Private Members' Business. - Vocational Education Colleges Fees. – Dáil Éireann (24th Dáil) – Wednesday, 4 Jun 1986

Private Members' Business. - Vocational Education Colleges Fees.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. F. O'Brien)

By agreement, and notwithstanding Standing Orders, Members should be called as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.25 p.m. Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.25 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.40 p.m. to 8 p.m. Government speaker; 8 p.m. to 8.05 p.m. Progressive Democrats speaker; 8.05 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. Government speaker and 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Fianna Fáil speaker.

An Ceann Comhairle

Are the speakers as scheduled agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the recent excessive increases in third-level student fees in Vocational Education Colleges in the order of 11 to 18 per cent as representing a total departure from the Government's stated policy, and in view of the importance attached to the technological courses offered in these colleges calls for a significant reduction in the rate of increase in these fees.

I am very glad that our party, and in particular our Chief Whip, have put down this motion. It is one of extreme importance coming up to the time when most VECs will be taking their decisions which have been outlined to them in a letter in early March from the Department of Education telling them the rate of increases for the colleges. This letter is in the form of a directive. It is dated 6 March 1986. It is Circular Letter No. CF 1/86 regarding tuition fees. It states:

I am directed to draw the attention of your Committee to the level of the tuition fees charged in respect of courses of instruction under the provisions of the Vocational Education Act, 1930.

It lists the various charges: certificate, £325; diploma, £350; degree, excluding architecture and engineering, £550; and architecture and engineering degrees, £700. The following significant letter was sent on 25 March 1986 from the Department to each VEC with responsibility for third level colleges. It states, inter alia:

I am also to say that the financial allocations now being authorised are on the basis that the instructions notified in Circular Letter

— which is the earlier letter from which I quoted—

regarding tuition fee increases have been fully implemented and that further revenues will accrue to the College in respect of fee increases from September 1986.

I quote this so that the record of the House will show that each individual VEC does not have discretion in this matter. They received circulars in early March and late March from the Department telling them the level of fees which should obtain. This is also borne out by the relevant section of the Vocational Education Act, 1930. I know it comes as no surprise to the Minister that we have put down this motion. We shared a platform in Athlone some time ago at a student union debate at which the matter was aired in a democratic fashion.

Minister for Education (Mr. Cooney)

We were photographed there, too.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Arising out of that, I looked into the matter. I received the data and discussed it with the Fianna Fáil Front Bench, with our Leader and with the deputy spokesman and others involved in education. I also wish to put on record the statement of the Government in their document, Building on Reality, in which they said that higher education fees will increase somewhat faster than the rate of inflation. Fees increased at the rate of 11 per cent to 18 per cent. As announced by the Minister and other Government Ministers when admonishing people who were seeking wage increases, the rate of inflation was forecast at 3 per cent or perhaps even less. If the rate of inflation is less for one group surely the same must apply to students in order to keep them in college and to educate them? In some isolated cases the rate of increase has been as high as 30 per cent for some courses.

In the Minister's amendment he mentions the low base on which the recently announced fee increases have been calculated. The low base had a certain valid purpose. When the regional colleges and various Dublin Institutes of Technology colleges were set up they were to serve the needs of a region where young men and women from a particular socio-economic background could have access to third level education at a reasonable price and one that would be within their ambit or that of their parents. In the intervening years the rate of increase of fees in third level VEC colleges has been astronomical regardless of the fact that many are funded at European Social Fund level. That has a great bearing on our motion and on the Minister's amendment to it.

The vast majority of students attending vocational education colleges are in receipt of ESF grants. That is partly true. The Minister did not say that ESF grants are not applicable in all disciplines. Where they are applicable in most disciplines in a college they are only applicable for two year courses. That means that if a person is in receipt of an ESF grant he can progress to certificate level. The diploma, the third year, or the degree, the fourth year, have to be undertaken at the person's own expense if the person is not funded by the VEC. The strictures for that are extremely tight as regards means test and honours requirements.

People say that, if a person can afford to pay for his education, he should pay for it. That is all very well, but we have lost sight along the way of the purpose for which Regional Technical Colleges were set up. When I speak about RTCs I speak about all VEC third level colleges. When they came on stream in the late sixties and early seventies they were set up to serve the needs of a region. They were to meet what would be the forecasted manpower needs for that region in a particular skill or technological area. They were to provide competency, job creation skills and job seeking skills in young people. The upward mobility in all areas of life has had a cruel effect on education. Some years ago if a person had a good inter certificate or a good group certificate he got an apprenticeship, went into a trade or went into commerce or some kind of business. After a few years a person needed a good leaving certificate. Now a two year certification course at a regional technical college no longer suffices for entry into the technological area. More and more one needs a diploma and a degree. RTCs and all allied colleges have been to the forefront in the provision of these courses. They saw where the need was. In many instances the most forward looking of them looked around to see what courses needed to be provided and what needed to be done.

I am thankful to have had the experience of serving on the board of management for five years of the Athlone RTC, and for some of them as chairman. The very forward looking viewpoints which were taken by the college enabled it to keep ahead of what was coming and to set up expertise in a particular field which allowed students from all over the country to seek entry to the plastics course and now to the management catering course, both of which offer degree level. That has been very much to the good of the area and the students who are participating in these courses.

