Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 24 Apr 2008

Student Support Bill 2008: Discussion with Union of Students in Ireland.

The first item is a presentation by the Union of Students in Ireland on proposals for the third level sector in advance of the Committee Stage of the Student Support Bill 2008.

I welcome Mr. Peter Mannion, education officer of the Union of Students in Ireland. We also expect Mr. Hamidreza Khodabakhshi, president of USI. I invite Mr. Mannion to make his presentation outlining USI's concerns.

Members of the committee have absolute privilege but this privilege does not apply to visiting delegations. I ask visitors to be very careful in what they say. They should not refer to anybody by name in a manner likely to be defamatory. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment upon, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Peter Mannion

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.

I thank Mr. Mannion. Mr. Khodabakshi will have an opportunity to contribute when members have asked questions. As I indicated, members will have one minute to ask questions and make comments to each delegation.

I welcome the delegation from USI. Two glaring issues arise regarding the reform of the system, the first of which concerns the burden of proof placed on independent students under 23. It is necessary for the Minister to relax or revise the requirement to prove one's independence. We have waited so long for reform in this area and have come a long way. The reduction in the number of grant administration bodies to 34 is a step in the right direction. There are pros and cons associated with retaining the existing system involving the VECs. A central body would have difficulties with a changeover at this point but seems the Minister is not for turning on the issue. I greatly appreciate the presentation of the delegates and it will help us all when asking the Minister to make revisions, particularly in respect of the question of independence.

The delegates are very welcome. We must consider changes in demography and incorporate that in our consideration of the Bill. There are 38 VECs and some, such as the City of Dublin VEC, have a very substantial support base. I would like to receive from the delegates an indication of the relative efficiencies of the 38 VECs. Do they believe the Bill should allow VECs to group together for the purpose of administering the grant system, such that there would be efficient delivery and economy of administrative resources? A VEC such as that in County Leitrim, which has a population of 26,000, is different to one in Cork or Mayo. Is there a possibility of grouping to achieve greater systemic efficiency?

I welcome the USI delegates. We considered the part-time fees issues with another group and we strongly supported the case it made. It is a question of having cake and eating it and cutting to the chase in saying there is a problem with applying earlier. We cannot say we want students to receive grants as soon as they set foot on the campus of the university or college while saying we do not want them to apply too early. I spent seven years at university. When applying for a course, through the CAO or UCAS, for example, one should also apply for one's grant. While concentrating on getting into university it is not possible to know whether one would get in or qualify for the grant. Both applications should be made simultaneously. What are the views of the delegates on this?

The delegates are welcome and their presentation was very useful. I have received many representations on the position of independent students under 23. The Minister must consider seriously the plight of students who can document they are living on independent means. Teaching practice students — I encountered many over the years — have different costs. Placement students comprise an interesting category and it is a question of recognising them in the first instance. The deadline of 1 May presents a difficulty for students about to sit exams. I concur with Senator Keaveney that the grant application should be made with the CAO application.

I recently engaged in consultation with a large body of students in Galway, where I live. I received feedback to the effect that the quality of teaching in the colleges is declining. Universities are hiring lecturers to carry out research rather than to teach but we need excellence in both areas. The Government is advocating a further-knowledge society, which I support, but many students signing up for PhDs are being conferred with masters degrees. Is this true from the delegates' experience? If so, it is very worrying. The inference is that staff supervision and support are not adequate.

I, too, welcome the delegates. I support Senator Keaveney's proposal that the grant application should be linked to the CAO application. The CAO form is submitted in February, thus allowing one to focus on what one is doing. Early application would allow the grants to be paid as soon as possible. The problem of students who need to make an appeal would be alleviated if they knew their fate earlier. It is dreadful to have people in college who must wait a full semester before knowing whether they can afford to be there. Through no fault of their own, they are sometimes forced to take an alternative route. Their means and financial status may be such that they cannot continue with a course.

We need to examine how grants are administered but I do not believe a centralised system, akin to the social welfare system, would work. There are staff in the VECs who do a great job and have good local knowledge. We can improve the existing system. It is sometimes a case of finding an Irish solution to an Irish problem. The delegates will agree that one is hammered if one is a PAYE worker. If one can cook the books, it is different; this is Ireland, unfortunately. It would be very difficult to put in place a fair and just system but I agree we should try to make changes to it.

I welcome the delegates, whose presentation was enlightening. The issue of student grants is a burning one for all leaving certificate students and students currently at university. I know many students with valid concerns about the application process, the level of grant aid and the lack of knowledge.

The delegates acknowledge in their presentation the new website www.studentfinance.ie. It is an excellent website developed by the Department to provide knowledge to students. I accept that more promotion is required on the website. We can revert to the Minister on that point.

Donegal VEC made a presentation last Friday in Donegal. It is at the cutting edge of providing grant aid on behalf of the Department. At the meeting, mention was made of the 45-day periods in respect of the appeals process. I share the delegates' view that appeals take too long and that this should be addressed. I agree with Deputies Conlon and Keaveney that the grant application could be made alongside the CAO or UCAS application.

I agree with the views expressed on child care support and on the position of independent students under 23 years. I am not sure how it can be addressed in the Bill. Child care support is an issue. A 22 year old constituent of mine, a single mother, informed me child care provision for the year would cost her €5,000 when she went back to college. Being unable to afford to go back to college is prohibiting people from doing so and must be examined.

I share Deputy Quinn's views on monitoring the efficiency levels of each VEC, whether through the drawing up of league tables or otherwise. It should be kept local. If a process is centralised, it is removed from students at a local level. By giving responsibility to VEC's, which are at the cutting edge of education in each county, there will be more local input and feedback. The VECs need to be closely scrutinised by the Department of Education and Science to ensure grants are paid out promptly. The Department also needs to play its role in providing the VECs with the relevant information earlier in the year.

If the under-23s issue could not be addressed directly through the Bill, has there been any legal checking of constitutional barriers regarding implied responsibility? For example, could a 50 year old student stump his or her parents for cash if the State were not to cover his or her education? How many examples of such cases are there?

What response has the student taskforce on accommodation received from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Education and Science?

Mr. Peter Mannion

The quality of teaching is a major concern to everyone involved in the third level sector. Quality assurance agencies, such as the Irish Universities Quality Board, IUQB, and the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, ensure teaching quality standards in third level institutions. Yesterday, when we worked with the IUQB on its review, we made the point that it needs more legislative power to ensure its recommendations are enforced in the colleges.

It is common practice for PhD students to be enrolled in a masters programme before progressing to PhD level. Many drop out of their graduate courses after one year which is of concern as we are working towards a knowledge-based economy. Students constantly bring up the issue of the quality of teaching. The use of masters and PhD students to teach undergraduates is of concern to us.

Are students bringing it up with their lecturers?

