Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1993

Vol. 432 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Higher Education Grants: Motion.

Mr. J. Higgins

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the parties in Government for their future to fulfil their election commitments to improvement in higher education grants and calls on the Government to:

(a) adopt the Fine Gael proposals to allow tax-free allowances to parents and guardians of students who do not qualify for grants and

(b) extend the higher education grants schemes to Irish students studying recognised courses in third level colleges in other EC countries.

The Labour Party promise, as encapsulated in the title of its election document, A Two Part Programme to Put Justice into Economics and Trust into Politics, must rank as one of the most brazen, trumped-up promises in the history of politics. I will refrain from going into detail about justice in regard to the 1 per cent income levy, the trebling of telephone charges, the tax amnesty for the super rich and the fact that a blind eye is being turned to scandals that came to light since the Labour Party went into Government with Fianna Fáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

That seems to be irrelevant.

Mr. J. Higgins

I intend to confine my remarks to that segment of society, the PAYE sector, who pays for everything, from whom 48p in every pound is snatched from their wages before they even see it, who pay their PRSI and get no exemption or waiver from service charges, who do not have a medical card and do not qualify for footwear and clothing allowances, who must pay up to £1,000 per annum to the VHI for health cover and for whom there are no breaks, concessions or amnesties. These are the people who have to scrape money together for a holiday and even then very often it is only at two, three or four year intervals. These people watch the provocative and sickening spectacle of an elite golden circle controlling, abusing and misusing much of the wealth of the country because they have the capacity to move money around in banks, institutions and stock exchanges inside and outside the country as if that money represented chips and gambling hall tables, while the real productive skills of the ordinary workers are undervalued and underpaid.

The PAYE sector have to cling by their fingernails to keep body and soul together. They cannot get a higher education grant to send their children to university, regional technical colleges or colleges of technology. Many of these people turned to the Labour Party on the basis of the Labour leader's assurances in the preamble to the Labour Party manifesto which stated: "Our priorities are children and people with disability". We have seen how the clear promise to provide in 1993 an additional £25 million for people with disability has been shamefully reneged upon, with less than one-third of the figures promised being delivered. People believed the Labour Party when they stated in this document and in full page advertisements in newspapers that: "Access to third level education is becoming increasingly vital and increasingly unequal". That is a truly valid and accurate diagnosis. The document went on to state: "Labour proposes to work towards a position where the income limit for higher education grants is based on net income rather than gross income". That is a clear policy statement that struck a chord with the people. The age old grievance that all entitlements are based on one's topline wage rather than on take home pay was going to be corrected, at least in terms of college grants. That was a very good prototype on which to test the new system.

Fiann Fáil, not to be outsmarted, outdone or out-trumped, promised not to increase grants, increase thresholds or introduce net income assessments, but — in full banner headlines — said they would provide free third level education. Yet when I reminded the Minister for Education in her first Question Time in the House of her party's election promise I was told by her on 11 March 1993: "I am not sure that a change from an assessment of gross income as distinct from net income would make the scheme any fairer". The Minister went on to state in the same debate: "This raises the question as to what is meant by net income".

The Minister has been in a very powerful position as chairperson of the Labour Party for the past number of years and presumably she had a major part in the drafting of this document: Making Ireland Work: Putting Trust Back into Politics. She certainly would have chaired the session that gave this commitment on net income the final imprimatur before it went to print and was made public. Yet within three months she backed away from a clear unequivocal commitment about which some weeks previously there was no doubt about which there was no ifs, buts or maybes.

Time and time again during the course of the election campaign the Labour Party leader and spokespersons who were questioned on the various elements and aspects of the programme told the public and the media that it was thoroughly researched, that it had been accurately costed and would be delivered in full. Yet a centre plank of the so-called quest on the part of the Labour Party, a specific measure in their programme and manifesto which was supposed to redress one aspect of a glaring education anomaly and inequality, is now discarded under the guise of another jaded review which is being carried out by some group or committee within the Department.

Fine Gael, particularly in the last three years, highlighted time and again the plight of families who try to get their children into and through third level college. My colleague, Deputy Therese Ahearn, produced a detailed document showing that the guidelines in regard to higher education grants are always deliberately pitched at a level which excludes the majority of PAYE workers and their families. When the then Minister, Deputy Seamus Brennan, implemented the measure announced by his predecessor, Deputy Noel Davern, to means test European Social Fund grants, the only refuge of many PAYE families, Fine Gael resisted that measure by way of a Private Members' motion on 18-19 February 1992 and forced a vote on the issue. Deputy Brian O'Shea, as Labour spokesperson, strongly supported the motion, crying about the injustice and travesty of what was happening.

