Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the second part of this meeting we have representatives of the Union of Students in Ireland. They are here to discuss proposals for the reform of the student grant system for third level education.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We have discussed the student grant system on a number of occasions. Representatives of SUSI have appeared before the committee a few times. Today representatives of the Union of Students in Ireland will give their proposals for reform of the grant system. I am pleased to welcome Ms Annie Hoey and Mr. Conor Stitt. I invite Ms Hoey to make her presentation.

Ms Annie Hoey:

On behalf of USI I thank the Chairman and committee members for inviting us to set out our proposals for grant reform within the grant scheme legislation. As the Chairman said, my name is Annie Hoey and I am the vice president for equality and citizenship. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Conor Stitt, who is the vice president for the Border, midlands and western region.

This paper has been in formation for the past two years. Reform of SUSI and the grant system is a key issue for USI. It is no secret that there were some teething problems with SUSI in the beginning. However, since then things have vastly improved and USI has a very good and positive working relationship with SUSI. However, there are still many flaws and students continue to fall through the cracks. At last year's annual USI congress the then Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, challenged USI to formulate papers offering solutions to the issues about which we were concerned. We did this with our NERI paper on publicly funded education and we are here today with our paper and proposals for reform of the grant scheme legislation.

Access to higher education is a core component of USI's work. Based on our work on the ground we can say that the present financial support structure is not working optimally. The student maintenance grant has been cut significantly over the past decade at a time when the cost of living has increased and rental accommodation costs have risen by an average 10% nationally over the past 12 months. The proposals in this paper seek to rectify some of the inequalities and problems that exist within the current requirements for the student maintenance grant. What we describe to the committee today, as outlined in our grant reform paper, are issues many members of the committee have come across in their constituency offices. From studying the replies to parliamentary questions and the minutes of previous meetings here we can see that the issues we outline come up repeatedly and are dealt with on a case by case basis. We are proposing a structural reform for many of these areas rather than continuing down the arduous road of solving each issue as it comes up.

The issue of main concern to students and the USI is that of the adjacency rate regulations. To receive the non-adjacent rate applicants must have a home address more than 45 km as the crow flies from their place of study. This distance was extended from 24 km to 45 km in budget 2011. The extension of the adjacency rate has had a profound impact on those not living in the greater Dublin area or the east coast of Ireland where incomes are lower and grant dependency is higher. In rural areas distances as the crow flies rarely equate to a consistent travel experience between locations.

For example, Dungloe in County Donegal falls within the 45 km of Letterkenny as the crow flies but the distance travelled is nearly 80 km. Those who dwell on islands are not automatically allocated the non-adjacent rate. For example the Aran Islands are considered adjacent to Galway city even though it requires a ferry journey.

To tackle these issues we propose: a full reinstatement of the old 24 km rate; changing the 45 km to travel distance, not geographical distance; the entitlement of non-adjacent rate to those living on islands; and the reinstatement of the entitlement of mature students to the non-adjacent rate which was also cut in budget 2011.

On the issue of independence and estrangement, currently, a student must have turned 23 years old on 1 January preceding the start of the course to be considered as an independently supported student. Students must provide evidence of their independence to the satisfaction of the grant authority. The problem lies with the standard of evidence SUSI requires. Students applying as estranged from their parents, must evidence it by documentation such as letters and-or reports from the Garda, social workers, the HSE or a court order. The number of students affected by estrangement is low, but seeking out excessive verifications of this often distressing period in their life can have a profound effect on them and their studies.

At a meeting between with the HEA and USI, SUSI accepted that the standards for approving estrangement are too high. We propose that the Minister for Education and Skills send out clear guidelines to grant authorities which could give more allowances to applicants trying to evidence estrangement.

Proving independence can be an onerous task, particularly for mature students. In the current legislation anyone living in the parental home is assessed on his or her parents' income as a dependent student. This does not take into account a number of issues such as lone parents going through a separation who may move into their parents' home for a short period in order to tide them over during their marital relationship breakdown. Nor does it take into account that some people live at home as carers.

USI recommends that students over the age of 23 who are classed as mature students should be assessed on their personal income and not that of their parents or have their community welfare officer determine independent living.

Postgraduate fees and supports have already been mentioned at the committee today. At a time when we are building a knowledge and skills-based economy that can compete internationally, postgraduate qualifications are becoming the norm in many sectors. Unfortunately the postgraduate maintenance grant was abolished in budget 2012 and the following year postgraduate applications by 15% to 20%. The reduction was 19% in NUIG and approximately 13% in UCD. There are different income limits for those in undergraduate study from those pursuing a postgraduate qualification. USI recommends that these income limits be brought in line with each other and be the same as the undergraduate limit.

Our document outlines further issues regarding social welfare payments and cut-off rates.

