Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I acknowledge the words of the last three speakers, particularly Deputy O'Rourke. It is a privilege to listen to somebody who is a former Minister for Education and a former educationalist. It brings a depth and breath of experience that is beneficial to the House and to all legislators. It is useful to listen to a person who has such experience, who has worked at the coalface and who can quote from personal experience. I particularly support the case being made for non-stamp 4 students, of whom there are many. All of us have met such children, some of whom have Irish accents. That is the thing that really stretches my imagination. They have Cork, Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow accents. One can identify their accents to the area in which they are living. The sad thing is that because they arrived in the country as minors they cannot obtain the appropriate residency status, even though their parents may have done so, and they must apply separately. Sadly, they could be waiting three, four or five years as there is no urgency about it. What is going on is totally counterproductive. I ask that the Minister for Education and Science make contact with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to work out a simple system for such individuals, who are anxious to go to third level college and almost all of whom have done their primary and second level education here and have good leaving certificates. Any investment in them is a good economic investment on the part of the country. It is appalling to disillusion them at that stage in their lives. Otherwise, all that happens is if he or she does nothing, eventually he or she will get status anyway and be rewarded and the State will keep him or her. Why would they do otherwise?

When these young people are anxious, they all come to our clinics, and to the clinics of the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, to set out their case. They know the same case has been made to the Minister of State on several occasions previously and they know what is the problem, and we put down the usual questions. Incidentally, I would not give any marks out of 100 for the way the Department of Education and Science replies to those questions. A little personal attention to the question would be much more beneficial than a long historical preamble about which we all know. I could write those from the 1980s.

I remember getting replies like that from the then Department of Education. We do not need a long historical dissertation. It is not relevant in any event. Departments will always state that over the past number of years they have increased expenditure in this area by whatever. What they were doing ten years ago is of no relevance anymore. Neither is what they were doing in 1948 or 1938 of any relevance anymore and that is put into the replies to the parliamentary questions. I plead with the Minister of State to convey this to his colleagues. Some Departments are good at addressing the issues and just go straight to the point. I have no problem with them giving the odd political remark in the middle of it about how great the Minister was, but I do not want to see a page and a quarter of historical drivel when it all could be put down in one half-sentence.

I plead with the Minister of State, and support Deputies O'Rourke, Deenihan and all the previous speakers, including my colleague, Deputy O'Mahony, that in the area of third level grants for such students — immigrants' sons and daughters who themselves have not yet been classified and are not eligible — he make some arrangements, even on an interim basis, to enable them, provided their parents qualify and they qualify at this stage. Otherwise, we will never move the matter forward and we will have the added burden of educating them in ten years' time. Why not do it now and get them into an economically viable position? That can be done.

The other area is the back to education allowance scheme. This relates to the co-operation between the Department and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is a good scheme, although a little restrictive. There is no way it should remain cast in iron as it is at present. There are countless potential third level students being excluded from it. It might be no harm to take another look at the age limits of the scheme. It could be of some help and would relieve the situation for some students. A review of the refusals over the past 12 months or two years — this would apply to my previous point as well — will always give sufficient inspiration to identify what the problem is and where were the barbs on which the scheme was being caught up, and to try to relieve the situation. I ask the Minister of State to undertake such a review of the back to education allowance and the grants for non-national students who have not yet qualified for any kind of status.

Another matter that has come to my attention in recent times is one for the Higher Education Authority, and also for the Minister for Education and Science, which, as far as I understand it, is being dealt with at a European level. I have come across a number of qualified persons — these are persons with medical qualifications, engineering qualifications or others — whose qualifications are not recognised here, for instance, qualifications from South Africa in one case. I do not mind if it can be ascertained that the particular qualification no longer has any status or is a lower level qualification as long as that can be proved, but I get worried about cases which turn up from time to time where it appears as if an artificial mechanism is being used to deprive the person of access to his or her entitlement.

