Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Nov 2002

Vol. 556 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Third Level Education Charges: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

condemns the decision of the Minister for Education and Science to impose an increase of 69% in the registration charge for third level students;

notes that the Higher Education Authority had sought only a 7% increase in registration charges, that as recently as May 14th his own Department was predicting an increase of just 6%, and that the huge increase was imposed as a direct consequence of the memo issued by the Minister for Finance demanding cuts;

considers the Minister's decision to introduce an unwarranted and unnecessary increase to be a Government cutback in education funding;

believes that the increase will create severe hardship for many students and their families and will further limit access to third level education;

demands the immediate reversal of the 69% registration charge increase;

strongly condemns the repeated threat by the Minister for Education and Science to re-introduce third level fees, a move which would be socially regressive and which would place further difficulties in the way of many students hoping to enter third level; and

calls on the Minister to implement, without further delay, the recommendations of the Report of the Action Group on Access to Third Level Education.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Upton and Burton.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are two possible reasons the Minister lobbed his notion of the reintroduction of third level fees into the post-election air at the end of September. Either he intends to reintroduce fees and decided to fly a kite to test the political atmosphere for reaction or he decided to threaten to reintroduce fees to divert attention from the savage cutbacks and price increases he is implementing. The latter reason is more likely. The notion of fees for the well off is a simplistic sop to the public. It suggests a type of even-handedness in the ruthless chopping of the education budget. It is not a coincidence that just two days before the Minister floated his idea The Sunday Tribune published a leaked document which revealed extensive Government planned cuts. Among the sharpest was a cut of €150 million from the budget of the Department of Education and Science. That was just two days before the Minister flew his kite about reintroducing third level fees. These cuts are across the education budget and at all levels, including primary, secondary, third level and second chance education for people who did not have opportunities at a younger age.

The Minister had already hiked the third level registration charge by a massive 70%. On 12 September he cut €6 million from the school retention initiative, €3.8 million from the back to education initiative, €5 million from the access programme and €2 million from the second level building programme. These cuts directly hit programmes designed to counteract educational disadvantage. The Minister said that educational disadvantage was the main focus of his attention when he was appointed. While he talks about his commitment to tackling disadvantage, he wields the axe of the Minister for Finance to cut the programmes which are making a difference. That is one of the main reasons the proposal to reintroduce third level fees was suggested at the time. It was a diversionary tactic to take the public's attention away from the cuts which had already been put in place. It is not the first time the Minister has flown kites. In his former ministry, he made suggestions and proposals which were designed to deflect attention from the fact that issues in his Department were not being addressed. The Minister cannot talk tough about tackling educational disadvantage, while proceeding to slash budgets designed specifically to do that.

The Labour Party motion addresses the drastic increase in registration charges which has created hardship for many students and their families. I know of many families who, when they were faced with this huge increase in registration charges, did not know what to do or where to find the money. Some students were not able to go to third level because of the large increase in a charge which was suddenly introduced after students got their leaving certificate results and were in a position to avail of opportunities in the third level sector. Many of those families are on tight budgets. They measure every cent spent every week. This increase is an obstacle. The Minister has underestimated the hardship it has caused to families.

The second part of the motion addresses the suggested reintroduction of third level fees. The third part addresses the failure to implement the recommendations of the report of the Action Group on Access to Third Level Education. It is shameful that the recommendations have not been implemented. It is crucial that the problems of people who do not have access to third level education are addressed. We all know those problems start at an earlier age than 17 or 18 when students are ready to go to third level education. The education system has failed many young people in our society. Unless we address their problems at an earlier age, they will not be in a position to take up third level education. The former Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, introduced the Breaking the Cycle programme. She also introduced other programmes specifically designed to address the difficulties faced by young people who do not progress through the education system. Those programmes have not been continued or expanded since she left office.

It is shameful that we have not addressed the problems of many young people who do not have a future in the education system and who drop out before the official school leaving age. Only a pittance is paid to the needs of such young people. There are some excellent special schools throughout the country which cater for young people who do not fit into the normal school system. However, there are long waiting lists for them and they are starved of funds. The recommendations in the report of the Action Group on Access to Third Level Education must be implemented if we want to give opportunities to the young people whom the system has failed.

While the proposal on fees may be a diversionary tactic, it must be addressed head on. I call on the Minister to state his and the Government's position tonight. He might look back to one of his predecessors, Donogh O'Malley, who, against the advice of his Department, abolished fees for second level education in 1967. At that time it was seen as a gift to the middle classes. I remember it because I was in the school system at the time. The working classes and the children of the unemployed rarely made it to leaving certificate level. Many of them dropped out at an earlier stage of the education system. Times have changed since 1967, but Donogh O'Malley has been proved right. The pattern did not change straight away. It took decades before it was the norm for students to complete second level education. Over the years the numbers who completed second level increased rapidly and Donogh O'Malley's detractors were proven wrong. Would anyone in the House propose the reintroduction of second level fees? I do not think so. Nobody in this House can deny the extraordinary contribution that decision made to the social, educational, economic and political landscape and to individual lives.

Many commentators argue that the Celtic tiger was born largely of the investment made in education over the years since second level fees were abolished and the increasing numbers of univer sity graduates and highly qualified workers that has generated. The abolition of third level fees 29 years later in 1996 by Niamh Bhreathnach was a progression in access to the opportunities of education which built on Donogh O'Malley's pioneering decision. The results of her decision will also take decades to become fully apparent.

Professor Patrick Clancy's detailed research on who goes to college shows that patterns are changing and the children of those in the low to middle income bracket, whose participation had been dropping, are now attending third level in increasing numbers. My colleague, Senator Tuffy, has carried out a precise study of the statistics in Professor Clancy's various reports. It is clear from these that the introduction of free fees has turned around the participation in third level among the PAYE sector of the population, which has made such a significant contribution to the growth of our economy.

