Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

For all that I am sure it does not mean the Minister does not consider it should be up front because the Bill is about student support and not about other issues. However, the Minister has hidden an extremely important issue in section 25. I will read the explanatory memorandum:

Section 25 requires specified institutions to prepare draft access plans in respect of access to the institution by economically or socially disadvantaged people, by people who have a disability and by people from sections of society that are significantly under-represented in the student body and in respect of equality, including gender equality, in all activities of the institution. Once the access plan is approved by the governing authority, the institution in question is bound to implement the policies set out therein.

That is a fantastic statement for any educational institution and I compliment the Minister 100% on putting it on the Bill, although I would like to see it moved up higher. When that is put on a statutory basis it will provide the means for giving greater access to sectors of our community that have traditionally lacked that access. In my constituency, Dublin Central, the third level access rate is lower than in other parts of the city and country. That is because it has traditionally been a very disadvantaged area. There is great difficulty in getting adequate services at primary and secondary level, making it a difficult transition into third level, and this is often due to parental background, financial resources and basic education and tuition. Much work has been done by the VECs in trying to bridge that gap. They have provided a wide range of courses and the primary and secondary schools are providing a more holistic approach to the education of young people than they did in the past. Larkin community college on Sean McDermott Street provides a wide range of incentives to young people to allow them stay on in school. That is happening for the first time ever in the history of the State. The NCI is also providing a wide range of courses that give a whole new group an opportunity to access third level education.

All third level institutions should have mission statements of this nature. They should look at their catchment area. There are national catchment areas, but there are regional and local catchment areas as well. The institutions should specify the mechanisms used to maximise access by a particular community, be it a disability community, a gender community, a disadvantaged community, or whatever. I do not think such a mechanism has ever been specified in legislation. I hope the mission statement requirement in section 25 will be part of an annual approach drawn up by each institution, and that the Department of Education and Science will carefully monitor the quality of the statement regarding access. If all this can be put in place, the Student Support Bill 2008 will go beyond the narrow remit of providing a more streamlined support mechanism for operating student grants.

The appeals mechanism is very welcome, but it will be diluted considerably unless it is a speedy mechanism. The purpose of the single agency and the reduction in the number of awarding authorities is to ensure that every student receives his or her grant within a month of making an application. If an appeals mechanism doubles, trebles or even quadruples that time, then the purpose of the Bill will be defeated. Those students initially refused will find themselves in limbo for a long time. They could start their course in September but may not have the appeal mechanism exhausted until well after Christmas. That could deter somebody from going to college. No appeals mechanism should be longer than the initial period of time for the grant delivery. I suggest that no appeal should take longer than 21 days, as three weeks should be sufficient. We are talking about a relatively small number of appeals, so why should we not curtail the period of time for them?

The grants do not cover part-time students, but these students must also pay fees and maintenance. This is an element of access to education. The theory both here and in the EU is that education should be more flexible. It should be continuing and should be delivered in a manner that suits students. Many students find that part-time or night-time education is more appropriate. There are many courses that take that into consideration. It is also an essential part of further education, because many people will be employed at that time. It would be more desirable to extend education to more vulnerable categories in society, on the basis of disadvantage, disability and gender. This could happen if there was greater flexibility for part-time students. We should look at it to a greater extent than provided for in this Bill.

I welcome the fact the bar has been lowered from 23 years of age. Students under 23 could hitherto only be assessed on their parents' income, which was an unnecessarily rigid bar. Students living away from home should be assessed independently in their own right, but the assessment at 23 years for students living at home is still very rigid. I accept the proposal is a significant move from the current situation, but it could be examined again. In recent years, property prices have gone through the roof and there are very few people who can buy their own home or rent their own accommodation to any great degree. More people are remaining at home with their parents. Nobody should be pressurised into the property market to access a grant. Until that settles down, it will be a bar to the involvement of many in third level education.

For some reason, the Department does not see itself as having any major role to play in student accommodation. A great part of student grants go on accommodation. While the bottom has slipped out of the construction industry, the rental industry is going through the roof and the cost of rented accommodation has never been higher. It is ironic that while the property market has collapsed, rents have increased. This is proving increasingly tough for students.

Although certain incentives were made available to provide student accommodation, the Department should consider assuming a role in this area. With Grangegorman about to become the headquarters for the Dublin Institute of Technology, the decision on whether to provide student accommodation on the campus has been left exclusively to the DIT. The Government effectively handed over a new campus and left it up to the DIT to decide which educational facilities it wishes to provide. As a result, the provision of on-campus student accommodation will depend on the contents of the master plan. This is not the correct approach as it does not reflect integrated planning, a concept that should have formed an essential part of the legislation establishing the Grangegorman Development Agency. The Minister's representatives on the board of DIT should insist that the institution provide a sizeable amount of student accommodation on the site. This would help alleviate some of the problems likely to arise from establishing an institution for 20,000 to 25,000 students in the heart of Dublin. For example, a large volume of traffic will enter Dublin to access the facility.

Despite having an enormous land bank, only a limited number of students live on the campus of University College Dublin. More students live on the tiny land bank in Trinity College Dublin than on the UCD site. If student accommodation is available cheek by jowl with educational facilities, access to classes improves considerably and the stability of the campus is improved by the creation of a living culture and environment, without which campuses die at night time, apart from its pubs or the odd society meeting. Many steps could be taken to make improvements.

One frequently hears that application forms for grants are complex and difficult. An earlier speaker stated that much greater use should be made of the Internet. It should be possible to download all relevant documents, including explanatory memorandums indicating how and when application forms should be filled out, explaining how the appeal mechanism works and providing information on other issues. This will be even more important when 33 awarding bodies are in place. If the information I describe is available on a single, good website at the click of a mouse, it will have significantly simplified the process.

In reducing by half the number of awarding authorities, the legislation substantially increases the workload of the awarding authorities. It will not be acceptable, at the stroke of a pen, to streamline the process and make a commitment that every student will receive his or her grant within a specified period if the Department does not provide sufficient resources to enable the VECs to perform this additional work. We would be back to square one.

I welcome this worthwhile legislation and hope it will improve the operation of the grant system. I ask the Minister to consider reviewing the legislation after three to five years, with a view to further streamlining it.

See this speech in context