I am talking about the college in Athlone because it is the one I am most intimate with. From discussions on the matter which my colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, who is chairman of Dublin VEC, I know they control a vast budget and a vast number of students and are constantly innovative and far-seeking in what they hope to do for their students, all of which has been very much within the terms of the provisions under which these colleges were set up. My colleague will be dealing in full detail with the various rises from 1980 to 1986 and the various percentage increases, some of them absolutely horrendous, in those various colleges over the years.

While the Minister talks about the low base, the low base was for a purpose. It was to enable access to the colleges for those people who might heretofore not have had the chance of equal educational opportunity. In a year in which Government Ministers confidently nightly and daily tell us on television and radio that there will be nil inflation, to put on the backs of young people, quite literally, prohibitive rises such as these will mean that they will be priced out of their knowledge. I make my point quite clearly aware of the ESF funding for two years but also very keenly aware that the certification courses in many instances will no longer suffice for that young man or woman going out into the job market.

The advances in science, mathematics, physics, technology and in the new areas of commerce and business require daily more and more changes. We might wish that it were not so. We might wish that it had stayed simple and placid and that everybody could gain entry into a college. That is not the way it came about. Now we are faced with a huge influx of young people who seek and have a right to seek access to these colleges for which their skills fit them. Over 50 per cent of then will find having completed their course, if they are lucky to get on the ESF one, they cannot go ahead because they are not able to bear the funding of it. I have said to the Minister on another occasion when we met on a deputation from our VEC that I felt the barrier of forbearance for these rises had been breached and no longer could the parents of young people continue to fund them.

Despite all the advances in education there has not been a sufficient advance in the level of participation in third level by pupils from, for the want of a better word, disadvantaged areas. Whilst it may be that Ballsbridge and Ballymun may be only five to six miles apart geographically, they are planets apart with regard to access to third level education. I felt that, with the continued vibrancy and continued growth and vigour of the RTCs, we were in a real fashion beginning to dent that disparity and allow young people who might not otherwise have had a taste and a chance to get into third level colleges to do so. Is that chance of equity no longer tenable? I submit it is not if these fees are allowed to continue and at that rate.

I would also like to question the whole matter of the ESF funding. Again, I discussed this some weeks ago in Athlone during that debate. It is a question which will have to be addressed by persons in authority. Are young people entering upon short junior and middle technician courses which are ESF funded simply because the money is there for two years? Is the fact that that money is available just allowing them to enter upon them with no thought of a further career prospect at the end of the two years? It is time for a very thorough survey and review to be carried out on the number of students who have to drop out after second year to find out the reason students finish at certification level when they could have gone on to diploma and degree courses. I am sure that if a head by head survey in each college were done, and it would be a very useful one, one would find the reason why they had dropped out was lack of financial backing to enable them to continue on in their courses.

All of us from time to time say that our greatest resource is our young people and our aim is to do our best for them. All public representatives would genuinely feel that and would feel they should do it. We are not giving expression to it. Whilst it might seem to some that it is simplistic to say: "Reduce the fees", if I were in Government, I could not stand over increases in fees from 11 per cent to 18 per cent when the comparable increase in universities — indeed it was high too but that is not my case or my submission tonight — reluctantly agreed, to by the traditional universities, was 10 per cent. The VEC third level colleges offering courses which we are told, will be the cornerstone of our growth and of the economy in the years to come — we would all believe in that —seem to be punished in a harsh way by the increases, most of them nearly double what has applied to universities and what might be called the more traditional third level colleges in the university sector.

The low base reason given in the Minister's amendment was for a purpose. Is it that it has served its purpose, or is it that it is no longer valid? I would hold that it has only started on its road of gaining access and it has only begun to make inroads into the inequality of access to education. If VECs around the country implement this circular — and they have to implement it under the terms of the two letters they have received — they will be doing so very reluctantly. That has nothing to do with the make-up of the individual VECs or the parent body of VECs. It has to do with the genuine commitment of the people who serve on these VECs and who know full well that they will be depriving people of a chance of education. They must implement this circular or they can be invoked under the 1930 Act.

Most of the VECs have not implemented the circular. In some areas they have sent it back to the Minister and asked him to review it. In some cases the Minister has kindly agreed to meet with them and to review it and think about it. This has culminated in the putting down of this motion tonight. I am aware that the Green Paper, Partners in Education, forecast that there would be legislation dealing with the role of RTCs and with the colleges of technology in Dublin. The Minister is to make an announcement shortly regarding this. I gather there may be a proposal to upgrade the role of the RTCs. But the Minister will be putting the cart before the horse if endeavours to have the level of fees approach those of the universities without conferring on the RTCs many of the advantages, services, resources, research and development facilities at present afforded the universities.

The Minister has not got his priorities in order. I might see some point in an increase in fees if the RTCs and the Dublin Institute of Technology had resources and services comparable to those of universities; but, even then, I would question somewhat the role of RTCs. Where are they going? For what where they established? Have they fulfilled their role to date? I would contend they have. I would contend that they have turned out men and women well equipped, many of whom had to seek employment abroad, but at least they did so with their qualifications in their pockets. Hopefully, when the conditions improve, they will return, giving back to their country something of what they received. Now that approximately 15 years have elapsed since the establishment of most of the RTCs, the time is appropriate to take stock of their role and decide where they go in the future. It is not good enough to heap increase upon increase, in the hope that by so doing they will be forced into a role willy-nilly not at all to students' advantage, of becoming elitist when that was not their originally envisaged role. They were established principally to serve a particular need, which they have done admirably. They have overcome enormous challenges. They are very democratic and the enlarged boards have ensured additional expertise which may have been lacking in the smaller boards. They represent business, democratic scholastic, academic interests, all of which are necessary, and they knit into the VEC system. Whether they should be separate is a matter for another day.