In the recent general election Fine Gael decided to stay out of the Dutch auction that ensued between Labour and Fianna Fáil, recognising that the higher education grants scheme is fundamentally flawed and that no matter how it is tinkered with, the warts and anomalies will remain. Fine Gael proposed a clear, simple, effective approach — the granting of a tax free allowance to each family in respect of each child in third level education who does not qualify for the higher education grant. The allowance, which would become effective in the current tax year, was to give real relief. At present the maximum grant for fees is £2,000 and, for maintenance, £1,461. The Fine Gael proposal contained in our election programme and now before this House is that if a student's course fees are costed at a maximum of £2,000 and if this amount is then allowed by way of a tax free allowance, together with the tax free allowance of £1,461, which is the equivalent of the value of the maintenance grant, for somebody without a grant this will give a tax allowance of £3,641 or an actual saving of 48p in the £ or £1,661 per annum or £31 per week. The amount of the tax free allowance would be scaled down then depending on the fees payable for the course and on whether the student was already getting a partial grant. In essence, the family would qualify for a graduated tax free allowance for each child not getting a grant or only a partial grant. This would replace the covenant scheme which can apply only to one child, or if distributed among a number of children can only be to a maximum of 5 per cent of the family gross income. To the bulk of PAYE families who do not get higher education grants and who have no hope of getting higher education grants, this £31 per week per child would make the crucial difference.

This week, 63,300 young people are sitting their leaving certificate examination and 55,000 of them have applied through the CAO and the CAS office for entry to higher education. For those who do not qualify for a grant there will be no college, no education and no future. If one set out to trawl the administrative jumble of this country for an unfair, an unjust and inequitable system one would need to look no further than the higher education grants that operate for universities. The scheme is based on gross income, which is irrelevant. The thresholds are ridiculously low. The joint earnings of both the husband and wife are taken into account and nothing is allowed for living costs, medical costs, a mortgage or other necessities. Despite improvements in the scheme, 40,000 higher education students did not get any grant in 1992 or 1993. These 40,000 lower or middle income families are automatically debarred because every penny of their income is up front. In effect, none of the 50,000 teachers, the bulk of civil servants, no gardaí or nurses and the majority of our industrial and service workers need even apply for third level grants. They should save themselves the frustration because they do not have the remotest chance of qualifying.

The 1992 higher education grants scheme increased the thresholds for fees and maintenance to £15,000 for a husband and wife with three dependent children. This was announced with banner headlines by Deputy Brennan at the time and it was a matter of hours before a Fine Gael motion was tabled in the House before the last election. If a husband and wife with three children earn one penny more than £15,000 they begin to lose out. Great play was made of the fact that the increase would alleviate the burden for a lot of families.

Before jumping in ecstasy we should seriously consider the family earning £15,000 per annum. We can assume that the family will have a mortgage of £40,000. One certainly will not get a lavish house for £40,000 in any reasonable location nowadays. Nothwithstanding the welcome recent downward trend in interest rates the family will have a £5,000 mortgage repayment per annum. A mortgage of £5,000 plus a payment of £2,582 income tax, plus the 1 per cent income levy of £150, plus PRSI at 7.75 per cent, which comes to £1,162 whittles the £15,000 per annum to £117 per week or £6,106 per annum. A family comprising a husband, wife and three children getting a princely income of £117 per week to pay for food, clothing, electricity, service charges, health insurance and so on simply cannot survive. There is no need to mention that the family car will be long gone, if it ever existed in the first place. Do the Government, the Minister and her party not realise that one cannot live with any dignity on £117 per week let alone subsidise university fees or regional technical college fees for a child? Do they not care? The Minister can argue that there is a sliding scale depending on the number of children but despite that, the inherent snares and thresholds debar people because the income limits are so restrictive.

In September 1992 the Union of Students in Ireland gave a detailed breakdown of the costs for students living away from home and the cost for students living at home in Dublin. The costs for students away from home, taking into account rent, food, electricity, fuel, city travel, travel home, books, equipment, stationery, personal maintenance and college food and entertainment came to a conservative £4,000 per annum. Even the cheapest college fees will bring that cost up to £5,500 per annum,. The maintenance costs for students living at home in Dublin came to £2,248 and including modest fees the sum came to £3,800 per annum. Yet, the son or daughter of somebody earning over £15,000 per annum begins to lose the grant. What are the options for parents? They simply cannot afford to pay the £5,000-plus out of their own income because total disposable income for the family comes to only £6,106. The only option is to remortgage the family home and that perpetuates a vicious cycle of debt.

The alternative is to deny a child access to third-level education altogether. For the vast majority of middle income families, putting a child through third-level college nowadays is literally hell on earth. Massive sacrifices have to be made and one has to make do with the bare minimum. It is a case of putting the entire family's life and livelihood on hold throughout the period in question, at a time when they are supposed to be enjoying life. The position becomes intolerable if one has to maintain two or three children in college simultaneously.

Despite all the assurances, all we have managed to extract from the Minister is a reply to the effect that a further review is under way, the results of which will be published shortly. The days of reviews and re-examinations are over. When Deputy Mary O'Rourke was Minister for Education, she was pressed from all sides of the House regarding the anomalies and inequities of our educational system and the fundamental need for its radical reform. She told us that a review body, comprised of officials from her Department and the Departments of Social Welfare, Health and Finance were reviewing the overall question of higher education grants and a report would be published in due course.

As Minister for Education, Deputy Séamus Brennan did a solo run with the idea of a review body. The current Minister is again reviewing the whole system and the overall data base. The flaws, inequities and anomalies of the system are glaringly obvious and are known to everybody who has any interest in third-level education. Nothing has changed fundamentally.

