Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Student Support Bill 2008. The expansion of the third level sector over the past 20 years, building on earlier progressive developments in the late 1960s and early 1970s, has been a major success story. We have moved from a relatively low rate of third level participation in higher education to a relatively high rate. In recent years, we have also begun in earnest to develop a fourth level, with the research councils working well. An issue has been how universities can compete with better funded institutions, especially in the English speaking world. The better funding for research is perhaps a good part of the answer.

With regard to student support and fees, this has been the subject of ongoing debate and some decisions over the past 15 years. The Rainbow coalition introduced free third level fees, which had previously been means tested. Fianna Fáil, though opposing the measure at the time, albeit with some divided opinions on the issue, has not reintroduced fees, despite the urgings of heads of universities, some economists and the OECD.

The current position is popular with parents and students and in my opinion not reversible. While it is true that a similar measure was reversed in Britain, the UK operates under a different electoral system and has in many respects — perhaps as a result — a more passive electorate. In the short term at least, the universities would not be better off with a reintroduction of fees, as one can be certain that the Department of Finance would claw back every cent of grant paid in lieu of fees. In a tougher budgetary climate, one can probably anticipate some renewed pressure on this front.

According to the Book of Estimates, total student support stands at €263 million, an increase of 8% on last year. This probably also reflects an increase in numbers. A significant registration fee of more than €800 has been imposed, from which poorer families are exempt. Young people and their parents should not be deterred by financial considerations from entry into third level education, particularly if we seek greater social inclusion. Young people starting out in life, by which I mean graduates, should be unencumbered with debt. I am not, therefore, enamoured of student loan schemes and the like.

One of the Minister's virtues is that, coming from the education sector, she is not a believer in change for change's sake or simply for the purpose of leaving a political imprint. What is working well and is well accepted, she prefers rightly to leave alone. She has firmly rejected the reintroduction of third level fees and has my support in that regard. When one of her predecessors flew a kite on this issue, my constituency predecessor and a former Minister for Education, Deputy Noel Davern, was the first on the Government side to state clearly the proposal was not acceptable. Third level fees are very much an issue in Tipperary, which, apart from the Tipperary Institute, sends most of its third level students outside the county. Keeping a student at college away from home, even from a maintenance point of view, is expensive in any case. Paying fees on top of this would be a punishing additional burden.

Another area where the Minister has rightly ignored siren calls from experts and some urban based opposition is the idea that special support conditions should be introduced for the sons and daughters of farmers. The suggestion is that not just income but the value of assets essential to the business should be taken into account. In most cases, farmers are not on high incomes and most of their children will have to make a living off the land. There is, therefore, every incentive for them to go to college, where possible. As matters stand, farmers often sell sites where they can to pay for their children to go to college. The Minister is right to maintain the status quo. Plenty of places are available for everyone at this stage.

I welcome the intention of the Bill to streamline responsibility for grants and give it to the vocational education committees. The Minister has resisted the temptation to create one central authority and opted instead for a local county based body solely engaged in educational management, which is accessible to students and parents for advice, consultation and discussion in case of any problems arising. There is an independent appeals mechanism. It would be welcome if grants could be paid more expeditiously and up-front but I accept that a certain proportion of students drop out at the end of the first term having decided that third level is not for them.

The level of and access to maintenance grants has improved a good deal during the years. They also apply to more courses. I agree with Deputy Crawford on the value of lifelong learning. When it can be afforded, there may be cases where maintenance grants would be justified for much older categories. The lifelong education sector is still relatively under-developed. Judging simply from constituency feedback, the current system is generally working well. I hope it can be sustained and further improved, not least through the bringing into operation of the enabling parts of the Bill, even though we are now passing through more challenging economic and financial times.

Maintenance grants arise only where one is studying away from home. Whereas in Britain there is a strong tradition of students going to colleges away from home, not least for financial reasons, here students operate where possible from a home base. In that regard, many parts of the country, including most cities, are well provided for, even if there is a short commuting distance involved. In addition, since the provision of a stock of purpose built student accommodation under the Finance Act 1998, for which I personally pushed strongly as a member of the tax strategy group at the time, the frantic search for suitable digs each autumn has eased off considerably.

In principle, like any measure for the relief of taxpayers, there is something to be said for it, but, from a financial point of view, I doubt that the tax relief proposed by Deputy Crawford for accommodation is practicable. It immediately raises equity considerations in that 40% of income earners do not pay tax. I am not sure, therefore, that it would be the best way of approaching the issue as against further improving maintenance grants if there is any money available.

There is one city, Waterford, and one region, the south east, of which Waterford is the capital, that does not have a university. The Government commissioned and has published the report, which I welcome, on the case made by Waterford Institute of Technology for designation as a university. I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the institute's foundation advisory board as a public representative and have supported the case for some years, with virtually every public representative, employer and trade union body in the south east region.