I acknowledge that these fees were proposed under the previous Minister and Vote. However, it is the present Minister who will have the job of implementing them in the course of the Estimates ensuing very shortly. Prior to the introduction of the Education Estimates we are afforded an opportunity to do something for the young people involved in this type of third level education: give them a chance to continue with further courses so that they can emerge with their diplomas and degrees, look the world in the eye, without feeling they have been disadvantaged.

The motion, which is put very simply, has enormous validity. There is no way any taint of profligacy can be hurled at our party, because it is simply untenable to stand over an increase in fees of 11 to 18 per cent. I would again ask the Minister to review these rates.

Mr. Nolan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The fees increases announced recently by the Minister for Education in the form of a direction to all CEO of vocational education committees — increases between 11 and 18 per cent in third level fees in vocational education colleges — constitute a savage and totally unjustified imposition on the families of those students attending these colleges. The most seriously affected students will be those undergoing diploma and degree courses.

Our spokesperson on education has pointed out in great detail the effects these increases will have on the families of the students concerned. In replying I would hope the Minister would advance a valid reason why these increases cannot be linked with the consumer price index. For example, how can one justify increases of between 11 and 18 per cent when the Taoiseach informed us no later than last week that he hoped for an inflation rate of around 1 per cent by the end of this year? I hope the Minister will reply to these questions.

There is ample evidence to suggest that students are now dropping out of regional technical college courses once they have finished their certificate course because they cannot afford to undergo diploma and degree courses. Having completed the certificate course, if a student has no real opportunity of gainful employment, he or she will continue to do a diploma or degree course. Most third and fourth year diploma or degree students receive no grant, rendering it impossible for them to continue their studies at these colleges. Yet it is an accepted fact that degree and diploma courses are becoming increasingly necessary for employment, that the standard of education required for all types of employment has risen in recent years. That is regrettable, but is an undeniable fact. There are sufficient, well educated young people walking the streets without this Government imposing these increases which will be seen as obstacles in the way of young people continuing their studies.

Apart from the question of these fees, the Minister is well aware — coming from Athlone where there is a regional technical college — that the parents of students attending courses at any third level institute must meet subsistence, board and travel expenses. For example, they must pay for travel to and from these centres and for equipment needed in the course of their studies. A cost of £2,500 and upwards would not be uncommon to maintain a student at one of those colleges. The Government should not place obstacles in the way of those people doing their best to give their children an opportunity they may not have had themselves to further their education.

The establishment of the regional technical colleges was heralded as a landmark in the history of Irish education, it being contended that at long last the Government recognised the need to make a system available to young people whereby they could receive a practical, third-level education at a reasonable cost. It is that reasonable cost that is at the centre of this debate. These colleges were located outside the traditional centres of education — Dublin, Cork and Galway — in an effort to regionalise third level education. Experience has shown that these colleges have been a success. It would be unfortunate that any Government would impinge on that success. The proof of their success has been illustrated in the number of students who availed of the opportunity afforded them locally at these colleges of education. The sons and daughters of many families who would not otherwise have had an opportunity of furthering their expertise in a particular field are grateful for the role played by these colleges. The opening of regional technical colleges in Letterkenny, Athlone, Dundalk and Carlow has brought practical, technical education to the provinces. This most welcome move must not be interfered with lest the years of toil put into the establishment of these colleges be lost forever.

I would ask the Minister to seriously reconsider his directive to the CEOs. The location of these colleges in the provinces was felt to constitute an integrated educational system under which young apprentices could be given block releases to undergo courses at these colleges. Carpentry and fitter turners are two that spring to mind. In most cases this has turned out to be a great success both from the employers' and the students' point of view. It is only fair that young people should be afforded every opportunity to attain the highest possible standards in their particular field. We have students attending full time day courses and part time students who attend night classes. Many citizens avail of this facility.

Given the high cost of university education and the competition for a limited number of places, those from the lower income groups could avail of the technical and practical courses offered by the VECs. The total number of students attending these colleges last year was over 17,000. Most of these young people will be affected by the proposed increases. When discussing this important matter we must not lose sight of one of the reasons students pursue these courses. The reason is that standards have increased and a certain standard of education is required for even the most menial type of job. Everyone is trying to better their standard of education. As job prospects become more difficult, greater pressure is brought to bear on young people to attain higher qualifications.

Lack of employment is the biggest single cancer affecting our society. The Government have done precious little to alleviate this problem for young people. A short time ago we heard about Fine Gael's proposals to reverse the trend in unemployment. The Government do not need to be reminded of the current position. Every public representative understands the heartbreak of young people seeking employment. They all have excellent standards of education and curricula vitae. Yet they are unable to obtain gainful employment. It is regrettable, but it is a fact. This Government stand indicted on their record in this area.

What are we educating young people for? To emigrate? Recent statistics show that the rate of emigration is on the increase. This is effective in so far as it keeps down the numbers on the live register, but it is not doing anything for the morale of the people. I have had experience of parents calling to my home and asking me to find some kind of work for their children who, they say, will emigrate if they do not obtain it. It is well known that the unofficial emigration of young people to America is at an all time high. This is not something of which any Government can be proud.

