asked the Minister for Education if he will amend the higher education grants scheme to allow farmers a choice of assessment of their eligibility on the basis of their accounts or on their rateable valuation and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Higher Education Grants.
17.
The eligibility of candidates for the award of grants in accordance with the provisions of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968 is determined by the terms of the relevant schemes formulated under the Act.
The circular letter to local authorities in relation to the scheme for 1980 to be issued in due course will indicate the basis on which income from lands should be reckoned for the purpose of the schemes.
I am not in a position, at this stage, to say whether there will be any alteration in the method of calculation hitherto adopted for that purpose.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, would he not agree that, since a large number of farmers are now turning over to accounts as a system, at least for income tax purposes, where audited accounts are available and where such accounts would show that on an income basis farmers' children would be entitled to a higher education grant, such an accounts submission should be accepted by the Minister for the purposes of establishing eligibility? Would the Minister not agree that it would be sensible to allow such an inclusion?
All I can say is that as the circular letter for 1980 did not go out I cannot say what will be in it or what will not be in it about that.
Would the Minister not agree that there is a case to be made in this regard?
I cannot anticipate the circular letter.
18.
asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that the number of higher education grant holders has decreased from 5,942 in 1974-75 to 5,541 for the 1978-79 academic year and if he will give the reasons for this decrease.
The number of grant holders in any academic year comprises new awards and renewals. The decrease in the numbers in the 1978-79 academic year as compared to 1974-75 is reflected in the decrease in the number of renewals since 1976-77. The number of renewals in any year is related to the number of first awards in earlier years. The number of such first awards fell from 1,777 in 1974-75 to 1,305 in 1976-77.
Can the Minister give me the figure for the new awards for the academic year 1978-79?
There is no point in giving the Deputy information he has in his question, or has he forgotten what his own question was?
The Minister gave me figures for new awards for two years, 1974-75 and 1976-77. Is that correct?
I gave the Deputy the figures for first awards. I said that they fell from 1,777 in 1974-75 and to 1,305 in 1976-77. 1974-75 would be the base year for a four-year degree course ending this year.
The Minister is being vere selective. Would he give me the numbers of first awards for the year 1978-79?
As the Deputy did not ask me for that I cannot give it.
Does the Minister accept that I have figures for the year 1978-79? Would he not agree that if he is going to treat me fairly in so far as information is concerned, if he is going to quote a figure for first awards the least he could do is make a comparison and include the figure for the year 1978-79?
I have not got the figures for the first awards because the Deputy did not ask me for it.
The Minister is being selective. He is being political in his answer. He does not want to include them.
I want to let the Deputy know that in the period he is talking about, 1974-75, the full scholarships for the VEC have increased in number by 437 and the VEC grants that are without means test——
I did not ask for that either.
——are at 1,475. It is quite obvious the Deputy does not know what is going on in education here.
I did not ask for that. Why is the Minister being selective in excluding the awards of first grants for the academic year 1978-79?
I answered the question fully as the Deputy asked it. Not for the first time this man does not know how to put down a question.
The Minister is being politically selective and he knows why. He is not giving the information I want because it does not suit him.
Not for the first time the Deputy has failed to put down his question properly.
Order, please.