Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

——were more conservative than the older people around the table. That is something which perhaps we can discuss on another day. Students are responsible people who make lifestyle decisions of one kind or another and it is a proper way to integrate people into the system who get involved in active student politics and student union representation so they can take responsibility for their own age group and peer group, some of whom if they go through this process and have gone off-side will be seen to have done so.

There are some problems with the Bill which I will outline. The Minister may consider responding to these points at the end of Second Stage or on Committee Stage as, in many cases, amendments will be tabled in regard to them.

Further streamlining of the grants system is possible. While the actual schemes for the various grants will be unified into one, the same cannot be said for the number of authorities issuing them. A reduction from 66 authorities to 33 is a rationalisation, albeit a conservative one. The Bill specifically "requires attendance by a student on a full-time basis" in section 9(1)(b). This rules out any possibility of the grant system being applied to part-time students in higher education. Why does the Minister have to bolt that door so tightly closed in primary legislation? I invite her to consider the possibility of varying her approach.

I accept the Department of Finance would probably not let the Minister change it on her own but she could leave it for a successor of hers to have the possibility of doing that with the agreement of both Houses by way of a motion brought before the House so that it has democratic scrutiny and we do not lock in a rigidity we do not need. I accept that the Minister has indicated the money is not there for the abolition of part-time fees for students.

Both the Minister and her predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, are on record as saying they would have liked to see the reintroduction of fees but they realised that their political popularity is such that it would not be possible. I do not hold my breath over the implementation of the abolition of part-time fees and the provision of grants for part-time students but another day may come and another Administration may be in office when we want or need to have that flexibility. Therefore, since we are unlikely to be around this block again for a long time, it would be sensible and prudent to provide for setting the standards that are set out in the Bill — I do not challenge them as they reflect the political reality of today — but some degree of creative flexibility with democratic safeguards for both Houses could enable a successor of the Minister's to examine the possibility of providing grants in some shape or form for students doing some part-time courses. We may very well need it in terms of labour market flexibility to encourage people to move sideways from one sector of a declining economy into a sector that is growing or developing to facilitate that movement to enable the cost of their upskilling and upgrading to be facilitated by the provision of grants on top of redundancy payments and other entitlements.

I previously referred to the more demanding residency requirement in the Bill but I accept the harmonisation that is proposed, given the cultural proximity of the four nations on these two islands. Harmonisation to avoid tourism shopping, to which the Minister referred, is something that should be examined on a continuous basis. Again, flexibility in the drafting of the legislation should be examined.

In concert with what Deputy Brian Hayes stated, the appeals procedure must produce a speedy outcome, particularly as the beginning of college for students each year is an especially costly and stressful period. Section 15(7) should include a limit on the time an awarding authority has to inform an applicant that his or her claim has been turned down. We are in some ways caught by the sequence of the sitting of the leaving certificate examination, the outcome of the results in August and then the first round of CAO offers followed by the second round of offers. Some colleges start in September and some people do not know whether they will get into college until very close to the commencement of the courses, which can give rise to cash flow problems. This problem should not be aggravated by an interminable period for decisions in the first instance followed by appeals. However, I recognise the practical constraints there. I support the system the Minister is putting in place and the possibility for the appeals board.

In terms of analysis, this Bill is a progressive reform of the grants system and for that it is to be welcomed. Yet in several respects it does not go far enough to overcome many of the problems from which the system suffers. The rationalisation of the grants system from 66 bodies to 33 is a step in the right direction but leaves several unresolved issues. The 2003 report, Supporting Equity in Higher Education stated:

The introduction of a unified scheme will require reform of the current arrangements involving administration of the existing schemes by 33 local authorities and 33 Vocational Education Committees. It is considered that administering the grants schemes through such a large number of individual agencies results in unnecessary duplication, client confusion and a greater administrative burden for the Department of Education and Science. Given the need to consolidate the schemes, to introduce more sophisticated means testing arrangements and to ensure consistency of application and client accessibility, the most appropriate delivery structure for student supports now needs to be determined.

The Student Support Bill, while addressing this issue, only does so in a half-hearted manner. Having some 33 bodies managing the grants system is fraught with danger and the Minister has recognised that in her Bill by taking out a provision to bring them into line if they go offside.

