Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 May 2012
1Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills when he expects to receive proposals from the Capital Asset Test implementation group regarding higher education grants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26033/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy will be aware, as part of the overall budget measures announced last December, it was signalled that it is proposed to amend the means test for student grants to take account of the value of certain capital assets as well as income for new applicants from the 2013-14 academic year. A capital asset test implementation group has been convened to develop and bring forward detailed proposals on new means testing arrangements to include the value of assets. This group has met on three occasions and its deliberations are ongoing. I anticipate that the group will report to me by the summer and will make recommendations on the inclusion or exclusion of certain classes of assets. Any proposals arising from these recommendations will require, in the first instance, Government agreement and subsequently will necessitate legislative amendment.
The announcement in budget 2012 that the value of certain capital assets would be taken into account in the assessment of means for student grants has caused concern to many self employed people, particularly land owners and farmers. It would be absolutely wrong to include productive assets in the means assessment. Such a system would discriminate against self employed people, including farmers. Does the Minister agree that those productive assets are required by the self employed to generate an income and that the inclusion of such assets would be discriminatory and would deny access to higher education for many students from low income families who are self employed, including the farming community?
This has been an issue for a long time, dating back to the Dónal de Buitléir report in the mid-1990s. It was a time when the tax records of the self employed, be they farmers or people with small businesses, were far less accurate and up to date and, I dare say, probably capable of a manipulation then that is not the case now. I accept that the regulatory framework and the taxation and scrutiny of self employed people, along with the advent of modern technology, have made the situation far different. Nevertheless, to have a level playing pitch, it is reasonable to include a means testing mechanism which takes into account assets in addition to the family home, which a PAYE worker would have in most instances and which never formed part of the means testing assessment basis, to see if there is room for some degree of evaluation above and beyond the nominal household income for the purposes of determining ability to pay in respect of an application for a grant.
As I said earlier, work is still ongoing. I will publish the report when it becomes available and we will have a discussion on it. Depending on the outcome of that discussion and whatever recommendations emerge from it, we will take it to the Government in the first instance and legislative changes would then be necessary. Any change that will emerge from this process will not take effect until the 2013-14 academic year, so there is plenty of time for me to respond to the Deputy and to the House.
Could the Minister ensure that the group looks at the social welfare assessment system? In the Department of Social Protection's means assessment farm land is categorised as property personally used and enjoyed. The assessment is based on the annual income derived from that asset and, quite correctly, there can be no additional calculation of notional means for the value of the asset. That is a fair method of assessment of farm land vis-à-vis income. Similarly, the same position should obtain for shop owners, pub owners or people who run their enterprise from a building adjacent to their house or elsewhere.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the productive assets will be excluded from the means test? That would be a statement that the system will be fair and not discriminatory. We have moved a long way from the time when there were abuses in regard to income returns.
I accept that.
Quite correctly, we have moved a long way from that. Consider the situation in farming. Unfortunately, farm income can be very cyclical. One can have one or two good years but, unfortunately, that can be affected by weather, even weather in another continent. The dairy farmer, for example, can have a good year but if there are favourable climate conditions in Australia, New Zealand or America which results in a small increase in their overall production, it can skew the worldwide market. Income drops considerably because of the extra product available. By definition, there will be less demand for our products and we depend on trade. The Minister must give a clear message that productive assets will not be included in the means assessment for student grants.
I welcome the Deputy's comments and his acceptance that in the past things were done differently and in a way that none of us would agree with today. However, we are dealing with the present. I have no wish to introduce a new system of means assessment that is unfair. That is not my intention. It will therefore receive rigorous analysis and scrutiny before we proceed. I recognise the Deputy's agricultural expertise and accept the global impact weather conditions can have, as well as the fact we are dealing with a worldwide commodity market, even for something as fragile as milk in respect of time and distance travelled.
I do not know what will be the outcome of this report. It is my inclination and intention to publish it as soon as possible after I receive it and then to have a debate on it and listen to people's opinions. However, in the general areas in which means testing is being undertaken, such as for social welfare purposes and probably for Department of Health purposes with regard to nursing home care and so on, it would be commonsensical and preferable to have a single means testing system. This is my personal view but it is shared informally by colleagues in the Cabinet. It would be preferable to have in place a single system in respect of student grants, social welfare for the unemployed who previously were self-employed, sectors of health and so on. Consequently, we should get this right and should consider and then discuss whatever recommendations are made.
Before moving on to the next question, I ask the Minister to pause for a moment. Unfortunately, as no application was received by the Ceann Comhairle's office, I am unable to permit the substitution of Deputy Colreavy for Deputy Crowe and we must move on to question No. 3.
Would it be in order for me to propose that the House accepts Deputy Colreavy?
Agreed.
No, in the first instance it is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle. Perhaps the House can agree to it.
Members can set a precedent.
That facility has been extended in the past.
It is time Members made new rules anyway.
It has been extended in the past.
I ask Deputies not to be worried or concerned. I will take a decision to allow the question.
I thank the Acting Chairman, Deputies and the Minister.