I would like to be objective about the Port report. It is cautiously supportive but with many caveats, some of them insisted upon, I suspect, by the Department of Education and Science. Dr. Port states: "We would respect and support WIT's view that it has many of the features of a university, and arguably should be considered as a candidate for university status". However, that is set against what he explicitly describes as departmental opposition against further transfers into the university sector. Dr. Port is more emphatic in his view of the economic, social and cultural benefits for the region.

I understand and appreciate the Department's concern about maintaining the integrity of the IT sector. There are two other applications, from DIT — I have a sister working there — and, since yesterday, Cork Institute of Technology. There may be strong educational arguments in both cases, but Waterford is unique in having a strong regional case. I would not exempt the north west from this, as part of that region is close to Derry, with the University of Ulster Magee campus. Cross-Border co-operation in this area and agreement on reciprocity of conditions for students studying on each side of the Border is very important.

As an adviser, I was involved to some degree in 1989 in consultations on the decision to make the national institutes of higher education in Limerick and Dublin into universities. There was a great deal of resistance at the time, both covert political, so to speak, and from some of the existing universities. The Taoiseach at the time and the Minister of State's father, the late Charles Haughey, with the Minister at the time, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, had to assert themselves, take their courage in both hands, resist the pleadings of former institutions which they had attended, alumni etc., and make the decision. Does anyone regret that decision or believe it was a mistake? They were the first two universities created in the State; Maynooth has been designated since. I suspect there is a good deal of lobbying by existing universities against the creation of a university in the south east, but as Dr. Port points out, Waterford is 100 kilometres away from a similar institution. With all due respect, it is not for UCD or UCC to decide whether there will be a university in the south east.

I draw the attention of the House, the Minister and the Department to the fact that our neighbours, but also our competitors, in Britain in the past week have published and adopted a far more positive and forward approach to this issue. Mr. John Denham, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, published a paper entitled, A New University Challenge. I will read some key passages from this document. The introduction states:

Never have universities been more important to Britain. They unlock the talents of students; promote shared values; extend opportunities to an increasingly wide range of people; drive local and national economic growth; provide a highly skilled workforce; create innovative world beating products and services; create jobs; and support communities.

This document:

(i) sets out evidence and case studies on how local higher education delivered or supported by universities unlocks the talents of people and drives economic regeneration, and identifies key success factors from past projects . . .

Universities unlock the talent of students . . .

Locally based provision is made particularly important by our goal of reaching out to adults who have missed out on higher education in the past.

There is then a reference to the development of the University of Essex in Southend. It states: "For the University of Essex, the new building represents the beginning of a vision to make Southend a vibrant university town". It further states:

Local university provision can help an area retain skills. We know that many students stay to work in their university town, which is a way of retaining their skills and talent to benefit the local area. Conversely, if people are forced to leave to study, many of them will not return afterwards, and will ultimately make their homes elsewhere.

Higher education brings wider social benefits. Graduates enjoy better health; lower levels of obesity; are more likely to vote; and are more likely to display tolerant attitudes.

The report continues:

Locally focused higher education does not only have a role in reversing economic decline. It can be a major component of strategies of population growth, ensuring that new development has access to sources of skills and innovation.

On the development of the University Campus Suffolk, it stated, "Prior to the development of University Campus Suffolk, Suffolk was the largest county with a population of over 500,000 without an Higher Education Institution."

Concerning the development of the new university in Cumbria, the report continues:

The new university development in Cumbria will not only deliver — on the doorstep — higher education in one of the most isolated and deprived areas of England but it will also provide, with partners, the skills that are essential to create the workforce that will decommission the Sellafield nuclear power plant.

The University of Cumbria was launched last year as a new kind of institution with distributed campuses designed to meet the diverse needs of learners in urban and rural locations and to serve employers and employees in both the public and private sectors throughout Cumbria and beyond.

The report's findings state:

We will make the process of gaining a university centre one that better fits our understanding of the role of universities in unlocking potential of towns and people and driving local regeneration. The Government's investment in new higher education provision to unlock the talents of people and to drive local economic regeneration, has been a success story in recent years. But we want to go further. The Government has therefore asked the Funding Council to lead a debate with a wide range of organisations to develop a transparent mechanism for communities to put together a bid for funds for a higher education centre or university campus.

As Members know, the attitude in Ireland is rather discouraging to those institutions applying for university status.

It is clear the British Government is adopting a different and more forward and up-beat approach. Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT, would have no difficulty obtaining university status immediately on that basis. Waterford and the south-east region cannot be held to ransom to a too-cautious departmental policy. We must compete internationally and the south east's per capita income is languishing somewhat.

I welcome the publication of Dr. Port's report and want it debated in the House. In the case of WIT there is a compelling educational and regional policy case for university status. There is no other rival application that has the same force as WIT's. I hope the Minister for Education and Science and the Government will take a courageous decision — it would be courageous because vested interests are involved — to provide Waterford and the south east with the university everyone in the region desires. Neither the rest of the country nor the Government have the right to hold back the south east in this.

I accept there are wider policy considerations. I do not favour every institute of technology being turned into a university. Some have separate roles and provide a more limited range of courses than that normally associated with a university. WIT is a mature institute of technology.

See this speech in context