A number of amendments have been tabled in connection with this Bill, a1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and they have all been ruled out of order.
Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill, 1978: Committee and Final Stages.
I have studied my draft amendment, a1, and with the best will in the world I find it impossible to understand how that amendment which effectively reintroduces the 1968 situation in some respects, could have been regarded as being out of order. It is purely in relation to a definition. I also have some difficulty in understanding why amendment No. 8, in my name, which is purely the deletion of a power that the Minister has to specify an age limit for a grant-holder, could in any way be regarded as involving potential charges on the Revenue or not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
The Chair is not looking for a way out but the Deputy will appreciate that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle does not decide those things. They are decided by the Ceann Comhairle and the Chair has been notified that all the amendments are out of order, that they involve a potential charge on the Revenue. I regret that but there is nothing I can do about it.
I would be more willing to accept the ruling of the Chair in this regard if we had any indication from the Minister that this was not going to be his last bite at the structure as opposed to the financing of the grant scheme during his term of office.
The Deputy can raise that on the section.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
At the conclusion of the debate on Second Stage I indicated that I would be tabling an amendment in relation to the actual courses rather than the institutions that will be de facto recognisable for educational grants. I refrained from doing so. I am satisfied that the Minister has a right to retain a final say in the recognition of a course but I was disappointed, as was Deputy Horgan, that my amendments were ruled out of order. In my amendments I was trying to widen the scope of the Acts dealing with higher education grants to allow for a one-year course recognition or approval where exceptional academic merit has been proved by an applicant. That would have been a worthy step forward in the scheme.
In amendment No. 2 I was seeking to extend the scheme to extra-mural courses leading to an approved qualification under the higher education scheme. I thought such a move would have been laudable but it would include many people who cannot afford to go to a university or a recognised college. In amendment No. 3 I sought to extend the scheme to include courses which lead to professional and trade qualifications. That should be looked at seriously by the Minister. I was thinking of trade qualifications to include apprentices under the AnCO schemes. In many cases, because of the low income of parents, it is difficult to finance an apprenticeship period and parents feel that there should be some recognition in the higher education grant scheme to take into account their low income.
The Minister should look at my amendments between now and Report Stage and, perhaps, he would be gracious enough to table an amendment for Report Stage along the lines suggested. I am sure he will get the support of the House for such amendments.
The Minister, when he was introducing this Bill, said at the beginning of his speech that the purpose of the Bill was to make legislative provision for an extension of the range of courses in respect of which higher education grants may be held. With all respect, it appears to me that this Bill also does something else. It makes a fundamental change in the relationship of the universities, and of university degree courses in particular, to the operation of the grants scheme. I dislike having to repeat what I said on Second Stage on this, but as the Minister did not reply to the points I was making at that time and as an amendment which I drafted in an attempt to restore the original situation has been ruled out of order I must raise it now. In the original Act, which we are now amending, an approved institution meant a university or university college in respect of its courses which are of degree standard or...any other institution of higher education. It seems to me on the face of it that the effect of section I as we have it here compared with section I as it existed in 1978 is that, whereas in 1968 all university degree level courses were automatically considered eligible for grants under the scheme, in 1978 university degree level courses are only eligible for grants in so far as they have been approved by the Minister. The phrase in the section is:
of which the Minister approves for the time being for the purposes of section 2 of this Act.
This seems to me to be a fundamental change in the status of the university degree course in particular. While I accept that there might be arguments for bringing these under closer control by the Minister at certain points in time, it would seem to me that this is an inappropriate mechanism for doing it and that the whole question of the change should now be explained and justified to us by the Minister. As the Bill stands, it means that the Minister, from my interpretation of it, is going to have to positively approve of all the existing degree courses in the universities, unless there are some of which he chooses not to approve, that will have to advert to and approve every subsequent degree course that is subsequently offered for the first time by a university or university college. Even if we had an assurance from the Minister that he proposed so to recognise all courses past, present and future, this does not necessarily meet the point I am making. If he is going to give such an undertaking with regard to approval of courses, there seems to be no point at all in bringing universities and their degree level courses into this portmanteau amendment in relation to the definition of approved institutions.
