Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Student Support Bill. Many issues have been raised in this debate, including that of attending third level colleges right across the spectrum. Broadly, I welcome the Bill. The Government made a commitment in 2002 to introduce a unified system for the maintenance grants for higher education. Many of us, as public representatives, know of the difficulties students have had in accessing grants and funding for college. The objective of the Bill is to bring forward a more coherent administration system which should facilitate a consistency of application, improve student accessibility and ensure public confidence in an awards system which delivers grants on time and to those who are most in need.

We have prided ourselves over the past 40 years, and particularly since the introduction of free secondary education, in the amount of people who have attained a third level education. The numbers have increased dramatically over the past 30 to 40 years. However, we must try to ensure that we get the maximum number of people into third level, from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Those who are well off or come from a reasonably comfortable background are always encouraged to go into further education. Education has been one of the lifelines for poverty-stricken families across the country for the past 40 or more years. A good quality education is vital. We initially provided an excellent primary education. Now we have one of the best post-primary education systems in the world. This Bill deals with the support for further education and the unifying of the various strands of student support provision.

As with many Bills brought before the House, Deputies will welcome the general thrust of the Bill and the debate thereon but specific issues will crop up from time to time. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister, the Department and the House to the issue of postgraduate students, particularly those coming from low and middle income families. Such students are often given a stipend by the third level institution they are attending or by a corporate body to enable them to pursue a postgraduate course. Such courses can take up to four and a half years to complete, as earlier speakers mentioned.

I am aware of students who have been denied the postgraduate grant because when they went to college, they were given a stipend by the college or, in one instance, by an external company, to secure their place on a course. In one case, in order to facilitate early enrolment, a company paid the fees for a postgraduate course, even though the student in question was entitled to the postgraduate grant. The grant had not been processed and the company was concerned that the student would lose his or her place on the course. Fees were paid on the understanding that the college and student grant awarding body would adjudicate on the matter and find that the student was entitled to free fees and that the fees would be reimbursed. The fees were reimbursed, but because of the strict view of the Department and the body that was administering the student support grant, the student was denied the grant, which was very unfair. The fees were only paid to make sure that the place would be kept for the student. The grant awarding body and the Department should recognise that the student should have qualified for the grant in the first instance and it should be paid retrospectively. This is one of the anomalies in the system and we should use this debate as an opportunity to raise such anomalies so they can be ironed out.

Included in the vigorous means test for awarding the student grant is a clause on exceptional circumstances, such as a dramatic change in parents' incomes, a death in the family or any other misfortune that could befall a family. We should encourage the swifter evaluation of any circumstances that change a family's income.

The Government should encourage those who are not progressing to third level to do so. There is a large variety of excellent courses and we should ensure that the maximum number of people go on to third level education. While our economy has become knowledge based through the education system, we must continue to grow the economy and ensure it stays vibrant.

People have created and funded scholarships in memory of those who, for example, fought in the War of Independence or participated in the foundation of the State. For some time, a number of the scholarships have continued thanks to the voluntary efforts of local groups and organisations and stood the test of time. Many are geared towards postgraduate students because there is a reluctance among bright and able people who have spent four years or so in college to go on to further education. The scholarships will ensure that they can access fourth level education, an important area funded by the Government in its 2006 budget. Some of the scholarships have been awarded to people from low to medium income families, allowing them to continue to third level and postgraduate education and to do excellent research work for the State. It may be time for the State to recognise the voluntary contributions made by the community groups and organisations providing these scholarships.

A key element of the Bill gives effect to the 2006 announcement that the State's 33 VECs will be given sole responsibility for administering the student maintenance grant, thereby reducing the number of grant awarding bodies from 66 to 33 and providing for greater consistency of application, clarity and accessibility for students and institutions. This provision is contained in section 2 and addresses a shortcoming, namely, that bodies interpreted the legislation and rules issued by the Department differently. I welcome that the number has been reduced. For too long, the Government has been accused inside and outside the House of creating organisations and groups to administer the system. A Bill ensuring less bureaucracy is no harm.

Section 7 makes transitional arrangements and the Bill includes provisions on reviews and inspections. It gives the Minister the power to make regulations regarding applications, including the requirement that an awarding authority give notice of its decision to applicants within a specific period. Each application for a student grant takes a long time. The majority of students who apply know they are eligible from day one, but accessing their parents' P21 information and collecting other information poses a significant difficulty in getting a grant.