The Programme for National Recovery, the first programme involving all of the social partners, promised action in this area but we did not get it. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress promised... “the development of more equitable income assessment criteria for all applicants.” As my figures this evening show, for a family in the £15,000 income category the changes are more cosmetic than real. The Labour Party has welshed on the promise to base assessment on net rather than gross income. The Programme for a Partnership Government promised greater equity and assistance to third-level education. The delivery of that promise has not taken place either.

Students have the next two weeks to indicate a change in the precise courses for which they wish to opt. The final choices for the various third-level institutions must be made and no change will be permitted beyond that date. Such choices are determined by the level of grant aid available to students. People had anticipated that the Labour Party would deliver on their promises but they have failed to do so. Even if the Minister publishes the results of the review within a reasonable period, if it is after that closing date it will be too late to enable students change their courses and direction. The whole system is most unfair and discriminatory.

There is a major accommodation crisis in virtually all colleges. For example, University College, Dublin had its "house full" sign up for a considerable period last year. The position in University College, Cork was extremely difficult due to gross overcrowding. Students had to attend classes in the corridors of the regional technical college in Galway. All the regional technical colleges and colleges of technology in this city are bursting at the seams. The Minister officially opened the regional technical college in Tallaght since her appointment. Despite the fact that it is in its first year of operation, additional buildings will be required in 1994.

Restrictions on entry to faculties such as veterinary medicine, dentistry, law, pharmacy, ophthalmic optics and so on mean that many students who would normally have the necessary points to gain entry are caught in a dilemma. The only option remaining for many students, if they want to undertake courses of study for which they have the requisite abilities and aptitudes, is to take the emigrant plane or ship to the universities and colleges of the United Kingdom. The number of Irish students attending universities in the United Kingdom is estimated to be in excess of 4,000. Irish students are to be found virtually on every campus from Aberdeen to Oxford. Their fees are paid by the host Government. Many find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fund their own maintenance costs. Some months ago a British television programme caused considerable anxiety by graphically illustrating the impoverished existence of many Irish students endeavouring to maintain themselves in British universities in the absence of financial support from our authorities. If the British Government, or other EC countries, are paying the fees of our students and hosting them in their colleges and universities, the very least we might do is consider extending the maintenance element of the higher education grants to them. It is ridiculous that we have students at Queen's University, Belfast, the New University of Ulster and Magee College in Derry whose fees are being paid by the British Government, yet we cannot find, within our existing resources, a penny piece to subsidise these students who are being awarded top level educational qualifications.

The time for action has arrived. This is a clear, short term, prescriptive measure, but £31 per week would make all the difference between getting somebody to college and leaving them in a dole queue.

With your permission and that of the House, a Cheann Comhairle, I should like to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Browne.

An Ceann Comhairle

I presume that is satisfactory but the Chair would much prefer that the Deputy had so indicated at the commencement of his contribution.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Ar fud na tíre faoi láthair tá micléinn ag staidéir go dícheallach ionas go mbeidh siad in ann freagraí a scríobh sa scrúdú Ardteistiméireachta. Tá siad faoi bhrú de ló is d'oíche agus is amhlaidh lena dtuismitheoirí freisin, atá imníodh mar gheall ar a bpáistí.

Nuair a thiocfaidh na torthaí amach beidh brú eile ann chun áiteanna a fháil ar chúrsaí éagsúla. Má fhaightear áit in ollscoil, beidh brú airgid ar thuismith-eoirí. Sin é an fáth go bhfuil an rún seo oiriúnach agus tráthúil os rud é go bhfuil tús á chur faoi láthair leis an rás chun na hollscoile.

I am quite sure the Minister shares many of the sentiments we express. Unfortunately, while she may have a handbag she has not the purse of the Minister for Finance and must persuade him to make the necessary resources available. It is very important that we highlight our view of what is required for third-level education. I am sure the Minister will accept many of our views but, of course, she is subject to budgetary constraints.

I find it very difficult to accept that in 1993 gross pay should constitute the criterion for eligibility for anything. An income of £15,000 gross can be reduced to £6,000 net. One can readily appreciate the difficulty presented. It is extremely unfair to students that their parents' financial position should determine eligibility for higher education grants. Some can be just above the limit and yet not qualify.

It is stated in the Proclamation that we should cherish all the children of the nation equally. I hope therefore that when the review body presents its findings it will argue that those students who want to enter university should not be deprived of the opportunity to do so because their parents' income is above the limit set down. I do not mind if a person on a high income says that he is not prepared to make sacrifices but I know of a road worker in Carlow, who when another ganger was ill last year, was often asked to do extra duty, with the result that his income was above the limit when he applied for a grant for him daughter, who was an excellent student. Any politician in touch with reality would cry rather than give out about this matter.

Some time ago I proposed that a brilliant student who perhaps gets four As should have an automatic right to free third-level education having regard to the contribution he or she could make to the nation at a later stage. It is a scandal that a brilliant individual cannot obtain a grant because the parents' income is above the limit and they cannot afford to send him or her to university, whereas somebody with lower grades can enter university. The concept of using gross salary will have to be reviewed.

Free third-level education for all was an election gimmick but it would make much sense, given that many anomalies would be removed. As things stand, students are under enough pressure to secure the points they need to pursue the courses they want to follow. It is grossly unfair, having secured the points they need, that they cannot obtain a grant to attend university. Even if they do get to university they may find themselves in financial difficulty, with the result that they may have to work at weekends at a time when work is not flathúil and people can take advantage of them.