A letter issued to the CEOs regarding running costs for the financial year ended 31 December 1986. A condition of the financial allocation is that the provisions of the letter are to be fully implemented. The net effect of this is that the Minister is using a stick with which to beat the VECs into implementing these fee increases. The letter states:

I am also to state that the financial allocations now being authorised are on the basis that the instructions notified in circular letter CF1/86 regarding tuition fee increases have been fully implemented and that further revenues will accrue to the colleges in respect of fee increases from September 1986.

This is an unfair imposition to place on CEOs. If a VEC does not implement these increases the shortfall in receipts will not be met by the Department of Education.

All third level institutions are experiencing great difficulty in balancing their budgets at present. Most VECs will have no option but to impose the fee increase proposed by the Minister. Fee increases should be linked to the consumer price index. In that way students, and more importantly their parents, would have some idea of the likely fees for the duration of a course. To arbitrarily impose increases of the nature proposed by the Minister in his directive is scandalous and the Minister should withdraw the circular letter.

In the amendment to our motion the Minister recognises the low base on which the increase is based. Our spokesperson has dealt fairly with the reasons for that low base. Since he recognised this low base, did it not occur to him to question the reason for it? It is to allow as many young people as possible to avail of these courses. If the Government are changing their policy on this the Minister should say so. University is increasingly becoming the preserve of the rich. Where are the young people who cannot afford university education to go to? VECs were located in rural towns in order to encourage as many young rural people as possible to avail of courses there. As a result of these courses many young people are now enjoying a better standard of living and have greater job prospects.

Is this increase the thin end of the wedge? Will we see another major increase next year? I hope there will be a change of Government and thus a change of policy. The Minister pointed out in his amendment that the majority of students attending VECs are in receipt of grants. That may be so, but what about the unfortunate student who is not, or what about the person who fails part of his examination and has to repeat a year without grant assistance? Are they to be cast to one side? The Minister will turn the clock back ten years if he continues down the road on which he has started. If the increase in fees which he proposes is implemented, all progress towards social mobility will be halted.

It is interesting to note that the Government are not alone in their thinking on the question of education funding. The Progressive Democrats, in outlining their policy recently, mentioned education cuts. I would regret if this happened and if, once again, only the very wealthy will be able to afford a third level education. I should like to ask the Minister to seriously review the directive and to withdraw it.

Minister for Education (Mr. Cooney)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann notes—

(1) the substantial improvements made by the Government in the number and level of grants available to third level students,

(2) that the vast majority of students attending Vocational Education Colleges are in receipt of such grants,

(3) the low base on which the recently announced fee increases have been calculated".

I recognise that in debates of this nature in this House, which are essentially political debates, it is the duty and traditional role of an Opposition to indulge in special pleading which by definition is special and narrow and designed to put only one side of an argument or a case and may not fully explore all the issues. That is what we have had this evening. It is my task in this debate to put the whole question of the fees payable for the next academic year in the third level colleges of the vocational education sector in perspective. I have to note the rather ambiguous format of the Opposition's motion. The ambiguity, instead of being a matter for criticism by me, is something on which I would compliment the Opposition because they call for a significant reduction in the rate of increases in these fees. That marks a certain maturing of the Opposition with regard to their approach to the financial and budgetary constraints of the system. Some time ago a motion from the Opposition would have called for the total abolition and removal of the increases in the fees. It is a mark of the growing up of the Opposition and I hope it will extend not merely to the Spokesmen but to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Minister should leave out the sting.

An Ceann Comhairle

We should not have any interruptions.

Mr. Cooney

Significantly the Opposition did not attempt to say what a "significant reduction" would be. Deputy Nolan did not go as far as his colleagues on the question of financial rectitude and wanted the circular withdrawn. He said that when there would be a change of Government — while he used the word "when" I would use the word "if"— there would be a change of policy. It is noticeable that he did not indicate what that change in policy would bring with it. It is common case between both sides of the House that there should have been an increase and what we are arguing about is the level of that increase.

The Opposition have not given any indication of what they think the level of increase should be — that is their privilege, it goes with the position the Opposition find themselves in. The Opposition do not have any responsibility, but the Government have the responsibility of providing educational services for pupils at all levels — primary, post primary and third level. The Government also have an obligation to balance the competing claims of various sections of the community and all the economic, commercial and social interests, for their part of what is a limited amount of finance. The Government have to make a decision to try to achieve what they consider the most equitable and reasonable solution having regard to the competing claims.

In the national plan, which was referred to by Deputy O'Rourke, it was signalled that higher education fees would increase. The words she quoted, "somewhat faster than the rate of inflation," are correct. Thankfully, inflation has fallen much faster and to a much greater extent than was anticipated. That brings with it corresponding reductions in the other costs which may face students and the public. While inflation has fallen, and the increases when linked specifically to inflation do not maintain the same ratio as anticipated, nevertheless one cannot ignore the beneficial effects of the fall in inflation on other expenses that will be incurred by the students concerned.

It is important that we should go to the national plan and indicate the reasons for the decision to increase higher education fees. The main reason was to ensure that there would be other funds available for other sectors of education. One of the main areas where we wanted to divert funds was the primary sector. We wanted to assist the disadvantaged areas of the primary sector. Progress has been made in two important ways in that area. The number of remedial teachers has been increased and the pupil/teacher ratio in disadvantaged inner city schools has been significantly improved. We hope to continue with the extra assistance to those areas because it is of critical importance in dealing with another problem touched on by the Opposition — the question of access or entry into third level education from the more socially deprived economic groups.

