Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ta cúpla rud le rá agam ar an ábhar seo. Having worked as a guidance counsellor and as a teacher, I have experience of the previous system, which involved a multiplicity of agencies. I have to say the local authority in my case - Dublin City Council - was very helpful. No student ever came back to me in September or October to say his or her grant had not gone through. When we try to introduce reform, there is always a danger that we will throw out what is good and positive as well as what is not needed. I think that is what has happened here. I appreciate that people in the education sector had called for the establishment of a centralised system. I think too much was taken on initially. The whole-country aspect of it has proved to be a disaster. A regional approach might have been much better.

Some of my friends who are guidance counsellors have told me that when this system started in May, they knew it was going to be a disaster. The promotional CD that was sent to them at that stage was very complicated. Their attempts to contact SUSI proved fruitless. Representatives of SUSI also declined an invitation to attend a guidance counsellors' exhibition, where there could have been more engagement on this matter. While I accept that extra staff are needed, they should have been deployed before now to avert this crisis rather than being brought in to deal with it at this stage. I know how difficult it is to get forms back from students, but I suggest that the inordinate number of students who were unable to send back these forms is indicative of something wrong with the system. It is too complex.

I would like to make a brief point on special needs assistants, who help with classroom mechanics and ensure students with special needs do not pose a danger to themselves or others due to their physical or psychological conditions. I think the system needs to be examined because I think many special needs assistants can do more. This form of assistance needs to be considered in conjunction with the whole area of learning support and learning resources.

The third aspect of the original motion relates to third level fees. One of the reasons for the introduction of the current system was that the Government of the time wanted to increase the third-level participation rate of lower socioeconomic groups. The system has to be examined because that did not happen. The registration fee is now being increased by stealth. I do not think that should be on the cards. A lack of money should not preclude anybody from going to third level education.

Those are the three aspects I wanted to raise.

See this speech in context