Universities in the North, where many of our students find places, provide free courses. I was under the impression that we were providing maintenance grants in respect of courses followed in Northern Ireland. If not, this is a sham given that there is much talk about a 32-county Ireland. No maintenance grants are paid to students who follow courses in English universities. Is it not amazing that universities in a foreign country provide free courses for our students while we do not care if they starve or prosper? Why should the daughter of a taxpayer who has paid his or her tax here not receive a maintenance grant simply because she has decided to attend university in England where our students are received with open arms? In addition their degrees are recognised throughout the world. Is there not something wrong with a system under which maintenance grants are not paid to students who follow university courses in England? As my colleague, Deputy Higgins, said we know what can happen there when students find that money is scarce. I ask the Minister to see to it that the children of taxpayers here who are entitled to grants receive them even when they decide to go to England to attend university. If they qualify for grants in respect of fees what constitutional impediment is there to paying them? This is an outrageous anomaly and I hope the Minister, who is forward looking, will deal with the matter.

The position is made worse for those taxpayers who are paying through the nose and who have to pay for everything when they discover that others who are better off have obtained third-level grants for their children. On top of this they are not entitled to any relief in respect of fees paid. If it is not possible to meet university fees or to provide maintenance grants for all, the least we should do is allow a tax concession. I accept that the Minister has no responsibility in that area but it is up to her to represent our interests at the Cabinet table and argue that if it is not possible to provide grants for all we should allow a tax concession. The State would get back approximately half. Many people feel aggrieved, and insulted and that they are being completely ignored. The PAYE taxpayer has been hit with the 1 per cent levy at a time when many of them are struggling. Some have two or three children at university and have had to borrow or seek an overdraft from the banks with the result that untold hardship has been caused. It is a tribute to the parents of Ireland that so many of them are prepared to make sacrifices to send their children to third-level. It is a pity, given the state of the economy in many countries worldwide, that many are unable to get jobs despite their top class qualifications.

I ask the Minister to take this motion seriously. It may appear that the Opposition is trying to wrong foot the Government but she will have to accept that the taxpayer who has to meet university fees is getting a raw deal. The least we should do is allow them a tax concession in respect of the fees they have paid. We can no longer justify sending our students abroad to attend university while standing back and saying that we do not care whether they sink or swim. It is time we said that if a student is entitled to a grant in Ireland we will pay a maintenance grant if they decide to go abroad to attend university. Indeed, it is doubtful as to whether there should be a limit in respect of those who go abroad given that they are not costing us as much as if they stayed at home. If we cannot help them at home we should do everything possible to help them while they are abroad.

Minister for Education (Ms Bhreathnach)

I move amendment No. 1: "To delete all words after `That' and substitute the following:

Dáil Éireann commends the Government for its commitment to continuing improvement of the Higher Education Grants scheme and endorses its initiatives in the promotion of social justice and equity."'

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion, to review recent student grant improvements and to outline current developments in regard to student support in the third-level education areas. I begin by reiterating this Government's commitment, in accordance with the Programme for Government, to ensuring wider access to third-level education, including the continued improvement of the third-level student support schemes.

Specifically, in relation to student support, the programme states:

We anticipate that under the new structural funds extra resources will be available to assist with the cost of third level education. On that basis, it is the Government's intention to ensure that these additional resources are used to widen the access of all students to third level education in the interests of social justice and equity.

The promotion of social justice and equity will include continuing improvement of the higher education grants scheme to ensure that no student is deprived of access to third level education because of his/her financial circumstances.

The higher education grants scheme was introduced a quarter of a century ago in 1968, following the enactment of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968. I should like to outline the dramatic changes which have taken place in third level education in the intervening 25 years.

In 1992-93 there are some 80,000 students in third-level education — more than treble the 1965 total of 21,000. Current projections indicate that there will be over 100,000 students in third level education by the turn of the century. These increases very much reflect the increasing proportion of the age group proceeding to third level education — 20 per cent in 1980, over 40 per cent last year and heading towards 50 per cent at the turn of the century.

These students are being catered for in a diversity of institutions. The universities continue to be the largest providers with almost 46,000 students. The arrangement initiated by the Government with the universities in 1990 whereby the universities were to provide not less than an extra 3,600 undergradate places over a three-four year period is currently running above the annual target of 1,200 additional students.

In the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology, growth has been particularly dramatic. In the period since 1980, wholetime student numbers in the regional technical colleges and Dublin Institute of Technology have risen from 10,500 to 31,000. The new legislation for the regional technical colleges and Dublin Institute of Technology which came into effect on 1 January last provides an important new legislative and developmental framework for those institutions. Other colleges, including the Colleges of Education, the National College of Art and Design, Dun Laoghaire College of Art and Design and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland add a further 2,500 students to the total in third level education.

In the case of the colleges of education, it became necessary in recent years to review the future of those institutions because of the downward trend in school enrolments and with the objective of optimising the use of facilities and resources. Under legislation introduced a few years ago, Thomond College of Education was merged with the University of Limerick.

