Mr. Conor Stitt:

Senator Moran asked about adjacency rates. When the decision was made to extend the distance criterion from 24 km to 45 km, the implication was that all students living within 45 km of their college are expected to commute. That is not realistic in many cases, however, because a distance of 45 km as the crow flies might not translate to a reasonable commute. In Galway, where I live, parts of east Clare are within 45 km of the college campus. However, anybody who knows Galway knows there is the ring around Galway Bay and factors like that to consider. We already gave the example of Dungloe in west Donegal, which is an 80 km round trip for students of Letterkenny Institute of Technology. That is not really a reasonable proposition. We have estimated the fuel and public transport costs and the options available to students living these types of distances from their college. In some cases, people would not be able to make it in time for their lectures or would be very late arriving home. In the case of Dundalk Institute of Technology, students living in Drogheda no longer qualify for support. This is a harsh measure which has bluntly cut out a lot of students or seen a slashing of their grant payment.

Deputy McConalogue suggested that the committee might be able to obtain some additional costings from the Department, which we would greatly appreciate. In terms of the adjustment in respect of the adjacency rate, the appropriate calculations would have been included in the budget costings. I understand the adjacency rate saving is a projected €12 million per year and €50 million over four years.

In terms of how students aged over 23 can prove they are living independently of their parents for the purpose of qualifying for grant support, we would recommend that they be able to approach their local community welfare officer, who could verify on the student's behalf, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the student is living independently. This might involve the welfare officer putting a stamp on a form and submitting it to SUSI. One of the difficulties many people have with the new regime is that the centralisation of the process means they can no loner go into their local authority office and meet a person face to face and get an issue sorted. It is only possible now to talk to somebody by telephone, which means the personal touch is gone. Where we formerly had that type of sit-down contact there was more scope for flexibility, discussions could be had and a decision might be made there and then rather than having to send off documents and wait weeks for a response. I have suggested that community welfare officers might be the persons best suited to assist students in these matters because they would have sufficient training and expertise to provide assistance and, in a context where we are seeing a reduction in the numbers on the live register, they might be in a position to offer that assistance. While welfare officers were among the busiest of civil servants in recent years, they might now have the time to perform this role.

We would be strongly in favour of a situation where decisions by SUSI are more transparent. We certainly do not want to see a situation where it is left to the authority of SUSI to define the standards. Where those standards are too high, the Minister and the Department should be free to administer guidelines in that regard. Certainly, in the case of establishing estrangement or independence from parents, the standards are far too high. SUSI has a massive labour force and it seems to us that staff are essentially given a party line. They are told, for example, that if a student wants to prove estrangement, he or she must do X, Y and Z and there is no flexibility in it. Instead, in these types of cases, any evidence that it is possible to provide should be considered. When SUSI has been challenged on this issue, it has claimed it will accept any evidence. However, in our experience, that is not what is happening when students initiate the assessment process.