Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue of what I consider to be a glaring flaw in our student grant system, namely, the omission of illness benefit from the list of qualifying payments for the special rate student grant. As the Minister for Education and Skills is aware, this issue came to my attention through the case of Robert Kells who is currently enrolled in second year in IT Carlow. He was refused the special rate grant.

I will quickly remind the Minister of State of the details of Robert's case and the difficulties he faces. The family income for 2012 was well under the qualifying limit. SUSI rejected the application on the grounds that the reckonable income of Michael Kells, Robert's father, did not include an eligible social welfare payment as of 31 December 2012. He was on a qualifying payment and was on a community employment scheme up until November 2012 when due to an accident, he had to go on illness benefit. Illness benefit is not on the qualifying list of payments as its currently stands. Every other payment is on the list but not illness benefit. When this was initially queried, I was told that illness benefit was a short-term payment and hence could not be included on this list. Michael Kells has been on this payment since 2012. The most recent reply to me from the Department of Education and Skills again insisted that illness benefit was a short-term payment but it seems particularly perverse when one paragraph later in that particular piece of correspondence, it was confirmed to me in the same letter that Mr. Kells had been on the payment for a period of 18 months. I think it fair to say that 18 months is not short-term in anyone's language.

That particular letter then suggested that Mr. Kells should apply for disability allowance or invalidity pension but it is not good enough to say that this is a matter for the Department of Social Protection, as appears to be the view of the Department of Education and Skills. Mr. Kells cannot apply for disability allowance until his PRSI credits run out. He is effectively being penalised for having gone to work, which is indefensible. If he had never worked a day in his life, he would be fine and his son would qualify without any question for the further education grant. Equally, as I am sure the Minister is aware, it has become increasingly difficult to secure an invalidity pension as the criteria are now quite rigidly and strictly enforced. That, of course, should be the case. To obtain a pension, Mr. Kells would have to seek a medical diagnosis which rules him out of the workforce for the rest of his working life. He does not want and should not be encouraged to do this. Nobody should be written off in that way.

There is a blatant flaw in the system. The Kells family are the victims of a very clear lacuna which must be corrected. I am sure that the Department has prepared the Minister of State with quite a detailed explanation of the rules and regulations as they apply in this particular instance. I already know what the rules are. We already know what the rules are. The problem is that the rules are inherently flawed. Nobody would suggest that two weeks on illness benefit should entitle anybody to a full rate third-level grant. That is not what I am saying but to dismiss the patently obvious fact that illness benefit is sometimes a much longer-term payment than anyone would countenance when they originally acquire an illness or problem is quite frankly ludicrous and an example of officiousness and red tape at its worst. A grave injustice has been done to the Kells family. If the Department does not act, this injustice will undoubtedly be repeated for other families. I will be very disappointed if the Minister of State and his Department cannot find a way to remedy this for the Kells family and the small number of families across the country who may be affected as a result of this flaw.

See this speech in context