I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes with satisfaction the Government's introduction of major reforms to the various third level student support schemes which will
—bring greater equity to the schemes; and
—ensure that families in the low to middle income brackets will benefit greatly from the improvements as announced by the Minister for Education on 6th July, 1992.
The motion refers to bringing greater equity to the schemes of student support. This is in line with a central theme of Government policy, namely, positive discrimination to ensure that the benefits of education are distributed equally over all sections of the community rather than compounding the advantage of those who are already privileged. This is a major theme of the Green Paper published recently.
Recent years have seen a major transformation in the structure and growth of the third level sector, with the development and expansion of the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT), the regional technical colleges and the two national institutes of higher education, with the latter more recently designated as universities. During the same period, considerable growth occurred in the university sector, in particular in the technology/business disciplines, but accompanied also by a wide range of exciting and innovative new developments in the arts, the social sciences and other disciplines.
The future development of higher education will seek to maintain and build upon a balance between the technological and humanities sectors. I made this clear in the recent Green Paper. A key contribution of the sector is to help to develop people who are willing and able to manage innovation and change in all sectors of society, including the creation of wealth and employment.
The development of third-level education in Ireland is fully in line with approaches in all other developed countries, which are seeking actively to build up participation and completion rates to meet the economic and social challenges of the nineties and the new century. Higher education now requires a very large investment by the State and by individuals.
Great advances have been made in facilitating access to education at all levels. It is a measure of the Government's success that 73 per cent of all students complete the senior cycle of second-level education. It is confidently expected to increase this to 90 per cent during the present decade. At third level the number of full time, third level students has grown from 21,000 in 1965 to 75,000 in the last academic year, an increase of 350 per cent over a quarter of a century. Higher education now requires a very large investment by the State and by individuals.
A further increase of 15,000 places is projected over the next four or five years. In a period of less than ten years from the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties 34,000 additional students will have been given the opportunity of third level education — a staggering increase of 60 per cent. There will be 90,000 full time third level students in State-funded colleges by the middle of the decade. Student intake in 1991-92 was close to 26,000, representing almost 40 per cent of the age group and, with the additional places to be provided under theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress, participation is likely to increase in the medium term to about 45 per cent of the age cohort. About half the intake proceed to degree-level programmes.
Although still below the best levels in the EC member states, Ireland has made dramatic strides in increasing the participation rate in recent years. Further measures to increase our participation rates in third level eduction will have particular regard to the need, pointed out in the Green Paper, to improve the participation rates of those from economically disadvantaged areas. Growth of such magnitude gives a clear indication of the enormous financial and logistical demands which we face in providing quality higher education for such a large proportion of our young population.
Still the Government wish to ensure that lack of means should not constitute an insuperable obstacle to any student who has the ability to benefit from a third level education. They acknowledge, at the same time, the considerable financial sacrifices made by parents and, indeed, students in pursuit of their legitimate aspiration to acquire a third level qualification. These were the precise considerations which led the Government to introduce the changes to our student support schemes which I was happy to announce yesterday.
The first issue that had to be faced was that of the income eligibility limits. There was consensus in this House that they were unacceptably low — I described them as scandalously low. It is important to note that these income limits will be increased by a further £2,000 in respect of each child after the first child attending third level education.
Under the existing system the income limit for full fees and full maintenance support in the case of a family with two children has been increased from £10,787 to £15,000, an increase of £4,213 or 39 per cent. The full fee grant for a family with two children is being increased from £13,822 to £18,000, an increase of 30 per cent. Up to now a family of two children with an income of more than £14,672 received no grant for fees or maintenance but under the new limits this family will get full fees and full maintenance on this income. A three children family with an income in excess of £14,023 received a full fee grant but no maintenance grant while this family will now get a full maintenance grant up to an income limit of £15,000. A three children family with an income in excess of £15,480 received no fee or maintenance grant while the same family with an income between £15,000 and £16,000 will now receive a full fees grant and a 50 per cent maintenance grant.
A four children family with an income in excess of £14,832 up to now received no maintenance grant but that family will now be entitled to full fees and maintenance grant up to an income limit of £16,500, full fees up to an income limit of £19,500 and part fees up to an income limit of £20,500. A five children family with an income in excess of £15,500 up to now received a full fee grant but no maintenance grant. This family will now be entitled to full grants for fees and maintenance. That is an example of some of the dramatic increases which I was pleased to announce yesterday.
These are substantial increases specifically designed to benefit people on low to middle income and would experience considerable financial hardship in sending their children to a third level institution. A further noteworthy point is the introduction of more equitable, open and more rigorous procedures involving the Revenue Commissioners, which are important at this time. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the whole rationale underlying Government policy in this matter is to relieve financial hardship on the low and middle income families who will now benefit under the increased eligibility limits. I was particularly keen to see greater equity, fairness and openness introduced into the system of means-testing for student support and in the allocation of resources for students and their families.
The amended schemes, including the package of improvements which I announced earlier in the year, represent the most radical and far-reaching set of reforms in student support since the schemes were introduced in the late sixties. They also strike the right balance in resource allocation between the funding of the third-level education system as a whole on the one hand and support for individual students who use the system on the other.
As I pointed out means testing will also apply to new ESF grant holders from next September. It was consistent with the overall thrust towards equity and positive discrimination that the principle of means testing, once accepted, should apply to all maintenance grants. Differential application of the means test was a clear anomaly in the system which needed to be addressed. Initial concern expressed by a number of interests will give way to recognition of the manifest equity of the decision, particularly in view of my announcement yesterday. It will be seen in the wider context of achieving more places for more students in third level education within the scope of the funds available. It will also result in a more equitable proportion of students from lower income families gaining access to third level education.
