Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey. This legislation is well overdue and must be brought to finality as soon as possible. It was originally introduced in 2008 but has been delayed for a variety of reasons, including a legal challenge. As such, we accept some of the reasons for the delay. The Bill aims to streamline the current grants system by centralising the 66 bodies that award third level grants into one main entity. It is enabling legislation only, however, and we still await detailed proposals on the matter. Some greater clarity was provided by the Tánaiste when she attended the House last week.

The current third level grants system is inefficient given how small our country is. There must be a standard and fair national system. It must not result, however, in efficient bodies becoming less efficient, which can occur during such a transition. I raise this point in light of the bad experience of changes in the way Garda vetting is handled. Vetting used to be carried out locally and quickly through local Garda resources, but when a special unit was set up in Templemore to centralise the process, the time extended beyond belief and is now in the region of 12 to 14 weeks. This is an example of local, dispersed decision making being centralised into a single area and becoming less efficient. Given the fear that such could occur in the case of this Bill, great care must be taken to prevent it from happening.

We need a centralised grant awarding authority in order that students entitled to a grant get it more quickly and efficiently. Central processing must be properly resourced and exempted from the recruitment embargo if any member of the team leaves for any reason. It must also be flexible enough that the resources required to deliver the service can increase or decrease in line with demand. As this is what occurs in efficient private sector areas, we must aspire to this standard. It is nothing less than what is required by the country we are managing. Students must be in a position to make informed decisions about their futures. In the current economic climate, ensuring students get their grants in a timely manner is vital, given that many are unable to find part-time work to supplement their incomes. This is important for students.

I welcome the quality control check provided by the Bill. The Minister can order a review of an awarding authority's performance in terms of issuing grants effectively or implementing other parts of the legislation. The Minister can also order an awarding authority to lose its power to issue grants for two years as punishment. I welcome the fact that students must have been resident in Ireland for three of the past five years, a reasonable provision. I welcome that when means testing candidates, a distinction between independent and dependent students is made in terms of assessing incomes. The 23 year old cut-off point is rightly being replaced with the distinction between dependent and independent.

As I understand it and as the Tánaiste stated last week, if a student applies for grant support for a course of study while still living at home, then moves out and even gets married during the time of the course, his or her status as someone living with his or her parents cannot be revoked for the duration of the course and the means of the parents will be considered. I am unsure whether this anomaly has been addressed, but there must be some flexibility and every case should be taken on its merits.

I welcome that the Bill standardises the information required on an application form for a grant to all awarding authorities. I also welcome the introduction of fines and imprisonment as penalties for falsified grant applications. The potential benefits of the Bill if it is enacted in its current form are a large reduction in the number of authorities issuing grants and a general streamlining of administration. Within each county division, students will experience less confusion about where to apply and for which grant. The establishment of an appeals process for applicants refused a grant ensures transparency and accountability for the individual student.

I will outline some problems with the Bill. Section 8(1)(b) specifically requires full-time attendance by a student. I will refer to section 8(3) momentarily. It is sensible to have some degree of creative flexibility with democratic safeguards that could enable a successor to the Tánaiste to examine the possibility of providing grants in some shape or form for students doing certain part-time courses. Section 8(3) is welcome in so far as it allows for the possibility of funding for part-time courses in certain circumstances. However, it only refers to undergraduate courses. This is unwelcome, as flexibility should be provided.

The series of reasons for funding part-time courses focus primarily on disadvantage. While this is to be welcomed, the circumstances should not be limited to disadvantage. Extending it to include other circumstances might make sense for the Department. We should consider an amendment in this respect. For example, we may need an amended provision in terms of labour market flexibility to encourage people to move sideways from a declining economic sector into a growing or developing one. The cost of up-skilling could be facilitated by the provision of grants on top of redundancy payments and other entitlements. The appeals procedure must produce a speedy outcome, especially as the beginning of the college year is an especially costly and stressful period for students, as noted by other Senators. The Bill is a progressive reform of the grants system and is to be welcomed in this regard. In several respects, however, it does not go far enough to overcome many of the problems from which the system suffers. Inconsistency in the payment of grants is a significant flaw in the system as it stands. Some local authorities pay out quickly, while others do not. It is not essential for there to be an awarding authority in every county, but students who rely on grants to fund their education need a swift and efficient response from the bureaucracy which manages them. This should be the overwhelming priority for the Student Support Bill.

The grants system is, first and foremost, a public service, one which needs to be flexible and responsive. Means testing has been debated in the past and there is great dissatisfaction with it in many parts of the country. Access to the grants system should be equitable. There has often been a perception of inequity where one person receives a college grant while a person down the road does not. This fuels anger and a lack of the essential social cohesion in society.

The Labour Party believes there should be student representation on the Student Grant Appeals Board, with at least one student representative on each sitting or division of the appeals board to be nominated by the Union of Students in Ireland. My colleague, Deputy Ruairí Quinn in the other House, tried to address this issue by way of an amendment.

Among the countries of northern Europe, Ireland probably has the lowest provision of dedicated accommodation for students attempting to get to college and this is also a major issue for the USI. Mechanisms could be put in place to enable third level colleges, the Construction Industry Federation and the Departments of Finance and Education and Skills to ease some of the pain of the current downturn in the construction sector through the provision of dedicated student accommodation. This could be provided on campus land surplus to educational requirements or in conjunction with local authorities in areas unsuitable for family accommodation.

I have some questions for the Minister of State. When is it intended to make the changes which are provided for in the legislation? Has the Minister a particular model in mind? Will the changes be in place for the next academic year? This is essential. Is it the case that one of the bigger awarding bodies has offered to carry out central processing for all of the country? If so, what is the current state of affairs in that regard?

I wish to raise the question of progression. The current guidelines state that grants will not be paid to candidates who hold a postgraduate qualification and are pursuing a second postgraduate qualification, but that candidates who hold a postgraduate qualification and are progressing to a further postgraduate course which represents progression may be deemed eligible for grant aid. I am dealing with the case of a student who has a postgraduate diploma in arts in learning and teaching. She arranged her own funding and is now studying for a postgraduate diploma in education in Trinity College. This will qualify her to become a second level teacher because her other qualification does not qualify her. She is progressing from a qualification that does not allow her to become a second level teacher to one that does. This is a progression by any definition. She was refused grant aid on the basis that the Department did not regard this as a form of progression but I must question this decision. She is progressing from a qualification that does not allow her to become a second level teacher to a qualification that does. I do not see the logic of this decision. Furthermore, I am informed that the Department applies an exemption where a student is applying for a postgraduate qualification in law.