The point made by Deputy Collins about actual courses is adequately covered by the scholarship scheme as far as the regional technical colleges and other third level institutions are concerned. In particular anybody who has achieved a very high scholastic standard will have absolutely no trouble in getting such a scholarship. I would repeat that the scholarships are of the same value as the grants, that is to say, they are of the same value financially.
This amendment to the 1968 Act is a broadening amendment in every sense. It is designed to spread the effectiveness of the grant scheme and consequently I think the Deputy would agree with me that it is desirable that all consideration of the area referred to by Deputy Collins must be in the context of the existence of the other scheme, which is quite broad in its scope and takes in a very large number of students.
In regard to Deputy Horgan's point it must be remembered that the universities are recognised in the 1968 Act as approved institutions, not automatically and inclusively, but in respect of the courses which are of degree standard, and degree standard meant a course of not less than three years. We are trying to get off the three years wagon, so to speak, in this amendment to the 1968 Act. The words "degree standard" tend to obfuscate the relevance of the three years in the context of the amendment. As well as degree courses the Act refers to courses which in the opinion of the Minister are equivalent to university degree courses. Again the words "university degree" were meant in the context of three years. The purpose of the Bill before the House now is to broaden the scope of the 1968 Act. That is precisely what it is doing by including certificate and diploma courses in non-university institutions and indeed courses of not less than two years which may be instituted by the universities. I am sure Deputy Horgan can see that. As of now, before this becomes law, the two year university course would not have attracted a grant. A person qualified otherwise would not have been in a position to enjoy a grant if following a two years course which was not a degree course. This is a significant change and it may be one to which the Deputy did not advert.
There is no major change in principle as the Deputy claimed. The whole purpose of the amendment is to make the grants available to more people, to give them a greater choice both in institutions and in courses within the institutions, whether these institutions are university institutions or other third level non-university institutions.
Before calling the Deputies I would like to bring to the notice of Deputy Collins something he mentioned when he was speaking. He said that he would be raising some matters on section 2. Section 2 is simply the Short Title of the Bill and the Deputy may not raise anything on that section when there is no amendment to the Title. The Deputy had amendments down which would put new sections into the Bill before section 2, so if he wishes to refer to them before we come to section 2 that is all right but he may not say anything on section 2. It is not in order to debate amendments that have been ruled out of order but there is nothing against referring to them.
I do not think there is anything between the Minister and myself in relation to the purpose of this Bill in so far as it is widening, retrospectively in most cases, the category of courses for which grants may be held. But I must ask the Minister whether or not it was the case that in the ten years since 1968 there was no necessity for him or his Department to approve any university degree level course. According to this Bill there is a necessity for him to approve the university degree level course by a purely administrative function. Is this necessity now being created by this amending Bill?
That point was made by Deputy Horgan on Second Stage. I wonder if I got the point across to him that in the 1968 Act it is stated that an approved institution means "a university or university college in respect of its courses which are of degree standard". The course to be of degree standard was at minimum in our university context a three-year course and four years for a basic degree in one of our universities. This amendment now extends the scope within the university itself. In other words, if in the opinion of the Minister there is a two-year course initiated by the university which should attract the grant then this amendment makes it possible for it to do so.
I do not believe I misunderstood the Minister and I do not believe that we are in any disagreement about the intent of the Bill. I am trying to find out the effect of the Bill in relation to university degree courses. I am well aware that the effect of the Bill in relation to university non-degree courses is new, positive and to be encouraged.
It is not new.
It may or may not be new. I suspect, in relation to some courses, that it may be new. In relation to the amendment which I originally put down I effectively recreated paragraph (a) of the original definition section. Then in paragraph (b) I put in:
a university, university college, recognised college of a university, or other institution of higher education in so far as it provides a course or courses other than those referred to in paragraph (a) of this section,
that was the degree level courses——
of not less than two years duration, being a course of which the Minister approves...
The point of that amendment, which was effectively only a rephrasing of the definition section we have here in this Bill was to exclude degree level courses from the apparent necessity of being formally and positively approved by the Minister.