It is not true to say that the question of fees is the main reason why people from the lower socio-economic groups do not participate in third level education. This is a most complex question and it has been the subject of much sociological study. There seems to be no doubt but that other factors, apart from the mere question of money, are very important. Social and attitudinal elements are important, as are the questions of individual ability and home environment. It is clear that children from disadvantaged backgrounds at four years of age start school at a disadvantage compared with their peers even at that young age. Unfortunately, that maintains itself right through primary and post primary education. That inhibits the desire, the wish or the capacity to proceed to third level education. It we want to widen the catchment of people going to third level education we have to remove the educational disadvantages that are in the primary area and, to a lesser extent, in the post primary area in the more disadvantaged parts of our country. Money has been diverted to provide a better pupil/teacher ratio, more remedial teachers and to give more attention to the disadvantaged areas. It is only by dealing with the problem in that way that we will give the pupils self-confidence, change their attitudes and enable them to proceed to third level education. I do not think anybody could cavil at a Government decision designed to impose moderate fee increases on the third level sector so as to ease the general education budget and improve the lot of the seriously deprived in the seriously disadvantaged parts of the country. That is the strategy that lies behind the Government's decision to approve these fee increases.

It would be a mean person indeed who would object to that strategy or complain about it and want the fees reduced. As I said, we must put all these things in perspective. Though the Opposition were inclined to play down the point in the amendment that the fee increases have been calculated on a low base, that is a fact which cannot be gainsaid. It must be remembered that those fees are way below those payable in the universities and the NIHEs. There is no denying that they are considerably below those fees.

That point is of importance when we consider equity and the hardship touched on by the Opposition — a fair point — but it is an equally fair reply to say that we must view these fees in the total perspective of third level education. In a comparative perspective the vocational education colleges have a much more preferential regime vis-á-vis fees than the universities and the NIHEs. The other side implied, though they did not specifically state it, that the increase in fees is inhibiting access to vocational colleges and that the availability of ESF grants for only two years will provoke drop-outs. I do not think any Deputy will say that there is any lack of applicants to take up places in the colleges, so the argument about impeding or inhibiting access falls flat when faced by the hard fact, indeed the difficulty we have had as part of the burgeoning demand for places in third level education. There is no question of access being impeded.

It is hardly fair to students who decide not to finish their third level certificates to suggest that they are drop-outs. It may well suit their particular employment desires and career opportunities to go. Some may go because they feel they do not want the financial burden of going further. But to give the blanket reason that they all drop out because they would have to face the fees in the third year is hardly logical or true.

The Opposition made the point that these fee increases are impeding the RTCs in their role of providing skilled people with technological qualifications to serve our new industries. I cannot see the connection. Once the colleges are full and are turning out students with degrees and diplomas each year in the numbers they are doing, they are fulfilling their role. I know, and I am sure Deputies on the other side know from their contacts with industries in the catchment areas served by these colleges, that industrialists are very satisfied with the numbers of graduates and their quality. I do not foresee that the proposed modest increases in fees will in any way inhibit the RTCs in fulfilling their role.

Deputies opposite have been indulging in the special pleading which is one of the nicer things of being in Opposition, but they have to see this whole problem in perspective, the total volume of resources available and how they are to be allocated. The mechanics of distributing the resources for the vocational education colleges is through the VECs, and Deputies opposite are conversant with the workings of those committees. Circulars have issued to those committees indicating to them what the fees will be in the coming academic year and it is the duty of those committees to apply the fees and to provide financial schemes for the approval of the Minister.

In theory, the committees will be entitled, if they so decide, to cut expenditure on some other part of their activities and not pass on the full fees to the third level colleges. That, of course, would put the committees in the very dilemma that I am faced with in distributing the moneys I have to allocate. They obviously would not want to cut back on the vocational schools or the provision for adult education, or assistance for sport or the various other expenses that VECs meet. They would have to order their priorities in the same way I have to do, and establish a basis of distribution so as to do equity as far as possible between the competing demands on a limited purse.

There is no point in Deputies opposite saying that the committees are constrained legally and absolutely in how they allocate their budgets. They have discretion within an overall limit. I would again urge Deputies, in their special pleading, to put the matter in perspective so that all of us in this debate, listening to it or reading of it, would become aware of the full picture and not just look at this matter from a particularly narrow perspective, so narrow that at times it can be downright misleading, and damaging because it is misleading.

It is interesting to realise that the total cost of running the third level colleges in the vocational sector — the nine regional technical colleges, the Limerick College of Art, the Dublin Institute of Technology and the Cork City Schools of Art and Music — is estimated this year at £64 million, of which fees make up £8 million with a limited amount from non-fee sources. When they are taken into account, the balance to the taxpayer is £55 million. The amount received by the colleges from fees represents £1 in every £8 expended on the running of the colleges. Putting the matter in another way, the taxpayer must provide £7 out of every £8.

Therefore, one cannot say that there is not a significant contribution by the taxpayers. This is not Government money, it is taxpayers' money. It is a very significant contribution by the taxpayers. If there was to be a significant reduction, unspecified by the Opposition, it would mean the fee reduction would have to be made up by the taxpayers in extra taxes, or some other sector would have to be deprived.

