Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending and presenting. The financial pressure on students is extraordinary. We could deal with each question and each aspect of the SUSI programme individually, but that would fundamentally be to miss the bigger picture, that being, underinvestment in the core funding of third level institutions by the Government. We should not ignore that in our discussions today - it is the elephant in the room. We have the second highest student fees in the EU. If the UK leaves, we will be promoted to the No. 1 spot. That is the Government unfairly placing the burden on students. It must change.

The Government has chosen to cast a blind eye on the country's crumbling third level institutions.

In 2008, State spending on third level education was just under €9,000 per student and it is less than €5,000 per student 11 years later. That does not make sense. It is no wonder we saw reports yesterday that Trinity College Dublin has dropped more than 40 places in the international university ranking. It used to be in the top 100 universities. Core funding is linked to everything we are discussing today and that has been ignored by the Government. Despite every member of this committee seeking to have the concerns raised in the Cassells report addressed, they have been ignored by the Government. Do the student witnesses feel that if core funding were addressed, it would relieve the current pressure on students?

The non-adjacent rate criteria have increased the distance from home to study location from 24 km to 45 km. I have met representatives from the USI a few times. In its pre-budget submission, the USI refers to Birr, County Offaly, which is 40 km from the nearest third level institution, namely, Athlone Institute of Technology. However, the earliest a student from Birr can arrive at Athlone Institute of Technology if using a bus service is 1.25 p.m. That is of no use to students as they will have missed half a day. The USI also mentions that Killarney is 36 km from the Institute of Technology, Tralee, but the cost of commuting to the town is only €1.50 less per week by bus or 10 cent less per week by train than the cost of student accommodation.

The non-adjacent rate criteria must be reviewed. I appreciate that as the criteria apply generally, they may be seen as fair, but the methods of calculation seem to make little or no sense. They do not take into account glaring issues as outlined in the case studies I mention. We have appalling public transport in this country, especially in the more rural parts outside Dublin where students face greater dilemmas when the 45 km criterion applies. We must ensure the calculations are done in a more effective way. I understand the transparency involved in using Google maps but it does not take into account realities for students as outlined in the two case studies I mentioned.

Has there been any engagement with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, specifically with respect to the provision of public transport to third level institutions? Does SUSI envisage a framework that would address some of the issues outlined in the Athlone and Kerry cases I have brought to the attention of the committee thanks to the work of the USI?

We cannot ignore the core funding aspect in discussing these matters but we also cannot ignore equality of access to education. If we are discussing barriers to people accessing SUSI, we must consider barriers to people simply trying to access education. This brings into play the matter of direct provision. Asylum seekers are currently considered international students when applying for higher education, meaning they must pay somewhere between €10,000 and €20,000 in fees. What sort of country are we? This indicates to asylum seekers that they can only go to second level. That is the message we are giving these people who are most vulnerable and who we should try to support and protect. We are meant to ensure they can get a fair shot in our country but we are saying "No". It is a policy matter but one we must address. A number of measures have been taken, including a pilot support scheme, but that has been in place since 2015. How long should something remain a pilot scheme before real and long-lasting measures are implemented? We are four years on.

Could the criterion of proving residency for three of the past five years in order to be eligible for SUSI services be reviewed? Those who are seeking asylum do not get to choose how long they will be living in our country so how will they meet that criterion? They are seeking refuge and also a fair shot. Education is the greatest equaliser of all but only if we make it equal.

That is a conversation that needs to be had. The criterion regarding residency for three of the last five years must be reviewed.

Ms Fanning outlined the dependency criterion in great detail. I do not understand why all students up to the age of 23 years are classed as dependants, regardless of their living status, whether they are homeless or are not living with their families because they had decided not to or had been forced from their home. We are not considering these cases. Will someone explain the logic of this, as it is not the reality of many students today? I anticipate that it relates to how mature students are classified as such from the age of 23 but that does not relate to dependency. Many people are totally independent from the age of 18, 19 or 20. Does SUSI or the USI have information on how many students fall into this category of being independent under the SUSI criteria were it not for the age restriction?