Vol. 448 No. 6
13 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Education her views on the recommendations of the advisory committee on third level student support, particularly those recommendations relating to means and equity of access to education. [2695/95]
I welcome the report of the advisory committee which reflects the expertise and commitment that the members brought to their task. The report contains significant recommendations aimed at improving the equity and fairness of the student support arrangements and the quality of service to students. The report highlights a lack of public confidence in the present system, particularly in relation to the operation of the means test.
It has elicited a widespread response from various interest groups particularly in relation to the most appropriate arrangements for the assessment of means. I am anxious to take careful note of the debate which the publication of the report has generated before reaching conclusions on the more contentious proposals.
In line with the commitment in the Government of Renewal Policy Agreement, and taking account of the recommendations of the advisory committee, I will be pursuing the reform of the higher education grants scheme as resources permit. My objective will be to ensure that available resources are used to benefit students in most need and that the quality of service to students will be of the highest attainable standard.
The perceived inequities and anomalies in the third-level student support means-testing arrangements have led to considerable debate in recent times. As part of my continuous review of the schemes, I will give particular attention to the procedures for means assessment in order to ensure that they serve, and are seen to serve, most effectively the objective of ensuring that available resources benefit students in greatest need. In this regard I will take particular account of the public reaction to the committee's recommendations.
I have already implemented a number of recommendations for improvements made by the advisory committee in its report. These include—the abolition of the separate academic attainments for eligibility for a grant; this will ensure that all students who have secured a college place will now qualify for a grant subject to their satisfying the means test; the introduction of new rules for second chance cases; the provision of a discretionary budget to institutions from 1994 to set up a hardship fund; the provision of financial support to assist students with physical disabilities and the simplification and earlier issue of the student support schemes to facilitate students with their grant applications.
I wish the Minister read my question somewhat more closely. I asked for her views on the recommendations of the advisory committee on third-level student support. I did not ask what would be her conclusions, once she had listened to everybody else or had ascertained the way in which public opinion was veering. It is very important that we ascertain the Minister's views in view of the conclusions reached in the de Buitleír report. It is not good enough for her to waffle through her reply, as she has done, she should be prepared to give her views now.
I listed for the Deputy some of the recommendations of the advisory committee that have already been put in place. I take the point that the Deputy asked for my views but I would point out that the advisory committee was established to come up with recommendations which have only just been released into the public arena. Before I form my views, those recommendations must be discussed with my Cabinet colleagues. My views will be better founded having ascertained the opinions of those interested in responding to the committee's recommendations.
Is it not true that the Minister has had this report before her now for the best part of a year, so that it is extraordinary that she would not have formed views on it? What discussions has she had with her new Cabinet colleagues on this report and did she consider the recommendations of the de Buitleír report when she announced the free third-level education scheme in July last?
This report has only just gone into the public domain. On reading through its recommendations, Deputy Keogh will observe that I have been in a position already to put some in place but it contains contentious proposals warranting discussion.
Will there be a Dáil debate on it?
Is the Minister seriously saying that, before commenting on what she agrees are contentious proposals in the report, she will await hearing what everybody else has to say, which means she is not giving leadership but following the throng?
That is not unusual. Many Departments have commissioned expert reports which remain on shelves, sometimes the subject of very little implementation.
This is another one.
If Deputy Keogh, who only recently received this report, reads through its contents and recommendations, she will observe that I have been in a position to implement many of them but I prefer to hasten slowly in respect of some. I am inviting opinions on some of its major recommendations, one of which is the proposal to include assets in means-testing, a recommendation warranting debate.
The time for dealing with questions nominated for priority is exhausted but I can allow a reply to Question No. 14, in the name of Deputy Martin, in ordinary time.