As I said when I opened this is a question of the most equitable distribution of limited resources. These extra fees have been put on in accordance with the policy set out in the national plan so as to provide more resources to help the disadvantaged part of our community, to increase the assistance available in the disadvantaged inner city areas, to increase remedial teachers, to improve the pupil-teacher ratio in those areas not now represented by students in third level education. The main reason why they are not attending third level education is not financial but social, attitudinal and educational. I make no apologies for these reasonable increases in thrid level vocational education fees to give me money to help those unfortunate people in the deprived parts of our cities.

Miss Harney

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann, recognising—

(a) the social and economic importance of a cost effective education system with equal opportunity of access at all levels;

(b) that this requires that those who can afford to pay towards the cost of their education do so, in order that the Government can positively discriminate in the distribution of resources in favour of those who cannot afford to pay;

(c) that it is simplistic and socially counter-productive to approach this problem by repeatedly raising third level fees without reference to ability to pay,

calls for:

(i) A comprehensive review of the present system of grants and scholarships, which has clearly failed to facilitate equal access to third level education for those who cannot afford it;

(ii) A facility for payment of VEC third level fees in a number of payments.

I proposed this amendment because this party found themselves having a choice of endorsing the approach outlined by the Minister in his amendment or supporting the approach outlined by Fianna Fáil in their motion. As far as we are concerned it is not a real choice and thus we see the need to put forward our own amendment which clearly indicates our approach towards education and our general approach towards the whole system of State grants and subsidies.

As a party we do not support the idea of paying grants and subsidies, of paying scarce State resources, universally across the board and not paying them in selective areas where they are most needed and this is particularly the case with regard to education. The system of financing third level education, the grants system adopted some 16 years ago, has not succeeded in opening up access to third level education.

Those of us who want to see an opportunity through our educational system of giving the disadvantaged and the deprived some opportunity of attaining social mobility and of having some opportunities in life, believe the only way it can be done is to have a proper system of education, by opening up access to education and by ploughing back limited State resources into the areas of greatest need. For that reason we believe those who can afford to pay a contribution towards their education should be asked to do so. After all, it is individuals and not the State who benefit from higher education. For that reason the failure of successive Governments to plough back resources on a selective basis into areas where they are needed, and the failure to give resources to individuals as opposed to ploughing them directly into institutions, meant that many individuals have not benefited from the enormous State resources we spend on education each year.

It is unfair in a time of high taxation to ask all taxpayers to continue to subsidise third level education for the tiny few who benefit. That is unacceptable at a time when we are trying to make the taxation system more realistic and when the burden cannot continue to remain so high on the PAYE sector. If that is the approach this party adopt we must follow through with all the consequences. It is not fair to say this party are in favour of cuts in education — Deputy Nolan made that point, but it is not true.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Whom does the Deputy think she is codding?

Miss Harney

Perhaps the Deputy will listen to my speech. He should stop his usual practice of interrupting. If he wishes to do so he may speak afterwards. There is virtually no scope for a reduction in the amount of resources we spend on education but there is great scope for redirecting those resources, for being selective in how we apply them and for making sure that those in real need benefit as opposed to spreading the resources evenly across the board. Because of what we have been doing up to now there has been an appallingly low level of access to third level education, particularly in the case of those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The limited resources available, particularly in third-level colleges, are not being utilised to the greatest extent possible. For example, we could have four terms in the school year, more weekend and evening courses and greater use of our educational resources in general. That applies also at first and second level. In many areas there are fine school buildings — I am well aware of this in my own constituency — but the excellent school facilities are not used for many months in the year. Yet, in those communities people are crying out for such basic facilities. As a country we have to re-examine our approach to such matters. We must make sure that resources are used to the maximum extent.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

That is a good Government speech. The Deputy could be on the other side of the House.

Mr. Dowling

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I hope that in the few minutes available to me I will not have interruptions from the opposite benches. This is another attempt by the Opposition to try to convince the public that the Government are endeavouring to diminish the status of education, are trying to cut back on resources and to penalise the impoverished and poorer sections of the community. That is rubbish.

Where will they get the jobs for the four months?

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Is mian liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún seo atá curtha síos ag Fianna Fáil mar go n-aontaím leis an Teachta O'Rourke go bhfuil dualgas ar an Roinn Oideachais Oideachas tríú leibhéal a chur ar fáil tríd na coláistí gairm oideachais ar chostas atá ar chumas na macléinn agus na tuismitheoirí. Mar chathaoirleach ar Choiste Ghairm Oideachais Chathair Átha Cliath, tá tuiscint faoi leith agam ar dheacrachtaí na macléinn agus ar dhúthracht na gcoláistí oideachas a thabhairt dóibh ar chostas réasúnach. Níl lá nach bhfuil macléinn éigin ag scríobh chugam ar lorg ísliú ar tháillí teagaisc mar go bhfuil ualach na dtáillí ró-throm dóibh agus go bhfuil faoiseamh á lorg acu. Mara dtugtar faoiseamh do na micléinn seo beidh ar mhórán acu éirí as na cúrsaí atá ar siúl acu nó beidh an oiread sin fiacha orthu nuair a shroisfidh siad ceann cúrsa go gcaithfidh siad na blianta ag aisíoc na mbanc agus na hinstitiúidí iasachta. Is ar mhaithe leis na daoine sin atá mé ag áitiú agus ag achainí ar an Aire athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar chearcalán CF 1/86 agus an t-ordú atá aige ann a tharraing siar. Mar atá a fhios ag an Aire, ní féidir leis na coláistí gairm oideachais táillí na gcúrsaí a laghdú ach le cead an Aire.