Since 1992 a new linkage is now in place between Mary Immaculate College of Education, Limerick, and the University of Limerick. As part of the joint development of a faculty of arts-humanities, 150 students were enrolled on a new University of Limerick BA degree in Mary Immaculate College in autumn 1992. When this new programme is fully operational in a few years time it is expected that there will be an extra 600 undergraduate students in Mary Immaculate College together with undergraduate teacher trainees. Discussions on a similar linkage are currently taking place between St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, and Dublin City University. I am hopeful that an agreement which will form the basis for collaboration between those two institutions in the provision of academic programmes will be reached in the near future.

I should say at this point that an important strategy to provide easier access for students to third level education has been simplification and co-ordination of entry procedures. Since 1992 a fully co-ordinated joint Central Applications Office and Central Applications Service has been in operation.

Total public expenditure on education in 1993 amounts to 1.8 billion, representing approximately 19 per cent of Government expenditure. This represents a very significant increase in the allocation of available resources to education compared with 1965 when the corresponding proportion was 13.2 per cent. These very positive indicators of progress highlight the commitment of successive Governments of the systematic expansion and development of our higher education sector and underline the willing co-operation that has been forthcoming from all higher education institutions in maximising the use of existing facilities and resources.

The rapid expansion which has occurred in student numbers in recent years has been accompanied by significantly improved arrangements in the student support area. A package of major improvements in the higher education grants scheme and related student support schemes was implemented in 1992. These improvements were quite rightly welcomed as very progressive measures by all sides in this House during the passage at this time last year of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1992, which gave effect to a number of the improvements for mature students.

Assisting mature students to return to formal education, including third level education, had been identified as a key policy objective in both the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Education Green Paper.

As a result of the enactment of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1992, two special provisions for mature students were put in place as from the 1992 student grants schemes. First, mature students who secure a place in third level institutions are automatically considered to meet the academic requirements for the award of grants. Previously, under the law, they could not obtain a grant if they did not have a certain standard at the leaving certificate examination. Second, mature students are now means tested for grants by reference to their own incomes and, if applicable, their spouses' incomes rather than on their parents' income which had been the case. More than 800 mature students were awarded grants under the 1992 higher education grants scheme and the 1992 vocational education committee scholarships scheme.

The 1992 Act also enables us to accept other school terminal examinations in place of the leaving certificate examination. This relates to school-leavers going on to third level education and is mainly directed towards the relatively small number of Irish nationals residing in Border areas and attending second level schools in Northern Ireland.

The principal improvement in 1992, and the one which was most widely welcomed as it affected the biggest number of people, was the substantial increase in income eligibility limits. Now, for example, a family with one to three dependent children qualifies for a grant of full fees and maintenance on an income of £15,000 compared with the previous income limit of £10,787, and that was an increase of 40 per cent.

There were other improvements in the 1992 schemes. The income limit for families was increased by £2,000 for each additional child after the first child attending third level education. In other words, the income ceiling is £15,000 if a family has one child at third level and if a second child goes to third level the income ceiling becomes £17,000 and so on. Income is now assessed for the year in which the student actually enters third level education and by reference to the income limits for that year; before 1992, income was assessed on a current year basis but by reference to the income limits for the year the student sat the leaving certificate examination. In relation to giving support to people who need it most, this is a significant improvement because the family income is now assessed at the time the student is entering third level education. Lone parents welfare payments under the lone parents allowance scheme are now excluded from the assessment of income, a very welcome development. Maintenance grants were increased in line with consumer price index increases, and fee grants were increased in line with increases in third level fees, another welcome development. In order to further strengthen the equity and fairness of the income assessment process the Revenue Commissioners are, since 1992, involved in the process of income verification. That is a fair improvement.

Thus, there was a significant attempt in 1992 to broaden eligibility and to ensure fairness. We must remember the original purpose of this is to ensure that (i) students in need of support are identified and provided with assistance to pursue third level studies, and (ii) Exchequer resources are thereby directed to those most in need.

I think the impact of all those improvements is very clear if we look at the relevant statistics. In the current academic year, nearly 46,000 students are in receipt of awards under the various student grants and scholarships schemes — compared to just over 12,000 students ten years ago in the 1982-83 academic year. Overall, at present in the third level area well over half the total enrolment of 80,000 students are in receipt of student support by way of the various schemes — higher education grants, ESF grants, vocational education committee and other scholarships — compared to a quarter of all students in 1982-83. In financial terms, the total student support for fees and maintenance provided by the State in this current year of 1993 is about £84 million compared to £75 million in 1992, which represents a 12 per cent increase in one year.

On the question of extending the higher education grants scheme to cover Irish students studying on recognised courses in EC countries. I have to point out that this is essentially an issue of identifying what our priorities are for the use of scarce Exchequer resources in the area of third level student support. I think our priority has to give financial assistance to students ordinarily resident in Ireland who because of family circumstances might not otherwise be in a position to proceed to third level education in Ireland.

I have recently set up an expert advisory group — to which the Opposition Deputies have already referred — on third level student support. It was set up specifically (a) to recommend appropriate criteria for assessment of eligibility on grounds of means, with reference to equity and the financial capacity of parents and applicants to pay and (b) to examine and make recommendations for the most effective and efficient organisational arrangements for the administration of the schemes. I have every confidence that the expert advisory group will make recommendations in those two areas. In preparing its report the group is working closely with and drawing on the expertise of Department officials and has invited submissions, by way of public advertisement, from all interested parties. The group is meeting regularly and I will publish its report.

