Vol. 396 No. 6
17 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Education if she will make a decision on the provision of the regional technical college projects which were postponed pending the report of the inter-departmental committee on third level education.
The Deputy will be aware that my Department have approved the provision of a regional technical college for Tallaght. Work on this project will commence soon and the target date for opening the college is 1991-92. We hope some students can be taken in 1991.
The findings in the report by Dr. Patrick Clancy, "Who Goes to College", shows that Dublin has the lowest rate of admission to third level colleges. This, coupled with the social and demographic factors in Tallaght, enabled the Government to put forward the Tallaght RTC as one of the five varied flagship projects to be considered for funding under the Government's Structural Funds submission to Brussels.
Is the Minister aware that she established the inter-departmental committee on third level education in April 1988 and at that time indicated that a number of third level projects, including regional colleges for Castlebar, Thurles and Blanchardstown, which is in the Dublin area, had been postponed because that committee had not yet reported? Is the Minister further aware that she said last October she expected to receive that report "in the near future"? Has she received the report? If so, what decision has she taken on it and when can we expect to see the work start on the regional colleges in Castlebar, Thurles and Blanchardstown, and on the other third level projects which were held up by the appointment of this committee? The college in Dún Laoghaire is another project which has been held up.
Deputy Bruton has another question down whether I have received the report and he will be getting a reply to that this afternoon, but I would be very pleased to answer him.
That question has been disallowed.
I have not yet received the report. It is neither on my desk nor on my secretary's desk lest somebody state on the radio that it is on a shelf gathering dust.
The Minister is delighted.
The Deputy asked what is going to happen all of the colleges to which he referred in the question, those in Castlebar, Thurles, Blanchardstown and Dún Laoghaire. I would refer Deputy Bruton to column 490 of the Official Report of 19 July 1989 in which he said: "The next question I would like to put is why do we need an extra five or six regional technical colleges for what is a temporary bulge that will only last until the end of the century".
Would the Minister agree that in regard to the columns she quoted——
The time available for Priority Questions is exhausted and I am proceeding now to other questions.
——I made alternative suggestions as to how those places might be provided, and since those suggestions were not taken up, it is necessary to proceed with the colleges?
Question No. 19, please.
Delaying tactics.
Question No. 19, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's question.
Sorry, there is another Priority Question.
The time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted.
Long exhausted.
19 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Education whether she will alter the terms of the scheme of grants for third level education in order that eligibility is based on net income.
For a candidate to be eligible for the award of a grant the reckonable income of the candidate and of the candidate's parents or guardians shall be within the limits set out from time to time in the higher education grants schemes. For the purpose of the scheme the term "reckonable income" means gross income from all sources, less any sum paid by way of contribution to a superannuation fund, and excluding also children's allowances under the Social Welfare Acts, holiday earnings of the candidate and payments under the family income supplement scheme.
I have no plans at present to alter the present arrangements whereby eligibility is assessed on the basis of gross income. However, as the Deputy knows, a tapering structure which has regard to the number of dependent children has also been built into the income limits and applicants who fail to secure eligibility for full grant may be entitled to partial grants. I think that these arrangements are not unreasonable.
Would the Minister concede that there is an element of unfairness, particularly for PAYE workers on relatively low incomes, in having their eligibility tested on the basis of gross income, which the Minister accepts they do not get, they only get net income? Would the Minister not accept that anomalies have arisen in the system because that is the way it is administered and it would be fairer to have the assessment based on net income?
Whatever about it being fairer, as the Deputy knows eligibility for various benefits within the State is based on gross income and not on net income. As I said, whatever about it being fairer and however we might all wish to do what the Deputy suggests, it would be vastly more expensive, as the Deputy must realise. I would like to add to that because one question is frequently asked in this regard. Due to the increase in the Social Fund, which came into effect in the academic year 1989-90, between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of students in all VEC third level colleges have full fees paid, and indeed many are on maintenance grants. This is a great change and is due to the work over the years by various Ministers and through the co-operation of the European Community. This year for the first time post-graduate students in various universities are having one year diploma courses funded related to specific disciplines within the college.
Would the Minister accept that we should always try to inject a greater degree of justice and equity into our systems? I appreciate the Minister did not introduce this scheme, but would she accept that because other schemes are based on gross income it might suggest that there is unfairness in those schemes also? Will the Minister agree that it would lead to a fairer system to have it based on net income? Will the Minister consider changing to such a system?