It is worth considering these figures which my colleagues will consider in more detail later. Professor Clancy's research, which divided society into a number of categories, demonstrated that children from the lowest income brackets are still not progressing into third level in great numbers. This is largely due to the lack of intervention and support at a much earlier age in the primary and secondary levels. While I accept that access programmes, where available, are doing very good work and have facilitated the progress of some individual students into third level, they remain underdeveloped.

The statistics show that the next categories, the lower PAYE income groups, have benefited most from the introduction of free third level fees. As such, it is trite to suggest that their introduction has not facilitated participation among sectors of society which were not fully participating previously. The figures show there has already been a change. From developments after the abolition of second level fees by former Minister for Education, Donogh O'Malley, we can deduce that participation rates will change further. Surely the PAYE sector, which has worked hard, has no spare income and has valued the abolition of fees for third level education, has the right to benefit from the economy it has built in recent years?

Access to education at all levels should be provided by a good society for its citizens through the tax system. It is not a privilege for those with money who will make damn sure their children get the best possible education regardless of circumstances. It is a false argument to suggest we must deny others free third level education to stop this group getting something for nothing from the public purse. Some services must be provided by society as of right and must be paid for through taxes, and surely equality of access to education is one of them? It is a mark of a truly civilised society that it values education and regards it as a mark of equality, rather than a badge of privilege. Society should offer all children the opportunity to progress through the education system and make the best possible use of it, both for their personal development and the opportunity to make a living.

The Minister for Education and Science should stop pussyfooting around the issue and come clean. Does he intend to reintroduce third level fees? The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and many Government backbenchers have voiced opposition to the measure. The Minister must tell us if he plans to proceed with this measure, otherwise this kite will fly around distracting our attention from the real cuts he has already made in the education budget. I guarantee the Minister that the ordinary working man or woman with a child in third level education will rise up in anger if he proceeds with plans to penalise them. The ordinary PAYE worker cannot afford to put a child through college as matters stand, not to mention if fees are reintroduced.

I return to the increase in registration fees, which constitutes a real charge for third level education. Whereas the authorities asked for an increase of just 7%, a rise of 69% was delivered. Where is this money going? Is it being channelled into the education budget or into the black hole which the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has created through his mismanagement of the economy? In the last month alone, €1 billion has gone astray.

Surely this is not the time to impose hardship on students? Education is a right, not a privilege. It would be better to ensure that those people making huge sums of money in our economy pay an appropriate amount of tax. For example, certain people in receipt of huge tax breaks for building student accommodation are able to transfer such tax breaks to other rented property they hold and thus avoid paying substantial amounts of tax.

We are also giving them "free fees".

People earning very high incomes are managing to pay less tax than they should in many other areas.

They get "free fees" too.

These include the bloodstock industry, to which my party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, referred earlier.

The Minister has created unfair hardship for our young people, the third level students and those students who cannot get into third level because he has not implemented the access programmes. We should be providing our young people with an education system paid for through the tax system, while ensuring that people on high incomes pay an appropriate amount of tax.

The proposal on fees is a means of flying a kite to divert attention from what is not being done in education and from the hardship that has been imposed on third level students. Funding is required in many other areas of education where the necessary money has not been forthcoming. If the Minister leaves a question mark hanging over the reintroduction of third level fees, that issue rather than the right of our young people to an education, will become the focus of attention.

I ask him to support the motion which seeks to secure the right of our children to access education, whether primary, secondary or third level. Just as important, indeed in some ways more important, is access to second chance education for people who did not have an opportunity to go on to third level when they were young. These people do not have the opportunities they need. The cut in the literacy budget is abhorrent. The funding required to implement the proposed access programme has obviously not been allocated which means second chance students are not getting the opportunities they were promised.

I ask the Minister to seriously address the issues covered by the motion, in particular the problems students are facing in funding their third level education and the problems experienced by those students who are not getting into third level education because the access programmes are not being funded.

Like my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, I believe education is a right, not a privilege. Against that background I am gravely concerned by what the Minister has implemented first by way of registration fees and second in terms of his threat to reintroduce tuition fees. Each of these steps is retrograde in terms of access and the right to education to which all our children are entitled.

The threat to reintroduce tuition fees and the actual increase in registration fees is as much about the fundamental right to education as it is about additional financial burdens arising from tuition fees. It is not right or fair that those people who can pay for the privilege can access education while those who cannot must do without once again. It is a serious indictment of the attitude of the Government to education that one of the first cutbacks or adjustments, depending on one's preferred description, that was mooted was the reintroduction of third level fees.

The first bombshell was the 70% increase in the registration fee, which caused problems for many students. The Minister may not think that a hike of €350 is of any consequence to students or their parents, but to many of the people I know it is a major budgetary problem and has to be planned for. This increase was followed by the shock announcement that the Minister was considering reintroducing tuition fees. If the €350 increase in the registration fee caused consternation, we should remind ourselves that tuition fees are likely to be of the order of €3,000 to €4,000. The consternation generated by the increase of €350 would be increased tenfold by the introduction of full fees.

The argument in favour of reintroducing third level fees is that the system discriminates in fav our of those who can already afford to pay them, but that is not sustainable. As Deputy O'Sullivan has pointed out, this has not been the result of the removal of fees which were removed to create a level playing field, but that has not happened because the factors involved have little to do with fees and have to be addressed from an educational point of view. Any parent of a student can tell one the real cost of attending third level and that adding fees to accommodation and other costs would put a college education beyond the scope of many on middle incomes who are mainly PAYE workers such as teachers, nurses and civil servants. Interestingly, Senator Mansergh made the point in the other House, when disagreeing with the reintroduction of fees, that the income threshold would be way below that of the very wealthy.

It is worthwhile to look at what has happened in the United Kingdom following the reintroduction of fees. The numbers attending third level have dropped and many who enrolled have incurred tremendous debts. We could expect the exact same to happen here. We would be further discriminated against in comparison with most of our European counterparts who do not pay fees. It is common practice, as the Minister will know, for student exchanges to take place as part of a number of undergraduate courses and EU students would not be enthusiastic about coming here on discovering that they would be expected to pay a crippling tuition fee. Our students would be indirectly excluded from some of the best universities and third level colleges in Europe if this was to proceed, not because of academic failure, but because we would penalise them financially. Who would want to embark on an exchange programme when they have free education in their own country but must pay to come here?

