Mr. Conor Stitt:

I will address the questions as I received them.

Senator Averil Power asked whether the presentation had been sent to the Minister. The USI president presented it to her, although they have had only informal discussions up to this point. However, nothing concrete, in terms of a recommendation or favourable decisions, has yet been fed back to us. We will have further sit-downs with the Minister, but we just wanted to bring the paper to the committee to obtain feedback.

The issue of estrangement was mentioned. It is a massive problem but not something with which I would dare to become involved. There is no formal recognition or certification process in Irish law where someone is estranged from his or her parents. That is where students fall between the cracks. SUSI may ask for Garda reports or reports by the HSE or a social worker, but it might be the case that none of them has had dealings with certain people. The Garda will not issue a letter to the effect that a person is estranged if it has not dealt with the person involved. I know that a number of students have given evidence to the effect that they are estranged, but it has not been deemed acceptable by SUSI. We will definitely ask the Minister to look at the existing guidelines and the process followed by SUSI in this matter. I suggest the guidelines be widened. We should generally accept anything that can act as evidence of estrangement and SUSI should be eligible to make an informed decision. Before now we believed its process was too stringent. A number of the claims are being referred to the completely impartial grant appeals board which is an arm of the Department of Education and Skills. We do not want cases to constantly have go through that arm of the Department because the standards of SUSI are too high.

I shall reply to the points made by the Chairman. On assets, I completely understand the concerns expressed. What we have included in the paper might not be considered to be committed to any strategy or attack on the issue. USI has, however, been pragmatic. We realise there is a certain pot of money available for student supports and that if a student receives a grant fraudulently, there will be less available for those students really in need. In that respect, we want the matter to be dealt with where fraudulent claims of income are supplied or where applications are submitted by what I have termed "asset rich families". We do not want a farmer to be told he or she has too much land and must sell a fraction of it to fund a college education for his or her children. Equally, we do not want someone who owns a local newsagents to do the same. There is no difference between owning farmland and a local business; in that context, there is no rural-urban divide. We should not jump into such a strategy willy-nilly. We do not want to have a situation where people will have to sell land or a business to support a student in his or her college years. We are pressing to have a group of relevant stakeholders brought together by the Minister and the matter fully discussed. We want a strategic point of attack in legislation which will not affect the person reliant on his or her farmland or family business but rather the person who owns a classic car collection. We need to sit down and properly discuss the matter. It would be inappropriate to proceed without first outlining the background.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell mentioned interest rates. That matter has not been brought into the foreground. Grants are provided by local authorities or the grants authority, SUSI. We have position papers on State-backed loans and banks giving out loans. We hold certain positions on the matter, but they are based purely on the provision of students supports and grants. That is why we did not deal with the matter earlier.