At the moment that is not possible. I am so very pleased that we were able to hugely increase the number of third level students who pay no fees and to hugely increase the number of third level students who receive either full or partial maintenance grants in third level institutions.
I am not blaming the Minister entirely but she should consider making a change.
The Deputy should look at what we are doing.
Is the Minister aware that the Clancy report pointed out that 80 per cent of students from Roscommon, as an example, were grant-aided while less than 40 per cent of students from the Dublin area were grant-aided? Will the Minister agree that that indicates an inequity in the grant system, particularly amongst PAYE workers? The income of others is not known and, therefore, they must declare an income but I should like to know if the Minister can get over that problem.
The Clancy report reviewed progress up to 1986 and at the end of that year the amount of ESF funding was more limited than the amount available now. Practically every student in a third level college is funded and by next September they will all be funded. With regard to entry to the university sector, I should like to tell the Deputy that county councils and the VECs who administer the scheme as sub-agents of the Department have over the last number of years adopted a very rigorous scrutinising policy with regard to the entitlements and the eligibility of people who apply for such grants. I am aware that many Deputies representing farming communities, some of whom sit opposite, have made strong representations for students in their constituencies who have been deemed not eligible.
Does the Minister find it strange that income figures agreed with the inspectors of taxes are not accepted by those who decide whether a person is entitled to a grant or not? Is it a case that a question mark is being put over the inspectors of taxes or is the system being used in order to try to prevent people who are justly entitled to the grants not getting them?
I answered that point in response to a question raised by Deputy Mac Giolla. I would not dream of questioning inspectors of taxes. That is not my job but it is my job to see that the sub-agents who administer the scheme on behalf of the Department of Education adopt a very rigorous scrutinising policy. I am bearing in mind that they know the local scene very well and are sometimes in receipt of information which the Department of Education would not be able to obtain.
Is the Minister suggesting that inspectors of taxes are not competent to deal with questions regarding income?
I would not dream of questioning any inspector of taxes in regard to that.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister referred to Members opposite who made pleas on behalf of constituents. Will she agree that it is absurd that her Department have not made a decision on two appeals from Carlow, despite the promise contained in response to a parliamentary question one month ago? Two-thirds of the school year has gone and the Minister has not made a decision on appeals from Carlow.
That is a separate matter.
I do not have the details of the appeals by the Carlow applicants with me but I will communicate with the Deputy on the matter.
Will the Minister agree that in relation to grants for degree courses the present system, in terms of people who are marginally over the income limit for grants, discriminates against those who live in the university cities? Will the Minister apply herself to that inequity?
In any scheme of eligibility the cut-off point always gives rise to difficulties for those who are just above that cut-off point. It is quite natural that they should feel that they have been discriminated against. However, we must ask ourselves where we should have the cut-off point. I accept that the Deputy is concerned about the matter and I should like to remind him that the scheme is always under review.
Will the Minister agree that in cases where the head of the household has had to emigrate and is domiciled in London, some special provision should be made? Will the Minister accept that a more favourable threshold should be introduced for such families who are special cases?
If the Deputy has a case in mind, I will be glad to look at it.
I have thousands of them.
The Minister may take some solace from the increase in the number availing of the present grant scheme but its failure is illustrated by the small number attending third level institutions from working-class backgrounds. Will the Minister agree that it is time she overhauled the entire system which is riddled with anomalies? There is a four honours requirement to benefit from grants to university while the standard educational requirement for entry is two honours. There are many other anomalies in the scheme. Amended liability statements are not accepted for PAYE workers and in their case, the P.60 is the determining document. However, for the self-employed the sale of assets is taken into account and that is not the position in other cases.
The Deputy has made his point.
There are many anomalies and the scheme does not serve the interests of schools anxious to pursue higher education.
I am glad to be able to tell the Deputy, and the House, that the scheme is being reviewed and many of the points raised today are under discussion.
We now come to deal with Private Notice Questions.
I tabled a Private Notice Question to the Taoiseach regarding the judgement handed down by the Supreme Court last week on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and I had hoped he would take an early opportunity to say that the country, and the Government, are only interested in the unification of the country by peaceful means and with the consent of a majority but the Chair ruled that out of order.
I have conveyed my decision to the Deputy in connection with that matter.
I consider this matter as important and urgent and the Taoiseach should, as quickly as possible, make such a statement. Could I have his agreement to do that?
That is not in order now.
Will the Taoiseach give an answer in the House or outside, if necessary?
