John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill and in general terms to welcome its introduction. This legislation has been talked about for many years. I am delighted it has at last reached this stage.

The Bill will go some way to improve the current inefficient system which forces many students to take up part-time employment owing to them having to wait some weeks and months to receive their grants. This has, in many cases, added to the difficulties of students in fully concentrating on their studies and has prolonged the time needed to attain their qualifications.

By and large, the Bill streamlines the eligibility of students for grants in giving the VECs sole responsibility for administration of maintenance grants. This will make the system more student friendly and enable it to be applied on a more consistent and fair basis. If this happens, students should receive their grants speedily. While in an ideal situation the new system could be introduced this year it is, perhaps, prudent that time is provided to allow the structures to adjust to ensure the smooth introduction of the new system in the 2009 education year.

Those are the positives of the Bill. However, there are some areas that need to be looked at again. While the provision in respect of an independent appeals board is good, the timeframe for a decision on an appeal is too long. A delay of 45 days for a decision on an appeal is too long and leaves a student in total limbo. It is worth noting that students will have to wait a similar length of time in respect of initial decisions. In this regard, students may have to wait four and a half months for a decision in respect of a grant. There is no reason this timeframe could not be at least halved.

There is a need to address independent, under 23 year old students in the Bill. The age of students entering third level education is changing. Many under 23 year olds can be estranged from or living independently from their parents. For those in this category it is unfair to take their parents' income into account when assessment is made for a grant. Some of these students who have their own family and children must have their special circumstances taken into account. If full-time course was replaced with "approved" course it would create the opportunity for those students who are studying on a part-time basis to apply for a maintenance grant also.

Another anomaly exists for students who are doing courses in private colleges who are not entitled to qualify for a maintenance grant. At the Joint Committee on Education and Science last week we heard a presentation from a student who won a place on a journalism course at Griffith College under the CAO system. He got a scholarship towards his fees. He won a place also in Dundalk IT for a marketing course. He wished to follow the journalism route so he took up the course in Griffith College. Because of his family's income he would have got a maintenance grant if he took his place on the marketing course in Dundalk IT, but he was denied the maintenance grant because he went to a private college. This is unfair. Grants should be given on the basis of the students, not the college they attend. This student appealed the decision and lost. He went to the Ombudsman and eventually won his case in the High Court.

This Bill proposes to continue this inequity in the system by attempting to continue the ban on maintenance grants to students attending private colleges, even though their personal circumstances would mean they were eligible for it. Section 8(3)(e), which states "whether the institution is established for the principal purposes of higher education, training and research, and operated and managed on a basis other than for financial gain", should be deleted to remove this anomaly. If this part of the Bill was amended it would not mean the floodgates would open with regard to students applying for maintenance grants from private colleges. I am informed and I understand the numbers would be very low.

There is a need to take into account independent adult students from disadvantaged backgrounds who wish to enter third level education. At present it is extremely difficult for them to gain access as they are not entitled to the grants and support systems. The reality is as presented by the Combat Poverty Agency in its pre-budget submission. For example, a social welfare recipient returning to full-time education gets €185.52 per week, amounting to more than €9,000 per annum. Other allowances, including a maintenance grant, would bring the amount to more than €16,000. However, a person in low income employment wishing to return to education, who may earn roughly the same amount, is entitled only to the higher education grant of €3,000. This, in effect, means the low income worker is discouraged from going back into full-time education. The person in receipt of social welfare gets €12,000 extra. Therefore, the low income worker is penalised for being less of a burden on the State. Surely this is a blatant injustice.

Many provisions in the Bill are welcome. However, a number of issues in regard to the timeframe for appeals, the independent, under 23 year old students, maintenance grants for those in private colleges and low income workers lead to inequities for these students. It is crucial that the Bill passes all Stages as soon as possible because other major issues pertaining to third level education need to be tackled immediately.

I wish to refer briefly to the underfunding of third level institutions, universities and institutes of technology. Understaffing in many colleges is affecting the delivery of courses. I met a student today who told me there were 500 in his class in UCD. Surely that is not acceptable in a modern third level institution. This is as a result of Ireland being at the bottom of the league in OECD funding in tertiary education.

A student accommodation task force has been promised but still has not been delivered. We are experiencing severe shortages of affordable accommodation for students in Ireland today. There should be more purpose-built student accommodation on campus or adjacent to campuses throughout the country. There is student accommodation for only 1,800 in UCD even though 11,000 students seek accommodation.

See this speech in context