A major concern about third level education has been the rate of non-completion of courses. A factor identified in leading to this has been the number of students obliged to work in order to subsidise their education. The additional burden fees would place on this element of attendants can be imagined. More students would be engaged in part-time work, those already working would take on additional hours, academic standards would suffer and the drop-out rate would increase. Imposing fees would mean that those who are academically capable would be deprived of an entitlement to achieve their full potential.

Instead of taking that regressive step, the education system should be overhauled to identify the pressures being imposed on students who are made to feel that the only respectable and rewarding option is to go to college to get a diploma or a degree. We should look at this area in the light of the reintroduction of fees because the emphasis on points in the leaving certificate has reached the level of absurdity. Students are not being educated and, depending on the school they attend, treated like battery hens, cocooned in a hothouse environment and force fed information which is later regurgitated in the rarefied atmosphere of an examination hall over a five or six day period.

I do not lay the blame on schools, parents and teachers who find themselves a part of this system, but matters are this way because we have all capitulated in relation to the points system. Memory and speed writing form a major part of the criteria determining the suitability of a student to access third level. If the publicity surrounding the examinations in June and the results in August is the yardstick for our education system, we can be forgiven for thinking that only points and a place in college are synonymous with educational success and fulfilment. What happened to apprenticeships and trades? Are the same supports put in place to allow those with a leaning in that direction to achieve and is there a commitment to career guidance that allows students to consider other options?

It is fundamental to the development of society and the economy that as many as possible are educated to their potential and best positioned to make a contribution, but it is inherently wrong and exclusive to presume that everybody needs or wants to go to third level college. This may well be the time to revisit the policy of access and interest. Equality of access is blatantly absent from our third level system. Our efforts nationally must be targeted and re-evaluated to redress the present imbalances which the reintroduction of fees would do nothing to achieve. Instead of the reintroduction of fees as proposed by the Minister, it would be more appropriate to consider offering opportunities to mature and part-time students deprived of them when they left school. The commitment of the Government to life-long learning will be tested by its commitment to providing equality of opportunity for all students, including those who, through economic disadvantage at a particular time, were unable to avail of third level education.

We refer frequently to the quality of our education system, of which, overall, we have many reasons to be very proud. We like to think that we have an excellent system and that our graduates compare with the best in the world, but if the Minister is hell-bent on returning us to the dark ages educationally by depriving many of the opportunity to avail of the education to which they are entitled, we will regress economically and socially.

During the campaign leading up to the recent referendum the Taoiseach used the word "dingbat" rather freely and it is as good a word as any to describe the notion of the Minister for Education and Science to reintroduce third level fees. Laughably, he tries to wrap this policy in the flag of social justice.

We have two means-tested benefits, one of which is third level maintenance grants and the other medical cards. There is not a Deputy in this House who can defend the operation of either scheme and the inevitable injustices, poverty traps and anomalies each throws up. In 1996 Dr. Donal de Buitléar examined the operation of third level maintenance grants in minute detail, showing up the extraordinary anomalies in the system where PAYE workers in urban areas are refused grants while many self-employed persons with substantial assets get them easily. This is also true of the operation of the medical card system where small increases in income deprive families of this benefit due to the operation of rigid means tests which create dreadful poverty traps.

Means tests are no way to distribute wealth and benefits and the notion that they are an effective mechanism to target resources has been contradicted time and again by the evidence. Usually, they spawn a massive and costly bureaucracy with the side effect of huge costs in implementation and policing. They are bad news and bad policy.

I remind the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, of what he said in this House during the dreary arguments a decade ago about the ill fated residential property tax. He was very fond of pointing to the ordinary middle-class families drawn into the net of that particular tax. I recall him mentioning on many occasions in the House and in the media couples he knew in his constituency. He spoke of two teachers who were married to each other, a garda married to a nurse and similar families, all with reasonable incomes, but who were far from being rich or well to do. He did not believe that couples like those should be landed with a property tax even though that tax was relatively modest. How can he or his colleagues now suggest that such couples should be landed with a heavy cost burden to pay tuition fees for their children when they go to college? Quite apart from other college costs, fees at the level of €4,000 or €5,000 would be a far greater burden on modest earning middle class families than the hated property tax a decade ago.

It is all very well to say, as the Minister has said quite freely, that so-called middle class families can easily afford fees. That may be the case if one defines "well off" as income thresholds around the salaries of a Cabinet Minister or advisers to the Taoiseach. The report of the Revenue Commissioners does not suggest many families fall within that range of salary. From the experience of the covenant system in the 1990s, everyone here knows it created the kind of subterfuge that benefited the very well off while it afforded almost no relief to those on lesser incomes. From the rather torturous debate that has been going on in Fianna Fáil, I note that the quid pro quo for the reintroduction of fees is to reintroduce some form of tax relief. Let the Minister be warned that one of the reasons fees were abolished in the first place was that the covenants were an outrageous cost and were entirely to the benefit of the extremely well off upper middle classes. The introduction of fees was more than substantially paid for by the abolition of the then covenant system in relation to all forms of education.

I do not pretend that higher education finance is an easy topic for a Minister, but the introduction of full tuition fees is not the answer. The Minister has only to look across the water to realise the damaging effect of the re-introduction of fees in England. He might well also observe that one of the first acts of the independent Scottish Executive was to quickly reverse that policy when it got the chance. That was done because Scottish people have always valued the notion of mass participation in higher education whereas in England that notion was fatally destroyed by the Thatcher Government during its period in office.

I acknowledge that graduates by and large earn higher incomes as a result of their subsidised education, but equally the State benefits from the higher income and expenditure taxes they ultimately pay and from investment in third level education. Such investment in free tuition fees pays for itself over the years and is as sound an infrastructural investment as that in roads or railways. In a knowledge based society it is an essential investment.