Mr. Peter Mannion

They are and the colleges know this already. I know some colleges and universities are trying to work on this. However, the resources they have are limited. Many lecturers are employed on their research potential as opposed to the quality of their teaching.

Mr. Hamidreza Khodabakshi

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for the warm welcome to USI.

Regarding the question raised about the CAO, the problem is one that is common to Ireland — the level of bureaucracy that happens with everything. Gathering the 33 VECs together in the grants process was a large step that in a country like Ireland is very hard to achieve.

I am in favour of grant applications being linked to the CAO application. I do not want, however, to wait another ten years to ensure such a system is established.

We were in consultation with the Irish Vocational Education Association, IVEA, before the Bill was published. Its main issue with releasing applications early in the year came down to the Departments' release of grant figures. It needs the grant figures to come out around March to release the application forms around April. The earlier the grant figures from the Department are released, the better. So far every year they are released at the end of June. USI then distributes information posters around the colleges. It is late in the college year and many students could have already started their summer jobs. The system must change so that available grants can be promoted among students.

Most of the support services for grants are in place. However, the majority of people taking advantage of them are not the most eligible candidates. They are the ones who know their way around the system. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, with parents unemployed or in prison, do not have easy access to support about the various grants that may be available to them.

The student finance website is a useful resource and one on which USI was consulted. We, along with the HEA access officer, will launch an awareness campaign about it in schools and third level institutions to ensure students know about grants before they leave schools and colleges this year.

I thank Deputy Quinn for the support he has given USI with the Bill through the year. USI made several proposals to the Department regarding the efficiency of the VECs to ensure consistency. USI assumes that strict guidelines from the IVEA will be checked. The Bill provides for the Minister to have the authority to order reviews of the process but it does not set them in an annual format. I believe that needs to be set up before the Bill is enacted. If it is not, the reviews could be run only every ten years in some of the VECs. There must be a maximum period a VEC can go without a review of its allocation of grants. This issue is similar to teaching quality assurance. USI also believes that different VECs should review others, as well as dealing with appeals, to ensure an external review structure is in place.

I am disappointed with the response to the student accommodation taskforce. During the year, USI received different promises from various Deputies and Ministers but no action. The accommodation issue is not just a problem for students in the east. If this problem is not tackled effectively, many young people will not be able to go to college because they cannot afford accommodation. It is becoming the most expensive part of education across the country. The grant allowance, even the highest one, cannot support a student's rent in Dublin city. All USI has asked for is that the student accommodation taskforce examine the problem and make recommendations to the Government as to how it can be addressed. So far, a simple issue such as this has not been resolved. I am surprised at what it takes for a Minister of the Government to come out with this. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, promised USI on the day of the Green Party annual conference that this issue would be dealt with promptly. I appeal to members of the committee to raise this issue with their colleagues. We will raise it next week at Leinster House when we lobby Members of the Oireachtas. It is not just an issue for USI, but for the country and it needs to be sorted now. Otherwise the problem will be deeper in ten years than it is today.

The last item I want to mention concerns grants — I am not sure whether my colleague, Mr. Peter Mannion, has raised it. As well as part-time students, some students attend private colleges. Again, it is one of those issues which generates numerous calls during the year from people who have difficulties. Some of them might not have sufficient points to attend the colleges they want so they attend courses in private colleges, which are not available elsewhere. Are we to tell people that if they want to avail of grants they must choose courses that are recognised for this purpose, or should they have a choice to progress their studies along alternate lines? That is another issue we would like the committee to address and we ask the Minister to make provision for private colleges to be included as well.

Finally, I ask members of the committee to request their party members to join students next Wednesday at Buswell's Hotel, just across the road, in lobbying the Oireachtas.

Well said — Mr. Khodabakhshi did not sound hoarse at all. I thank the USI delegates. Senator Cecelia Keaveney wishes to make a brief intervention.

Fundamentally, the issue is right — bringing back the release of the data, if possible. If it was released early in the year, career guidance teachers could support the students and it would tie into an overall package that dealt with the administrative details before the examinations are taken. It makes sense.

I thank the Senator. That is a fair comment. I thank the USI again for coming, despite the president's middling health. I thank Mr. Peter Mannion, the education officer, for his very thorough presentation — I am not being patronising in saying this. USI delegates are very welcome to watch the rest of the discussion. The issue of private establishments will be dealt with in about half an hour.

Mr. Stephen Stewart is a mature student at NUI Maynooth and has done some detailed work regarding proposed changes to allow an increase in the rate of the maintenance grant to independent adult learners from minimum wage backgrounds who have been unemployed for little less than the statutory continuous 391 days. He also wants to raise a number of other issues in advance of the committee's consideration of the Student Support Bill. Some correspondence has come from the Department of Social and Family Affairs in response to his proposal, which was submitted some time ago. Mr. Stewart will give a synopsis of his proposal. As may be seen, it is very detailed and it would take more than the ten minutes allocated to go through it. He has already made a proposal at the Aontas adult learners' festival and that went down very well. I ask him to outline his case as to why the Minister should make provisions in the Bill as regards students in his position.

Mr. Stephen Stewart

I thank the Chairman and the committee for this opportunity. This is my modest policy proposal. The cartoon on the front page tells the whole story. If one is seeking a third level qualification it is like doing a degree course to find out how to fund it. I wrote to the financial adviser in The Irish Times to find out how I might approach the problem and the paper was good enough to print my letter and the cartoon.

I will give some background from a mature student's viewpoint to the grants system and my experience in this regard. I have two suggestions in the document here. The three main grants are the back to education allowance, rent allowance and the higher education grant. The back to education allowance is administered by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The rent allowance comes under the Department of Health and Children and the higher education grant, the one I want to focus on, is a matter for the Department of Education and Science. I can only speak from the viewpoint of a mature student, over the age of 23 and independent. I will focus then on a particular type of mature student and the higher education grant.

I left school at 16, after the intermediate certificate, and served my time with my father, who was a painter. That was what one did at the time — got a trade. When I was 32 I realised I had to decide whether to keep going in the stop-start construction industry, where there was either plenty of work or none. At the end of the year, one might be lucky to have earned above the minimum wage, on average. I have my P60 from 2000. Basically, I was in a low-paid employment trap. Some years I earned €12,000, less than that in others. That worked out at around €250 a week over the year, so I had to make a decision since no building society would entertain giving one a mortgage on those types of figures. Education seemed to be the way forward, so it was a question of how to do it.

In 2000, I finally decided to do it and did a computer course first of all. Then I found out about the part-time return to learning course in NUI Maynooth, which I did. I was encouraged to apply for a degree course, although I had no idea how to fund it. In the event, I was advised to secure a place and the money would come.