The loss of a parent's support through death or marital breakdown can have a significant detrimental impact on a student's ability to continue with studies. Students who suffer the death of a parent must account for all incomes, including a widow's pension during reassessment. USI recommends that extra payments and one-off payments such as a widow's pension should not be included in the reassessment of a student.

In one case in my institution, UCC, a student was asked to provide a coroner's report in order to prove the death of her father. The distress this caused her and her family eventually led to her dropping out of her course. The only evidence a student should ever be required to produce is a death certificate. The grant scheme has no guidelines on marital breakdown. This can be a particularly stressful time for students. We request that the Minister for Education and Skills should issue guidelines to SUSI on how to evidence separation.

On assets as a possible route of determining means-based eligibility, USI has cautioned against proceeding with this without first setting up a feasibility group of relevant stakeholders. Assets should not be assessed if they are the primary source of income for a family.

What I have outlined here is only a summary of what committee members got in the paper. It is quite long so I will not continue for much longer. I wish to thank the Chairperson and other committee members for giving us a chance to talk to them today. We look forward to answering any questions they may have.

Averil Power (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Hoey and Mr. Stitt for attending the committee today. The USI paper was excellent. Last night, I spoke at the USI student achievement awards and there has been an increasing professionalisation from that organisation over the past year, which is really positive. It is useful for us, rather than criticising the system, to propose changes that can actually be made. I have a couple of questions. Has this presentation gone to the Minister yet? If so, what kind of feedback, if any, has the USI had? Has the USI been promised any level of engagement to get a response from the Department on the individual recommendations, and the same with SUSI?

I would like to get more detail on the issue of estrangement. When SUSI's representatives attended this committee a few months ago, I raised this issue with them. They acknowledged that the current system has its problems and should be changed. Perhaps the USI representatives can provide more details on how an alternative system could work. Obviously it is difficult and there are sensitivities there, particularly if a person does not have relationships. The whole point of estrangement is that they do not have a relationship with their parents so they may not be able to get co-operation from them in obtaining the type of documentation they need to prove that. It would be helpful therefore is the USI could give us more details on that matter.

Ms Hoey went through each of the areas in considerable detail, which is helpful. We can discuss this in private session, but I propose that the committee should forward the USI paper to the Department and seek its formal response on whether it agrees with the recommendations.

The question of assets is always a sensitive one. Coming from Dublin, I know there has always been a sense that PAYE workers - the people whose income is entirely transparent - are hard done by and that others have been able to manage assets. There were revelations of particular examples of that in the book published by the last Minister's special adviser. An example was given of somebody from a farming background who had considerable assets and how such people are able to work the current system. Does the USI have any sense that there is a willingness to change that? What would a fairer system look like? What would the USI propose in order to treat assets fairly?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the USI representatives very much. I admire them greatly because many people come in here with incantations of awfulness, but do not come up with solutions. Well done to the USI for coming up with solutions that are reasonable, achievable and well laid out. They are good examples of what the witnesses are talking about. I am sure they have many such examples and picked out very relevant ones.

I am interested that the USI representatives did not mention the disgraceful behaviour of the banks on undergraduate and postgraduate grants, which is a bugbear of mine. Even more disgraceful is that bank interest rates are at one level when undergraduates are studying, but they are increased when students qualify. Banks now have branches on university campuses all over the country. At the moment, people are trying to convince the Government to change all kinds of variable rates, so this locks into what the USI representatives are talking about here. Perhaps they could elaborate on it. Well done to them. I think Senator Power's suggestion is a good one which we should pursue.

Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Hoey for her presentation. I was shocked to see that a person would be asked for a coroner's report to state that somebody belonging to them had passed away. That is shocking. Like other speakers, I think the USI research is really great and interesting to read. As a member of the Government side, I cannot always agree with what comes in this format, but the presentation is worth reading. It is something to chew over when considering reform. I will be raising it in the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party.

It may not be Government policy, but I agree with Ms Hoey that mature students should be assessed on their personal income and not on their parents' income. I have always believed that. It is shocking at times that young people are seen as leaning on their parents for everything. Many young people are independent and want to be seen as such, even though they might live at home. They should not be assessed on their parents' incomes because every parent is different and cannot be in one category.

I will certainly read the presentation in more detail, but what I have already looked over is very interesting.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Hoey for the detailed presentation. It is great when people come in here to give such a comprehensive report and come up with practical solutions. I am wearing two hats because I am listening to the USI as a parent who currently has three children in third-level education. Hopefully, I will have a fourth in third-level in September. I concur with what the USI is seeking, which is realistic. My 23-year-old daughter was judged as being ineligible because she is living at home, yet she does everything independently. That is the case with many 23-year-olds. On the one hand we are constantly saying "be as independent as you can", but on the other hand they are not being given the opportunities.