Free fees are in existence for far too short a time to judge their effectiveness in terms of social justice. The full primary and secondary school cycle is 12 years and, therefore, it is impossible to make such a judgment yet. Taking account of all third level institutions, university and non-university, some progress is already apparent. The Minister, who drives home by Blanchardstown, must be aware of the increased participation from his constituency of Meath as a consequence of the existence of Blanchardstown Institute of Technology and the same is true in the south western part of Dublin with the advent of the Tallaght Institute of Technology. One cannot draw conclusions from the intake of a few university institutions in Dublin only. Guidance counsellors in many disadvantaged areas report an increased interest in third level opportunities among pupils who complete the secondary school cycle. This is the key, but it is an area where the Government has failed during the past six years. The number of pupils who drop out at junior certificate level or who do not finish the leaving certificate programme has risen alarmingly and not nearly enough has been done to counteract this. Some of the expenditure adjustments made by the Minister in recent months have affected these programmes, which encourage second level pupils to graduate on completing the leaving certificate. I am not satisfied with the access programmes of most of the big institutions. Many are window dressing and have little impact in offering genuine opportunities to go to college.

One element essential to education is a sense of excitement and opportunity. What is key in the notion of free tuition fees paid for by universal taxation is that any child, irrespective of his or her parents' attitude to third level education, knows that one day he or she can go to college because third level education is available and anyone can walk through the gates of Trinity Col lege, UCD or the Institute of Technology in Blanchardstown. To let go of that notion and availability of opportunity will rank as one of the most regressive and reactionary positions ever taken by a Minister.

When Bill Clinton talked about the development of his economic philosophy, I recall he identified hope and opportunity as the cornerstones in generating equality of opportunity and social progress. To reintroduce third level fees would be to say goodbye to much of that.

I benefited from the opening of second level education by one the Minister's predecessors in the 1960s. I got opportunities at third level through grants and scholarships, but people from my background and the income level of my parents barely qualify for maintenance grants today because they are not farmers or self-employed. Fingal County Council and the Dublin west area has a population of 72,000, yet with a large PAYE urban population it gets only one third of the tuition grants awarded to County Mayo.

The Deputy is running down her leader's county.

No, it is a tribute to people in Mayo and elsewhere throughout rural Ireland that they value education, but it is also a tribute to the political system that it regards the third level education of farmers' children as important but does not regard such education of PAYE workers' children as of equal merit in the dispensing of third level grants. That is the problem and the Labour Party wants to address it through creating opportunities.

It is strange that the people who wax indignant about the availability of third level tuition fees are among the most well off and well heeled commentators in our society and include people who are exceptionally well paid such as the heads of third level institutions and universities. Those institutions and universities have funding problems, but the heads of them should not seek to redress their funding problems by rowing in behind the ill-thought out and inappropriate notion of abolishing third level free tuition.

As a consequence of free fees there has been a significant increase in the number of students going on to do masters and MBAs in respect of which full fees are paid. That has helped to provide us with an outstanding workforce capable of taking on world class challenges. If the Minister decides to reintroduce third level fees, I predict the number of students proceeding to master's degree and MBA will fall dramatically and by the end of the decade the Irish economy will be the worse for that.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"commends the Government on its performance to date in achieving an expansion of third level education places, in significantly increasing investment in third level education, in progressing a range of targeted measures aimed at developing the capacity of higher education to meet wider social and economic needs, and in developing the range of targeted initiatives aimed at improving access to and reducing attrition rates within the third level sector; and

endorses the Government's objective to maximise the impact of public investment in third level education in terms of equitable participation and access from all sectors of society."

I wish Deputy O'Sullivan all the best in her new role as Labour spokesperson on education. No doubt we will clash in future, as we will tonight, but I look forward to working with her. My Department will give her any assistance it can by way of briefing or otherwise.

Education is a right, not a privilege. Unless we address the inequities in our system, third level education will remain a pipe dream for many of our young people, including the PAYE workers referred to earlier. I am pleased to have the opportunity afforded to me by this motion to focus on the Government's commitment to the development of the third level education sector in an inclusive and equitable manner. The record of investment in, and development of, the third level sector since 1997 by the Government has been outstanding by any objective measure. Full-time student numbers at third level exceeded 126,000 in 2000-01, representing an increase of 19,000, or 17%, on the numbers in 1996-97. Enrolments for part-time students increased by 41% in the same period. The net overall expenditure in the third level sector has increased by 95% since 1998.

The most recent OECD study, Education at a Glance 2002, which was published last week, has pointed to the significant increase in expenditure per student in tertiary education in Ireland over the second half of the last decade. Ireland ranks second of 27 OECD countries in terms of the increase achieved. The manifestation of this increased investment can be seen on a number of fronts. The capacity of the sector to meet the skill needs of the economy has been developed through substantial targeted funding to provide new places in areas of identified need, such as ICT and health skills and through a number of innovative approaches to addressing skill needs while simultaneously providing enhanced opportunities for adult and mature learners. As part of these initiatives, 1,500 students have participated in accelerated technician programmes in the institutes of technology.

Rapid development of the research infrastructure in the third level sector has been achieved through the unprecedented levels of new investment. Cumulative investment under the programme for research in third level institutions, launched in 1998, and other research pro grammes, amounts to almost €150 million since 1998. This is exclusive of the research expenditure under the Higher Education Authority block grant which is estimated at €100 million this year. In addition to this, the establishment by the Government of a science and technology investment fund to develop technology at all levels ranging from primary schools to advanced research, has provided for an investment of €38 million for equipment renewal grants in the third level sector, €57 million for research and development, €76 million for skills needs and €102 million for infrastructural developments. Furthermore, a range of targeted initiatives are being funded by the Higher Education Authority to address priority issues such as attrition rates, participation rates and the quality of teaching within the sector.

