Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I am pleased to have an opportunity to raise this outrageous case, which relates to the interpretation of Article 4.5 of the guidelines for the 2007 higher education grants scheme. The parents of the student who is involved in the case, Michael Ikerionwu, were granted permission to stay in this country for three years, renewable by applying in the final month of the third year. Mr. Ikerionwu, along with his father, mother and brother, was granted permission to stay. Article 4.5 of the guidelines state that a person applying for a higher education must have EU nationality, have official refugee status, have been given humanitarian leave to remain in the State prior to the Immigration Act 1999, or be a person in respect of whom the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has granted permission to remain following a determination not to make a deportation order. Mr. Ikerionwu was initially refused a grant by Galway County Council. The case was appealed by his parents to the council, but that appeal was lost. They then appealed to the Minister, on my advice. I appealed the decision to the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, but I have yet to receive a reply. The student received a reply, however.

I received a letter from a staff officer in Galway County Council after I made my appeal. I wish to refer to the letter sent to me by Martina Maloney of Galway County Council. The letter refers to my representations on behalf of Mr. Ikerionwu, who applied for a higher education grant for the 2007-08 academic year. I was told that as the student did not have official refugee status, his details had been referred to the Department of Education and Science to ascertain whether he met the criteria of Article 4.5 of the higher education grants scheme. The council was advised by the Department that the student did not meet the criteria. The student was informed on the basis of that advice that he was not eligible for a grant for the 2007-08 academic year. The council informed me that, on receipt of my representations, it re-examined the student's application and endeavoured to get details of his status from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The council was informed by that Department's repatriation unit, after numerous requests for final confirmation of his status, that the student complied with the scheme's necessary requirements. The letter from the council said it was pleased to inform me that it intended to award the student a higher education grant for the 2007-08 academic year, on receipt of some documentation regarding his parents' rent allowance for the 2006 tax year.

That letter was sent to me on 10 April last and the student in question received a letter confirming his grant on 11 April. However, he received a further letter from Galway County Council on 29 May. The letter referred to Mr. Ikerionwu's higher education grant application and to the council's letter of 11 April 2008. That was the letter which informed him that the council had reviewed his application, based on information received from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The letter of 29 May said that the council had been informed by the Department of Education and Science that the information received regarding the student's residency status was not sufficient. According to that letter, the council regretted to inform Mr. Ikerionwu that it was unable to award him a grant for the 2007-08 academic year. The letter contained an apology from the council for any inconvenience that its decision may cause.

We have sought an interpretation. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform had told me, the student and Galway County Council that it had decided that the student qualified for a grant under Article 4.5. The Department of Education and Science over-ruled that decision. The student, having applied for a grant, been refused the grant, appealed that decision and then been granted the grant, had it taken from him six weeks later. Given that he is making an incredible effort to pursue his third level studies, the reversal of the original decision makes a mockery of integration. It is an outrageous contradiction, after the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform had written to me, the county council and the student to outline its ruling, that the Department of Education and Science has taken back the grant that had been awarded under appeal.

See this speech in context