I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the Report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support and to indicate the steps that have been taken to date and the further steps I propose to take in the light of the findings and recommendations of the committee.
On taking office as Minister for Education I was already aware there was widespread dissatisfaction with the perceived inequities in the higher education grants scheme. Consequently, in April 1993 I set up an advisory committee to examine the third level student support schemes, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Dónal de Buitléir, to report back to me. The advisory committee operated under the following terms of reference: (a) "To recommend appropriate criteria for assessment of eligibility on grounds of means in the third-level student support schemes with reference to equity and the financial capacity of parents and applicants to pay. In so doing the group will examine the operation and application of the criteria for assessment of eligibility on grounds of means in the existing third level student support schemes. (b) To examine and make recommendations as appropriate on the most effective and efficient organisational arrangements for the administration of the schemes, including rationalisation of the existing schemes.
Subsequently I wrote to the committee and asked it to consider covenants and student loans and whether or not courses in private colleges should be included in the scheme.
I would like to put on record my appreciation of the careful and detailed consideration which the committee gave under its terms of reference to the student support schemes and to thank the members of the committee for the commitment and expertise they brought to their task.
Subsequently, in the policy document A Government of Renewal which was agreed by the Fine Gael. Labour and Democratic Left parties, a commitment was given to improve access to third level education. One cannot divorce access to third level education from matters relating to student support. In the policy agreement therefore there is a commitment that there will be: “New support mechanisms to increase participation by third level students from lowincome backgrounds including the abolition of third level fees, a comprehensive reform of the higher education grant scheme, the introduction of support for students on post-Leaving Certificate courses and an increase in the number of third level places”.
I will outline to the House how the student support schemes have evolved over the years. These schemes constitute the system of student support which had to be reviewed and examined by the committee.
There are three student grant schemes. The first of these — the higher education grants scheme was introduced in 1968 — following the enactment of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act 1968. The administration of the higher education grants scheme is entrusted under statute to the local authorities.
My Department prepares and issues on an annual basis a specimen higher education grants scheme to the local authorities. Moneys expended by the local authorities on grants under the scheme are also recouped by my Department to the 33 authorities currently administering the scheme. Each local authority prepares a new scheme each year which under existing legislation is submitted to the Minister for Education for approval. The scheme which has evolved since 1968 is now regarded as highly complex owing to developments in third level education, social changes and related improvements and amendments to the schemes over the years.
The vocational education committee scholarships scheme was established in 1971 to provide assistance to students following courses at certificate or diploma level in the regional technical colleges. Until 1981 vocational education committee scholarships were awarded on a competitive basis and subject to meeting the requirements of the means test. In 1981 the conditions were changed to provide that vocational education committee scholarships would be awarded to those who achieved specified minimum results in the leaving certificate, who also satisfied the requirements of the means test.
Because an increasing number of scholarship holders were going on to further education beyond diploma level, the scholarship scheme was gradually expanded to cover courses in other institutions. The vocational education committee scholarships scheme now covers courses in a variety of institutions, in addition to the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology.
The European Social Fund training grants scheme commenced in the mid 1970s. The essential purpose of the European Social Fund is to assist in the solution of employment problems, by helping to provide skills for the benefit of those who would not otherwise be able to obtain good and stable employment. Certain vocationally-orientated courses in the education sector qualify for assistance under the terms of the fund.
The scheme covers the vast bulk of national certificate and national diploma courses in the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. For training purposes those courses are grouped into two distinct programmes. The middle level technician programme comprises courses at national certificate level while the higher technical business skills programme comprises courses at national diploma level. Since 1992 the ESF maintenance grants scheme for those pursuing national certificate and national diploma courses has been means-tested and the scheme itself administered by the vocational education committees.
I will now turn to the report of the advisory committee. I was prompted to establish the advisory committee by my concern to address the shortcomings in the student support arrangements.
The committee submitted its report in November 1993 and it was published in February 1995. There has been criticism of the time lapse between the submission of the report and its publication but Deputies should understand that it was not a case of its being left on a shelf to gather dust as has been the fate of so many such reports. There were some recommendations in the report which could be implemented immediately and others which required consultation with Cabinet colleagues before their implementation could be considered. The advisory committee also envisaged that a number of its recommendations could only be implemented over time as resources became available.
I was, however, in a position to implement a number of recommendations in the report immediately; I introduced improvements in relation to academic attainments requirements. Up to 1994 students had been required to have obtained a minimum of two grade Cs in 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; 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 third level institutions. An allocation of £120,000 was distributed to the colleges to assist students experiencing short term financial difficulties. This provision was intended to complement the existing student support arrangements. A further allocation of £80,000 was allocated to assist students suffering from disabilities; I took steps to have the student support scheme funds issued to the local authorities-VECs at end-April-early May in 1994 and 1995. This contrasts with the position in 1993 when the funds issued in mid-August.
There were major recommendations on the other hand which required consultation with Cabinet colleagues. One such recommendation related to the question of covenant tax relief. The cost to the Exchequer of such tax relief increased from £3.5 million in the 1984-85 tax year to nearly £38 million in 1993-94. There was also the position whereby a parent with an income of £60,000 per annum could get tax relief five times greater than that of a parent with an income of £20,000.
The committee recommended that this tax relief should be saved and used to increase direct expenditure on third level education. The House will be aware of the provisions in sections 12 and 13 of the Finance Bill, 1995 regarding covenants and the abolition of fees. The measures being taken to abolish most tax covenant reliefs and redirect the resulting savings to fund the abolition of undergraduate fees represent a significant step forward. We are using the savings from the termination of a fundamentally regressive tax relief to promote a policy of free access to undergraduate courses at third level which is much more rational, equitable and efficient.