Two points needs to be borne in mind: (i) a means test will not apply to existing ESF students and they will continue to receive non-means-tested grants under the conditions of the existing ESF grants schemes; and (ii) all ESF students will continue to receive free tuition.
It will be readily accepted by the House that the question of student support is of fundamental importance as we embark on major expansion of our third level system. The positive link between third level education and economic development has long been recognised and was recognised by Opposition speakers again this evening. It goes without saying that the Irish university system, the colleges of technology and the regional technical colleges have provided a constant flow of high-quality graduates for the professional, economic and, indeed, political life of this and many other countries. There is now a huge social demand for third level education, in Ireland more so than in many other similar countries. We are now at the point where we are trying to provide a third level education for every student who wants it and who demonstrates the ability to benefit from it.
I am absolutely convinced that in going down that road the Government have the solid support of the vast majority of the people whose conviction of the inherent value of education has been unwavering over a long period. I am also convinced that they are willing to make the necessary resources available. But it is the responsibility of Government to make decisions regarding the most equitable and cost-effective allocation of those resources. This in turn involves the making of choices between a range of feasible options in the area of student support. The options vary from a regime of economic fees and very restricted maintenance on the one hand to free tuition and very generous maintenance on the other. What the Government have tried to do is to reach the best possible compromise between these two extremes, in the light of custom and practice and in the light of the resources available for student support.
Accordingly, fees have been retained as an integral part of the funding of higher education here. I should point out, of course, that yearly lecture fees represent less than one-third of the unit cost of a student place for the academic year. Moreover, in respect of ESF students the Department will continue to pay the fee on their behalf. With regard to maintenance, the principle of means-testing has been retained as an essential instrument of equitable resource allocation. In the interests of removing an existing anomaly, all student grants, with the exception of those held by existing ESF students, will in future be means-tested.
Finally, let me list again the objectives which the Government set out to achieve in their review of student support schemes. The primary and overall objective was to ensure equity within and between the different schemes. This included the removal of any outstanding barriers which might militate against access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The second objective was to address, to the extent that it was practicable and affordable, the financial pressures on students from lower and middle-income families.
In pursuing these objectives the Government have increased the income eligibility limits and have undertaken to develop more equitable means assessment criteria. They have also decided that equity demands that the same rules should apply to all.
People on all sides of the House will give their assent to the objectives of the review. Time will show that the recent measures represent the most prudent approach to the achievement of these objectives. Accordingly, it is with full conviction that I recommend the amended motion for adoption.
The decision to increase the eligibility limits by between 40 and 50 per cent, and up to 50 per cent in some cases, is the most dramatic increase in student grants since the scheme was introduced in 1968. Successive Governments have not found the resources to tackle the issue. The figure of £10,700 which has now gone to £15,000 is not as great as I would like it to be but the figure has been brought somewhat closer to the average industrial wage. Over a long period we have only been able to make some adjustments arising from inflation. This is the first quantum leap in student support in 25 years. This is the way to tackle the question of giving increased support particularly to the PAYE sector and to hard-pressed families who are trying to send their children to universities and regional technical colleges. This will benefit thousands of students and it will be welcomed. It will largely offset any residual concern about the Government's decision to means test the ESF grant.
What we needed was not so much to make the university sector pay for the regional technical college sector, orvice versa, but equality in the system. I am disappointed that the Opposition speakers cannot acknowledge that the equity of the system dictates that we should not make fish of one sector and flesh of the other. Are we trying to say that regional technical colleges are second-class institutions to which different rules should apply? They are not second-class. They are on a par with universities and recent legislation stitches that into the record. The regional technical colleges and the universities are fine institutions and the same rules should apply to both of them. I cannot understand why some Members of the House seem to feel that they should be treated differently. It seems to be something to do with money from Europe, as if that was easy money or free money.
On the question of money, £10 million of the money available for ESF grants had to come from the Exchequer. A substantial portion of the money comes from the Irish taxpayer. If we preach equity in education we have to stand over it. We cannot pay lip service to equity and then tell the parent on the doorstep that the person next door, who is earning £50,000 a year, will not be means-tested while the person on £15,000 a year will be means-tested because the regional technical college is a different institution. They are both third level and are on a par. They are both fine institutions and in equity the same rules should apply.
The proposals I announced yesterday are aimed to taking the pressure off the PAYE sector. I announced that we will be introducing new rules in regard to eligibility criteria. That will not be a witch-hunt after one sector but to ensure that the perception of the PAYE sector towards the non-PAYE sector andvice versa is that the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that when somebody states his income it is genuine and there is no reason to doubt the documentation or the word of anybody either PAYE or not. This is to make sure that there is an above board approach to the criteria. The active involvement of the Revenue Commissioners in working with the local authorities and the vocational education committee will clear up any perception that one sector has one advantage over another. That perception understandably comes from the statistic which shows that the non-PAYE sector has a very high proportion of the total available places. It is important to remove that perception which may be ill-founded.
The Fine Gael motion asks me to deal with discrimination against PAYE workers and their families with regard to eligibility. Bringing in the Revenue Commissioners will tackle that. They also ask me to tackle the exclusion of low income families from third level education due to unrealistic income thresholds and to increase the thresholds by 33 per cent. I have increased the thresholds by 40 per cent and by 50 per cent. I would argue that I have more than met that part of the motion. With regard to providing a tax free allowance for expenditure on third level education, that is a hairbrained idea which is not really fair. A family on social welfare would get no benefit while the person next door on £60,000 per annum would get a tax free allowance at the highest rate. The richer family will get a major State benefit while the family next door, because they do not pay tax, will get no benefit.
