It is good to be here in the morning when committee members are fresh and ready to go.
USI has been looking for a student support Bill since 2004. The then president of USI, Mr. Tony McDonnell, was in NUIG so I knew him quite well. This Bill does not correspond exactly to what we asked for at that time. However, we are confident that by working with the committee we will be able to make this Bill as student-friendly and as usable as possible. We look forward to working with this committee and with youth-orientated groups to ensure we get it right.
One of our principal issues with the Bill is the case of independent under-23s. Their case is not fully addressed in the Bill. The student population is continually changing in its demographic. Students are no longer all starting college at the age of 17 or 18. They are returning to college after a couple of years in the workforce.
USI envisage that many young independent people who may have entered the labour market during the Celtic tiger era instead of going to college will be at a disadvantage because they are under the age of 23 years. In addition, the issue of a student having his or her own family or dependents is not clearly addressed within the Bill. We need clear indications of how students under 23 years of age will be assessed if they are estranged or living independently of their parents.
In addition, the student who has a child or family and is under 23 years of age, must have his or her dependents included along with his or her siblings when taking family situation into account. As it stands a student under 23 years of age is measured by his or her parents' financial situation.
If a student under 23 is the parent of a child, that child is not taken into account in the family assessment. Brothers and sisters are taken into account but not a child of a student under 23. This provision needs to be examined.
It is currently too difficult to prove independence from parental support. We must ensure that the burden of proof is not excessive for those students who genuinely fall into this group. When I worked in NUIG as the education officer we had many students who may have fallen out with their parents. Those students would have applied for a grant but the application process for those under 23 stipulated that they must provide a parental signature on the application.
The removal of the term, "full-time courses" and replacing it with the term, "approved courses" would create the opportunity for those students studying on a part-time basis to avail of the maintenance grant. Any student who qualifies for the maintenance grant, including those in private colleges, should be allowed to apply.
The Union of Students in Ireland seeks clarity on several issues. We are concerned about the proposed time scale for the appeals process. While we accept the 45 days in each case are maximum times which may not be the average, they nevertheless appear to be excessively long. If one adds up the two periods of 45 days, it amounts to an entire semester. Waiting for 90 days would impact not only on a student's life but could determine whether he or she will register and if he or she will pay the entire student levy — those who qualify for a grant pay smaller student levies. This provision needs to be reviewed as students who are required to wait an entire semester before receiving the financial support they need will probably drop out of college.
It is imperative that students are represented on the appeals board to be established to investigate appeals. Two appeals processes will be in place, one in each of the vocational education committees and a second at national level. We request a memorandum of understanding between the USI and the Minister for Education and Science stating that a student advocate or representative will be appointed to the independent appeals board.
The role of the VEC as administrator for the maintenance grant is also a matter of concern. The legislation should provide for the establishment of an annual reporting mechanism for each VEC and periodic reviews. A clear line of complaint is needed and should be flagged with the USI and its member unions, in other words, the students union in each college should be informed of the procedure for pursuing a complaint. We need to determine what actions can be effected against the VECs. We also request a clear definition of the service level agreement between the Department and the VECs.
A centralised grant system administered by a single organisation — something akin to the social welfare system — is the only way to ensure consistency. This does not appear to be envisaged in the legislation. USI wants a single VEC to be in charge of the administration of the distribution of the maintenance grant, that is, delivering the money. This will ensure students receive payment at the same time.
The new proposed early application date of circa 1 May is of concern because it breaks a tradition of applying for grants in August. This will be difficult because students will be required to apply for a grant before they do their leaving certificate examinations. The relevant information must be provided to secondary schools and guidance counsellors to ensure intending students fill out applications when it is necessary to do so. The date envisaged also coincides with the university examinations, a stressful period for many students. Students who are used to applying for the maintenance grant in the summer tend to postpone dealing with financial matters until the summer months.
USI requests that health science students and trainee teachers be defined in the Bill as a new type of student. The insertion of the term "placement student" would, we hope, enable students to avail of top-up grants during periods on placement. As the costs associated with these periods are not covered, many students have experienced financial difficulties during placement. Teaching practice is a mandatory part of the bachelor of education degree course. During this time, students are compelled to spend money on travel, photocopying, laminating, posters, markers, paints, flash cards, and so on. All these resources are required to implement the Department's 1999 revised curriculum. No extra subsidy is available to students to help ease this financial burden.
The health science students provide an invaluable service to society and need to be adequately funded while on placement. They could be working at some considerable distance from their home colleges, especially with the establishment of new centres of excellence. This means a student studying nursing in NUIG may well have to travel to Letterkenny to study the nursing of a specific type of injury. They are not reimbursed for travel or other costs associated with their placement. Many health science students have reported that they are required to complete their placement during the summer period which interferes with the potential to carry out summer work.
On 25 February, USI held a consultation with the Department. We brought members of students unions from around the country to interact with the Department and become familiar with the Bill. The issue of foremost concern for our members appears to be the provisions on independent students aged under 23 years. If this matter is not addressed directly, students ask that a statement of implied responsibility be inserted in the Bill, setting out the implied responsibility of parents and their obligation to support their children throughout their college lives. If students aged under 23 years are to be classified as being dependent on their parents, what will be the position of students whose parents have cut them off or who do not wish to depend on their parents? Students want clarity on this provision, perhaps the most important issue raised at the consultation.
Students enjoyed the consultation with the Department which deepened their awareness of the Bill. Ordinary students whose grants are not forthcoming contact student leaders asking what they can do. There is very little one can do. In this regard, the various awarding bodies are highly inconsistent. Sometimes a student will be awarded a grant by one body but not another. We hope the Bill will deliver consistency across the board. For this reason, it is vital that grants are delivered by one vocational education committee. In that case, in the event that grants are issued late, all recipients would be affected. Students must be able to expect consistency, which would also assist in the application process. It is also important that parents are informed within a few weeks of an application being made whether their son or daughter will receive a maintenance grant.
To change the topic, as members will be aware, USI's annual lobby will take place on Wednesday, 30 April. We hope Members, especially members of the joint committee, will be able to attend the event at which student union members from across the country will be present. We look forward to discussing issues with Members. The three main issues this year are part-time fees, accommodation and overall funding for the third level sector. I am sure students will also want to discuss the Student Support Bill because it affects many of them, especially those in receipt of maintenance grants with whom students union workers deal directly.
Many part-time students are unable to study full-time because of family commitments, and so on. Hoping to further their education, they often face a significant financial barrier because they must pay fees. For many of them, this precludes any possibility of entering third level education. To remove this financial barrier USI asks that part-time students no longer be exempted from free fees, the maintenance grant and child care supports. Everyone who can benefit from third level education should be allowed to do so.
USI has asked that a student accommodation task force be established. We recently learned that Dublin, after London, is the second most expensive city for students in the European Union. This is a matter of grave concern.
On the overall funding of the education sector, 500 first-year arts students must sit in lecture halls in our colleges. Sometimes students are prevented from entering lecture halls on health and safety grounds because the capacity may be 400 people. They see the old lecture halls and ask where all the money is going. They ask the reasons they cannot have new facilities, laboratories are under-resourced and PhD students rather than lecturers are teaching them. It is a matter of grave concern that the sector appears to be under-funded.