Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We are talking, to a large extent, about how SUSI applies, its criteria and eligibility. It is worth remarking upon that and I invite comments from ISSU and the USI on this matter because SUSI is constrained. SUSI does not go far enough most of the time. The Minister for Education and Skills is advising people to use the SUSI grant for accommodation, which is not what it is for, and even if it was, it would not go anywhere near far enough, particularly in the large, urban centres. We need to address how this applies and ensure that everyone who is entitled gets a grant but we must acknowledge the fact that, very often, the grant does not go anywhere near far enough to ensure that people have the right to third level education such as they should and as was intended. I invite comments on that.

I have a question for Mr. Connolly, which is similar to that put by Deputy O'Sullivan. SUSI is rules-based. I am, in general, a fan of rules-based systems. For example, 95% of the social welfare system is rules-based but 5% is still discretionary. We experience the value of that in our constituency offices. There is no way that a set of rules can always take into account every set of circumstances; it is impossible. I believe that discretion is of value in the social welfare system. Is there any element of discretion in the SUSI grant process? Do our guests think it would benefit from discretion? Do they think there are circumstances in which discretion could be applied? I imagine there are and discretion exists in many other areas of public provision.

I have also come across the issue of how SUSI deals with evaluating income in instances where overtime is a significant consideration. Could our guests clarify that? I have come across cases of people on a 12-month contract with Apple, or a company such as that, and something big happens in the plant that results in three months of fantastic overtime and, at the end of it, they return to a very modest income. People can sometimes find themselves in difficulty because, on paper and for a period, it looks as if their income is much higher than it is over a longer period and they are under a lot more financial pressure than their overtime-inflated income suggests.

The issue of dependency has been, rightly, commented on a few times. I will give two examples of cases I have come across, one involving a person aged under 23 and the other concerning a person over 23. The first case involves a man who was just out of school and who had a difficult relationship with his parents. He was couch-surfing and his parents would not give him so much as the money for a cup of coffee; no support was being given at all. The young man could not afford to find accommodation of his own and was couch-surfing in the homes of friends and other relatives. He found it very difficult to establish that he was not dependent on his parents. My recollection of the case is that SUSI deemed him not to be independent but the case went through an independent appeals process and he was found to be independent.

It still took a very long time and it was very difficult for him in those circumstances.

I also found one case of someone who was over 23. The automatic assumption concerning those under 23 is difficult but again I refer to discretion. We are in a housing crisis. People find themselves in situations they do not expect. I came across a nursing student who was entering her second year. She supported herself through her first year and the cost of doing so meant she had to return to her parents' home. She was welcome there but she was married with three kids. She moved back to her parents' house because of the accommodation situation. She was a mature student. She discovered SUSI in her second year and sought to apply for the grant to ease the pressure on her income. She was married with three kids but was not treated as an independent student. Surely that cannot be right. It may be within the rules but it indicates the need for discretion.

I was previously a spokesperson on children. People dealing with children leaving care and people in aftercare indicated to me that they found the SUSI system to be very rigid. There is a need for additional flexibility for those who are in aftercare or are leaving care. People might leave a care situation, apply for a third level course, find it is not for them and drop out. Suddenly, that door is closed to them and there is not enough flexibility. Perhaps these people should not be obliged to defer for so long or perhaps they should have the option to defer without losing their entitlements. Like those in direct provision, they are a particular category and supporting them through their education requires a specific approach.