We are not arguing about the two-year courses. In so far as they are being brought in under the scope of the Act it is perfectly welcome and in so far as it gives people a greater choice and scope within the universities it is perfectly welcome. I would also argue that it is important for university two-year courses to be still subject to the approval by the Minister—this was again one of the parts of my original amendment —because it is at the two-year course level that the maximum opportunity occurs for transfer between institutions and between university institutions and other third level institutions. I believe the Minister has a very positive rôle to play in that co-ordination process and that that process could be encouraged by him retaining the right to approve of courses at the two-year level. If University College Dublin decide in the morning that they will put on a new three-year degree course in micro-biology or industrial relations and if a student applies for a grant to study this course could he be told that he is not eligible for a grant because the Minister has not approved this course?
I want to refer to an inference which the Minister has given to the Bill in so far as he has stated that it widens the scope of the higher education grants scheme. It is evident in section 1 (2) that the concept of extending higher education grants to courses outside the university was the brainchild of the Minister for Education in the previous Government, Deputy Dick Burke. It is unfair of the Minister or anybody else to infer that this is a Bill to effect something new in the higher education grants scheme. That is not so. The widening of the higher education grants scheme to include courses outside the universities and so forth was brought about by a Fine Gael Minister. I want this put on the record of the House because I was annoyed when I saw headlines in the papers last Friday, one in The Irish Times and another in the Irish Independent which inferred that this Bill was a new step forward.
The Minister is not responsible for the headlines in The Irish Times.
Fair enough.
A lot of people are very anxious to be responsible for all the headlines in all the papers.
I would like to make it quite clear that this Bill is merely confirming what has been the practice since 1974 under a Bill introduced by the National Coalition Government which extended the higher education grants scheme to technological colleges and so forth. The Minister today also, in the way he has spoken, infers that this Bill is a new one. It is not. It is a Bill confirming what has been done and a regularising Bill in so far as the payments made since 1974, which were possibly made illegally, are now being made legal by the retrospection in subsection (2). I do not want to be unfair to a former Minister of the House, no matter what party he belongs to so it is important to get that point clear.
I take Deputy Horgan's point about the degree courses having to be approved by the Minister, which seems unnecessary. I feel that a degree course, simply because it is a degree course, should be eligible without having the approval of the Minister. I do not believe it is a very big difference or one that we will divide on.
I would like to refer to the problem since 1974 in relation to applicants for higher education grants which was the subject of my amendment No. 4, to which I wish to refer without going into it. My amendment deals with an applicant for a higher education grant in 1976 who was ruled out on income grounds as being ineligible for a grant but if the applicant's father retired in 1978 that applicant would be eligible on income grounds for a higher education grant under the scheme in 1978. At the moment the scheme demands that his application must be related to his first application and the income grounds then pertaining. That is a very unfair element in the scheme. I believe the Minister is sympathetic to what I am saying.
My amendment No. 4 has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it might involve a charge on the Exchequer. I ask the Minister to have a look at this point in the scheme which is very unfortunate. I ask him to move an amendment on Report Stage or at least to have a look at this point in the scheme and to amend it outside the House if that is possible to ensure that changes in people's incomes are looked at in a current situation not in a retrospective situation to the first application.
The other matter which I raised in amendment No. 9 refers to the three honours plus honours in Irish requirement for entry into the scheme. It is an unfortunate aspect of the scheme especially when one relates it to many applicants who come from low income families and who wish to pursue third-level courses. Because they were unable to get four honours—even though they were within the income limits—they are deprived of an opportunity to go to university, to a regional college or to a college of technology. It is a retrogressive aspect. I suggested in my amendment, which was ruled out of order, that the scheme be amended to ensure that an applicant would be eligible for the scheme on gaining the entrance requirements for the course he wished to pursue in an approved institution. A social injustice is being done to many applicants. I would ask the Minister to consider the matter and to amend the scheme, either on Report Stage or, if possible, on Committee Stage.
