Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Tacaím leis an méid atá ráite ag an Seanadóir Bacik. Is minic muid ag lorg díospóireachtaí sa Teach faoi chúrsaí oideachais. Is minic muid ag rá go bhfuil sé fíor-thábhachtach go ndéanfaí eisceacht maidir le cúrsaí oideachais agus go bhfuil géar-ghá le hinfheistíocht in oideachas mar, mar a deir Aontas na Mac Léinn in Éirinn, infheistiú san aiséirí atá i gceist. Má tá ciorraithe le déanamh, agus tá go leor acu le déanamh, caithfear eisceacht a dhéanamh don oideachas le cinntiú go bhfuil árd-chaighdeán ann, mar táimid ag brath air sin.

I am glad that Senator Bacik mentioned the USI's excellent and helpful briefing to Members of the Oireachtas yesterday. We often call for debates on education in this House and we have talked about the importance of third level education in particular and the need for a debate on fees. A point that has been repeatedly made, and rightly so, is that an exception must be made for education in order to guarantee quality in education. It is in investment in our recovery, which was the title of the USI briefing.

The USI made a number of compelling points to us yesterday and one that stood out for me was its observations on the impact of the changes in the grant in the provisions for the availability of the adjacent grant, as distinct from the non-adjacent grant, to students as a result of pushing out the boundaries so that in order to avail of the non-adjacent grant one must be studying at least 45 km away from home compared with 24 km, which used to be the criterion. About 20,000 people have been affected by that.

It is also instructive to examine the comparison between the student grants paid and other benefits paid in the past. The student grant was much closer to the social welfare payments that used to apply. With the changes in recent years the student grant has not improved in any significant way and as a result is now a pittance. The logic for this seems to be that students are expected to have part-time jobs or to get financial support from their families. That was all right as long as part-time jobs were there to be had and as long as families were not under extreme pressure, which they are now with some of them supporting their children's mortgages. We must examine again what is being done to the students of this country.

The welfare officer of UCD, Rachel Breslin, told me that there had been a 30% increase in applications for the student assistance fund. It would make a good deal of sense for Government to increase the allocation made to assist students in emergency situations - the funding the Government would give would be matched by European social funding. It would be a good investment in student's welfare from a Government point of view. We need to take this agenda very seriously.

I am on record as having said that we need to have a debate on student fees. In reality, student fees have been brought back ithrough the back door. The student contribution charge is now €2,000 compared with €1,000 in the past. It has risen substantially and repeatedly and the students are rightly concerned that there might be another increase. They do not want to see another rise in the student contribution charge. It is the worst of all possible worlds for students if fees are being brought in through the back door without any scheme being put in place to facilitate grants, student loans or something that would allow students to plan for their education in order that at least the State would be guaranteed a return on its investment in the future. I would be pleased if we had a debate soon with the Minister for Education and Skills to discuss these important issues.