Further improvements are also planned to assist students to pursue third level studies. The Minister for Finance announced in the budget that provision will be made for tax relief on fees paid to private colleges in respect of approved courses. This relief will be introduced for the academic year 1996-97. It is also intended that maintenance grants under the higher education grants scheme will be extended to approved courses being followed by Irish students abroad with effect from the 1996-97 academic year.
Another important recommendation in the advisory committee's report related to the public's perception of the fairness of the system of means-testing and the serious disquiet expressed about this. In fact, the report states that "Public confidence in the equity of the system is very low and there is serious resentment by many sections of the community about the system". It goes on to point out that some students in receipt of grants are perceived not to need them compared with others who need financial assistance but do not qualify under the means test. The point most often made in submissions to the committee was that the PAYE sector was treated harshly and that students whose parents were self-employed received a disproportionate number of grants.
The committee recommended, therefore, that the means test should include a capital test on the basis that an individual's capital, or wealth is made up of all their assets, less any liabilities. They quote the Australian grants system under which the Australian authorities take into account income and assets in deciding on the level of grant assistance to be given to the applicant. I commend the group on having come forward with a very imaginative approach to dealing with the problem they identified. However, while I have not set the recommendation aside, I am concerned about its effectiveness in tackling the problems it was formulated to resolve. The valuation of farm land and business assets is a very difficult and subjective area. In any event, my decision earlier this year to abolish third level tuition fees is a much bigger step forward in effectively addressing the equity problems identified by the group.
Apart from perceived inequities in the system criticisms were expressed about the administration of the student support schemes. The advisory committee found that the present system is fragmented and very confusing for grant applicants in that there are three separate schemes administered by 70 agencies in all. The committee also pointed out that the three schemes have much in common — the same means test, the same rate of grant and other similar conditions of award. In addition, both the higher education grants scheme and the vocational education committee scholarships scheme have almost all courses in common. The committee concluded that there seemed to be no reason for having three separate schemes. They also recommended that the processing of grant applications and payment of grants should be transferred from the local authorities and the vocational education committees to a central agency.
Representations have been made to me to the effect that a central agency will be too remote from candidates applying for grants and that the present system enables the agencies at local level to assist candidates with their queries and grant applications in a personal and user-friendly way that a central agency will not be able to do. Moreover, since the examination of this issue by the advisory committee I have published the White Paper "Charting our Education Future" which includes a range of measures for significant change in the education system including the creation of regional education boards.
More recently the Government has decided to apply restrictions to recruitment in the public sector in the context of its review of the 1996 budget. The proposed central agency would, of course, have required additional staff to enable it to carry out its functions. It would be appropriate, therefore, to review the advisory committee's recommendation for a central grant processing agency in the light of the recent Government decision on public sector numbers and the changed education landscape planned for the future involving the establishment of regional education boards.
In assessing in a general way the necessity and significance of the report of the advisory committeee it would be difficult to over-emphasise the importance of the student support schemes in the context of promoting equity of access to education This aspect is underlined in the report where it is stated that:
Access to education is one of the most important factors in promoting equity in society and access to third level education in particular conveys to the individual a significant economic and social advantage. Thus there is a very close link between access to third level education and equity in our society.
On this basis the committee concluded that "because access to higher education had important influences on life chances the State has an interest in ensuring that those who can benefit from higher education are not denied it due to lack of means".
In the context it should be noted that the number of students receiving grants has steadily increased over the years. During the 1981-82 academic year 14,000 students received grant aid. This represented 32 per cent of the total enrolment of 44,000. By 1993-94, 60 per cent of the total enrolment of 88,000 were receiving grants. Our membership of the EU, of course, has had a major bearing on the proportion of students receiving grant aid. The European Social Fund training grants scheme, for example, covers the vast bulk of national certificate and national diploma courses in the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. Students attending these courses are not required to pay fees and may qualify for maintenance grants subject to their eligibility under the means test.
The abolition of fees for full-time undergraduate courses must also be seen as a major advance in the area of student support. In this context the committee noted that many west European countries operate systems within which there are no tuition fees charged for full-time undergraduate courses and the issue of means-testing relates only to financial support for living costs. For example, students in the UK, have benfited from such a system since 1946 and Irish students in the UK have benefitted under the system since 1986.
In relation to the abolition of undergraduate fees, I established a working group to prepare a report and recommendations on implementation of the initiative. The working group was chaired by the chairman of the Higher Education Authority and included representatives from the universities, the regional technical colleges, the Dublin Institute of Technology, my Department and the Secretariat of the HEA. This group reported to me and I propose to issue an information leaflet on Thursday setting out the arrangements that will apply the benefit for students and their parents.
I assure the House of my commitment to improving access to third level education. The establishment of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support underlines my strong commitment to that objective. The advisory committee wisely expressed the opinion that no scheme will be perfect but I am always willing to listen to views expressed and to consider points made.
In the context of my initiative in abolishing undergraduate fees I would, for example, refer to my recent announcement that having reviewed the matter and taking account of recommendations made, particular courses in the Mater Dei Institute of Education, the Pontifical College, Maynooth, the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosphy and All Hallows College, Drumcondra, are now to be included in the free fee scheme. Similarly, in the student support area, I am aware that there are other part-time courses where grants are seen to be warranted. I will keep this and the whole area of student support under review and make further improvements as resources become available.