Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1979

Vol. 317 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fee Increase.

24.

asked the Minister for Education whether he will cancel the instruction to VECs to increase certain fees by 25 per cent and 10 per cent.

25.

asked the Minister for Education if he will review his instruction to the VECs to increase certain fees; if he is aware of the concern of the VECs concerning the implications of this instruction particularly in regard to arrangements made prior to it.

26.

asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that his direction to increase fees in the non-university institutions was too late for those educational institutions to implement and if he now intends to withdraw that directive.

With the permission, of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos 24 to 26, inclusive, together.

I am satisfied that, having regard to the relatively low level of fees in general in regional technical colleges and corresponding educational institutions, a percentage increase in the fees as specified in circular letter no. 34/79 from my Department was fully warranted.

I see no reason for a review of the instruction as conveyed to vocational education committees in this matter.

Will the Minister agree that this fee increase is regressive and that it bears equally on those who can afford to pay and those who cannot afford to pay the increase? Will the Minister indicate what, if anything, he proposes to do about local authorities who have the guts to refuse to implement his instruction?

I would not accept that the decision was regressive. I should like very much if everything could be free—the Ritz is open to everyone. The increase was a modest one.

Twenty five per cent, in keeping with inflation.

It was 25 per cent on a low level.

Not necessarily.

It is low in Fianna Fáil terms.

The number of vocational education committee scholarships have increased substantially and this in aid of that sector.

Is the Minister aware that his letter demanding an increase of 25 per cent from new students was sent to the various committees on either the last day of July or the first day of August 1979?

The last day in August the Deputy said the last time.

I think it was the last day in July.

It was July.

The traditional day for sending out bad news.

The earliest date on which most committees could consider that letter was either mid-August or at the first meeting in September. Is the Minister aware that the boards of management in regional colleges determine the level of their fees at their February meeting in order to have the syllabus and prospectus for the various courses published? Is he further aware that applicants for courses are processed by the end of July or certainly by the time the letter was considered in September? These boards of management had a legal commitment to the students on the basis of their published prospectus. Would the Minister not consider that any indication in relation to increases in fees should go out around March if it is to be effective? In the obvious circumstances in which many boards of management found themselves, will the Minister withdraw that letter in view of the fact that many boards have rejected it on quasi-legal or legal grounds?

I would not accept that the 10 per cent increase in fees on a low level for existing students and 25 per cent for new students was excessive. The vast majority of the committees accepted this and must not have feared that there was any legal difficulty involved. The committees are experienced committees and know what they are doing. If they do it they would not be doing it in contravention of any legal contractual provision.

On the basis of commonsense, if the Government wish to have an increase in fees at whatever level—the public can adjudicate on the wisdom or otherwise of that—the intention to seek an increase should be indicated to the committees and boards of management early in the year around March rather than waiting until August when people are on holidays and when such a circular would not be considered until early September. Is the Minister aware that there is an obligation on the committees and boards to plan forward and settle fee structures? In those circumstances, if the Government and Minister wish to have an increase in fees, they should be communicated earlier in the year than his last circular was.

I am satisfied in the circumstances obtaining that the circular letter went out as soon as it could. It did not in any way inhibit committees from increasing fees by and large.

Some committees did——

I take the Deputy's point that the earlier we can have such circulars out the better but circumstances do not always permit that.

Can the Minister tell us whether the committees can expect more bad news next year in relation to fees?

I am not in the prophecy business.

The Minister must know.

We have over-laboured this question. The Deputy does not know when to sit down when he gets to his feet.

Can the Minister indicate if his circular letter in relation to degree courses indicating an increase of 25 per cent for new students and 10 per cent for existing students was parallel to the direction in relation to university fees? Can he tell the House if it is the policy that where university fees increase there will be a parallel increase in degree course fees for the non-university area?

That is a separate question and I could not answer it offhand.

The Minister is on the duck.

No way.

27.

asked the Minister for Education if he will ensure that where fees exceed £100 in third level institutes of education students will be able to pay in instalments and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In so far as the colleges of education are concerned there is provision for the payment of the fee of £300 in two instalments, an instalment on first day of the first and second terms. Arrangements for the payment of fees in other third level educational institutions are primarily a matter for the authorities of the institutions concerned.

Will the Minister not agree that many students, not necessarily those who are in receipt of a higher education grant, and their parents find it difficult to pay fees in the region of £300 to £600 or more at one time? Would he not think it reasonable that he should ask the universities concerned to ensure that where fees exceed £100 a reasonable arrangement can be entered into which would allow of three instalment payments of these fees over the academic year? Is that not a reasonable approach to the matter?

So far as the vocational sector is concerned there is no higher education institute. None of the colleges of technology or the RTCs have fees in excess of £100. As far as the universities are concerned, the Deputy knows very well, having been a tutor in a university college, that they make their own decisions on these matters.

I know that. Will the Minister approach the universities and ask them to have some form of instalment scheme that would take into account the heavy financial burden on parents and students? Is the Minister refusing that reasonable request?

I do not refuse any reasonable request.