My main reason for setting up this expert advisory group is that since I became Minister I have become aware that in spite of reforms introduced in 1992 — referred to already in this debate and on two previous occasions in the House — particular aspects of the various student grant schemes continue to be a source of dissatisfaction. I have taken as some points of reference specific difficulties Deputies' constituents have had regarding the application or payment of grants under the schemes. I would be the first to agree with what has been said earlier about areas that are a source of dissatisfaction. While I will continue to put on record the improvements that were made in 1992, an expert advisory group has been asked to examine the areas of dissatisfaction that have been spelled out in questions to the Minister for Education week after week. One aspect was that of means testing and what were represented to me by various interests as perceived inequities. The whole area of how eligibility on the grounds of means should be established for student support services is indeed a very complex one. As Deputy Jim Higgins pointed out, we promised that we would work towards an equitable scheme. I owe this not only to my colleagues in Government who made a commitment to a fairer assessment and easier access to third level education but to the students to whom Deputy Higgins referred.

Another aspect was the organisational arrangements for the administration of the different schemes. Currently, in addition to my Department, which oversees the operation of these schemes, there are three sets of agencies involved in delivering the third level grants system. Deputies are well aware of these three agencies. The local authorities are statutorily entrusted with the administration of the higher education grants scheme. Anyone who has served on a local authority knows the workload this puts not only on the officials who administer this scheme but the workload this puts not only on the officials who administer this scheme but the heavy workload that local councillors carry on behalf of their constituents when the scheme is not administered satisfactorily. The local authorities are the main source of distribution of third level grants. The vocational education committees administer the vocational education committee scholarship scheme and carry out the means testing for both that scheme and the ESF maintenance grants scheme, which is means tested since 1992. The regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology make the maintenance payments under the ESF maintenance grants scheme.

Thus there are three very different organisations responsible for ensuring that grants are administered to those how need them. No more than when the entry forms that were required not so long ago for entry to third level were reformed into a much simpler system, I suggest there is certainly scope for a simpler, more streamlined and more efficient organisational arrangement for the delivery of services under these student support schemes. This has been highlighted on many occasions. It has been a constant theme in representations to me to the extent that I am well aware of the difficulties being encountered and the frustration being experienced by students and parents in particular.

I fully accept the need for urgent action in this area. Not only must the general terms and conditions of the schemes be improved but their actual delivery has also to be streamlined. All would agree that we owe it to the students and the parents involved. I am committed to major investments on this side of things but I would ask Deputies to bear with me and await the expert group's recommendations in that regard.

I have called in experts who can deal with anomalies in the system. However, I feel that major organisational changes may take some time to achieve. For excample, the framework within which some changes would be developed might well be that of the forthcoming White Paper on Education. These schemes have developed since 1965. They are extremely complex as a result of having been frequently adapted to incorporate various improvements in scope and content. We are well on our way to ensuring that a streamlined, efficient method will be established to ensure that anomalies, which probably exist in the present scheme, will be ironed out but I need to await the advice of the expert group. As I have said before in the House, I will publish the group's findings and I will be prepared to consult with my colleagues, on all sides of the House, on whether the recommendations will ensure that the promise made in the Programme for Government on access to students to third level education in the interest of social justice and equity will be carried out. The improvements introduced in 1992 together with the continuing increase in third level student numbers have led to a greatly increased number of applications. This has brought increased pressure on the system, both centrally and locally.

There is no question, therefore, of waving a magic wand — politicians are not given magic wands to wave — to produce streamlined procedures overnight. Every effort will be made to implement as many improvements as possible at the earliest possible date in the context of the 1993 schemes.

As I wish to allow my colleague, Deputy Shortall, to contribute to the debate I will conclude. I would like to assure the House, however, of the Government's continuing commitment to investment in third level education generally and to continuing and substantial improvements in the student support area. I ask that colleagues on all sides of the House join with me in the discussions that will ensure following the publishing of the expert group's findings. I set up the group because I share the concerns which have been and will be expressed today and tomorrow from both sides of the House. I am open to some of the suggestions which have already come from Members who have contributed to this debate.

Ms Shortall

I thank the Minister for sharing her time with me. The Programme for a Partnership Government states that education is the key to the future prosperity of Ireland and to equality and equal opportunities for all our citizens. It outlines clear priorities from pre-school education right through to university level. Striding towards greater equity at the higher education level is commendable and I welcome the efforts made by the current Minister in that respect. However, as a primary school teacher and as a public representative for an area that comprises a couple of very large corporation estates I represent many people for whom the question of third level education never arises in the case of their children.

I feel very strongly that the Minister should aim for wider distribution of funds in education. If greater funds were made available for pupils at the early stage of education it would bring about a fairer representation at second and third level education. Providing funds for third level institutions, commendable and all as it is, means that in reality we are catering for the educational needs of a small percentage of the population.

The funding of education needs to be approached in the most equitable way possible. I urge the Minister to look at ways of putting the resources in from the bottom up, starting at the broad end of the population pyramid. This would present wider education opportunities for all the children of the State. Primary school years are crucial in the education of a child. These years will dictate the level of participation in society he or she will aspire to and achieve. There are aspects of primary education which require hands-on practical experience and, therefore, equipment also.