Notwithstanding this record of acknowledged and ongoing achievement, the issue of equity of access to higher education remains a priority. The HEA-commissioned report by Professor Patrick Clancy on access to third level education found substantial variability in the rates of admission to higher education. The report concluded that this variability reflects the socio-economic pattern of the population. In terms of admission rates by socio-economic groups, the report shows that there has been a significant improvement in the proportion of persons from the two lowest socio-economic groups entering higher education. In 1980, only 3% of persons from the unskilled manual workers group entered higher education and that increased to 12% in 1992 and 21% in 1998. In 1980, only 9% of persons coming from the semi-skilled manual workers group entered higher education and that increased to 19% in 1992 and 23% in 1998. Part of this increase in admission rates derived from the doubling of the overall admission rates to higher education since 1980.

When the Government first came to office in 1997, spending on third level access measures totalled €508,000. Last year that figure had risen to €15.3 million and it is anticipated it will be €24 million this year. By any standards that represents a quantum leap in the commitment of resources. In 1997 third level access measures were confined to just two funds, a special fund for students with disabilities and a hardship fund that was allocated to third level colleges for students experiencing financial hardship. That has been significantly developed through additional initiatives for special rates of maintenance grants for disadvantaged students, commonly referred to as top-up grants, and the millennium partnership fund for disadvantage, together with the allocation of an access officer post to each institute of technology in 2000.

Provision for the special fund for students with disability, which is ESF-aided, has increased from €277,000 in 1997 to €2.619 million in 2001, an increase of 845%. The purpose of this fund is to provide students with serious physical and-or sensory disabilities with grant assistance towards the cost of special equipment, materials, technological aids, targeted transport services, personal assistance and sign language interpreters. The number of approved applications increased from 511 in 2000 to 809 in 2001.

Financial support for students is also available in approved third level institutions through the student assistance access fund, formerly known as the hardship fund. The objective of this ESF-aided fund is to assist students who, due to their financial circumstances, are unable to continue their third level studies. The fund is administered on a discretionary basis by each third level institution and provides direct financial support to disadvantaged students to assist them to remain in college. The provision for this fund has increased significantly from €231,000 in the 1997-98 academic year to €7.49 million in the 2001-02 academic year.

Since 1997, therefore, there have been very significant increases in the funding for measures that were already in operation. However, the Government has also been responsible for introducing significant new measures to combat disadvantage. There is a provision within the national development plan for a third level access fund totalling €120 million over the period 2000-06 to tackle disadvantage at third level.

In line with the commitment under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, my predecessor, Deputy Woods, established the action group on access to third level education to advise on the development of a co-ordinated strategy to increase participation at third level of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, mature students and students with a disability. The action group's report was published in July 2001 and its most significant spending recommendation concerned the introduction of special rates of maintenance grants for disadvantaged students, commonly referred to as "top-up grants" which were introduced, with retrospective effect, from the 2000-01 academic year. My Department recently carried out a review of these special rates of maintenance grants. Following this review in July 2002, I increased the annual income threshold for special rates by 32% and also extended the eligibility criteria.

The threshold is still quite low and could be increased further.

For 2002-03 the special rate of grant has also been increased to €4,000 for students residing more than 15 miles from college and €1,600 for students resident within 15 miles of college. As a result of the review, it is expected that the number of students qualifying for the top-up grant in the 2002-03 academic year will double to 7,000.

The action group also made recommendations regarding a new millennium partnership fund for disadvantage, which was implemented with effect from the 2001-02 academic year. This fund provides assistance for area partnerships to target disadvantaged students with a view to accessing third level education and to continue support while in college. Total funding provided for the 2001-02 academic year was €1.2 million. I have increased the allocation for this fund to €2 million in 2002, an increase of 66%. This year 50 partnerships and community groups are receiving allocations and I have no doubt that this funding will have a major impact in terms of increased access to third level education by disadvantaged communities.

Other significant measures promoting third level access have also been introduced. It should not be forgotten that in 1998 the Government delivered on its promise to introduce a maintenance grants scheme for students on post-leaving certificate courses. In addition, since the 1999-2000 academic year the higher non-adjacent rate of maintenance grant is payable to all eligible mature students. In 2000-01 an access officer post was provided in each institute of technology to enhance access for disadvantaged students, thereby putting the institutes on a par with the university sector.

For the 2002-03 academic year I approved an increase of 15% in the allowance by which the income thresholds in the maintenance grant schemes may be increased for each dependant where two or more children are in further or higher education. This is in line with the commitment in the June 2002 programme for Government.

The report of the action group on access to third level education sets out a co-ordinated framework of actions required to improve equity of access to third level. The group considered that a single co-ordinating body was essential in order to realise that framework. Accordingly, a key recommendation of the group was that a national office for equity of access to higher education be established. I have been in office as Minister for Education and Science for a relatively short period but have had an opportunity to review in detail the recommendations of the access report. I am pleased to inform the Dáil that I have given approval for the establishment of the national office for equity of access to higher education within the Higher Education Authority. I anticipate that this national office will, in partnership with my Department, the third level institutions and other stakeholders and agencies, facilitate the aim of increasing third level access for the three target groups.

In addition to the funding provided directly by my Department, third level colleges have developed initiatives to tackle the problem of access for disadvantaged students to third level education through targeted funding provided for the universities by the Higher Education Auth ority and, via funding from within the overall financial allocations, the institutes of technology. The Higher Education Authority has for a number of years provided dedicated funding for the universities and other Higher Education Authority designated institutions to support new developments in areas of strategic importance in higher education. One particular area of priority is that of broadening access to the universities and Higher Education Authority institutions for students from traditionally under-represented groups. These include students from disadvantaged backgrounds, mature students and Travellers. In 2001 the Higher Education Authority provided over €5 million to support institutions in initiatives aimed to provide for such broadened access.

The Higher Education Authority also undertakes periodic external evaluation of targeted initiatives. An evaluation of the initiative for access for disadvantaged students was carried out in 2000 by Osborne and Leith. The report notes that universities have responded positively to the challenges of creating a series of activities designed to enhance opportunities and that there is now a wider possibility of considering a national strategy to enhance initiatives at local level. The report of the evaluation was a key source document for the action group on access to third level. Likewise in the institutes of technology sector, actions to improve participation by the targeted groups are undertaken by all institutes. These actions include pre-course and on-course support systems for students from disadvantaged areas. I am committed to progressing the other recommendations in the report of the action group on access to third level education and ensuring the issue of equity of access to equity of access to third level education remains a priority during my term of office as Minister for Education and Science.

