Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I suggest that under the Croke Park agreement it would be an act of anticipation by the Minister's officials to accept an increase in efficiency. As the provision stands, a person who appeals will have to wait 45 days, a month and half, to get a reply. My amendment proposes the timeframe in this regard should be one month, which is four weeks.

I remind the Minister that a former public representative from County Donegal, Niall Blaney, put into legislation a provision seldom ever followed. In 1963, when introducing the planning and development legislation he provided that an applicant for planning permission had to get a response from the local authority within two months. If the local authority in not granting permission failed to meet that timeline the applicant was granted the permission by default. It was one of the few administrative impositions ever introduced. How he got it through, I do not know. The Tánaiste will recall he was a powerful personality, for whom I had great regard, although not necessarily for his politics. As an administrative Minister he was in a league of his own.

I suggest, in terms of efficiency and productivity, that responding to an appeal within four weeks in this electronic age of communication is not unreasonable. With all due respect, we are speaking in this regard about people waiting to know if they will get a grant, which decision will determine whether they go to college. While it is not a matter of life and death, this will determine the life outcomes for some of the applicant students. A reduction in the timeframe will require civil servants to deal with the matter within four weeks, which is 30 days rather than the 45 days proposed. That is the net point.

If a response must be given within 30 days, it will be done. We are all driven by deadlines. This amendment seeks to move the deadline a little closer. Who benefits from this? The only ones who benefit from the 45 day timeframe are those in the public service whose jobs by and large are secure, who already have their qualifications and are already in employment. The only person who suffers is the applicant student and his or her parents or guardians. This is not revolutionary but it would change people's lives and the quality of them.

See this speech in context