Ms Hoey referred to adjacent rates and said that people who live on islands do not necessarily qualify for NUIG, but that beggars belief. I am 50 miles from Dublin on the M1 corridor, which is grand. It is a completely different story, however, for someone in Dungloe or Rannafast in Donegal who is trying to access college education.

Can Ms Hoey elaborate on the add-on years and the repeat years? Some important points need to be brought out there. I have received representations from people who have had to repeat one subject but they dropped out due to the financial implications involved.

It is not often that everyone on a committee gives such praise, so Ms Hoey should lap it up. It does not happen every day.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join with the Chairperson and other colleagues in welcoming Ms Hoey and Mr. Stitt. I thank them for their comprehensive presentation and for identifying what they believe are appropriate solutions. We should forward it to the Department and seek costings for the various USI proposals.

The issue of independence always jumps out at me. I have come across a number of such cases with under-23s. Last year, I remember one case involving a 22 year old man who was living with his partner and two children. He was being assessed on his parents' income and his own income, but one cannot stand over such things. There are a number of instances like that every year. Likewise for the over-23s, difficulties arise every year concerning people's ability to provide evidence of not being domiciled with their parents. They are falling through the cracks and as a result of that they are excluded. There is a common problem in that the Department sets the terms of reference for the grant scheme to SUSI. SUSI implements it rigidly so there is no buffer zone between the Department and SUSI to assess extreme cases. It is black and white, and as a result many people cannot access the system.

I thank the delegation for putting the proposal together which we will promote.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with other members that the proposal is practical and pragmatic, but I do not agree with all of it. The setting up of SUSI has possibly made the system more transparent; therefore, we can have more confidence in it, unlike the old one. Also, the demographics have changed in how grants are awarded, which says something about the system in place prior to the setting up of SUSI.

USI's view of assets is a fudge. I have attended briefings by it and believe there is a battle within it. Those running it favour the status quo,which very much means that the system favours people living in rural areas as opposed to those living in urban areas under the PAYE system and that it also favours the the self-employed. In this regard, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence and some stories do stack up. I refer to the children of doctors receiving grants as opposed to somebody who is the child of a bus driver. Such claims lead to a question mark being placed over the current system. That is the only difficulty I have with the proposal. The USI should show leadership in the issue. It should outline what is the right thing to do and decide whether assets should form part of the picture.

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.

Ms Annie Hoey:

We mentioned mature students and their personal income, an issue we have found to be problematic. Last week I attended the forum on lone parents organised by Senator Katherine Zappone, at which I heard alarming stories which I had not heard before. I heard about a woman who had gone through a marital breakdown. She lived at home for about one month to try to sort herself out. As a result of living at home she lost rent supplement and was deemed to be dependent on her father, even though she was in her thirties. This had left her incredibly distressed. She was pregnant at the time and also had a four year old child. The upheaval had had an impact on her ability to cope. She ended up having to take a year out to reassess where she was going and try to get back on track. Someone should never have to take a year out to sign on to become eligible to continue his or her education.

There is a similar problem in providing proof of independence. It is difficult to move straightaway from being an undergraduate to a postgraduate student. No student should have to sign on for one year to prove he or she is independent from his or her parents. It does not make sense that people must do this to prove they are independent.

The issue of added years has caused confusion. My sister had such a problem. She was told there was no support available and was unable to find any information online. If grant authorities cannot find the information, students definitely will not be able to find it, which is worrying.

On the issue of mitigating circumstances, people do not necessarily repeat just because they are lazy or having a great time. There are serious reasons such as marital breakdown, the loss of a parent, illness, etc. Such circumstances have a massive impact on the ability of students to return to education. I started college in 2006 and every year since I have seen students drop out for personal reasons. They were of the view that they would not receive the support needed to continue studying.

We get telephone calls all the time from students on courses at level 7 on the National Framework of Qualifications who wish to avail of the option of doing an additional year to obtain a level 8 qualification. It seems, however, that as far as SUSI is concerned, that add-on year amounts to a whole new course and participants are no longer eligible for existing supports. Everything essentially goes flying out the window. We would like to see clarity in respect of all courses that have the option of an add-on year, so that people are not left in a situation where their supports are withdrawn. Students often commence a course in an institute of technology because of the points level, because it is local to them and so on, with the intention of proceeding to level 8 by way of the conversion year. After completing three years, however, they are told they no longer qualify for support. That is not acceptable. We are talking about a continuation of the same course, albeit perhaps with a slightly different name. We would like to see an awareness on the part of SUSI that this option is available and an accommodation of it, rather than having this back and forth we are seeing at the moment.

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.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentation, their useful and pragmatic report and their engagement with members. We will follow up on Senator Power's proposal at the next meeting.