I applied but did not succeed in getting the course I wanted. I returned to work and the following year got a place on the course I wanted, media studies at NUI, Maynooth. I was offered the place in August so I had until September to figure out how to fund it but, because I worked, I did not get the back to education allowance. I did not realise how much of an impact this was going to have. In any event I took up the offer of a place at NUI, Maynooth. I was there for a while before I heard about a top-up grant for the first time. This is a special rate of maintenance grant. When I phoned about it, I was asked whether I qualified for the back to education grant and I said "No". I was then told that because of this I could not get the top-up grant. In effect, they were saying: "We cannot help you because we are not helping you." I thought this was wrong, so I examined the figures. The table, for the committee's reference, is on page 4 of the document.

As one does not get the back to education allowance from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, one is not entitled to rent support and because one is not getting the back to education allowance, one is not entitled to the special rate of maintenance grant. The income source for the full three-year degree will depend on what one was doing the year before one enters college. Basically, I qualified for just the €3,420 higher education maintenance grant.

When I looked at the figures I saw that the back to education allowance was worth €10,483, rent support was equivalent to €130 per week for an independent adult or €6,760 annually and the maintenance grant was €3,420, with an additional special rate maintenance grant of €3,270. Then there are other grants for which one might qualify if one gets the back to education allowance. The total is €25,000 per annum. That is fixed for three years, so one can get €75,000 over that time if one qualifies for the back to education allowance. If one does not qualify for the allowance because one had worked in the year before returning to education, then one qualifies for €4,103 per annum, which is around €12,000 over the three years. There is a difference of €63,489 between the two cases. I was amazed at that figure. Going to work that morning in December 2004 cost me €64,000 and that is something I must deal with. I do not think it is fair.

I started my degree in 2005 and I wrote to my elected representative about the situation at an early stage. As the funding is spread between different Departments, it gets a bit confusing. It has led to me appearing before this committee today. I was told that it is not good enough to point out what is wrong and that I must suggest a way of fixing the situation. This is where my policy proposal comes in. I have put those figures together and given the bottom line.

When I refer to low paid work, I mean less than the minimum wage. The minimum wage in Ireland is €17,992 per annum, or €346 per week. The social welfare ceiling is €18,055, or €347 per week. That decides a person's fate through college as a mature student. I proposed in page 10 of the document that officials from the student support unit of the Department of Education and Science be persuaded to insert the words "accept independent mature students" into the document that accompanies the higher education grant application. That does not need any law or any amendment. It is just clause 446 in the accompanying note. The insertion of these four words would allow independent mature students from a low-paid background earning below the minimum wage to apply for the top-up grant. It would alleviate some of the difference and would help towards paying the rent.

I wrote to the Combat Poverty Agency about this situation, comparing it to a poverty trap. The agency provided a pre-budget submission to the Government this year and asked that low-income workers should be eligible for similar rates, as some of them do not receive social welfare. There should be similar treatment for similar income. It would allow people to escape the low income trap.

I believe that investing in people would prove to be a good use of resources. I have seen people in Maynooth drop out because they could not live on €4,000 per year. We must give them an option. The system currently penalises those who choose to work. People are encouraged to avoid work at the moment to qualify for all the grants that are going. That does something to a person and somebody who does not want to take that route does not have a choice. If this is acted upon, then at least that person has a choice.

I thank Mr. Stewart for his comprehensive presentation. I hope Members have read through it because it is hard to explain it in just ten minutes. Other people will make similar presentations and may want a copy of Mr. Stewart's work, so I hope he keeps it and passes it on to them.

I welcome Mr. Stewart and congratulate him on working his way through the web of confusion regarding the allowances available. It is difficult to figure out which of the back to education allowance, rent allowance and the higher education grants he qualifies for in the long run. He showed great determination and had the ability to go through it, but I am sure that many others in a similar situation failed due to the bureaucracy that is there. The proposals he provided are very positive. It all comes down to four words in order to gain the exemption, and we should embrace this for those who would not go through what Mr. Stewart did to achieve his goals.

Which of the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children would Mr. Stewart disregard most following the way they responded to his needs?

We have met before and I heard Mr. Stewart's presentation at the Aontas conference, so I will be brief. The Department of Finance questions to his proposal will be about how much this will cost and how many people will be affected. If his proposals were to be implemented, the grant subsidy contribution would go from €4,000 up to €25,000 according to his own calculations. How many people are likely to be in Mr. Stewart's circumstances? What kind of cost calculation is involved? His proposals do not require legislation, but they require approval from the Department of Finance. They will immediately ask for an estimation of the approximate cost.

I am amazed that no Department seems to be able to help Mr. Stewart after so long. I congratulate him on his perseverance. If we are talking about social inclusion, then somebody in the colleges should be able to deal with these circumstances. There are many liaison officers in different Departments and it is a disgrace that Mr. Stewart has to come in here today to highlight this to us. Anything this committee can do to ensure that this situation does not occur again will have to be done.

I also congratulate Mr. Stewart. I am struck by the journey he had to make to find himself where he is now. He has shown a great deal of conviction in the value of an education as an investment in himself. We pay lip service to the notion that the greatest investment for a knowledge society would in be more skills and more education. The proof of that is the number of barriers Mr. Stewart came up against to achieve that.

Did Mr. Stewart go through an access course to get into college? I am familiar with the issue of access for people with lower levels of second level education to bring them to the level where they would enter third level. Because I have not gone through that myself, I do not know whether they give information on funding and how to avail of the various grants available. Mr. Stewart has done two things. One concerns the financial end but getting onto a course is another. Well done to him.

I join other members in congratulating Mr. Stewart on a magnificent presentation which took much work and effort. It is our responsibility to ensure his work has not been in vain and his ideas will be incorporated or at least put to the Minister and the Department of Education and Science when we are discussing the Student Support Bill. He makes a number of very reasonable and thought provoking points. I thank him for his contribution.

Mr. Stewart made an excellent presentation which was very well laid out and researched. It informs us of the difficulties suffered by people in his situation, who were in low paid employment and penalised as a result, when compared with someone costing the State money. While Mr. Stewart cost the State nothing, when he wanted to enter education, he was penalised. This is an issue we must examine. The information he has provided for us today can certainly be raised on his behalf.

I congratulate Mr. Stewart for the articulate way in which he put his case. Did he ever feel like giving up the battle?

Before Mr. Stewart answers that question, I will throw in my own tuppence worth. With Deputy Quinn and a number of others, I heard Mr. Stewart speak at the Aontas adult learners festival. Very often reports such as this end up in the bin or on the pile, not having been read. The clear message to the Minister and her departmental officials is that this is worth reading because it conveys Mr. Stewart's experience. Even if they only read the contents page, it would be a start. It points out that Mr. Stewart will graduate with a €20,000 loan before he even begins to try to advance to doing his masters degress, despite the fact that he will be paying tax and contributing to the State and might possibly end up employing people in the future because of the work he has put in.