Inconsistency in the payment of grants is a major flaw in the system. Some authorities pay out quickly, while others do not. It is not essential for there to be an awarding authority in every county, but students who rely on grants to fund their education need a swift and efficient response from the bureaucracy which manages it. This should be the overwhelming priority with the Student Support Bill. Grants are first and foremost a public service, one which needs to be flexible and responsive. Due to the degree of similarity with the status quo, one wonders if the efficiency of the service will improve considerably under this Bill. That may be in part behind the delay in the drafting of this piece of legislation. Clearly it is the product of much debate in the Department.

It is pertinent to note that the Labour Party's official stance in the last general election and in our manifesto was support for complete centralisation of the grants system within the Department of Social and Family affairs. This is the best option if one takes the logic of rationalisation to its ultimate conclusion. The USI supports this proposition. This must have been debated within the Department and I would be interested on Committee Stage to hear the rationale for the decision the Minister and her Department made in this area. It has the added advantage that the Department of Social and Family Affairs is equipped with the staff and data to assess, means test and examine the identification and verification of family circumstances, etc. One wonders why we are moving to compromise by changing from 66 bodies to an uneven 33 while a good, user-friendly system is in place across the country. It has been reformed over many years by successive Ministers and by decentralisation, which has helped make the system more user-friendly and effective. One wonders why this existing, up and running, first class system of administration is being ignored while the Minister's legislation recognises some VECs are not up to the mark in efficiency of administration. We would like the Minister to examine this area. Rather than reaching this conclusion of centralisation, the Department of Education and Science is relying on the, admittedly powerful, threat of removing an awarding authority's power to issue grants as a tool to ensure greater efficiency. As I said earlier, the Bill continues to exclude part-time students from availing of the grant system. Given that the Government has already spoken about this, I wonder why the Minister is putting this into primary legislation in such a hard way.

Means testing has been debated in the past and while there must be a grant system related to household income because it is focused and targeted, there is great dissatisfaction with it in many parts of the country. Former Deputy John Ryan from North Tipperary described how PAYE workers in creameries in the county of the Minister's origin and birth watched farmers' children getting grants to go to university for which they could not qualify because they were over the so-called limit. While they were over the taxpayers' limit in terms of a verifiable PAYE income, farmers with creative accountants, to whom we have had access recently in various fora around the country, were able to manipulate and control their income so that a student qualified for a college grant. I am not saying farmers were rich. We know they were not and that the majority of them have income difficulties. However, they had the discretion to manipulate their incomes through accountants in such a way that it was never seriously challenged by the local authorities or the political infrastructure.

I do not know whether the setting of the mechanism for means testing, as distinct from the volume of the grant, is part of the Minister's remit. She will establish the threshold whereby a person in a household with a number of dependants will be deemed to qualify for a grant either in whole or in part. Not just farmers but the self-employed with small businesses and professionals had the same capacity to manipulate their household income to qualify for the grant. Now is the time to deal with that legacy from a different time. When the Minister replies to this debate she might speak about that if she is in a position to do so. Access to the grant system should be equitable. In my travels around the country I have encountered anger in small towns where lifestyles were known if not guessed at and there was a perception of inequity between one person who got a college grant and one down the road who did not. That fuels an anger and lack of social cohesion in a society which we need.

Before I move the adjournment I will refer to the Minister's reference to access and a comment I made earlier. Part of ensuring students who get grants stay in college is a welfare mentoring supportive system, which some colleges do well and others do not. There is an uneven attitude to it in the various colleges of the HEA and we have yet to examine the way the new institutes of technology under the umbrella of the HEA look after this aspect of education. It is a well-established statistical figure that many students who go to the seven universities, the institutes of technology or NCAD come from families or backgrounds where there has been an experience of third level education or their school friends go with them so they do not have the kind of example to which Deputy Hayes referred. When Professor Tom Collins was director of Dundalk Institute of Technology, he talked about the fall-out rate of students who were brilliant in the classroom but floundered socially because they were outside the support mechanism and system of a third level college where people had to be independent, think for themselves and take responsibility for their courses. It was not part of the family experience. In some cases they were the first in their families to go to a third level college and their parents did not have the experience to support it. In her reply, the Minister might look at the overall support for universities and suggest a requirement that they recognise the wider social gap and deal with it.

See this speech in context