Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all those who presented to the committee. I will follow on from the point made by Deputy Catherine Martin on the Cassells report. We discussed this in private session. That it has been referred to the European Union means a further delay. It needs to be addressed and this committee wishes to move forward on it.

The other major issue, which Ms Fitzpatrick mentioned, is the cost of accommodation for students, which has vastly increased in recent years. This puts great pressure on students regardless of whether they access SUSI. That is one reason I wished to concentrate on the adjacent rate versus the non-adjacent rate. I understand that Mr. Connolly is not here to discuss policy but can he speak on the use of measuring the shortest distance rather than the indicated journey duration, which is the terminology used in the regulations? We all know of situations where the shortest distance is not the route one can take for whatever reason, whether one takes public transport or not. In many cases, people are forced to drive, which also adds to pollution, etc. Can all the witnesses indicate whether this arises as one of the big issues preventing young people from accessing the full SUSI grant, whereby they cannot live at home but still are unable to access the full grant?

My constituency office receives many cases relating to appeals, as no doubt do others. The appeals system beyond SUSI has some more flexibility. Do Mr. Connolly and the SUSI office find it frustrating that SUSI is unable to show the same flexibility? We have experience of several cases that eventually were overturned and where the grant was given but the regulations under SUSI are very specific. Presumably it is not possible to veer from them. I do not know whether Mr. Connolly can answer that question but it seems that more flexibility in the highly rigid SUSI system might address many of these issues.

The regulations regarding holiday earnings are also very rigid. Both Ms Fanning and Ms Fitzpatrick made the point that a deterrent to students working does not make sense. The holiday period in the summer is just June, July and August, it does not even go into September. There is an argument for more flexibility. The system has been in place since 2012, the legislation having been passed in 2011. It is time to review the lack of flexibility.

I have another question specifically for Mr. Connolly. My constituency office dealt with a case where a family received an inheritance.

That seems to have been taken into account in determining whether the son or daughter of that particular family could get a SUSI grant, even though it was only a once-off payment, not a yearly income. That is totally wrong given it is a once-off amount that accrued because an older family member died and left money to the family.

Others have covered, and will cover again, the issue of dependency. Students could be married with kids and in a partnership at the age of 23 and have no financial dependence on their parents whatsoever and yet still be considered a dependant and have their parents' incomes taken into account when considering their eligibility for a grant. That needs to be reviewed.

I have one more question for Mr. Connolly. Once defined, an applicant's class continues to apply for the duration of their studies at that level and an applicant is, thus, only reclassified on progressing from further education to higher education. It also seems very unfair that, even if circumstances change, one cannot make a change during those studies. Is that correct? That also needs to be reviewed.