I hope my question is not a stupid one. Mr. Stewart has already been screwed by the system. Why did he make such an effort to highlight this? It is a very detailed piece of work. What was his motivation?

Mr. Stephen Stewart

To answer that question, it was anger. This was a healthy way to express that anger, something I have learned through university. This has been my education, with the other 24 modules.

Will Mr. Stewart apply for a job in the Department?

Mr. Stephen Stewart

In reply to Deputy Quinn, I have costed this proposal. Approximately 1,000 people each year find themselves in this situation. I do not know how many walk away. I am lucky in that I can climb a ladder to clean gutters or do whatever I have to do to get by, as well as borrowing money. Those people had to walk away. I am blessed that I did not have to. Approximately 1,000 people would fit into this category. On page 5 of the presentation I give the figures; they are the best figures I can get from the Department. It is hard to find the exact figure but I calculate that if we were to invest €3,000 in 1,000 people a year, the rewards would become evident. It is a matter for the Department of Finance.

I have forgotten some of the questions asked.

I asked about the access course.

Mr. Stephen Stewart

In NUI, Maynooth, there is a department to solve every single problem one could have, from a broken heart to not knowing how to write an essay. However, if a person has problems with money, they do not want to know.

Support is not knitted in.

Mr. Stephen Stewart

A person cannot get the information he or she needs.

Is Mr. Stewart suggesting there should be facilitators in the colleges and that when it comes to getting through the red tape——

Mr. Stephen Stewart

I would not be negative about anybody. However, when it comes to finance, one must fit. If people are on social welfare payments for a year, they fit and will receive the back to education allowance, the green card to all the support payments available, which is very good for those who fit. However, if one does not fit, if one is stuck in the low pay trap, there is no way out.

Part-time education fees are substantial. While there are tax incentives, they are of no use to those who do not earn enough to pay tax. It is not a real option. The only option is full-time education but if a person makes the break, he or she is penalised. That person could cost the State €20,000 by signing on the dole and receiving rent allowance while he or she waits to qualify for the €75,000 in cash guaranteed to him or her.

I accept there is no such thing as a perfect system and I am not here to lay blame. This is the system as I have experienced it. My last lecture will be next week and my exams begin next month. On the Tuesday after my last exam, I will have a €20,000 loan. That is the reality. Others who have qualified for grants are talking about what they want to study for their masters degree. That is their reality. This is not sour grapes. I want to see positive change, although it is too late for me.

Mr. Stewart has unravelled, as nobody else could have, what is known in the jargon as a poverty trap. It is our responsibility to eliminate it. The cost, on a crude calculation, assuming that the 1,000 people in Mr. Stewart's category were to move from a figure of €4,000 per annum to €25,000, would be approximately €20 million.

Mr. Stephen Stewart

To correct the Deputy, I am suggesting the people concerned qualify for the top-up grant immediately, which would mean a further €3,000.

In that case, the amount would be far less.

Mr. Stephen Stewart

I will take it on the chin. I did not qualify for the back to education allowance or rent allowance. However, the fact I do not qualify for the top-up grant because I do not qualify for the other allowances is the reason I blew the whistle. This is why I am looking for the referee to step in and say——

Would the top-up grant make it bearable to go——

Mr. Stephen Stewart

It would make it just about bearable.

In that case, the cost would be a fraction of the amount I have just stated.

Let us not break down the figures now. More is required and it needs to come out——

Mr. Stephen Stewart

Definitely. That is an immediate step. In the future there will I hope be parity of esteem, to steal a phrase. Equal income, equal treatment — it does not matter where that income comes from.

Deputy Burke asked which of the three Departments was the most difficult.

Which of the three, if any, could be given the red card?

Mr. Stephen Stewart

The Department of Social and Family Affairs administers the back to education allowance scheme. As I knew I did not have one year of unemployment behind me, I never focused on that Department. The Department of Health and Children looks after the rent allowance scheme. I discovered that because I was not in receipt of social welfare payments, I could not receive rent allowance. The Department of Education and Science was my focus and within it, the top-up grant. I thought it would be the easiest to change because it would not require legislation. Four words would change it. I thought that if I told the Department in my first year, I might qualify in my second year. All I was thinking about was getting through. The Department of Education and Science gets the red card. It is the only Department on which I really focused. This problem is fixable. It would help a lot of people.

And so say all of us.

The independence of Oireachtas committees is vital but a difficulty we have is that we cannot put proposals to the Minister or departmental officials while the delegates are here. We must speak to them separately. I am sure members, particularly those on the Opposition benches, will table suitable amendments on Committee Stage on foot of Mr. Stewart's excellent presentation. I thank him for attending. I hope it has not been in vain and that his concerns will be addressed. He is welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting.

The next presentation will be by the representatives of the Higher Education Colleges Association, HECA, who will outline their concerns about the Student Support Bill. The lack of grant assistance available to students of private colleges was referred to by the USI delegation. I welcome Mr. Mark Kane and Ms Grace Donnelly, students at Griffith College, Dublin; Mr. Barry Stokes, student services, Griffith College; Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty, president of Griffith College; and Mr. Dean Lennon and Mr. Keith Butler, students at Dublin Business School. The delegates have ten minutes collectively to make a presentation. They will also have an opportunity to respond to members' questions. I remind them that while members have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. They should be careful to avoid saying anything libellous or defamatory. They can wink at us and we will know exactly what they mean. I know they are not here to tell lies about people but to offer their personal stories. I remind members that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Mark Kane

I obtained my place at Griffith College through the CAO system, based on my leaving certificate results. Griffith College awarded me a means tested scholarship which allowed me to attend the college. I was also offered a place on a marketing diploma course at Dundalk Institute of Technology. I would have received a maintenance grant from the State if I had accepted that offer because the institutes of technology are public institutions. However, I rejected it because journalism is what I want to do. I am now in my final year and will complete my final examinations next month. I did not want to accept the place at Dundalk Institute of Technology only to change my mind later and drop out. That would have meant taking a place from somebody for whom the course might have been his or her first choice. Instead, I accepted the offer to study journalism at Griffith College. If I had opted for the course at Dundalk Institute of Technology, I would have received a higher maintenance grant than the one I receive under my scholarship at Griffith College because I would have had to leave home and obtain accommodation close to college. I am from Inchicore on the south side of Dublin city.

My mother suffered a stroke before I was born which left her without the use of her arms and hands and unable to speak. My father has been a full-time carer since that time and is unable to work outside the home. This means the only household income is my father's carer's allowance. This cannot support all three of us now that I am in college. I decided to take up a part-time job when I started college in order that I could look after myself and, when possible, help out my parents. That is what I have been doing until recently when my final examinations came into sight.

