asked the Minister for Education the levels of grants paid to university students today; and the proportion by which they have been increased since their inception.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Student Grants.
9.
Mr. R. Burke
(a) The levels of higher education grants in the present academic year are: (i) Lecture fee up to £172 and this upper limit may be exceeded to the extent necessary to cover total lecture fees in certain years of the degree courses in the Medical, Veterinary and Dental Faculties in the Colleges of the National University of Ireland and in Trinity College, Dublin. (ii) An allowance in respect of maintenance and other expenses of up to £300 per annum for a student whose normal family residence is not in or adjacent to a university town and £120 per annum for a student whose normal family residence is in or adjacent to a university town.
(b) In the case of students whose lecture fees are £172 and who are in receipt of the maximum allowance in respect of maintenance and other expenses, the present level of grants represents an increase over the level in 1968 of 57.3 per cent for a student whose normal family residence is not in or adjacent to a university town and 66.8 per cent for a student whose normal family residence is in or adjacent to a university town.
First, does the Minister accept that these increases are adequate and, secondly, does he feel that the argument that a student would be in or adjacent to a college is an adequate argument for defending the measure of the grant?
Mr. R. Burke
In respect of the latter part of the Deputy's supplementary question, I agree with him that perhaps some other method of financing higher education would be desirable and I am going to have that looked at. In respect of the first part of the Deputy's question, I am always in a difficulty on this because, as Minister, I am responsible for differentiating between the various sectors and putting the money where I think the best results will be got. If I had more money I would like to put it into this sector but resources are not unlimited and I have to make my judgment.
Would the Minister agree that the income level of the parents is now grossly out of line with the income level when the scheme was introduced? I could give ten examples. I shall give one. A parent with one child with £1,700 could qualify for a grant when the scheme was introduced in 1968. Now a parent with one child and £2,275 finds that that child is excluded. You can go down through the scale, whether you are talking about two, three or four, and does the Minister not accept that £2,275 today is in no way related to £1,800 in 1968 and, if he so accepts, what will he or the Government do about it?
Mr. R. Burke
The Deputy has made this point to me on a previous occasion. I accept the general drift of his point. However, I am limited by the resources available to me, but the matter is under constant review. On the face of it, the Deputy has a point.
I accept that this is a matter for the Government, but does the Minister accept that, when the scheme was introduced, it was intended to benefit the majority of those who could not pay, and does he now accept that the scheme as at present operating is benefiting only a minority of those who cannot pay for higher education?
Mr. R. Burke
This scheme is obviously the victim of the fall in the value of money. I am keeping the scheme under constant review and, as resources are available, we make these very desirable changes.
One final supplementary.
We must pass on to the next question. The Chair has been very generous with the Deputy.
I will give just one example.
If the Deputy wants to ask a question, well and good but, if the Deputy wants to impart information, that would not be in order.
I want to ask a question. Does the Minister accept that it is not the scheme that is the victim but the children of the type of parents who were intended to benefit from the scheme and who are now being excluded and will the Minister state clearly that the scheme is not now as extensive, or nearly so, as it was originally intended to be and, in fact, as it was over the last few years?
Mr. R. Burke
All I can say is that I have noted the Deputy's points.
10.
asked the Minister for Education if he will sanction higher education grants for two qualified pupils as requested by Tipperary (North Riding) County Council in a letter to him dated 17th October with which was enclosed a copy of a council resolution in the matter.
Mr. R. Burke
The pupils concerned were late in applying for higher education grants and under the terms of the grants scheme they cannot be paid grants in respect of the first year of their third level courses of education. If the necessary conditions are fulfilled by them they will be eligible to receive grants as from the second year of their courses. Tipperary (North Riding) County Council was so informed.
The Minister is aware of the two cases I have mentioned. They may be representative of many cases around the country. The two applicants concerned were two or three days late with their application. The Minister is equally aware, I am sure, that it was a precedent in the Department under the previous Government to extend the date for latest applications by at least a month. In those circumstances, could I ask the Minister, in respect of these two students and others who have been excluded by virtue of being two or three days late, if he will take a look at the matter and ensure they will not be excluded from their right by the formality of simply being late?
Mr. R. Burke
Since I cannot accept the Deputy's point that under his Administration the date was put back a month, or an extra month was allowed, the second part does not follow. I am bound by the regulations as I find them.
Is the Minister telling me that under the Fianna Fáil Administration the closing date was not extended beyond the original date?
Mr. R. Burke
That is what I am saying. To the best of my knowledge, that is so. There are no records available to me which show that the date is other than 31st August.
May I say, from my direct experience, that the Minister's knowledge is not correct?
Mr. R. Burke
In that case I shall be very pleased to receive documentary evidence in proof of what the Deputy said.
The Minister on one occasion previously talked about documentary evidence about directions given by the Minister——
Deputy, a brief supplementary question, please.
Would the Minister accept from me that what I have said was the position and he will find documentary evidence in his own Department to prove it?
Mr. R. Burke
I should like to accept the Deputy's word but I cannot do so if the information given to me is otherwise.
May I ask the Minister if it is not a fact that the regulations to which he referred are ministerial regulations and that it is open to him to change them, if that should be necessary? Further, is he aware that the practical application of these regulations has led to a number of cases of genuine hardship? May I finally ask him would he, having regard to these facts, now make a particular personal effort himself to get around the difficulties which have arisen, difficulties which are posing great hardship, and difficulties the solution of which are within his own control?
Mr. R. Burke
I am doing so.
That is a rather different impression from the one the Minister gave a moment ago.