Deputy Collins made a point about headlines and so on. I accepted what he said in the House on Second Stage. This matter was referred to also by Deputy Horgan. He instanced the fact that the NCEA were an ad hoc council. This was totally irrelevant to the point that I did not labour on Second Stage. I am not dwelling on it now but it is apropos to what Deputy Collins has said, namely, that we were in a position where we purported to pay grants under the 1968 Act when we had no power to do so. Deputy Collins indicated that he realised that this was out of order and that it should not act as a precedent in any way. Deputy Horgan's reference to the NCEA as an ad hoc council was completely irrelevant. The NCEA are not masquerading as anything other than a council set up on an ad hoc basis that will be established by statute in the very near future. Deputy Horgan is really discussing his amendment even though it was ruled by the Chair——
The Chair said that we could not debate the amendment. However, the Deputy can refer to it and even ask the Minister to bring it in but there can be no debate on the amendment.
With regard to what Deputy Horgan said, I am completely satisfied that there will not be any administrative problem with regard to degree level courses at university as a result of the drafting of this amendment to the 1968 Act.
Perhaps I might put the question to the Minister in a simpler form. From now on will it be the responsibility of the higher education grants officer in any local authority who receives a grant application from a student in respect of a degree level course at university to satisfy himself that this has been approved by the Minister for Education?
The Deputy is not referring to institutions where the NCEA awards are operating? Is he concerned only with universities in this case?
In this instance, yes.
I do not think any distinction should be made between the degree as given by the NCEA and the university degree.
In that case would the Minister not be prepared to redraft the legislation to exclude all degree courses whether given by the universities or by the NCEA?
If John Doe applies, has four honours and is within the eligibility limits for a grant for micro-biology in University College or in respect of industrial relations as mentioned by the Deputy, he will not have any trouble in getting the grant.
The Minister is coming closer and closer to agreeing with my definition of what the state of affairs will be but he has not actually said "yes" which would speed the passage of this Bill through the House quite considerably. I asked if a grant officer has to satisfy himself, whether by writing to the Department of Education or not, in relation to any third-level degree course that the course in question has been approved by the Minister or if he will be able to give the grant automatically on the basis that it is a degree level course.
If it is a university degree level course, yes. It will apply also to a two-year course in university or a two-year course in a regional technical college or in the NIHE.
Is the Minister going to allude to the question of income eligibility and the retrospective aspect?
I think I am precluded from doing so.
The Minister might be allowed to refer to it in the same way as I was allowed to refer to it.
We cannot debate the matter.
In relation to section 1 (1), will the Minister tell the House the present approved institutions of higher education other than a university? Will he indicate what other types of institute of higher education he would consider for such courses?
I mentioned in my reply to Deputy Horgan that in the main the places we are aiming at, and to which we hope to direct the attention of people, are the regional technical colleges, colleges of technology and the NIHE.
For instance, the Chartered Institute of Accountants have quite a strict academic requirement for a five-year period and students have to do advanced examinations. Does the Minister consider that such students would me eligible for a higher education Grant? Even though there is no physical institute in existence, they are an institute and they are providing the equivalent of third-level courses for participating students. They achieve a professional qualification at least equivalent to a primary degree qualification. Many people from poor families who achieve a high academic qualification in the leaving certificate examination would be eligible for a higher education grant but at the moment they are precluded from participating in the scheme. Will the Minister consider giving higher education grants to eligible students?
If the Deputy examines the original Act and the amending legislation before the House he will see that it is stated specifically that there must be an approved institution and that there must be at least a two-year course in that institution before grants will be sanctioned.
I am grateful to the Minister for conceding that the situation in relation to degrees will be more or less as I have stated it although he added the point, which is true, that the same requirements will apply also to two-year courses. One point, and I wonder if it has as much force as the Minister believes, is in relation to matters raised earlier by Deputy Collins regarding support for other types of student. The Minister said that in so far as other types of student were concerned, the aim in general was that the scholarship schemes should apply. Is the Minister aware of the extent of take-up and award of scholarships to people in various parts of the country? Is he aware, for example, that in the entire administrative area of the country of Dublin last year there were only nine holders of scholarships to regional technical colleges or colleges of technology? Does he seriously suggest that the awarding of nine such scholarships in the entire administrative area of the county of Dublin in any way meets the kind of situation that we have been describing?
