speculate in advance of Cabinet colleagues having a chance to consider the memorandum.

This is an important issue and the timetabling difficulties I mentioned arise because of Easter and St. Patrick's week, and the fact Ministers will be travelling. I am travelling tomorrow myself for nine days and that means I will not be at the next Cabinet meeting, there will not be a Cabinet meeting after St. Patrick's Day and then it is Easter. That is part of the delay at present and I regret that in advance of the Cabinet discussing the matter, I cannot share it with the Dáil. In due course, as soon as we have a decision about the memorandum, I will bring the details into the public domain and we can have a discussion consequently. Legislation will be needed no matter form the decision takes.

Does the Minister stand by earlier comments on this issue he made on "Newstalk Breakfast" in March 2011, when he said that he wanted to reform the way in which student grants would operate and that, until now, there had been a bias towards the self-employed and the agricultural community, who were able to manipulate their income so their children could avail of grants? Does the Minister stand by that statement? If he does, can he outline how these people manipulated their incomes? If manipulation was going on, Fianna Fáil would have no problem dealing with it. It is unacceptable, however, that the Minister is now attaching a notional income to a productive asset that people use to derive an income, often a very modest one. The average farm income in 2011, which was a very good year, was €24,000.

As I said more recently to Deputy Dara Calleary on "The Week in Politics", manipulation of accounts was a feature of the past. It is less possible to do now, not because people have changed their ways but because the Revenue authorities and the taxation code are more stringent and transparent.

Does the Minister not believe figures are being manipulated now?

It is less likely they can be manipulated now than was the case in the past, but it was a bone of contention for many decades in all parts of the country. The system of assessment for student grants must be reformed and I stand by that.

Top
Share