I want to nail something on the head in relation to our motion. The Minister referred to the power and authority of the VECs via-á-vis the Department of Education. During the course of his analysis of the different balances of power and devolution of authority, he used the word “request” summing up what the Department had approached the VECs around the country to do in relation to fees.

I want to refer the Minister to a circular his Department issued on 25 March 1986 clarifying the earlier circular of 3 March on fees. Paragraph 7 of the circular of 25 March stated:

I am also to say that the financial allocations now being authorised are on the basis that the instructions, not requests, notified in circular letter CF 1/86 regarding tuition fee increases, have been fully implemented and that full revenue will accrue to the college in respect of fee increases from September 1986.

If there is any confusion in any quarter —and it is not very prevalent among committees, who have examined very clearly and legally their authority in regard to fee increases—that paragraph nails that confusion.

We have to get down to facts. The Minister and the Government have taken a decision totally out of line with their policy document, Building on Reality, to impose a very significant increase in fees for courses in the vocational education colleges. That is a fact which has to be faced. The Minister commented on maturity on this side of the House, but his political ability to sidestep that area very subtly is an indication of the maturity that has come into that office in recent times. I do not want to labour the point, but it is very important to establish that the power of the committee in relation to fees, just as in relation to courses, is subject at all times to the sanction of the Minister and his Department.

I want briefly to cover a number of issues. The Minister's amendment covered substantial improvements made by the Government and the number and level of grants available. The Minister will have to accept that improvements were brought about in some instances because of a crying need for improvement. The message was coming across very bluntly by way of drop-outs from various courses. Given the level of inflation at that time, it was very clear that assistance would have to be provided. The Minister's amendment also said that the vast majority of students attending vocational education colleges were in receipt of grants. It is true that in a number of colleges throughout the country well in excess of 50 per cent of students are in receipt of grants, but it is not true in regard to Dublin, in that about 50 per cent of students in the Dublin Institute of Technology, comprising the six colleges, receive some form of grant aid but the remainder do not. That needs to be appraised very clearly. Take into account with that the fact that Dublin itself, which has been referred to in a number of reports in recent years regarding access to third level education, is noted as having the lowest rate vis-à-vis the entire country and the fact that 50 per cent of DIT students have no form of grant aid, and you have a very serious picture of Dublin. I do not want to regionalise this in any way because this is a serious national issue for all of our students right across all of the regions, but that point should be highlighted.

The low base, as Deputy O'Rourke referred to it correctly, is not an argument at all. The low base had to do with the reason and the perception behind the function of this type of course in the RTCs and the DIT. This type of course was to serve as an opportunity for third level education for many families around the country who simply had not access to the traditional third level institutions and to bring around the country in a balanced way a level of technical and, more recently, technological expertise that was badly needed and very fundamental to the development of the economy, industry and commerce. Therefore, that argument does not stand up.

I turn now to the amendment by the Progressive Democrats. I am a little at odds as to what it means precisely. I say to Deputy Harney that I listened very carefully to the elaboration on that amendment because I was hoping that its philosophy would be crystallised for me. I must say, in fairness to the Minister, that he gave a philosophy which we on this side of the House must concur with to a certain extent, although certainly we would not concur with lip service when substantial commitment is not up front. This amendment here is very baffling because it seems to deftly mix pious aspirations with buckets of ambiguity. Really the net question for the PDP in relation to their commitment to third level education is whether they agree with an increase between 11 and 18 per cent in student fees in a sector who are badly disadvantaged. That question has not been answered. Perhaps the answer will be best reflected in that party's decision in the Division Lobbies shortly.

As I said, I support the motion proposed by Deputy O'Rourke that Dáil Éireann condemns these recent excessive increases in third level student fees in VEC colleges in the order of 11 to 18 per cent as representing a total departure from the Government's stated policy, as expressed in their policy document Building on Reality 1985-1987 and, in view of the importance attached to the technological courses offered in those colleges, calls for a review of the Department's circular letter CF. 1/86 to effect a significant reduction of the rate of increase in these fees.

I refer to what the Minister had to say about appeals. Yes, we come to the Dáil here. It is the forum for an Opposition party to point out to the Minister and his Government where we feel his policies and decisions are going wrong. We appeal to him out of a genuine concern that he should continue to make third level education accessible to the less well off sectors of our community. The VEC colleges by tradition cater largely for the middle and lower categories of the socio-economic scale. I do not think that the Minister will deny that. I detected no denial of that in what he had to say this evening. Over the past six years of this decade, particularly since the 1983-84 academic year, the financial burden being transferred directly to the students and their parents endangers the participation of many of these people in third level education. That has been particularly acute from 1983. Many students are deeply indebted to borrowing institutions and their indebtedness, in some cases at least, is forcing them out of education. In many cases the indebtedness accruing from what is fast becoming a prohibitive level of fees will prove to be a financial millstone around their necks when they take up employment. Many of them will spend years repaying this debt and there is no doubt that they will query seriously their investment in a third level qualification. If that were to arise it would be very sad indeed, given the importance, the status and the international acceptability and recognition of many of these courses.