As a student at a private institution, I am not eligible to receive a maintenance grant. I nevertheless applied when I started college and received a rejection letter. I then went through the appeals process and received another letter stating I would not receive the grant. The local authority told me that while I qualified on a financial basis, I was ineligible because I was attending Griffith College. I took my case to an independent ombudsman who concluded that the State had done nothing wrong and was merely following the rules. I sought legal aid at this point but with college commitments and other time constraints, I was under considerable pressure.

Mr. Barry Stokes offered me guidance and advised me on what I needed to do to fight this. Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty put me in contact with the HECA which assisted me with the legal fees necessary to take the State to court. All this began 18 months ago at the start of my second year. The case went to the High Court six weeks ago and the State offered me multiple deals. I was adamant that a gagging order should not be attached to any agreement. I knew before the case went to court that I was due to attend today's meeting. My objective is not only that I should receive a maintenance grant from the State but also that there be a judicial review of the Student Support Bill.

I received the first offer from the State the night before the case was due in court. I was offered two years' grant payment and a full confidentiality agreement. I rejected this immediately because I did not want a gagging order. The second offer, made on the morning of the court case, was for two years' grant payment and a less strict confidentiality agreement. I rejected this offer for the same reason. At the very last moment, before the court hearing began, I was offered a full three years of grant payments — what I would have received if I had attended a public college — and a no confidentiality agreement. My legal team advised me that it was best to accept this offer because there was no way of knowing what would happen in court.

Were Mr. Kane's legal costs covered?

Mr. Mark Kane

Yes, the State covered all legal fees. I received the grant and there was no confidentiality agreement. The three years of grant payments amounted to €7,500. If I had gone to Dundalk Institute of Technology, I would have received a maintenance grant of some €10,000 because I would have been attending college further from home. The legal fees in the case were in the region of €100,000. One could say I saved the State money by going to Griffith College instead of Dundalk Institute of Technology and that the legal fees for which the State was liable would have covered the grant payments to me, to my colleagues, Mr. Dean Lennon, Mr. Keith Butler and Ms Grace Donnelly, and to the other students at Griffith College. There are not many, approximately five, who qualify. It costs €12,000 a year to attend the King's Inns where students are eligible to apply for maintenance grants. My course fee which was paid by the college is some €4,500 to €5,000 per year. The part of the Student Support Bill to which we chiefly object is section 8(3)(e) which precludes students in private institutions from being granted eligibility for maintenance grants.

Ms Grace Donnelly

I am a second year student at Griffith College, studying for a BA in legal studies with the intention of taking the optional fourth year to obtain the bachelor of law, LLB. The course I am studying is recognised by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC. Unlike Mr. Kane, I am not on a scholarship and must pay my fees myself. I applied through the CAO to Trinity College, Dublin and University College, Dublin but won a place at Griffith College. Neither of my parents is in employment. My father was injured at work many years ago and advised on medical grounds to take early retirement. He is in receipt of disability benefit. When I became a mother last summer, he lost a portion of his benefit because I was no longer a dependant. I strongly considered leaving college after the birth of my child because I doubted that I could afford to continue. I had to use my savings from part-time and summer work when the baby arrived. If my parents had not taken out a life loan on their home to cover my fees, I would have been unable to continue in third level education.

The LLB course I plan to take in fourth year is recognised by Nottingham Trent University. I would be eligible for a maintenance grant if I were to go to Nottingham to study, although I would have to pay fees equivalent to those I am paying at Griffith College. This option would not be feasible.

While I would be in receipt of a grant at Nottingham Trent University, NTU, I would not be able to afford to live over there and support my daughter and myself financially, let alone emotionally. It would mean uprooting her from the family she loves and that cares about her. My main problem with the grants issue is that it seems to me that I am deemed to be rich because I attend a private college, whereas as outlined earlier, I am not and am struggling to make ends meet. This is too harsh and is simply because I chose to attend Griffith College, where, in recent law exams, my lecturers have had eight out of nine first place prizes in the professional law exams. Is it because I have so chosen and want to do the best that I am not being given a grant? Moreover, the course I intend to do is validated by NTU. Therefore, although I am validated by NTU, it would mean being obliged to go to England and, as I already outlined, that would mean uprooting everything.

Mr. Mark Kane also raised the point that were I able to pay €12,000 in fees to the King's Inns, I would be eligible for a grant there. However, I can barely afford the fees I pay to Griffith College. It greatly upset me when I found out about Mr. Kane's legal fees and the financial pressure that my parents and I were put under, because I thought this could have paid for my grant, as well as those for Mr. Dean Lennon and Mr. Keith Butler. However there is a problem in this regard. It seems to me that after I gave birth, the Department of Social and Family Affairs decreased what was helping my parents because of me. Where has my right to education gone? My parents are losing money because I had a child and now am independent. I am no longer dependent on my parents because I have my own child. This seems really unfair to me, it is unfair to my parents to put them through the financial strain and is unfair to my daughter. I ask members to put themselves in my shoes and to stop this proposed change. The Student Support Bill should be amended so that it does not exclude people like me or my colleagues who are present.

Before we move on to Mr. Dean Lennon and Mr. Keith Butler, for the benefit of members who may not have it to hand, section 8(1)(e) relates to the bodies that will be covered. It refers to “an educational institution that provides higher education and training, which is situated in a Member State other than the State”, such as the example Ms Donnelly cited from across the water, “and which is financed essentially out of public funds”.

The issue specifically before the joint committee today concerns potential amendments to the Bill that could sort out matters. While we will get to questions and comments in a while, I simply wished to bring this to everyone's attention and in particular to those who are watching the debate today. I ask Mr. Dean Lennon to speak on this issue.

Mr. Dean Lennon

I am a student studying for a BA honours degree in business studies at Dublin Business School. I applied through the CAO system for a certificate in business studies, which I worked hard to complete and which enabled me to transfer to the BA honours degree. My father died when I was 12 and I live at home with my mother at present. She works in a launderette and does not earn a great deal of money. She struggles to support me and, while I have offered to work part time, because she did not have such an opportunity she considers it to be important for me complete my studies. I would not be able to do so unless she was 150% behind me. On applying for a maintenance grant, although I met all the criteria financially I was rejected because I attend a private college even though it is on a scholarship basis and my course is a HETAC programme, which is awarded by the Government. Were the maintenance grant available to students in my position, it would encourage them, enable them to avail of third level education and make them financially secure in the future.

Mr. Keith Butler

Like Mr. Dean Lennon, I also am a student at Dublin Business School. I qualified for DBS through the CAS-CAO system. At present, I am studying for a business and marketing degree, which is awarded by HETAC. It is a three-year course and I have a further chance to study for an additional year for an honours qualification, which also is awarded by HETAC.

Five years ago, my father walked out on my family, leaving my mother, my two younger brothers and my sister. At present I work part time to try to bring some income into the family. My mother is the primary incomer earner and supports my two brothers and my sister. I was awarded a scholarship from DBS and am grateful for it. Were it not for the scholarship, I would have been unable to attend college and would have been obliged to work full time. When at school, I was advised by my career guidance counsellor to opt for a business course as it would offer better financial security to me and my family.