The crippling lack of financial support for schools often means that these aspects of the curriculum are neglected and sometimes completely ignored, but areas such as computer studies and environmental studies are not the only problems. Much more fundamental problems exist. There are primary school children and teachers working in cold and cramped conditions. There are many schools which would fall into this category in my own constituency and, indeed, in the large urban areas in all cities throughout the country. There are boards of management and parishes which are financially crippled in their attempts to meet fuel and insurance bills. There are many primary school children in overcrowded classrooms and many primary school buildings are substandard. There are children who do not have access to physical education facilities.

While I commend the Minister's work in the area of third level education, I urge her to take on board the points I have raised about primary education. The structure of third level education in Ireland has undergone great change in recent years and the Minister has referred to some of those changes. During the past ten years the number entering third level education has doubled. In spite of this, there is still an abysmally low level of participation in third level education by children from working-class families. Recent studies have shown that the participation rate from this group has decreased and is now less than 2 per cent. The best way to improve on the rate of participation is to provide the necessary supports to children in primary and secondary schools so that they remain in the system sufficiently long to have the option of third level education.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask the Deputy to conclude.

Ms Shortall

Is there a rush about the time element?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I regret to inform the Deputy that her time is exhausted.

Ms Shortall

In conclusion, I commend the Minister on her approach to spending on education. This approach, which allocates the limited resources available on a strict priority basis, is the only approach we can support if we want equal opportunities for all our children.

Miss Quill

With your permission, Sir, I would like to share my time with Deputy Theresa Ahearn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss Quill

I welcome this debate and compliment the Fine Gael Party and their spokesperson on Education for bringing this issue before us again this evening. There is no doubt that the funding of third level education will engage all our minds, tax all our energies and stretch our capacities in the years ahead. It is important that we debate this issue from time to time in the House to ensure that we make the best possible use of the resources available at any given time. The issue of third level grants is crucial and there is an obligation on all of us to ensure that a fair, open, equitable and transparent system is available to all and that as far as possible no child with the ability and potential to benefit from third level education is precluded from so doing because of their parents' income. That must be our objective at all times.

While I agree with everything that has been said by Deputy Higgins regarding the difficulties experienced by parents, I do not agree with the motion put forward by Fine Gael and my party and I will not be supporting it. Accordingly, I want to read into the record an amendment which I would propose to the motion. After the words "Government to" I would propose the substitution of the following:

reform the third level grants scheme to ensure complete transparency and equity in its operation, taking into account the criteria for inclusion of wealth and assets in determinng income and eligibility.

The Progressive Democrats Party believes that while the problems identified by the Fine Gael Party must be exmained carefully, the route it has chosen, and the prescription it has put in place are not ones to which my party can give consent, and the reasons for that should be obvious to anyone who has noted our consistency in regard to reforming the tax system since our formation. We maintain that consistency, bearing in mind the people whom the Fine Gael Party claims it seeks to assist, namely the PAYE sector. We would not consider the granting of tax concessions without limit to parents who are not otherwise grant aided as assisting the PAYE sector. We certainly would not consider it as making it easier for this or any future Government to reform the tax system in the manner in which we believe it ought to be reformed. We believe also that the main beneficiaries of the reform we have in mind would be those whom it is said this motion seeks to help, those in the PAYE sector. By putting forward this motion the Progressive Democrats Party is entirely consistent in its policies.

It is outrageous that the children of persons in the PAYE sector are seriously discriminated against under the present system. It is clear to all of us that parents who engage in creative accounting, as it were, have in the past managed to establish eligibility for their children to third level education, and I am sure we have all seen evidence of that. I have seen grant-aided students driving in big cars to the university in Cork city, cars much bigger than I can afford. On the other hand, I have seen children of people in the PAYE sector — primary schoolteachers, nurses and gardaí — not even in a position to afford a bicycle to take them to college. Clearly, there is something wrong with the manner in which the third level grant system has been administered in the past.

I welcome the obligation that will be put on the Revenue Commissioners to verify income. Since its formation as a party the Progressive Democrats has stated that when an application is made for a third level grant full account should be taken of wealth and assets that do not always find their way on to the balance sheet because of the clever manoeuvres of some accountant. There have been serious inequities and injustices in the past in regard to third level grants and they must be rectified immediately. A start has been made, but it is only a start. We are going down the correct road and if we continue down that route the student children of people in the PAYE sector, on whose behalf every brown penny has to be accounted for, will benefit.

When the Progressive Democrats Party was in Government from July 1989 to November 1992 it sought continuously to bring about changes and improvements in the third level grants system, and a number of those changes have been referred to in detail by the Minister this evening. We included a provision to that effect in the July 1989 Programme for Government and insisted on renewing that commitment in the October 1991 programme. That programme renewed our earlier commitment to reform the grants system to "ensure greater social equity in the distribution of grants, and a fairer distribution of grants in terms of the occupational status of families". In that programme we went on to ask the Government to make sure that equity and transparency in the operation of the third level grants scheme would be an important objective and that wealth and assets would have to be taken into account when determining income and eligibility for third level grants. What the Progressive Democrats sought to bring about at all times and what we continue to strive for from the Opposition benches today is that every applicant would be treated fairly and equitably and that the discrimination against the PAYE sector and their student sons and daughters would be brought to an end. Our proposal that all forms of income and wealth should be taken into account in determining eligibility would lead to a more effective, balanced and straightforward way of dealing with the issue than the manner prescribed by the Fine Gael Party in this motion.

