Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and compliment the Government, in particular the Minister for Education and Skills, on grasping this nettle. This Bill has been under consideration for a number of years and it has taken some time to produce but at least we have some finality in terms of a decision as to how best we formalise a new policy and a new structure to deal with higher education grants.

This Bill is about a unified grant system and it introduces a single national grant awarding body. The idea is that we try to deal with the time element in terms of the processing of applications, simplifying the application form, issuing the application form to provide enough time to tease it out and make a decision so students have a decision by the middle of August and not September, because many colleges start in early September. All that should be done in time to allow people to appeal a decision.

There is much teasing out to be done in terms of implementation. We must first get the structure right and then ensure we have the personnel to implement it at different stages. It is a great concept but its implementation has been referred to by other Senators. It is good that those on courses currently will continue under the old system in the transition period.

The Minister will play a role in regard to the institutions in the State to which grants will apply. They apply to the North of Ireland and perhaps they will apply to some of the educational institutions in EU members states. I have no difficulty with that.

A plethora of courses are coming on stream in third level colleges. Some of them are Mickey Mouse courses but others are very good new courses. They reflect modern thinking and last for a few years but then go out of fashion. It is important the Minister has a say in terms of the courses people in receipt of grants do. What qualifications will people receive? Will they lead to postgraduate courses, if necessary? Are the qualifications acknowledged internationally or do they apply only in this country? Given the number of courses coming on stream, it is a very important role when giving grants to students.

We have heard of colleges mushrooming and of courses folding before completion. I worry about that. We should narrow the range of courses somewhat. We have too many courses for the size of our country and we should streamline them. People should get a primary degree first and then do modules to complement their primary degree rather than do a course on a very particular subject which really only should be a module and not a degree course. If we are to give grants, let them be for structured and well teased out courses.

I also welcome the fact the Minister will have a say in vetting courses, how they are run and the qualifications concerned. Periodically, someone will drop in without notice and examine the courses for which grants have been given to students to ensure they are as they should be and that taxpayers' money is acknowledged.

I worry about the eligibility criteria for students applying for these grants. Most of these students will be leaving second level so there will be no difficulty with them. It would be an idea for career guidance teachers to have to hand this information which has been convoluted during the years. I often had to ring VECs or the Department to establish who could qualify for grants. The application form should be simple and the information provided at leaving certificate stage. I accept that could be done without any bother.

The residence requirement is a big issue. If a person living in Sligo got married in Dublin, there was confusion when that person became a mature student. Should he or she apply from his or her home in Sligo or from his or her present address? These are issues I have confronted as an educationist and also in my role as a public representative.

There is a major issue with mature students. A person may return after spending two or three years in Australia. He or she may not have applied for a grant since completing the leaving certificate and may decide to go to college. I understand such persons need to be here for six months before applying for a grant for the following year. I know of a 23-year old who had never applied for a grant, went to Australia and returned three or four months before the start of the academic year. When he applied for a grant, he was refused because he should have been back in the country for some length of time beforehand. Many young people will go away after completing the leaving certificate. They may not know what they want to do and having spent two or three years away decide they want to come back and go to college. When they apply for a grant, they discover they cannot qualify for it. That would be fine if they simply did not qualify for that year, but it transpired that the person to whom I referred could not get a grant for the second or third year. Am I right in my thinking? I believe there was such an anomaly and would like to see the matter cleared up once and for all as part of this Bill. It is not a problem if students need to return six months beforehand or if they are required to submit their forms by October or some other deadline. These are matters that need to be teased out. That issue is very important to me because I came across a genuine student who could not qualify for a grant for his second or third year in college and missed out totally. I have scanned through the Bill and while it may be addressed, I have not spotted it.