While the awarding bodies have the discretion to accept applications on the basis of when the students go to college and what courses they are taking, there is an appeals board. Such boards have been established across the public sector, including by the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Social and Family Affairs, which was probably the first body to do so a number of years ago. The boards have been excellent because they allow someone with a grievance or who believes that he or she was unfairly treated by the administration of the scheme, in this instance the student support scheme, to engage in an appeals process. The person can sit down before an independent appeals body or person and make his or her case.

While we can point to the appeals board of the Department of Social and Family Affairs as being successful, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's appeals body has done good work. Many people have taken decisions made by the Department's officials to the board and made their cases, putting forward the human side of the situations. It is important that appeal cases be heard and that we continue to provide appeals bodies across the spectrum, not just in respect of student support.

The Bill provides for the retention of the existing definition of "spouses" as married couples and co-habiting heterosexual couples, pending the review of the Department of a social welfare scheme for compliance with the Equality Acts. The Bill makes a change in the residential requirement for eligibility for maintenance grants from the current one-year residence to three of the past five years residence in the State to ensure persons applying for grants will have more established links with and better integration in Ireland. This change in the residency requirement addresses the risk of "grant tourism", a key concern of the Department of Finance. Provision has been made for a temporary absence for study purposes in the EU on the basis that the student was ordinarily resident in the State before commencing study.

Some Deputies have referred to the issue of students, mature students in particular, studying outside the State who would ordinarily be entitled to grants. When they give the awarding bodies their home addresses for information and correspondence purposes, it is assumed that they are not living independently of their parents. A clear provision should be made in the Bill. Many of the people who will go before the appeals board in the first couple of years will bring this type of case. When the awarding body is given one's parents' address as one's home address and disqualifies one from the grant, it is important that some understanding be shown.

If we had debated the Bill's provisions ten years, 15 years or 20 years ago, the flexible provision in respect of people living outside the State for up to two years out of five years, allowing for a gap year and so forth, would not have been an issue. However, as Ireland has become wealthier, people have taken gap years to travel before returning to education. It is a sign of our prosperity that should be welcomed and a sign of the times.

The Bill outlines the designation of approved institutions; these are important elements of this proposed legislation and important issues that emerged from the original legislation. We should welcome the transition arrangements and implementation plans that have been outlined in the Bill.

Some courses are approved as level five, level six or other levels. In the agriculture sector, completed level six courses allow participation in various agricultural schemes such as those relating to installation aid, stamp duty and so on. People leave college at around 22 years of age and become eligible for these schemes between 28 years of age and 35 years of age. However, a course that was then a level six course may become a level five or level four course over time which will bar students from particular grants. A clear indication should be given that when a course is completed at level six, it should recognised as such, irrespective of subsequent changes to modules that may see the course shifted to a lower level. I know people who are experiencing difficulties in getting grants because modules or schemes were removed from courses, which led to the course being moved to a lower level. We should be clear about these little anomalies because public representatives see such things time and again and must smooth them over.

Transitional arrangements will be in place regarding this Bill for the 2008-09 academic year. I understand the Minister hopes to shortly announce the schemes for the forthcoming academic year; she will ensure service level improvement through the early provision of the schemes. Application forms for the 2008-09 academic year are available on the Department's website and for information purposes hard copies will be made available through local authorities and VECs.

To ensure adequate notice for potential applicants, officials from the Department of Education and Science will work with the national office for equity of access to higher education at national level and with the VECs at local level on an information campaign that can be rolled out when the Bill is enacted. The core objective of any change is to enable improvements in the standard of service provided to the 56,000 students around the country who are in receipt of grants. The grants help further the potential of students in higher education who are considering their futures.

There have been significant changes in this area over the years, particularly in the level of participation in third level education. Young people from well-off families are more likely to go to college. However, many people went who into employment early in their lives are now returning to education — not necessarily to college but through partnership groups across the country — and this has effected great change in their family circumstances. They have greater self-confidence and self-respect. We congratulate the Minister on introducing the Student Support Bill but we should remember those who are accessing education for the second time and encourage them in every possible way.

I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context