In July 1995, when he was Fianna Fail spokesman on education and the Gaeltacht, Micheal Martin wrote an article for The Irish Times criticising Niamh Bhreathnach's decision to abolish third-level fees. His comments in that article about the third-level maintenance grant suggest he then favoured substantially increasing the level of the grant to enable students from less well-off families to attend college. When Martin wrote the article, the maximum maintenance grant for a student living away from home was approximately £40 a week. More than three years later, 18 months after Martin came to office, the maximum weekly grant works out at £45.89.
Excerpts from the Minister's article suggest that he saw increasing the grant as a vital measure in ensuring students from all financial backgrounds could go to college.
On the cost of living for students, he said: "It is an incontrovertible fact that the present level of maintenance grant bears no relation to the actual costs of maintaining a student away from home at college. The average maintenance grant works out at £40 approximately per week, which would hardly pay the rent for a student living in rented accommodation."
He was particularly concerned about the plight of PAYE families: "It is accepted by all that the present third-level grant system is totally inequitable and discriminates in an appalling manner against the PAYE sector. The income thresholds in the present system are simply too low . . . The scheme is too rigid and people who are marginally over the income limits suffer unduly as a result."
The future Minister acknowledged that it was close to impossible for students to get by on the maintenance grant: "There is little point in securing a place in college in the first place if one does not have the financial resources to survive in college for the duration of one's course. It is becoming increasingly difficult for many students to survive in college now due to the low level of maintenance grants."
This summer, the Minister had his first opportunity to raise the grant. However, any largesse was confined to making the existing grant available to a broader range of students. The grant scheme was extended to Post Leaving Certificate at a cost of £16.5 million and an assessment allowance for families with more than one student was extended to a broader range of courses.
The grants scheme was also extended to those taking third-level foundation courses and students moving up from a three-year pass or general degree to a four-year honours degree.
However, the maximum grant for students living away from home went up by just 1.7 per cent, or £28 per year, at a time when inflation was 2.5 per cent.
Family income thresholds for ascertaining grant eligibility were increased by 3.2 per cent, when some economists were suggesting that the increase in the average industrial wage in the previous 12 months was double that figure. At a meeting with USI officers the week before the protest, the Minister asked the students to come back to him with specific proposals on financial assistance for mature students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It was a signal that their broader demands on increasing the grant are dead in the water.
Some 50 per cent of third-level students currently receive a grant, and the Department of Education argues that any extra funds which become available should be targeted specifically at students categorised as disadvantaged. On the question of the accommodation crisis, the Department is thought to favour facilitating colleges to build their own student residences.
While the students have a strong case in arguing that the grant has failed to keep pace with rent increases, arguing for an extra £103 million in State expenditure on student support has left them with little credibility in Marlborough Street.