The Deputy would find me extremely remiss if I did not know the exact extent, seeing that I answered a question which the Deputy put down to me recently. I think he called for a written reply—I hope he did anyway—on this point. He will also know that he picked the administrative area of the county of Dublin because it was by far the smallest.
The fourth smallest, Minister.
The much less populous administrative area of the county of Cavan would have five times plus that number of scholarships, if my memory serves me right, and so would other areas of less population. On reading that list I do not understand why the administrative area of the county of Dublin is so small. There is some reason for it other than that they did not apply for scholarships or that the scholarships were not available. It is ex parte pleading to just mention one of the administrative areas with the smallest number of scholarships. On Second Stage I said that my Department estimate that over 40 per cent of the students are aided one way or the other, either by way of grant, scholarship, or in some other way in the social sphere.
That relates to the apparent omission of the institution known as a recognised college. The Minister is big on not doing things that have to be retrospectively legalised. I wonder whether the omission of the type of institution known as a recognised college might not create difficulties for him or for another Minister for Education in the future. "University" is self-explanatory. "University college", while a bit ambiguous, is presumably a constituent college of university. There is no reference in section 1 to a recognised college. As we know in relation to student support, although not in relation to the award of degrees and other qualifications, there are two types of recognised college. There is the recognised college such as Maynooth and perhaps the NIHE in Limerick and Thomond College. There are also training colleges which are recognised colleges of universities and whose students benefit from a different support system which is not as generous as was indicated in an article in a magazine published by the Minister's Department. I would be interested to hear the Minister on the reasons why there was no inclusion here, as there was not in the 1968 Act, of the entity known as the recognised college and whether or not he thinks that this might create problems in the future.
The Deputy rightly distinguished between recognised colleges. I would read it in so far as grants are concerned and so far as custom is concerned in the unexpanded scheme that "university" embraced its recognised college. I would distinguish with regard to the most recently created recognised colleges, or the most recently recognised colleges, namely, the colleges of education. They have their own grant system. The remark the Deputy made about it not being as generous as some people pretended is lost on me. I gather that the existing scheme is working satisfactorily and that what somebody called "a damn good bargain" is being had by the students of those recognised colleges.
I do not wish to enter into the politics of the present scheme, but I wonder what the position is in relation to an applicant who is eligible for a grant and who wishes to study in a university or a university college in Northern Ireland in order to pursue a course which is not available here. Is there any mechanism which allows him to pursue such a course in Northern Ireland, in England or in another European country?
As of now, a student from the Republic of Ireland studying in Queen's University or in the New University of Ulster, or other institutions of that standard, may avail under normal conditions of a grant.
What about England?
As of now, the scheme does not extend to any place outside Ireland.
If there was a specialised course in, say, some science relating to the fishing industry or some other advanced specialised course available only in England, would the Minister be averse to allowing an applicant to take up such a course?
Is the Deputy referring to a basic degree or to post-graduate work?
A basic degree.
If such a case came up I would have a look at it.
If I read the Minister right, he is saying that the teacher training colleges have their own separate grants scheme and need not be considered within the general context of the problem relating to recognised colleges. There is the problem of other colleges which are recognised by a parent university institution. The Minister in his reply referred to the unexpanded situation, by which I take it he was referring to the situation in which there are still, for example, three constituent colleges of the National University which are shortly to become independent universities. "Immediately" was the word used in the manifesto to qualify higher education legislation.
I would call the attention of the Chair to the fact that that adverb was placed early in the sentence. The Deputy should read the manifesto carefully, as the people did.
I do not think it arises at this stage anyway as a question to be asked.
The syntax of that manifesto must have been concocted almost entirely by the Minister on the far side of the House.
And for clarity of diction and effectiveness I am grateful to the Deputy for the compliment.
I do not think we should discuss the manifesto at this stage.
It was a fine piece of political syntax.
Deputy Horgan has a question to ask on this Bill.
