Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter. The project to establish a single authority for student grants was of a very significant scale within the education system. It required the enhancement and development of systems, management and governance structures and new ways of working in order to progress the realisation of benefits both for grant applicants and the Government. Although very considerable challenges were experienced in the initial year of operation, a comprehensive review enabled the identification of key improvements to be addressed and a focused programme of development was implemented.

Additionally, a major benefit in having a central database of information in a single awarding authority is that it enables efficient electronic data sharing with relevant authorities of income and other data necessary for a speedier and more effective processing of applications. For example, SUSI now has data sharing arrangements in place with the Department of Social Protection, the Revenue Commissioners and a range of other bodies. On occasion, these arrangements have highlighted discrepancies between the information SUSI has to hand on specific applications and the relevant data received from these other authorities. Section 24 of the Act allows an awarding authority to recover moneys from an applicant where it has been demonstrated that he or she was not entitled to receive a payment.

I understand from SUSI that as part of its ongoing internal examination of the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of its operation, quality checks are conducted at both grant award and payment stages on an ongoing basis. Where it is discovered and confirmed, following a reassessment of an application, that such discrepancies show that an applicant is, in fact, ineligible for grant assistance from SUSI, this is communicated to the applicant and the award is withdrawn. While any inconvenience caused is regrettable, SUSI endeavours to identify such issues at the earliest possible stage. The Deputy will appreciate that, in the context of SUSI having received in excess of 69,000 applications in year one, some errors inevitably arose in handling such a high volume of applications within a relatively short timeframe. For its second year of operation in 2013-14, SUSI has continued to make significant improvements to its systems and procedures to streamline the grant application, processing and payment process. There will be an ongoing focus on this work in 2014 to achieve ongoing improvements.

The Deputy has brought to my attention three cases, of which I was not aware. Without reservation, if he can demonstrate that a person was clearly told by SUSI that he was entitled to and was receiving a grant and that if he, in good faith, made arrangements and commitments, he will not be penalised in the way suggested in my reply. If it is bona fide, the cost will have to be carried by SUSI. If there was misinformation and SUSI stated to a student who had applied for a grant that he or she qualified for it and would receive it, the obligation rests on SUSI, irrespective of what might be said. I will explore the matter with the Deputy and perhaps he might give me the full details.

See this speech in context