With regard to the increase in the charge levied by third level institutions to defray the cost of registration, examinations and student services, I wish again to make clear that students eligible for means-tested student support will not have to pay the charge. The €670 charge will be paid on their behalf, either directly by my Department or through local authorities or vocational education committees. This means that at least 34% of students in universities and 47% of those in institutes of technology will not have to pay the charge.

It is estimated that the annual cost per student of providing third level education in the 2002-03 academic year will exceed €6,000 for arts, law and business courses, €8,000 for science courses and €9,000 for engineering and medicine. This does not take into account the capital cost of new buildings and infrastructure. Any contribution from students has to be seen in the light of these figures.

The increase in the charge was part of an overall package of measures I announced earlier this year. These measures are aimed at increasing and improving the student support schemes for the 2002-03 academic year. In the current financial year the Government will spend over €360 million on student supports, including free fees.

As Minister for Education and Science, I have responsibility to ensure that the available funding of €360 million in student supports is targeted in a manner that achieves maximum impact from the point of view of equity of access to third level education. Indeed, it would be negligent of me, in that context, to ignore the plain facts that continue to present regarding rates of higher education participation among the lower socio-economic groups, facts that are not challenged by anybody inside or outside this House. The progress we have made in this area has been painfully slow and has not had the meaningful impact I want to see on the basic inequity that has persisted under successive Governments.

The question of how available funding for student supports, including free fees, can be best deployed is extremely significant against that background. In particular, how and whether individuals and their families who can afford to, should contribute to the costs of their higher education are questions we should be willing to debate. Can we as a society continue to justify the expenditure of millions of euro from within the finite resources available for student supports in order to meet the costs of free fees for the children of those in the highest income brackets when, at the same time, all the evidence shows that those at the other end of the economic spectrum continue to be excluded from third level education by virtue of, among other things, inadequate supports?

The problem goes back further.

Investment in third level education has a broad social and economic benefit. Nobody is arguing for the State to divest itself of its responsibilities and interests in that regard. However, the economic benefits of a higher education to the individual are also clear. It is clear from all the literature and studies that first and second level education benefits society generally as well as the individual. Higher education benefits the individual far more than society.

It benefits society as well.

The OECD study I referred to earlier, Education at a Glance 2002, shows that the career earning potential of graduates is significantly enhanced over and above those who do not progress beyond second level, with a tertiary education delivering a weekly earnings premium of up to 57% in Ireland. The difference is even more striking when hourly earnings comparisons are made. The most recently available data, taken from the 1997 Living in Ireland survey conducted by the ESRI, indicates that individuals with a degree or above earn 83% more on average than individuals who completed their education with the leaving certificate or a post leaving certificate course. This is much greater than the earnings differential between the junior certificate and leaving certificate and suggests that third level degree qualifications attract a particularly high premium throughout an individual's working life.

This represents a significant private return for the public investment made in higher education and brings the equity issues surrounding the principle of individual contributions sharply into focus. I am willing to address these difficult questions and that is why I have initiated a review of the application of student supports and free fees funding. These issues and principles are being debated in developed economies the world over, with a range of third level funding and contribution models to be found across the EU and beyond.

I would have thought my motivation in carrying out this review, that of addressing the inherent inequities within the present system, is one that would find favour with parties from the Labour Party tradition. The reaction of those on the Opposition benches, however, to the notion that I would endeavour to review the present system, is bizarre. Are we not being exhorted daily by the media and the Opposition parties to ensure we get value for money in the delivery of public services? Is it not a valid exercise to examine the objectives of abolishing fees, whether these objectives are being achieved and whether we could get better value for money from the €360 million we are spending?

It is a different question.

It is not. These are the questions that must be asked. Given the now dominant position of former Democratic Left Deputies within the Labour Party, its present stance is all the more surprising in view of the widely expressed reservations of the leadership of that party at the time of the introduction of free fees.

DL – Democratic Labour.

The Democratic Socialist Party.

The original stated objective of the then Minister, Ms Niamh Bhreathnach, in introducing free fees in 1995 was to widen and increase participation in third level education among those who were previously excluded. In the Dáil debate surrounding the introduction of free tuition fees, she pointed to the psychological barrier faced by potential students from the lower socio-economic groups as a result of having to pay fees. The introduction of the free fees initiative was intended to remove that barrier. An argument I have heard recently and again tonight, that it will take several years for this psychological impact to take effect, simply does not impress. The introduction of free secondary education had an immediate impact at the time. Clearly, there are more complex factors at play regarding third level participation.

It is not true that it had an immediate impact.

The evidence of participation rates at third level support the view that the free fees initiative has not achieved its original purpose. One of the more tangible outcomes of the measure appears to be the notable increase in the popularity of fee paying secondary schools, with well-off parents now diverting disposable income from an investment in their children's third level education to investment in more privileged second level education.

They get tax relief for it.

The Minister also pays the teachers' fees.

Ms Bhreathnach's initiative was sold on the basis that it involved the re-focusing of State subvention through the tax system to provide finance for free fees without significant additional cost to the Exchequer. The review I have commissioned of the student support measures merely seeks to determine, as Ms Bhreathnach did in 1995, whether the resources now being put into the system are achieving the desired effect or whether they could be redirected to achieve a better effect. Considering the time lapse since the introduction of free fees and the major question marks over the achievement of the stated purpose behind them, it seems appropriate that the measures should be fundamentally reviewed.

This Government's track record in education is second to none. We will continue to invest heavily in education. In doing so we will continue to place a premium on our children's future and on ensuring that we can continue to meet the economic and social challenges we face. In doing this, we are committed to ensuring that everyone, whatever their social or economic circumstances, has an equal opportunity to participate fully in education at all levels. That should be a fundamental principle of any equitable education system and it is incumbent on all Members to acknowledge and confront past failures on that front. I hope the review will point the way to the achievement of real progress in the future towards that objective.