While Mr. Hegarty and Mr. Stokes will get a chance to make some comments in response to the questions and of their own volition, I am trying to move things on at present. I will ask the leading spokesperson for Fine Gael to make his contribution, followed by the leading spokesperson for the Labour Party. The Vice Chairman, Deputy Quinn, should note that I will be obliged to leave the room for approximately five minutes. Consequently, after making his contribution, I would be grateful were he to chair the meeting for a few minutes.

I welcome the students and the principal of Griffith College before the joint committee. Some earlier submissions today drew some parallels regarding the difficulties that exist. However, the examples provided by the students of their own circumstances demonstrate the Bill as it stands must be amended. I do not believe any Department or Minister could accept it. In particular, I congratulate Mr. Mark Kane and his colleagues for the manner in which they have seen the issue through to the end in light of how they have been victimised in many different ways.

Do the students expect a positive follow-through from the actions they have taken or will the gagging order simply close the book on cases similar to their own, if such exist? Had Mr. Kane taken up his CAO offer for the diploma in Dundalk Institute of Technology, rather than opting for journalism in Griffith College, would he have been eligible for the maintenance grant? It is unbelievable that he has been excluded in the light of the circumstances he has outlined. In the case of Ms Grace Donnelly, had she attended the LLB course in Nottingham Trent University itself, instead of opting to undertake the course in Griffith College, would she have been given a grant by the Department of Education and Science?

Ms Grace Donnelly

Yes.

While I do not wish to interrupt the flow of Ms Donnelly's reply to what I am sure is a specific question, the usual protocol is to take all the questions together because someone else may have a follow-up question for her.

Ms Grace Donnelly

Fine.

She will be allocated plenty of time to speak.

The students have answered all the questions I had intended to ask. In the interests of time, I would prefer to hear their replies rather than asking a question that already has been asked.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn took the Chair.

I was greatly struck by the students' presentations and have learned a good deal this morning. I have learned that many students of poor means attend private colleges. I agree with Ms Donnelly that the opposite perception exists. I was pleased to hear the presentations from all the groups this morning, including those of the present witnesses, because when it comes before the Seanad I will handle this Bill as Fine Gael's education spokesperson. As I also have been contacted by Mr. David Niland of Galway Business School in this regard, I had some knowledge that it was an issue.

Would having the support follow the student, rather than the college, be a solution?

I refer to Ms Grace Donnelly's case. In education I have seen terrible discrimination against young mothers. A young mothers in education project in Galway has been cut because it did not get the €50,000 it had received in former years. It was only a pilot project that never had been mainstreamed and such projects always are at risk of being cut. It has been demonstrated to me repeatedly that in Ireland, those who are not part of the mainstream or who are off the edges in any way, do not appear to be understood by anyone. Ms Donnelly has demonstrated the manner in which her parents and her baby have been affected. I presume her parents mind her child at present. One thinks of what would happen if she did not have that support. I wonder how she finances herself. She said she must pay fees. Am I correct in thinking that the fees of Mr. Kane and Mr. Lennon are paid?

Mr. Dean Lennon

Yes, through a scholarship from Dublin Business School.

The same is true for Mr. Butler. I was keen to find that out in that case. I have a question for the college. Has it found ways to help the students from low income backgrounds to afford the fees? What is it doing as a private college? Sin an scéal. I look forward to hearing the answers. I take my hat off to all four of the students here.

In common with the rest of the members of the committee, I am highly impressed with the contributions made by the students here today. The difficulties experienced by the students, particularly in their colleges, is an area of which I was not very aware. The students were most eloquent in how they set them out.

The question of the Student Support Bill will come back to the committee. Obviously, the Minister will have views with regard to issues such as those relating to the students but I am certainly very impressed with what they said. I hope that discussion with the Minister can lead to some improvements. I thank the students for their contributions.

It is ironic that a group of transition year students from my constituency is in the House at the moment. This group will make a presentation to the Chairman of one of the Oireachtas committees in about two minutes on the issue of female genital mutilation in the Third World, which is a very important issue for them. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the grants but it is an issue of great concern to those young female students in a school in Wicklow.

When one combines the idealism expressed here by the third level students and the idealism expressed by other young people earlier on today and people coming from my constituency, it is great to realise that our young people are so idealistic and so keen to improve the situation for other people as well as themselves. That generosity is very striking. I may have to leave for a few minutes but I will return. I am apologise for having to do so but, unfortunately, the other group is waiting for me. I will stay as long as I can.

I congratulate the students for telling their stories so articulately. A constant theme here and in previous presentations is that many people have to take on what seems to be a very faceless system with no human considerations given. Mr. Kane mentioned the gagging order the State tried to put on him. Were there any conditions imposed on him in respect of the settlement terms of his action against the State?

I presume I know the answer to this but the reason the State put a gagging order on Mr. Kane was that it did not want other students to follow his path. Does the fact that it was done as a settlement mean that other students cannot benefit from what Mr. Kane forced the State to do? I hope I am making myself clear on those questions.

Deputy Paul Gogarty took the Chair.

Has Deputy Joe Behan spoken?

I congratulate the students on their presentation. I have been a member of this committee for nearly a year. The presentations today showed the human side of education. I congratulate them on their resilience and wish them well in the future.

Could Mr. Kane tell me whether many students in his college are eligible for a maintenance grant on a means-tested basis? Did he say five?

Mr. Mark Kane

Five. I would be the sixth.

I would say to Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty that it is good to see this presentation, which is of considerable interest to us. We are talking about value for money. Education in the public sector is probably a more effective way of getting value for money. Is Griffith College caught in a kind of educational turf war because it is not being recognised in this way? Could Mr. Lennon or Mr. Butler tell me what scholarship they received or who it came from?

We will return to that. Two more people want to contribute.

I am sorry I was not here for the presentation but I wanted to raise something relating to the educational sphere on the Order of Business in the Seanad. The speakers have answered the question about how many students are involved. How many colleges in the country are private colleges? How many people are we talking about overall because, ultimately, the Department of Finance always revolves around statistics, numbers and how much it will cost.

Another issue does not relate to maintenance but concerns fees. A significant issue for Donegal students is that they are charged fees if they study in the North because fees have been introduced there. This severely curtails people's ability to access third level education. One of the reasons it was said that this cannot be resolved is that if students studying in the North were paid, it would be the equivalent of these students going to a private college because fees were imposed. So if it was solved in respect of students studying in the North, fees would have to be available to private colleges in the Republic as well. I say this as more of a comment than anything else. It still relates to my first question, namely, how many are involved. Having gone through seven years of university, I know what it is like to struggle through. If people are eligible for maintenance grants, they should be entitled to get them regardless of what college they attend as long as the course is approved.

