Dáil debates
Wednesday, 17 November 2021
Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate
Third Level Fees
9:22 am
Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The current set-up in respect of SUSI applications in cases where parents have gone through or are going through marital separation is that they must provide proof of separation. That is set out in A15 of the application process, which provides for the necessity to provide evidence of separation. It states:
Please provide one of the following as proof of separation or divorce: Separation agreement;
Divorce decree;
Court Ordered Maintenance Arrangement;
Decree of dissolution for a civil partnership.
Evidence from the Department of Social Employment Affairs & Protection confirming receipt of Deserted Wife's Allowance or a One-Parent Family Payment;
If there is no legal agreement, a letter from your solicitor, in which your solicitor confirms separation and/or that legal proceedings are pending...
There are other criteria that a person has to meet as well. We have a very good relationship with SUSI, which I deal with on a daily basis. I can confirm the professionalism of the people we deal with in SUSI. However, what I see is clear evidence that there is a problem. Where there is a family separation and applicants clearly meet the thresholds of the proof set out in A15, having furnished the documents, in a statistically significant number of cases where the application for the grant is refused, the subsequent SUSI appeal fails because SUSI upholds the decision to refuse on the basis that the A15 provisions are not being met. When we subsequently guide the applicant through the student grant appeals board, in most cases the decision to refuse is overturned by the board. There is an issue regarding how the assessors assess the separation elements of a SUSI application. It is our view that they are not adequately taking into account the proof that applicants provide.
I ask that the Department engages with SUSI to conduct a look-back of a parcel of cases where there has been a refusal by SUSI and a subsequent awarding of a grant by the student grants appeals board.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of separations during the pandemic. I am finding that it is often the case with applications for SUSI grants that, where applicants provide proof of separation, they are being put through the wringer and an unnecessary burden and stress is being placed upon them. The proof of this is that, when such applications are refused, a statistically significant number of refusals are overturned by the student grants appeals board. We would like the Department to examine this matter in concert with SUSI.
9:32 am
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter. I have a long written reply before me, but I will only speak to parts of it.
Section 21 of the student grant scheme sets out the person whose income is to be considered. Section 21(2) states: "Where the dependent student's parents are divorced or legally separated, or it is established to the satisfaction of the relevant awarding authority that they are separated, the reckonable income shall be that of the applicant and of the parent or parents with whom the applicant resides." In circumstances where the awarding authority is satisfied that a student's parents are separated, the student will be assessed on the income of the student and the parent with whom the student resides. The outcome of this decision is that the student, who may not have ordinarily qualified for a grant, may now qualify or may qualify for a higher rate of grant. Therefore, it is important for the integrity of the scheme that corroborative evidence be provided by the applicant.
The type of evidence required is dependent on the applicant's individual circumstances. Evidence of separation must be provided to allow SUSI to satisfy itself fully that the conditions of the exemption are met. In assessing the evidence presented, SUSI will have regard to the particular circumstances in each case and the corroborative nature of the evidence available to support the claim of separation. Ultimately, it is a matter for SUSI to determine what evidence it will accept as proof of separation. However, the scheme does not stipulate precisely how SUSI satisfies itself, which is the issue upon which the Deputy is hitting. This is to allow the applicant sufficient flexibility to provide the necessary corroborating evidence and to give SUSI flexibility in assessing these difficult cases.
As the Deputy stated, the evidence that SUSI accepts as proof of separation includes a separation agreement, a divorce decree, a court-ordered maintenance arrangement, a decree of dissolution of a civil partnership and evidence from the Department of Social Protection confirming receipt of a deserted wife's allowance or a one-parent family payment. If there is no legal agreement, acceptable evidence includes a letter from a solicitor in which the solicitor confirms that separation and-or legal proceedings are pending, a letter or document from a family mediation service, for example, the Legal Aid Board, that confirms current or past participation in family mediation, and proof of living separately, for example, utility bills for the same period. Where the applicant demonstrates by providing one or more of the above documents that his or her parents are living separately, SUSI will only include the income of the applicant and that of the parent with whom the applicant resides.
All of that said, the Deputy has raised a legitimate point. If there is a trend of the independent appeals board overturning decisions that were appealed internally in the SUSI scheme, it points to an issue. What concerns the Deputy and me, and what should concern everyone, is the delay and stress that this would cause people. If they are ultimately awarded their grants, they will still have been put through an elongated process when it is a fact that their parents are separated.
If the Deputy could furnish us with some of the details of his cases, I will ask my Department to examine them.
Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister of State for his considered and sympathetic response. It is clear that he is on top of this issue. Rather than my furnishing him with specific cases, though, I will make a request. Given that there is enough in his acknowledgement that "it is a matter for SUSI to determine what evidence it will accept as proof of separation", will he signal to his officials to liaise with SUSI on doing a simple look-back and require SUSI to furnish the number of cases? While I know that there is a statistically significant number among the overall number of cases that I deal with in my constituency office, the chances are that this is happening throughout every constituency. Therefore, I respectfully ask that the Minister of State, through his good offices, take it upon himself to ask his officials to engage with SUSI and seek a look-back or review - it would be a simple administrative exercise - so that the subjectivity of the assessor's decision is taken out of the equation and there is standardisation, thereby taking stress for the applicant out of the process.
I acknowledge his sympathetic and considered response. Arising from it, I am hopeful that some look-back will be taken of at least a parcel of cases where there has been a refusal by SUSI and a subsequent awarding by the appeals board.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a fair request and the Deputy has raised a legitimate concern. To nail it down, is he asking about appeals to the independent appeals board that have been found in favour of the applicant in circumstances where the parents were divorced or separated?
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I can ask my Department to undertake that.