Deputy O'Sullivan got her chronology a little mixed up. She moved it around to suit her conspiracy theory regarding when I first mentioned educational disadvantage and third level fees. She said the programmes introduced by Niamh Bhreathnach had not expanded. They have expanded substantially over the past number of years. A significant number of disadvantage schemes are in place. It probably could be argued that we need to focus on the schemes to see whether we are getting value for money and are reaching the target audience. Where there is limited financial support, it is legitimate for me, as Minister, and for Members of the House to ask whether we are spending money in the most effective way to ensure the greatest number of our young people can participate in all levels of education.

Deputy Burton talked about anomalies in the higher education grants system and I have a duty to examine those anomalies, to review the scheme and try to ensure that as many people as possible can participate in it. That is what I intend to do and it is why I commend the motion to the House.

The reintroduction of fees will discourage that.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Paul McGrath and Neville.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before commencing my contribution, I would like to wish Deputy O'Sullivan well in her new position.

I accept that the Minister has a duty to address anomalies in the education system, yet there are further anomalies in what he has said here. He questioned Deputy O'Sullivan's comments about the number of programmes available to people with disadvantage, yet when he mentioned fees he admitted the progress made in that area has been painfully slow. That is the truest thing the Minister has said in this debate. Progress has been slow but we must ask why and who has been responsible for the development of these access programmes for the past five years – it is the same Government whose members sit opposite.

The lack of information concerning third level fees makes this issue a leap into the unknown. There is a lack of economic clarity and we do not know who initiated these proposals. There appears to be nothing but confusion in the Government over the matter. The Minister for Education and Science is a patient man to have remained in the portfolio considering the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have stated opinions which contradict his. I can only describe the Taoiseach's comments as slightly wishy-washy, although people did not react as strongly to them as one might have expected because the Nice referendum was going through at the time. There are anomalies, and certainly no clarity, in what the Taoiseach has said about third level registration charges. The Tánaiste, however, has clearly stated her party's outright opposition to the reintroduction of third levels fees. That apparently contradictory position needs to be clarified. There is a constitutional provision with regard to collective Cabinet responsibility but it does not appear to have operated in this case.

The 69% increase in registration fees was introduced in August when many students were away working to provide funds for their return to college this autumn. No consultation took place with student bodies before the registration fee was increased. Interestingly, I carried out a search on the Department of Education and Science's website today but I could not find anything about the fee increase. I was able to find information on the website concerning events in County Meath relating to other Departments, but nothing about this matter.

And even things that are not happening.

Certainly. The registration fee increase was so substantial that it has effectively ended free third level education. Students contacted me during the summer to say they were finding it difficult to return to third level education because of the increase. The additional €700 broadly represents the sum students received on the summer jobs scheme, so they have spent 200 hours working to pay for the registration fee increase. The idea behind the summer jobs scheme, however, was to help students with their daily living expenses in term time.

How much did the registration fee increase raise and on what exactly was it spent? I am aware the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party went to Killarney before the Dáil resumed but it did not discuss the issue there. I took part in a discussion on local radio with a Fianna Fáil Deputy who told me the registration fee increase was being used to provide learning support for teachers. He said I surely could not be against that. I have no difficulty with the provision of learning support for teachers but the money to provide it should not be raised on the backs of third level students and their parents. The Minister should explain how this money is being spent.

The increase in registration charges has caused genuine financial hardship for students and their families. It was a bombshell coming just before the leaving certificate results because parents had not expected to have to shell out such an increase.

The proposed reintroduction of third level fees is a form of cutback, which amounts to a regressive and short-sighted measure. Does the Minister see education as a right only at primary level or at second level? Is it not a right at third level as well? The Minister's attitude seems to be that once students complete second level they have had enough help and should find their own way forward from there. That is a very short-sighted attitude because our economy has changed. There was a time when the leaving certificate was a passport to a good job, but that is no longer the case. Employers are seeking more highly qualified people now and we must be in a position to provide such a young, well-educated workforce. While we have been successful in doing so to date, the reintroduction of third level fees is a backward step.

In his speech, the Minister admitted the high earning potential of graduates, yet he seems to think that is unfair. The Minister should note that the more people earn the more they will pay in tax. By investing in such people we are investing in the country's long-term prosperity because they will contribute higher tax levels. We must consider that more than 90% of third level students obtain employment.

In September 2000, the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, established a task force to advise on the most effective ways of increasing participation by disadvantaged groups at third level, including students with disabilities from disadvantaged backgrounds and mature second-chance students. The excellent report of the task force made 78 recommendations but very few of them have been implemented. We now have another report but what happened to the earlier one? Why has the Department not proceeded to implement the report in full? Large amounts of money are being spent on reports that are largely ignored because when a new Minister takes office he decides it is irrelevant and commissions another report. This is tantamount to turning in circles. It is not the way to do business and is certainly a waste of resources.

The programme for Government did not mention the reintroduction of third level fees. I checked the Fianna Fáil manifesto which contained scarcely any recommendations in relation to third level education.

Or in relation to anything.

I checked only the manifesto for this issue.

That is it. The Minister has not put forward any real proposals, either in this debate or in any of his kite-flying exercises, except his idea that increasing fees will fund greater access. How can anyone accept that proposal now? Increasing access to third level education for the under-privileged and disadvantaged is a laudable aim in which we all believe. This side of the House still believes in the just society, but instead of raising the participation levels of the disadvantaged, the Minister is trying to pull down advantaged people, if one can so describe them, all the time. That is not the way to do business. We should be trying to help these people instead of trying to bring them down.