I am not shocked much but the reality of the students' situation has shocked me. I knew these scenarios existed from an intellectual point of view but it was great to hear the students' stories in person to see how it affects their career path. It is absolutely endemic. This simply must change. I cannot see any Minister who would not see the human story and how few students are involved and not change the Bill. I hope this will change.

Senator Healy Eames indicated that she must leave shortly so, if possible, could the students address some of her issues first? Mr. Hegarty and Mr. Stokes will get their chance to speak. We will let the students respond because they told the stories. It is slightly distressing to come before a committee and open one's heart but we would like it if students could open them a little further and feel free to say whatever they want as long as they do not defame anybody. If they want to be as strong as possible, now is the opportunity to be so. We will take speakers in the order in which they spoke so we will begin with Mr. Kane.

Mr. Mark Kane

In respect of the gagging order, the State did not want me to speak to the media or anyone else. If I accepted the gagging order, I could not have come here today and told my story so the committee would only have been able to listen to Ms Donnelly, Mr. Lennon and Mr. Butler. That was pretty much the only condition it had. No details of any kind were to be given to anyone at the end of it.

Will that settlement enable other students to benefit?

Mr. Mark Kane

Yes, because it was a public settlement. I hope the legislation will be changed and people will not have to go through the courts every week.

Is Mr. Kane saying other people in his situation will not have to go through the courts like him?

Mr. Mark Kane

As it stands, I guess that they would have to do as I did.

Is that departmental discretion?

Mr. Mark Kane

Yes, if they decide to go through and they have a case.

It is certainly helpful for us to know about that case in advance of the Student Support Bill because it creates a helpful precedent to help us amend the Bill.

Mr. Mark Kane

I hope I have set an example because no one has ever done that before. Hopefully, the legislation will be changed so this will not happen. Have I covered everything?

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I must excuse myself for the Order of Business in approximately three minutes. I would happily meet Mr. Kane afterwards if he wishes. Should the support follow the student as opposed to the college?

Mr. Mark Kane

Yes.

If the student qualifies for the support in another college because of his or her means, would the support following him or her be the ideal way?

Mr. Mark Kane

It is a simple matter. The support is means tested, a fine way to pick people. The support should be based on the person. I was denied because I walk to Griffith College instead of DCU every morning.

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

I will respond to Senator Healy Eames before she leaves. She is right that the support should follow the student. Norwegian students sitting beside Mr. Kane in his classroom receive 25% grants and 75% loans from their Government to study in Griffith College. If they succeed in their exams on their first attempt, the grants increase to 40% and the loans decrease to 60%. We do not have a problem with the academic performance of Norwegian students. The system works well. If the Norwegian Government does not have a problem with funding a student in Griffith College, why should our Government?

That is a clear point.

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

Funding should follow the student in respect of maintenance and fee payments, a case made by Ms Donnelly eloquently.

Ms Grace Donnelly

I will respond to Senator Healy Eames's question. I am in receipt of lone parent's allowance, the majority of which I give to my mother because she shops for me and so on and a small portion of which I save for the following year's fees. Last year, however, I was working. This is how I support myself.

Ms Donnelly relies on her mother, her studentship and her part-time work.

Ms Grace Donnelly

No, I am not working currently, although I was previously.

Ms Donnelly had been working.

Ms Grace Donnelly

Yes. To answer Deputy Burke's question, I could get a grant if I attended Nottingham Trent University and I would pay fees equivalent to those I pay in Griffith College, but the grant would not allow me to support my child and myself, nor would I be able to do so emotionally.

It is fair to point out that Ms Donnelly would have none of her family to help with childminding.

Ms Grace Donnelly

I would need to pay for child care.

Mr. Dean Lennon

On the scholarship, Mr. Butler, Mr. Kane and I come from the same secondary school. The Dublin Business School, which Mr. Butler and I attend, has a relationship with James's Street Christian Brothers school as an underprivileged area, providing students with the opportunity to attend third level education. I met all of the financial criteria for a maintenance grant, but I was told "No" because I have a scholarship to Dublin Business School, a private college. Were I to attend UCD or DIT, I would receive a maintenance grant.

Could Mr. Lennon get a scholarship also?

Mr. Dean Lennon

No.

The scholarship is for the Dublin Business School.

Mr. Dean Lennon

Yes.

It is a maintenance issue.

Mr. Keith Butler

Like Mr. Lennon, I applied for and met the financial criteria for a maintenance grant, but I was not entitled to it due to my scholarship from the Dublin Business School.

I thank our guests and hope their heartfelt stories of attending private colleges without the grants for which they would qualify were they in any other educational establishment will be redressed through Committee and Report Stages.

I have a factual question for Mr. Hegarty.

I will ask him to contribute shortly.

I will ask my question and he may address it in his response. How many colleges like Griffith College and the Dublin Business School are recognised for educational purposes by the educational authorities as distinct from language schools and others that have not been formally recognised?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

There are a number of questions and I will address the one raised in different terms by Deputies Burke and Quinn on whether a binding precedent would be created. If one examines the Bill closely, the Department's follow-through is negative. The Bill is drafted to exclude these students from maintenance grants and to reverse any effects the settlement may have had. I will spell this matter out clearly so that people can understand it. The relevant section of the Bill is section 8, which defines approved institutions and is divided into three subsections. The first specifies the institutions approved prima facie— universities, the institutes of technology, publicly funded universities established in other European states, post-leaving certificate institutions and other designated institutions. The second subsection states that the Minister may designate other institutions with the consent of the Department of Finance and having consulted the Higher Education Authority, HEA. However, the Minister must have regard to the conditions set out in subsection 3, the nub of the problem. It spells out eight conditions. The condition that will preclude these young people and their successors from getting grants is contained in subsection 8(3)(e), which states——

It has been read already.

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

With respect, the Chairman read a different paragraph.

Mr. Hegarty is correct and I apologise.

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

Paragraph (e) states: “whether the institution is established for the principal purposes of higher education, training and research and operated and managed on a basis other than for financial gain.”

Does Mr. Hegarty propose that this paragraph be deleted?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

It has nothing to do with our case. The students are entitled to the grant. Senator Healy Eames expressed the case eloquently when she stated that the grant should follow the student. The institution he or she attends has nothing to do with his or her rights. This is the key point.

Deputy Quinn and Senator Keaveney asked about the scale of the problem and whether we are discussing a large number. The number is approximately 25 students, but committee members should ask whether the problem will worsen and whether more students seeking grants will be affected. From where will they come? Given that they would receive grants should they, unlike Mr. Kane, decide to do courses in Dundalk Institute of Technology instead of private colleges, there would be no further draw on the education budget.

An issue of interest to Griffith College may be the question of whether more students would apply to it as a result of the availability of the grant.

