Vol. 481 No. 6
3 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Education and Science whether he has established a working group to develop proposals for the reform of the eligibility rules for higher education grants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16805/97]
I am engaged in an ongoing review of all aspects of higher education grants, including the eligibility rules. In particular, I am seeking to focus on areas of the operation of the grants scheme where room for improvement has already been clearly identified. The administration of the scheme is of particular concern.
The report of the Advisory Committee on Third Level Student Support, chaired by Dr. Donal de Buitléir, was published in February 1995. The report dealt with eligibility and reforms. The advisory committee found the present system of student support to be fragmented, cumbersome and very confusing for grant applicants. It identified overlaps and duplication, with up to 70 different organisations involved in the administration of the grant schemes. It also found that payments were too frequently delayed and that students were often disadvantaged by various administrative problems in the system. The advisory committee recommended that there should be one applications form for the three existing schemes which have the same means test, the same rate of grant and cover virtually the same courses. It also recommended significant changes in the processing of grant applications and payments. It is clear that the current administration of the student support schemes must be improved.
Apart from reservations about the need for a new body, I have an open mind as to the best and most appropriate options for a new centralised system. A joint working group involving officials from my Department and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has begun an examination of various options and the possible role of that Department in any new system. I expect to have a report and recommendations in the matter towards the end of this year. When I have the report I will give it full consideration with a view to having any recommendations for improved and more efficient and effective administrative arrangements implemented as soon as possible.
I emphasise that no irrevocable decisions will be taken in relation to any future arrangements without appropriate consultation with all interested parties. My only objective is to ensure that the system properly addresses the concerns of students and parents. I intend to continue to seek ways of improving support for students engaged in third level study and research and will consider a range of options to achieve this objective. Deputies will, of course, accept that changes will inevitably have financial implications and will have to be dealt with in the context of wider estimates provisions for third level education.
I thank the Minister for his interesting reply which relates more to Deputy McManus's Question No. 6 than to my question. I am specifically interested in the action being taken by the Minister to implement the commitments made by Fianna Fáil when in Opposition— the manifesto is still on its web site — to increase the maintenance level of higher education grants, to increase the income limits for higher education grants, to introduce marginal relief for those over the income thresholds, to give a better deal to large families, to have better post-graduate facilities, to provide concessions for dependent children of mature students, to provide the same grant terms for those in PLCs, to give part-time students access to proportionate grants and to give additional grants to mature students from low income backgrounds.
I tabled a written question to the Minister but his Department was unable to give an estimate of the cost of any of these commitments. Has the Minister done a complete U-turn on the commitment he made in Opposition to improve access to higher education grants for students?
The Deputy's question relates to a working party on the eligibility rules for higher education grants. The word "eligibility" was not included in the original question sent to my Department. In referring to the Fianna Fáil manifesto, the Deputy omitted some very important sections. The Government has made it clear that the commitments to which the Deputy referred are a priority in terms of improving the student support system. The manifesto clearly states that these are our priorities and they will be implemented as resources permit.
That statement must have taken up a very small space.
It was included at the start of the section dealing with——
I do not recall its being emphasised.
It was not emphasised by Deputy Bruton because it did not suit his line of questioning. I was very concerned to make this clear at the USI press conference. In any event this is an obvious position.
It is a responsible position.
Improvements to any system have resource implications.
It is not true to say that there are no estimates of what the improvements would cost. For example, a £100 increase in the maximum maintenance grant would cost £3.5 million per annum, while an increase of 2 or 3 per cent would cost £1.3 million. The cost of improving the income eligibility limits by £1,000 for each bracket would cost £5 million per annum. The figures are in the Department but these issues are obviously a matter for the wider Estimates provision.
The Deputy omitted to refer to commitments in the manifesto to increase the number of third level places, which is my first priority. The previous Government did not address the appalling under capitalisation of regional technical colleges and universities, the lack of proper equipment in universities and the scandalous under funding of research in third level institutes. The key issue for many young people is access to third level education and a first class learning environment which has a proper input in terms of capital funding, equipment, etc.
There are many headaches in the third level education area, including the historical deficit in terms of the regional technical college sector, which must be dealt with. Most regional technical colleges are trying to cater for double the number of students they were intended to cater for when they were built more than 20 years ago. I am looking at the overall sector and will bring forward a package to tackle all the issues which relate to third level education.
The Minister gave a very elaborate enunciation of his position but what I want are answers to simple questions. What precisely does the word "priority" mean in the context of the manifesto which states that the system must be reassessed? It is clear that the priorities set in the manifesto are very much posteriorities. The Minister listed umpteen other areas where action will be taken first. What are the public to make of these clear commitments to PLCs, post-graduate and part-time students and people just outside the eligibility criteria? Will provision be made in the 1998 Estimates for a substantial number of these commitments?
When one goes before the people one outlines one's philosophy and political views and clearly states where change should occur.
This is not fairyland.
The reality of the Deputy's experience in Government——
What does the Minister mean when he refers to "priorities"? Will they be implemented in 1998, 1999 or 2000?
It is a wish list.
The de Buitléir report was presented to the previous Government in 1995 but it did not implement its recommendations on the higher education grants system.
If the Minister wants me to answer questions I will be happy to do so. I have asked him straight questions about the commitments he made to the public but he is trying to evade answering them.
The Minister has the floor.
He is abusing the tolerance of the Chair.
On a point of order, the Minister has misled the House.
It is not in order.
Many of the recommendations made in the de Buitléir report on higher education grants were implemented.
Such as?
The recommendations on the date by which application forms should be available, how they should be processed, etc. Those recommendations were implemented and the Minister has misled the House.
The Deputy is completely out of order. We are dealing with a priority question and it is not in order for him to intervene.
The Minister made an inaccurate statement.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
Will the Minister withdraw what he said?
Will he answer the questions he was asked? Will these priority commitments be delivered on in 1998?
The Deputy should cease interrupting the Minister.
The de Buitléir recommendation on a centralised grant agency was not implemented.
Will we see it in 1998?
None of the eligibility rules were changed. It is outrageous for any Deputy to suggest that the recommendations in the de Buitléir report were implemented.
Is the manifesto a work of fiction?
No, and the Deputy should watch this space in the context of the overall higher education grants system.
Maybe the manifesto will win the Booker Prize.
In response to the de Buitléir report, I set up a working group comprising officials of my Department and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs to simplify administration of the grant system to give better service to the student. Ultimately that is what I am concerned about. An excellent job was done by de Buitléir on the higher education grant system and it was a great pity the report was left on the shelf. In 1995 the Government of which Deputy Bruton was a member allocated £250,000 towards a centralised grant agency, but later that year it changed its mind and ignored the report. Deputy Bruton has some neck to talk about reform of the higher education grant system when the Government of which he was a member did nothing for part-time students, mature students and postgraduates. Resources permitting, they are my priorities in terms of higher education.
Deputy Bruton is aware from his time in the Department of Enterprise and Employment that the key issue facing third level education as we approach the end of this century is that young people should be given the opportunity to participate in third level education. We should ensure a sufficient number of young people emanate from our colleges to meet the skilled needs of the economy. I am proud those issues outlined by Deputy Bruton are on the political agenda for third level education.