There are a number of such persons in this country who hold qualifications from other universities throughout Africa and Asia who will not qualify unless they return to university, medical school, nursing college or wherever the case may be here. A refresher course should be sufficient for those who hold qualifications unless there is some other impediment to their qualification but it is a little arbitrary to state that we do not recognise the standard of education in some of these countries anymore. If USI can tell us that the level of investment in education is somewhat comparable to Brazil at present — I am sure it was in a position to do a fair amount of research, even though the Minister for Education and Science will respond by telling us that this is not true because it is looking at it from an incorrect perspective — we go through such matters every day of the week and in the case of the recognition of qualifications the Minister has an influence and should use it. Would it be possible to examine the cases to ascertain whether something can be done in the interim rather than wait for the European courts or the European Commission to decide it? We should always show our own initiative and deal with such matters in our own time and without being forced to do so by others.

I draw the Minister of State's attention to the fact that until recently one could always submit a late application for a third level grant and it was always acceptable. In recent times a "dead late" date has also been set and if the application arrives after that date, it does not get considered and one must wait until next year. That is daft. There is no reason for it. It is done for the convenience of the people who process the applications. I accept there should be a deadline and a second deadline, but one should not disqualify the student altogether if the application was not submitted on time. The Department of Social and Family Affairs learned that years ago. If a person qualifies, there is no right to deprive him or her of the entitlement to a third level grant just because the application was late. I ask the Minister of State, as one of the long list of queries continuing on from Deputies O'Rourke and Deenihan, to look at that matter as well and to find out where local authorities or VECs are disqualifying people on the basis that their applications are late or dead late. To my mind, those people still qualify. If that is the only reason they are being deprived, it is wrong and it has been proven in the past to be wrong in law from the point of view of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Those issues have been tried in court long ago.

Introducing artificial blockades does not amuse me at all and I am sure does not amuse the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, either. It saves a few quid here and there, but not a great deal. It creates inconvenience most of all and when we are talking about making a grant available to a student, or making any entitlement available to anybody, inconvenience should not come into it. There must be order, rules and patterns, but if one deprives the person on the basis that it was inconvenient because he or she came at the wrong time, one should look at what happens in the case of access to psychiatric and other services outside of education at present where if the person does not apply at the appropriate time during working hours, the possibility is that the person will not get service. That is no excuse. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that this closing date is abolished and that people who qualify under the other headings, excluding the closing date, are awarded their grants.

Over the years there has been much debate about student holidays and school holidays and every year at about this time scribes write stating that the holidays should be shortened and students should work longer. This is a criticism that ties in with criticism of TDs and we have heard it all before. I do not believe in that notion. I believe that children have to be children and students have to be students, and they need a break from the tedium of study because that is good for them. If all of a child's life is going to be tedious, it is important that he or she has a good holiday. The child at national school needs to have a good holiday to ensure that he or she has the chance to be a child, to be carefree and to be without concerns, worries and obligations.

The USI also brought the issue of investment in education to our attention recently. We all get letters from the Department of Education and Science telling us how much money has been invested in education and how much better we are now than in 1997. I do not know what 1997 has to do with the present day. We are now in 2008 and what matters is that we must compete with other countries with whom our graduates will be competing in the future. We have to compete for investment and especially for the product that we produce. This country has an obligation to its students to ensure that the level of investment in education is adequate to make our students well able to compete with their contemporaries on a worldwide basis, not just on a European basis.

The USI also raised the issue of student accommodation, which is currently being considered by the student accommodation task force. As I live in a university town, I am acutely aware of accommodation problems for students, particularly in October when they come back to college. There is often competition between the local needs of young couples or single parents who are in rent-assisted accommodation and the student population. One group has to lose out, but both are vulnerable and in need of assistance. When this task force reports, I hope it will contain specific references and recommendations whereby it will be possible to identify accommodation exclusively available for students in a university campus or within the campus region. I know there are all sorts of problems, which I do not propose to examine now, but we would do well to recognise the main problem.

The USI also raised the question of financial supports for part-time students. Such students may be working for low wages and trying to better themselves by going to college in the meantime. What needs to be done is to look at the extent to which qualifications for the back to education allowance can be matched with people who might be on a low income from employment or with those who might have an income from social welfare that means they do not qualify for such an allowance.

The Minister should try to relay all the points made by the last few speakers, including Deputies O'Rourke, Deenihan, O'Mahony and others. These issues have been brought to our attention and we must bring them to the attention of the Minister. They are urgent issues that need to be addressed fairly quickly and I hope it will be possible to do that.

See this speech in context