Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 19 May 2022
96. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his plans to reduce the student contribution charge in budget 2023; if so, the amount to be reduced; if the reduction will be backdated to the start of the 2022-2023 academic year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25375/22]
View answerWhat are the Minister's plans to reduce the student contribution charge in budget 2023? By how much will it be reduced?
As Deputy Ó Ríordáin is aware, on 4 May I launched the Funding the Future framework, which includes the Government's policy response to the Cassells report and the Directorate General for Structural Reform Support, DG REFORM, reviews on the future of higher education. It clearly sets out my intention to implement a progressive range of measures to address costs as a barrier to education, in the context of overall budgetary decision-making.
Let me be very clear, the cost of education to families must be reduced in this country. I am very determined about that and am very pleased that the Government has now made a number of important decisions about a sustainable model for future funding of higher education. In making decisions on what to do, we have also made decisions on what not to do. We have taken student loans off the table. They are wrong and do not work. I know that is something the Deputy and I agree on. We have instead chosen a mixed model of investment, which will include the Exchequer investing an awful lot more in higher education.
We talk a lot about big figures. We need to put an extra €307 million into core funding. I prefer to think of it as almost €2,000 more being spent per student on his or her education. The €307 million will mean the investment of an additional €2,000 per student per year in his or her education. I was also clear that we would not bring forward a plan that would just address core funding. We have to bring forward a plan that recognises the cost of education for working families must be reduced. I want to see the student contribution in higher education reduced in a meaningful way over the course of future budgets. I want this done in a way that does not rob Peter to pay Paul. The €307 million is for core funding but it is not an either-or option. We need to do both. I want to make sure that we see improvements in student grants and that, at the same time, we try to reduce the overall level of the student contribution fee.
The Deputy will know I cannot announce budget 2023 or even the element that relates to my Department, but I have reached an agreement with the Government that every year, in advance of the budget process, my Department will publish an annual cost of education paper. This is really important, and it has been done in the context of social welfare and tax. It makes sure that every year the House has an opportunity to focus on what measures and policy levers we can put in place to reduce the cost to families. That paper will also set out the options to improve the student grant scheme and to reduce the student contribution fee.
I am very determined to reduce the student contribution fee over the course of a number of budgets and I want to start that as quickly as possible.
I know I am a little bit older than the Minister. I am a child of the 1990s, a time when if a household had two university-age-going children, they may have only been able to send one. As part of the Labour Party's contribution to the Government at the time, half-fees were introduced halfway through my time in university, followed by completely free fees as it was called. Education cost nothing. It was absolutely free. There was zero cost.
While the Minister is making all the right noises in terms of the reduction of the contribution charge etc. is it his vision that the cost would be zero? Is it the vision of his new Department or the Government, that in future years we would revert to where we were in the 1990s, that is, of having a zero euro sign beside the expectations of what families will contribute?
While I am a little bit younger that the Deputy, I do remember the policy work of former Minister Niamh Bhreathnach, someone I hold in high regard. If I were to be totally honest, and this is an objective statement, the fees were reduced but the core funding piece was not addressed. What we are trying to do, and we have been working on this on a cross-party basis, is to try to do both.
Education is a public good. Cost should never be a barrier to anybody attending education and I believe cost is a barrier today. If a person has two children going to college at the same time, doing a four-year degree, the registration fees for them is €24,000. That is a lot of money. I do not represent many people who have €24,000 down the back of the couch. It means people have to go to credit unions. They have to put off doing other things to find that money. The cost must be reduced. It is one of the few measures that was hiked at a time of austerity that has not been addressed and I am determined to reduce it.
Ideologically, where I would love to get in relation to higher education, I believe it is a public good and third level education is a natural extension of the education system. The Government commitment is to increase student grants and gradually reduce the registration fee over a number of budgets.
It was not just an austerity measure; it began increasing from 1997 onwards. As soon as a charge is introduced, it can inevitably be increased. It increased from whatever it was in 1997 to approximately €1,000 within six or seven years. My point is that if the Minister does not have a vision or an absolute of free education at further and third level education, it will always be a measure that will be tinkered with and increased over time. That is the exact experience of the Oireachtas on the initiative of the mid-1990s.
While the Minister is making the right noises as to bringing down the contribution charge in the budget, and I understand he cannot make any promises in that regard or debate the budget in advance, I am trying to get to the core of his vision and belief system. Can we work towards a situation in which we return to where we were in the 1990s, which was an awful lot better for every family that had ambitions for their children to better themselves?
That is where I would like to get to but I do not want to mislead the House or students in how we will make progress in this issue. Students and families have been waiting too long for progress on this matter. We do not want to engage in a situation of creating an expectation that cannot be met.
I would be fascinated to know if the Deputy or anyone else in this House were the Minister and had a choice to make in the next budget between targeting the supports at students most in need, in terms of student grants, or reducing the registration fee, what would they do. Would they increase the grants and not reduce the fees, reduce the fees and not increase the grants or do a bit of both? These are genuinely the issues with which we will have to grapple in the coming budget. We are trying to put in place a moment in time each year in which my Department will publish a cost of education paper that sets out the options and allows us to debate them. I do not think it is a case of either-or. We should increase the student grant, which was fit for purpose ten years ago but is not now in terms of cost of living, and we should reduce the registration fee. We should do both. The policy paper sets that out as the direction of travel. We cannot do that at the expense of the core funding. I look forward to making progress with the Deputy and others on this in the coming months.