The Minster has underestimated the cost of attending third level education. I come from a county where there is no alternative for students but to leave home to attend college and, therefore, students from the midlands must pay for accommodation. A recent report entitled "Euro-Student 2000" showed that of nine EU countries studied, Ireland has the lowest availability of third level accommodation and is also the most expensive in the EU. Added to this is the cost of travel, books, day-to-day living and socialising, in which some people think students should not engage, although it is an important part of student life. These costs add up to between €5,000 and €7,500 per annum, but it costs a parent significantly more to earn that amount of money. That is just the cost of paying for the child attending college and does not include registration fees. How much will it be if we add registration fees? If one has more than one child in college or if one has two or three children, most of one's income could be gone on third level fees.

This brings me back to the disadvantaged. The Minister's commitment, which he expressed on his first day here as Minister for Education and Science, is questionable. He cut €5 million from programmes to attract socio-economically disadvantaged school leavers to third level and €6 million from planned initiatives to reduce the school dropout rate, and now we are told he plans putting more money into similar initiatives. Disadvantage does not begin on the morning you wake up and get your leaving certificate results. It begins practically on the day you are born. If there is not the wherewithal at primary level and at second level and if there is not the ambition within a household to encourage children to go to third level, they are not going to suddenly wake up on 15 or 16 August and decide they cannot afford it. It is a far broader issue. That is why it needs to be examined and why the existing report, with its 78 recommendations, should be implemented.

There is a need for far greater parental support, career guidance and college familiarisation programmes. We must look at other options for entry, some of which the Minister mentioned in his speech, which I welcome but which need to be expanded upon.

The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, must say who he considers to be wealthy. Certainly, many people from the PAYE sector have been in touch with me saying they are not wealthy but are very concerned they will be hit. Who exactly does he propose to include in this? No one believes genuinely if it comes in this year at one level, that it will not come in at another level next year and at a further level the following year. That is a biggest fear abroad.

The Government squandered the wealth for what one could call five fabulous years of a spending boom and it is now desperately attempting to bring that money back through the re-introduction of college fees. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, looks at third level students as a cash cow and at this as a way of bringing in the cutbacks which he needs from the Department of Education and Science. Unlike the Minister for Finance, parents of students actually have to budget and they need to know what they have to pay for in advance. I ask the Minister to come clean and clarify the issue.

I thank my colleague, Deputy Enright, for sharing her time with me. I compliment Deputy Jan O'Sullivan on her new portfolio and on bringing forward this motion.

The nub of the motion is why the Minister for Education and Science increased fees to higher education colleges by 69% during the summer. He did so because of cutbacks in his Department. He did it during the summer, knowing that many students would not be aware of it and hoping he would get away with it.

Fees were abolished in 1992 and a small fee for registration of €190 was introduced in 1996. This Government has increased those fees by 250% in the intervening six years. In 1990, the higher education grant for a student was €1,743. In the intervening 12 year period, that grant has been increased by 40% and yet the Government feels justified in increasing fees by 250% in a six year period.

In 1990, the income limit at which one qualified for a third level grant stood at €14,000. In the 12 year period the Government increased the levels at which one could qualify for a higher education grant by 100%, but they increased the registration fees by 250%, clawing back money from people's pockets. That is a phenomenal increase by any standards and one wonders how it can be justified.

One must also consider how the costs of sending students to college have increased since 1990, including changes in the cost of rented accommodation and the cost of living. If a student is lucky enough to qualify for a full higher education grant at present, he or she will get €2,500, which amounts to about €70 per week. What will you get with €70 per week? My son is in higher education in Dublin at present and his accommodation, which is fairly basic, costs me – not him – per week. In addition, he has to have a few bob in his pocket. I am on a good salary and I can afford to keep him at college, but can the Minister imagine the position of somebody earning €15,000, which is not a lot of money? They will get a grant of €70 a week, but how does a family on that income give the student the necessary top-up to enable him or her to attend college? I am amazed at how people do it and at the sacrifices which many parents make to do it. We should be helping those people and coming to their aid.

Another ridiculous anomaly within the higher education grants system is that if one has a second child at college, the applicable increase in the income limit for qualification is €2,500. We should live in the real world. How will an additional €2,500 help towards getting a student to college? It is absolutely ridiculous.

The Minister spent a great deal of time talking about the top-up grants available to disadvantaged students and how they could get this additional grant aid. I welcome that grant aid and think this is a great move, but it is almost impossible to qualify for it. Last year one had to be on social welfare levels of income to qualify, in other words, if you were earning more than £7,400 you did not qualify for the additional top-up. The Minister stated he has increased that amount by 30%. I was not aware of that and am delighted to hear it, but that will bring it to about £9,000 or some €11,000. What does the Minister mean by this? I wonder who on €11,000 is able to send a child to college, even with the top-up grant.

Deputy Burton spoke about the disadvantage some people experience in getting to college vis-à-vis others, say, in rural communities. In rural communities, students are severely disadvantaged because they must travel to college and, as Deputy Enright said, they must pay for accommodation.

I congratulate my colleague from Limerick, Deputy O'Sullivan, on her appointment as Labour Party spokesman on education and wish her every success. I know she will do a very good job.

During the summer months free third level education was effectively abolished. A 69% increase in registration charges was surely the death-knell for free education at a time when the Higher Education Authority requested an increase of 7%. The authority was obviously seeking a high rate to enable them to get approval for a figure, somewhere between 4% and 5%, with which they would be happy, yet the Minister increased fees by 69%. This has sounded the death-knell to free education, has put many families and students under pressure and has created real hardship for PAYE workers on the margins of where these charges apply. It does not create a problem for those who are very highly paid, but it hits those on the margins very hard. Students have had no choice but to decide not to go into third level education as a result.

Education has changed this country more than anything else. Our affluent society, the Celtic tiger and the success of our economy have largely to do with an educational facility which has developed over a period of years. There are difficulties with it and these have been raised, but cutbacks are surely not the way to go. Our future lies in education, particularly in introducing the recommendations of the action group on access to third level education and in addressing education for those with a disability and for the disadvantaged and second chance students. These are the areas which should be developed but to which the Minister has not applied resources. We know of areas of our cities where only 1% or 2% of people will receive third level education. This is where we should invest in education. Cuts in any area of education are regrettable but a cut in third level education is an especially backward step.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn