I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"endorses the Government's commitment to support mechanisms to increase participation by third level students from low income backgrounds, including the abolition of third level fees, to comprehensive reform of the higher education grants scheme, the introduction of support for students on post-leaving certificate courses, an increase in the number of third level places, and welcomes the decision by the Government to publish the Report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support."
The effect of increased participation on a national level is shown in surveys commissioned from time to time by the Higher Education Authority. A survey in 1980 revealed that 20 per cent of the 17-19 age cohort in the country went on to third level education. This had increased to 25 per cent by 1986 and the figure for 1992 is estimated to be approximately 40 per cent.
The numbers of students who go on to third level education are directly related to the numbers of students who complete their second level education and sit the leaving certificate examination. At present, approximately 52 per cent of students who sit the leaving certificate progress to third level which is a reasonable transfer rate by international standards.
Direct Exchequer support for students has also grown in importance. During the 1981-82 academic year 14,000 students received grant aid equivalent to 32 per cent of the total enrolment of 44,000. By 1993-94, this had grown to 60 per cent.
In 1993, the total support for fees and maintenance by the Exchequer was in the order of £85 million. Total public expenditure on education in 1993 amounted to £1.8 billion representing approximately 19 per cent of Government expenditure compared with 1965 when the corresponding proportion was 13.2 per cent.
There are three student grant schemes — the higher education grants scheme, the vocational education committee scholarship scheme and the European Social Fund training grant scheme. Under these schemes nearly 53,000 students received grant aid in the 1993-94 academic year.
Since I became Minister for Education I have continued and intensified the process of increasing participation in third level. In 1993 I continued the process of improving and reforming the third level student support system: income limits were increased by 3.4 per cent in line with the average increase in industrial wages; the maximum tuition fee grant limit for courses covered under the higher education grants scheme and vocational education committee scholarships scheme was increased by 10 per cent to £2,200 for the 1993-94 academic year. This ensured that the fees for a number of courses which were not fully covered in 1992 were, in fact, fully covered under the 1993 schemes; the awarding bodies were given discretion, for the first time, in 1993 to renew grants and scholarships for repeat years, in exceptional circumstances, in cases of certified serious illness. This was in direct response to a need which I identified as causing serious distress and financial difficulties for some students; in previous years schemes students who had obtained a national certificate or national diploma were required to have obtained one year or two year exemptions respectively when progressing on to a degree course in a university or other third level institution before grant aid would be payable. Unfortunately many such students did not receive the necessary exemptions and were required to fund one or two years of the degree course from their own resources. The 1993 schemes were modified and improved so that students progressing from ESF aided courses were no longer required to have obtained exemptions and were deemed eligible for grant assistance from whatever year they commenced their degree course provided they were otherwise eligible in accordance with the terms of the scheme.
In the general administration of the schemes I have taken the following initiatives: a thorough review of all the relevant scheme documentation has been carried out; the schemes were redrafted and simplified and the application forms and explanatory notes were redesigned and standardised. Complaints in relation to the difficult nature of the text of previous years' schemes awere taken on board; and the 1993 application form was redesigned — a single, fully completed application form from a candidate was used for all three schemes.
As I previously stated in this House, the need for simpler and more efficient organisational arrangements for the delivery of student support has been a constant theme in representations, and I am well aware of the difficulties and the frustration being experienced by students and parents.
In 1994, I implemented further improvements in the student support schemes on the basis of recommendations made in the report of the advisory committee which I had established. These improvements included the following: up to 1994, students were required to have obtained a minimum of two grade Cs in the higher level papers in the leaving certificate in order to satisfy the academic requirements of the scheme. With effect from 1994, the academic requirements of the scheme were deemed to be met by students who secured a college place; I introduced new rules for second chance cases. This is to ensure that students who did not complete studies at a particular level will be eligible to apply for grants to study again at the same level after an interval of five years; I provided a discretionary budget in 1994 to set up a hardship fund with the third level institutions and I ensured the earlier issue of the student support schemes to the local authorities/VECs at the end of April 1994. In 1993, the schemes issued in mid-August.
I also propose to implement the following further improvements: the processing of grant applications and payments by a central office associated with the CAO; transfer of the means test function to the Revenue Commissioners and transfer of the appeals function from the Minister for Education to the Appeal Commissioners appointed under tax law. These measures will improve the service to students.
I would now like to turn to the issue of access. I am firmly committed to free access to education at first, second and third level. I am actively working on detailed proposals to improve access to third level at present. I hope in this way to help many people on modest incomes who are outside the income eligibility limits for higher education grants and who are experiencing growing financial hardship in providing a third level education for their children.
We have to see the abolition of third level fees as part of the overall funding of higher education. At present the Government pays almost £300 million to third level colleges through a block grant. In addition, more than half of all students already obtain fee grants. Thus, the Government provides three-quarters of all university funding and more than 90 per cent of funding of regional colleges. Most courses in the regional colleges are funded by the European Social Fund and no fees are charged on those courses.
Most of the costs of ensuring access to third level education are borne by the Exchequer. However the present system is confusing and complex and arguably leads to serious distortions, inefficiencies and inequities.
The Exchequer subvention to the current costs of third level education can be broken down between the block grants to the universities, to the Dublin Institute of Technology, the regional technical colleges and the other third level colleges — £291 million in 1994 — grants for undergraduate and postgraduate fees — £51 million in 1994 — and income tax covenant relief — £25 million in revenue foregone for the education sector in the 1994-95 tax year.
When we look at the total picture which I have just spelt out, we can see that abolishing undergraduate tuition fees would not incur a significant new cost for the Exchequer. The Exchequer is already meeting the brunt of the costs of participation at third level but in an inefficient, inequitable and regressive way.
Although more than half of all students get fee grants, there is a real problem of lack of public confidence in the higher education grant schemes. This stems from a perception that certain groups, particularly PAYE taxpayers, fare worse in the means testing than the non-PAYE sector. Every Deputy can cite specific examples of where there seem to be serious inequities in the schemes.
The weakness of the grant schemes may explain why students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been shown to be more likely to take European funded courses than courses where fees are payable — even though they would be eligible to receive fee grants. The commitment in the Government of Renewal Policy Agreement to free third level education means that we are pledged to introduce a fairer system of third level funding for all students.
Reinforcing my commitment to the abolition of fees at undergraduate level are data emerging from work carried out for the Steering Committee on the Future Development of the Higher Education Sector which indicates that in the period 1986-92 participation rates for lower professional and salaried employees declined despite the fact that overall participation rates were increasing. This group includes teachers, nurses, social workers and clerical/executive civil servants. This research also indicates that 77 per cent of all new entrants to third level in 1992 from a farming background received means tested student support. Furthermore, the research also shows that 42 per cent of entrants from families with over 200 acres and 65 per cent from families with between 100-199 acres received such support. This compares with a corresponding percentage of 70 per cent - 80 per cent for the manual worker socio-economic group, 43 per cent for salaried employees and 30 per cent for lower professionals.
There will be approximately 17,500 places provided on post-leaving certificate — PLC — courses in 1994-95. The courses provided range from hairdressing, engineering, secretarial, business studies to pre-nursing etc.
Registration and examination fees — which vary according to the course and vocational education committee — are payable by participants. Total abolition of these fees would cost approximately £2 million annually to the Exchequer. With the abolition of third level undergraduate fees retention of PLC fees would create an anomaly in the Irish education system. There would be no fees at primary, second and third level yet fees would be payable for PLC courses. It would also further disadvantage those participants from the lower socio-economic groups. Finally, the abolition of fees for PLC courses is essential to relieve the pressure on places in the universities and other third level institutions.
A good deal of concern has been expressed in this debate, both inside and outside the House, about the level of maintenance grants. It has also been suggested that instead of abolishing tuition fees the interests of students, particularly the students from disadvantaged backgrounds, would be much better served by increasing the value of maintenance grants and raising income eligibility thresholds. These suggestions seem very reasonable and, indeed, I have looked at them carefully in the course of formulating my policy on tuition fees. Unfortunately, however, this strategy would not solve the fundamental problem in the system which is the inequity of the present grants system and the fact that as a result many students cannot afford to go to university.
I can explain why. If we were to spend £25 million extra on the grants schemes this would enable me to raise the income eligibility thresholds for minimum grant assistance to £25,200 from the present level of £20,700. This would certainly help an additional number of students but it would leave me having to address other problems. Where would I get the additional money? The data on participation rates illustrate one of the problems. As I have already indicated recent research data produced for the higher education needs study have shown that the participation rate of students from the middle income group is declining.
I share much of the concern about the level of the maintenance grants. I agree that there is a very strong case for improving the support mechanisms so as to increase participation by third level students from low income backgrounds, including the abolition of third level fees, comprehensive reform of the higher education grants scheme and the introduction of support for students on post-leaving certificate courses.
Access to third level education for pupils in disadvantaged areas is encouraged through the establishment of links between post-primary schools in disadvantaged areas and third level institutions. Such links which have been established to date involve Dublin City University, University of Limerick, Trinity College and Tallaght regional technical college with second level schools in disadvantaged areas. The linkages incorporate supervised study facilities, extra tuition for pupils, information and advice for pupils and parents, including seminars, mentoring, support teaching in key subject areas, such as mathematics and science, parenting courses and visits to industries and businesses.
A discretionary budget of £200,000 was introduced in 1994 out of which £120,000 was distributed to the third level institutions to assist students who were experiencing short term financial difficulties. It was envisaged that these moneys would complement the existing third level student support. The remaining £80,000 was set aside to assist physically challenged students.
Ensuring greater participation by disadvantaged socio-economic groups in third level education is not primarily related to financial considerations. An essential prerequisite to fuller participation in third level is ensuring retention of students in full-time education up to the age of 18. To achieve this I have taken a range of initiatives. These include targeting of resources on disadvantaged areas; the provision of educational support services for students, e.g. psychological and guidance services, career guidance, remedial teachers, etc; the continuing development of the home-school liaison service; a major restructuring of the senior cycle curricula to adapt them to the needs of the wider spread of ability levels and backgrounds proceeding to senior cycle; and the introduction of alternative pathways for students to progress to post-second level education and training.
The importance for students of completion of second level education is emphasised in a finding of the recent ESRI report that the risk of poverty is about five times as high for someone with no qualifications as it is for someone with the leaving certificate.
I have already referred to the increase in student numbers which took place since the early 1980s. However, even over the past four years there has been a dramatic increase from 68,000 in 1990-91 to 88,000 in 1993-94. Over such a short period, therefore, an extra 20,000 students succeeded in securing places in third level institutions. This was due mainly to a series of initiatives and strategies undertaken by my Department involving amalgamations of institutions, linkages between institutions and the undergraduate student expansion programme.
This programme was the result of an agreement between my Department and the universities to the effect that the universities would take in a minimum of 1,200 extra students per annum over and above normal growth for a three to four year period. It was also agreed that the Department would pay £1,000 per annum for each student under the programme and that the universities would retain the fee income. Numbers have grown to such an extent that for the 1993-94 academic year there were approximately 7,500 students in the universities under the programme.