The Minister is refusing. I am sorry because that is not like him.

28.

asked the Minister for Education the estimated percentage of university students on higher education grants in 1976-77; the percentage for 1978-79; and the increase or decrease.

The percentage of full-time students in the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth and Trinity College, Dublin, who were holders of grants in accordance with the provisions of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act was 26.1 per cent in the academic year 1976-77 and 22.2 per cent in the academic year 1978-79.

Can the Minister explain why, if all he has done in relation to the higher education grant scheme has been so marvellous, the number of students who were in a position to avail of it has gone down dramatically since 1976-77?

It is not an easy question to answer.

Indeed it is not.

More attention is being paid to the regional technical colleges and the technological sector generally. I am glad of this. More students are going there who are enjoying grants and/or scholarships.

Is that the best explanation the Minister can offer?

It is a very good explanation.

It is a very good excuse.

Is the Minister not aware that many of the non-university institutions and VEC institutions are covered by the scholarship scheme rather than the grant scheme? The number of third level education grants as such as compared with scholarships, which are attainable outside universities has always been an infinitesimal proportion of the total and that remains the case.

Perhaps I did not make it quite clear about the scholarships to colleges of technology. From 1976-77 to the present there has been an increase of upwards of 400 scholarships. These are in the same range, that is to say up to £600 with fees, as are the grants. Some people leave that out of account. If the student exercises a choice to avail of a scholarship he has the same money coming to him as if he got a grant. In fact, it is a grant under a different name.

Would the Minister not agree that the figures indicate that he has failed to increase the proportion of university students on grants?

On the face of it I would say that looks as if it is the case. I am saying there is a diversion—this is something that the Deputy and others have sought in our educational system, namely, more concentration on the technological area. I am pleased to see the emphasis and the money going there.

We will let the Minister off for Christmas.

29.

asked the Minister for Education if he is aware of the statement in "A Handbook for Students" published by the Commission of the European Communities in June 1979 quoting the cost of living for an Irish student for nine months, excluding fees, as £1,368, and if he will adjust the higher education grants scheme to bring the support element into line with this figure.

I am aware of the estimate referred to in the question.

I am not aware of the basis on which such an estimate was made and it has no relevance in the context of schemes formulated in accordance with the provision of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act.

The maintenance element of the higher education grant was increased by 20 per cent from £500 to £600 as from the commencement of the school year 1979-80. It was £300 in 1976-77.

Is it not true that the maintenance element of the higher education grant has not kept pace with inflation? Secondly, can the Minister explain why he considers this figure is not relevant to the higher education grant scheme when it was provided by an official of the Higher Education Authority?

The first point I should like to make is that I found the grants to be far too low. I answered a question from the Deputy about the value of the grant in 1979-80 as compared with the grant in 1968. I think the Deputy will remember that the figure worked on the CPI was in favour of the 1979-80 amount because the original 1968 grant was a global one incorporating fees and maintenance. With regard to the other part of the question, as the Deputy knows we have a scheme which is based on the earnings of parents. It is not related to the actual amount of grant for maintenance or school fees.

Does the Minister dispute the figure in the question and, if so, has he any figure of his own that he would like to put forward?

I am not disputing anything.

Is the Minister accepting that it is accurate?

I am not accepting that it is accurate or inaccurate.

If the figure of £1,368 is not acceptable to him, would he agree with a figure of £1,000 which is generally accepted in HEA circles and is accepted by me? In that context, has the Minister any commitment to raise the maintenance grant to a level of, say, £1,000 per year?

£1,000 per year for maintenance?

Yes. Has the Minister any commitment to introduce a comprehensive grants system which would reflect what is known as a "living" grant level?

In all modesty, I think I have acted well with regard to the grant scheme.

The Minister should be given the croix de guerre.

I am not looking for that. In fact, there is a constitutional bar against taking such an honour. I am committed to improving the grants to the extent possible. The scholarships are concentrating the attention of students on the technological area and I am very pleased about that.

Has the Minister any commitment in the coming financial year to increase the maintenance grant to a figure somewhere in the region of £1,000?

The figures have not been made out yet.

30.

asked the Minister for Education if, in view of inflationary costs, he will institute a review of the current high fees, inadequate grants and means test applied to students in regional technical colleges and third-level educational institutions.

I am satisfied that the fees in the regional technical colleges are corresponding educational institutions are not unduly high and I do not consider that a reduction in the general level of such fees would be warranted.

In so far as relates to the grants and scholarships available to the students, I should point out that the amount of the award at £300 in the academic year 1976-77 was increased by me in 1977-78 to £500 and in 1979-80 to £600. Furthermore, the conditions of eligibility in relation to means was also dramatically improved. The limit of £2,950 in 1967-77 is now £6,100 in 1979-80.

Since the Minister does not consider the fees to be unduly high, can we expect a continuation of his policy to seek substantial increases in the fees for regional colleges in the next academic year?

I cannot make any statement on that at the moment.

What the Minister has said indicates that there will be a substantial increase.

The Deputy is going to catch me whether I say yes or no.

Barr
Roinn