The Minister knows well that VECs are statute bound to implement these increases or to suffer the shortfall. I must say, in fairness, that he admitted to that subsequent to his earlier statement as to requests and options. I say to him that we are not seeking here to devolve authority to the committees. In this context we are pleading with him to set the fees at a realistic level where the rate of inflation applying to college fees will be comparable to the rate of inflation prevailing generally; in that context, referring to what Deputy O'Rourke said, to set the rate of increase in fees comparable with those that the Department have decided should prevail in other third level institutions. We cannot accept for a moment that there is any justifiable reason on socio-economic grounds for causing a disparity for a rate of increase in fees as between the VECs and the universities. Referring to bases in this context is irrelevant because we are talking about a different type of student, not necessarily any less qualified or less able, but in terms of his ability to enter third level education. We are talking about a different philosophy to a certain extent in relation to the functions for which RTCs were brought into being. I know that the totality of the educational provision in all cases must aim at excellence and at meaningful education for life as well as for the place of work.

Since the 1982-83 college year fees have increased by approximately 210 per cent. If one takes the additional increase as per the circular letter mentioned this year it will amount to 240 per cent using 1982-83 as the base. During the same period the rate of inflation within the economy generally has risen by about 22.3 per cent according to conservative estimates. This indicates almost an 11-fold pace of increase for college fees and, as Deputy O'Rourke said, it contrasts very sharply with the aspiration of the Government's policy document Building on Reality, 1985-1987 which envisaged that “Higher Education fees will increase somewhat faster than at present.” By any standards the Government are stretching the meaning of this phrase “somewhat faster than inflation” to incredible proportions. In particular fee increases in VEC colleges since that time have deviated markedly from the policy as laid down in that document Building on Reality, 1985-1987. I must point out that when we are talking about college fees generally we are not speaking about money which comes from knitting. In other words, a parent who pays a £700 fee, the applicable figure for the 1986-87 year for degrees in these colleges, might have to earn approximately £2,100 gross just to meet that fee.

By international standards our third level fees are scandalously high. Our per capita income is two-thirds of the EC average, yet our fee levels are at least twice the EC average. Also by comparison with other training agencies we provide in a rather niggardly fashion for our third level institutions, particularly our VEC sector. For instance, the average Exchequer subvention for a student in the DIT is approximately £2,600 a year, yet the average AnCO annualised training cost to the Exchequer is £6,900. It seems quite ridiculous that a first year apprentice with AnCO gets twice the Exchequer support that a third level student in the DIT or an RTC gets. The comparisons of costs between such students and students of the other training agencies such as ACOT and BIM shows again a marked discrimination against third level students. In terms of the quality and acceptability internationally of the qualifications available from the DIT and the RTCs it is ridiculous that our investment is so miserly. The VEC colleges concentrate on engineering and high technology with other types of courses but those are the premier ones. These surely are the areas where the employment prospects are greatest and where the biggest contribution can be made to the economy now and in the long term.

I appeal to the Minister, given the very likely damaging effects of the proposed increases because of students dropping out, huge burdens in relation to loans and the anxiety and concern which will be caused to all students, to withdraw the circular letter with a view to reviewing it in terms of a more moderate increase in line with inflation.

Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 61.

Tá

Allen, Bernard.
Barnes, Monica.
Barry, Peter.
Begley, Michael.
Bermingham, Joe.
Birmingham, George Martin.
Bruton, John.
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Liam.
Carey, Donal.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlon, John F.
Connaughton, Paul.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patrick Mark.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Flaherty, Mary.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Glenn, Alice.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hegarty, Paddy.
Hussey, Gemma.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kelly, John.
Kenny, Enda.
L'Estrange, Gerry.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
McLoughlin, Frank.
Manning, Maurice.
Mitchell, Gay.
Molony, David.
Moynihan, Micheal
Cosgrave, Liam T.
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
Coveney, Hugh.
Creed, Donal.
Crowley, Frank.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, Martin Austin.
Desmond, Eileen.
Donnellan, John.
Dowling, Dick.
Doyle, Avril.
Doyle, Joe.
Dukes, Alan.
Enright, Thomas W.
Farrelly, John V.
Fennell, Nuala.
Naughten, Liam.
Nealon, Ted.
Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Brien, Willie.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Toole, Paddy.
Owen, Nora.
Pattison, Sémus.
Prendergast, Frank.
Ryan, John.
Shatter, Alan.
Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
Skely, Liam.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Michael.
Barrett, Michael.
Blaney, Neil Terence.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Brennan, Paudge.
Brennan, Séamus.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John.
Burke, Raphael P.
Byrne, Hugh.
Byrne, Seán.
Calleary, Seán.
Collins, Gerard.
Conaghan, Hugh.
Connolly, Ger.
Cowen, Brian.
Daly, Brendan.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Doherty, Seán.
Fahey, Francis.
Fahey, Jackie.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Foley, Denis.
Gallagher, Denis.
Gallagher, Pat Cope.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Gregory-Independent, Tony.
Haughey, Charles J.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leonard, Tom.
Leyden, Terry.
Lyons, Denis.
McCarthy, Seán.
McCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Mac Giolla, Tomás.
Morley, P.J.
Moynihan, Donal.
Nolan, M.J.
Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Edmond.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
Leary, John.
O'rmonde, Donal.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Power Paddy.
Renyolds, Albert.
Treacy, Noel.
Woods, Michael.
Woods, Micheal.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and J. Browne. Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The PDs ran away out of the House before the motion was taken, for all their talk.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Rourke should not interrupt the Chair.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 4 Jun 1986

Private Members' Business. - Vocational Education Colleges Fees.

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1986