When we were in Government we were successful in helping to have the overall income eligibility ceiling for third level grants raised, which resulted in a 21.5 per cent increase in the number of students eligible. That, in turn, brought the number of qualifying students from a figure of approximately 15,200 to approximately 18,200. That was a major step in the right direction and it is the road we must take.

I wish to point out what has been achieved by bringing mature students within the ambit of eligibility. That happened as a direct result of efforts made by my party, with Fianna Fáil, during the term of the previous Coalition Government. There are now more than 8,000 grant aided students in universities and third level colleges who were not there before those improvements came into effect in 1992. That has made a great difference particularly to a number of women I know. Those women had the ability to benefit greatly from third level education but, for one reason or another, could not make it at the usual matriculation age of 17 or 18 and could never have made it if the grant system had not been extended to them. That scheme represents a very valuable investment in people who have a great contribution to make to the well being and the welfare of this country. I am very proud that that was brought about when my party was part of the Government. I would see an extension of that as a major benefit to society and to people who have much to contribute to the welfare of this country.

However, there is huge scope for improvement. The main improvement I would like to see brought about is an annual raising of the ceiling on a phased basis. Having begun in 1992 we should continue to raise the ceiling for eligibilty to bring more students from low or middle income families within the framework of eligibility for grants. That is the direction in which I am asking the Minister to go, in addition to bringing about a greater element of fairness. I know a number of parents in the PAYE sector who have had to remortgage their house in order to pay third level fees for their children. These people are liable for everything and eligible for nothing. That has been a feature of the past. It must be remedied in the context of any improvements being contemplated by the Minister.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister's package of improvements will be. I appeal to the Minister to talk to the heads of the universities and ask them to hold back on the proposed 8 per cent increase for the next academic year. If that increase goes ahead it will mean that in two years there will have been a 16 per cent increase in fees. That will be a powerful disincentive to parents on modest incomes and an overwhelming disincentive to families where there is no great tradition for third level college attendance. It is in this regard that we are seeking to redress the balance and the Minister has spoken about this on a number of occasions.

One of the great scandals here is that so many young people from certain family backgrounds have been precluded from availing of third level education in the past. Children of middle income or so-called middle class families are 18 times more likely to go to third level education than children of lower income families. That means that the ability and experience of children from such backgrounds are excluded from third level colleges. These people have their own distinctive contribution to make to the overall benefit of this country and we must not continue to exclude them. Any fee increase or any matriculation fee proposed by the universities for this year can only act as a disincentive to these people. It is disgraceful that when the matriculation examination was abandoned last year that the NUI continued to charge the same fee as it did when the examination was in place. It has now become a ghost fee for a process that is so simple; at the press of a button the NUI can get all the results it needs to determine eligibility for entry and yet it is continuing to charge the scale of fees it charged 60 or 70 years ago when a very small segment of privileged people went to university. Third level education should no longer be the preserve of the affluent or the financially privileged. It should be open to anybody who has the ability to benefit from it. The Minister should again appeal to the NUI to abandon that fee.

I welcome the Minister's announcement in regard to her plans for streamlining the delivery of third level grants. Anything that can be done to speed up the payment of grants would be welcome. In practice students go to college in October knowing they are eligible for grants, but they are compelled to put up part of their fees and make provision to buy their books because the grant is very often not paid until months after students register. That is a big fault in the system. I appeal to the Minister to take all the steps open to her to ensure that grants are paid to students who qualify and on whose behalf grants are approved. They should have their grants on the day they register for third level education, not a month or two months later. They should not have to borrow money to buy their books.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

First, I wish to thank Deputy Quill for sharing her time with me and giving me the opportunity to support the motion before the House. I hope the Minister realises that Fine Gael pursued this issue with such a passion that we will not accept defeat on it. Our record on the issue can stand up to scrutiny. On every possible occasion Fine Gael put forward responsible motions to have equity injected into the third level grants system and with much success. The Minister, and Deputy Quill, like to take credit for what was done by the last Government. However, there was little or no response from the Government to the inequities and inefficiencies in the system which gave students no possibility of achieving their potential by having a chance to pursue third level education. The only response from the Government came after I, with Deputy Jim Higgins, produced a policy document outlining reasonable and realistic proposals for changes in the third level education grants system. We put forward six proposals for improvements in the third level education grants system and five of those were adopted by the Government. The one that was not adopted is at the kernel of our motion tonight, that is, the giving of tax relief to people who are not in receipt of third level education grants.

I awaited with enthusiasm the response of the Minister to the motion tonight. What we got from her was a good historical background of the third level education system, information we all had anyway. However, those who are hoping to be able to give their children the opportunity of third level education are not concerned with the historical background of the system. The Minister detailed what the present system is but people are aware of that also. They know it does not facilitate almost 50 per cent of the students. As the Minister stated, over 50 per cent of students are grant aided but one must not forget that almost 50 per cent of the students are not grant aided.

Debate adjourned.