The Minister said—and it was, as he says himself, an ex parte observation—that he would see a recognised college of a university as being included in the global term “university”.
The mother university puts her caring arms around the recognised colleges.
Including Maynooth?
Grants are held there.
The Minister is not unaware of the fact that Maynooth is at present a recognised college of the National University and may never be anything other than a recognised college of a university. It is also true to say, to the best of my knowledge, that a court in the interpretation of a statute is not bound necessarily to take any account of obiter dicta of Ministers in relation to the passage of any particular phrase or any definition of any particular Bill.
I am afraid I must correct the Deputy's pronunciation of that phrase—obiter dicta—the initial “o” is short.
I give the Minister hours of innocent pleasure; it is part of my function in life.
We are not having lessons. Deputy Horgan on the section.
The point about Maynooth I want to make—and it could happen in respect of any recognised college assuming there were to be such creatures again in the future, and there is no saying there will not be—is whether the Minister is not being too sanguine if he expects that a court would assume the definition of the word "university" to include an institution which is not owned by the university, whose teachers are not appointed by the university, perhaps even whose students are not admitted by the university, whose teachers certainly are not paid by the university and is in a location, say, ten, 15, 20 or 30 miles from the university. A court might well think that a departmental contention that the word "university" included an institution over which a fully fledged university had so little effective control was really straining the bounds of credibility.
With all due respect to Deputy Horgan, I think he is at a nitpicking operation at present. In the words of the amendment, "approved institution" means a university, university college, recognised college of a university, or other institution of higher education. I do not see what he is worrying about. That is extensive enough to take in those institutions.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Next Stage?
Anois.
Tá go maith.
As there are no amendments on Report Stage, we will proceed to Fifth Stage.
On Report Stage——
Sorry, Deputy, as there are no amendments we cannot discuss Report Stage.
Will the Minister consider the two amendments I asked him to consider on Committee Stage in relation to retrospective application, incomes and so on.
Any consideration of an improvement in the schemes will be done outside the context of this Bill if it takes place.
Could the Minister indicate when that will come about?
I think I will draw out the old weapon: it is an on-going process.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
May I speak on Fifth Stage?
The Deputy may, but only on what is in the Bill.
In giving the Bill an easy passage I recognise that the higher education grants scheme is in need of a fairly wide review to make it really effective and available to many people from not so well-off families who would like to participate in third-level education and who at this point in time are prevented from doing so by the narrow interpretation of the present scheme. I am sure the Minister views the matter in the same manner as I do and would not be averse to reviewing the scheme in a radical fashion over the next 12 months.
The Bill we are now passing is one to legalise retrospectively a certain situation in relation to the payment of grants to students following courses in higher education. While it is a valid and necessary Bill, it is in many respects a disappointing one. I had hoped that the Minister in this his first Bill might have taken a wider look at the structural problems of the scheme introduced originally by his administration. I should like the Minister to indicate quite simply in his reply whether or not he has completely closed his mind to the possibility of such further structural changes and whether he is sympathetic to the possibility of some changes as were outlined by us at various stages during the discussion.
I want to thank the two Deputies for their help with this Bill, which is one to make legal something that has been going on for some years and which is not desirable for the national Parliament. The Government are committed to education, as indeed have been previous Fianna Fáil Governments. One has to look at the Statute Book to see that, small and insignificant though this Bill may be, it is the first that has gone on the Statute Book since 1972, as far as I can remember—anyway no Act was passed during the term of the previous Government.
The scheme of third level grants has, as all schemes, defects. We will be looking at the scheme. We are always looking at it and hoping we will be able to improve it. I want to put on record once more the fact that I have paid on third-level grants an increase of 66? per cent over what had been paid by my predecessors. I did this in a time of falling inflation. I raised also the eligibility limits for people in the scheme at the lower end by 29.5 per cent and at the upper end by 21.4 per cent. I have not held this office very long and that has been a considerable improvement in the scheme. I think any reasonable person will admit that.
The points Deputies raised with regard to the scheme, even though they did so in a referral manner, will be taken into account whenever we are having a look at the scheme.
Question put and agreed to.