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

More students would take up our scholarships. Currently, there is not a full take-up. More students may see Griffith College as a viable choice.

Is the Department's motivation to ensure students attend publicly funded colleges? I am trying to lead Mr. Hegarty in some ways. One could be cynical and claim that someone is trying to ensure students do the right courses instead of willy-nilly private courses. As such, a small number of students would be penalised. Is this the case or is it a matter of bureaucratic inefficiency?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

I could not express it more eloquently than the Chairman. He should put this question, with which I agree, to the Department.

Could Mr. Hegarty guarantee the Department that the floodgates would not open?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

Let us consider the floodgates argument. If one of the students in question rejected another public institution, there would be no net increase because he or she would have been in receipt of a grant there. In Mr. Kane's case, there was a saving because he studies close to home. If the student is no longer in receipt of dole payments, there is a saving. There would not be a net additional cost to the Exchequer.

Is Mr. Hegarty suggesting that maintenance grants should only be available to scholarship students?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

No, that would be unfair to Ms Donnelly.

We are discussing those who would qualify for grants otherwise.

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

The rule is simple, namely, it is a matter of whether one qualifies on a means test basis.

What is the number of institutions as distinct from the number of students?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

The Higher Education Colleges Association comprises six institutions. The students of one of our members qualify for maintenance grants because it is a not for profit institution. The students at the other five do not receive maintenance grants. Perhaps another five or six institutions exist outside of the Higher Education Colleges Association. I suggest when one is asking about the number of institutions that one defines these institutions by reference to whether the courses are nationally accredited Higher Education Training Awards Council, HETAC, courses. HETAC is the successor to the National Council of Education awards and validates all courses outside of the universities.

That is the point I made. The Chairman mentioned willy-nilly courses. A course being approved and students qualifying for maintenance grants should tie together.

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

All courses at Griffith College and the Dublin Business School are validated either by HETAC or a UK university. As Ms Donnelly pointed out, were the students to attend those universities they would receive a grant. These are not willy-nilly courses. They are serious courses in which the students perform very well. Ms Donnelly told the committee about the performance of the law students at Griffith College where we had eight out of nine first places in the Incorporated Law Society exams.

Will Mr. Barry Stokes, as student services officer in Griffith College, explain how he can help students at a practical level?

Mr. Barry Stokes

I came across Mr. Kane and Ms Donnelly at the beginning of my role in student services because they came to me seeking support. They are not the only students I deal with. I have gone guarantor on loans, I have written job references and I try to find part-time jobs. The students' union does everything it can to obtain as much support as possible for students to help them keep studying. It is important to recognise that Ms Donnelly and Mr. Stokes remained in education. Last year, when I met Ms Donnelly and she explained she had just had a baby I told her to make sure she returned to college. However, she was unsure because all of the money she had saved up for her fees had to be used for the baby. She worked until the seventh or eighth month of her pregnancy.

The students come to Griffith College through the CAO system. The CAO recognises the course. However, as soon as they become students of the course the recognition stops. Our job in student services is to help students to keep going because we do not want to see students dropping out. We need them to complete their education so they can become part of our knowledge-based economy and keep the country going. We do everything we can to obtain support for students from the college and through helping find part-time jobs, acting as referees for job interviews and applications for loans.

If students are awarded maintenance grants by the Department is it likely that Griffith College will increase its fees?

Does the phrase, "cherish all the children of the nation" come to mind for the four students?

Do the witnesses feel the Department of Education and Science values the role of private colleges?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

On Deputy Burke's question as to whether we would increase fees for students who qualify for maintenance grants the answer is absolutely not. This would be entirely immoral not to say illegal. We are not in the business of creating discrimination. We are in the business of seeking the removal of an existing discrimination. The fees charged to students on a maintenance grant would be the same as those charged to any student.

Deputy Quinn's question on cherishing all of the children of the nation equally is extremely apt. The State provides a degree course in medicine to a student with 560 points who opts to do such a course. A foreign student coming to Ireland would pay the Royal Colleges of Surgeons €42,500 per year. This amounts to €250,000 for the duration of the entire course. What is gifted to a student with 560 points is an education costing €250,000. What is given to these young people? Nothing. I put it to the committee that this is not a case of failing to cherish the children of the nation equally, it is an utterly obscene disparity.

Deputy O'Mahony's question was whether the Department of Education and Science values the role of private colleges. While at first I would state, "No", we do have positive indications. We are recognised by the CAO, we are represented on HETAC and students receive Erasmus grants. I believe the Department does recognise the contribution made internationally. However, the Department does not recognise the full potential of private colleges. Using the private colleges has major potential to improve educational facilities for the disadvantaged and to save costs.

Some years ago in a skills initiative tender, all colleges were invited to create places in computing science which had an urgent skills shortage. In response, Griffith College consulted industry and asked whether industry would pay for two years of a computing science degree course which it agreed to do. The students would study full time for two years and then work part time and complete the degree by night for a further two years, for which the industry would pay. This met the need of having the students in the workplace as soon as possible and the quality of their educational experience was the better for it. On this basis, we tendered at a cost of €6,000 per students.

Was the tender to the Department of Education and Science or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

We argued the Department should pay for the education costs of those two years. On the same tender, the Department paid €30,000 to the universities for graduate places.

To be specific, was the invitation to tender from the Department of Education and Science or was it another body?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

It was from a task group established under the aegis of the Departments of Education and Science, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Taoiseach. They were extremely concerned about the skills shortage in computing science.

I apologise for being pedantic but does Mr. Hegarty recall which was the lead Department?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

I believe it was the Department of the Taoiseach initially and afterwards it was led by Deputy Richard Bruton.

It was put out to tender and advice was sought on what was suitable content for degree programmes and Griffith College was asked to advise on this by the IDA. We tendered €6,000 because we believed it should be done as cost effectively to the nation as possible and that the Department of Education and Science should be interested in doing so. We also funded the capital costs ourselves. To this date, five computing graduates are produced in Griffith College for every one in the universities at the same cost to the Exchequer. The Department of Education and Science then rewrote the rules on every tender to preclude participation by private colleges. I hope this answers the question. This provides an opportunity for the State but it is not fully recognised by the Department of Education and Science.

We are running out of time and I ask that contributions are made quickly.

Did Mr. Hegarty state that Griffith College could produce five graduates at the same cost of producing one graduate from the universities?

Mr. Diarmuid Hegarty

Yes, but only because industry bears part of the cost.

I thank Mr. Hegarty, Mr. Stokes, Ms Donnelly, Mr. Kane, Mr. Lennon and Mr. Butler. I hope the witnesses felt they had enough time to make their submissions. The points raised by the witnesses have been taken on board by committee members. A strong message, through amendments and correspondence, will be sent to the Minister in advance of the next stage of the Bill.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.31 a.m. and adjourned at 11.43 a.m. sine die.
Top
Share