Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 2009

Student Support Bill 2008: Discussion with USI.

I welcome Mr. Peter Mannion, president of the Union of Students in Ireland, Mr. Dan O'Neill, deputy president, Mr. Hugh Sullivan, education officer and Mr. Gary Redmond, president of the UCD Students' Union. I ask Mr. Mannion to give a short presentation on concerns relating to the Student Support Bill.

Before the presentation, I would like the delegates to note that a letter received from Trinity Students' Union was referred to at the last committee meeting and one was received today from Mr. Redmond regarding the student services charge. Once again, there is a suggestion that the fee is being charged in lieu of cuts to the core grant rather than the services. I ask the delegates to briefly allude to that view in their contributions as it would be beneficial to the committee and the Department.

On the Student Support Bill, we have received correspondence, a copy of which we hope to give to the delegation by the end of the meeting, from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, Ms Bridget McManus, on the reasons for its delay. I do not intent to read the entire document, which refers to the legal issues she alleges slowed the process.

The document states:

Advice received following the detailed legal exploration of the existing legislation indicated it would be necessary to propose amendments to the Student Support Bill on Committee Stage to reinforce the existing policy situation by amending the 1968 to 1992 Acts. Draft legislative amendments were prepared on that basis. These amendments might have been effected in a relatively straightforward manner but for the emergence of significant Exchequer difficulties in the latter part of 2008. It became clear that due to the resulting financial constraints it was unlikely to be feasible to resource commencement of the new administrative provisions in the Bill in the immediate future.

In the circumstances, the Department was subsequently advised that, given that there was likely to be an interregnum between the passage of the legislation and its commencement, it would also be necessary to make a number of amendments to the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Acts 1968 — 1992 and the Student Support Bill, including, inter alia, to give statutory effect to the existing administrative VEC grant schemes and apply principles and policies to the process of their drafting, approval and administration. This latter point was of particular concern given that it would require very substantial additional drafting. In effect, this would have required that a parallel Bill, together with parallel regulations reflecting the existing schemes, be put in place until the new single scheme and new administrative arrangements could be brought into operation.

I refer to this letter as it provides some clarification on the issue. We are particularly interested to hear from USI the impact the lack of legislation in this area has had on students.

I remind the committee of the long-standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. While members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses, so if they want to vent their spleens, they must be careful. I invite Mr. Mannion to make his presentation on the non-enactment of the Student Support Bill. We will then open the discussion to include registration fees.

Mr. Peter Mannion

I thank the members of the committee for listening to our concerns. Everybody is well aware of the concerns of the USI and students' unions throughout the country regarding the maintenance grant. We know the maintenance grant system is currently in meltdown. We know when the Student Support Bill was proposed it was the political answer to the problems we are still facing. It was published in February 2008 and I gave a presentation on it that year. I am before the committee again as president of the organisation. The effect on students as a result of the Bill not being enacted is very severe.

I impress on Senators and Deputies the importance of leaving the meeting having reached a consensus that this Bill is a major concern. I realise much work needs to be done on the Bill and we need to push it through, but if we do not put in place certain measures to stop this crisis recurring next year, the issue will be compounded and the consequences for students will be far worse. I will hand over to the education officer, Mr. Hugh Sullivan, who will make a presentation on the effects of the lack of the Student Support Bill on students.

Mr. Hugh Sullivan

I thank Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to make a presentation. I am confident they are all aware of the situation pertaining to the Student Support Bill so I do not propose discuss its history. I will give the committee a snapshot of the situation two weeks ago regarding grants.

Some 16 awarding bodies had not made a single payment, of which 12 projected they would not be able to make a payment until January. Approximately 40 to 50 students are dropping out of the higher education sector each week. There has been a 40% to 46% increase in applications to grant awarding authorities compared to last year. The Bill was published 23 months ago. A grant application form has 26 pages which, when one compares it to the seven pages which comprise a normal mortgage application from, is ridiculous. As of ten days ago, we projected the average cost to process an application form for a grant to be €209, which is quite high.

The fact that 16 bodies have not yet made a payment is affecting a large number of students very badly. I have some examples of the current situation. One student lived from 9 to 13 November on digestive biscuits provided free in the common room in the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology. A student in UCD who, because she was waiting 14 weeks to have her grant application processed, had to walk several miles to her exam venue, having not slept the night before, because she was not able to afford a bus ticket.

Very worrying, a student has been committed to the mental health wing of Mayo General Hospital, the reason for which was cited as stress caused by financial stress. The student concerned has not had his or her grant application processed. A student in Galway has been sharing half a bed within a student house while waiting for her grant application to be processed. A student in Cork has been living in a car since September, having become estranged from his parents for personal reasons. He has, therefore, become ineligible for a grant because he is under 23 and cannot be assessed on his own income.

We know the number of applications for student assistance funds in colleges across the country have at least doubled. One small point which will give the committee an idea of the urgency of the situation is that local businesses in the west have started to contribute to student assistance funds in many colleges in the west because of the number of students who are suffering.

This is evidence of the total meltdown of the grants. This is being compounded by, and is compounding, two other factors, namely, the staff moratorium and the registration fee, which some of my colleagues will cover in more detail. The staff moratorium is preventing the grant authorities from processing these applications. Smaller authorities which have two or three people assigned to do this task that would not normally have had a problem are completely swamped and are unable to take on more staff to process the applications quickly. Any interim solutions are impossible.

The grant refunds the registration fee but until recently many colleges would not allow the student to register without paying the registration fee. This is the Christmas exam season. Any student who was not allowed to register because of the fee, despite being willing and able to go to college, has been prevented from using the library and recreational facilities, doing exams and handing in assignments simply because the grant application cannot be processed in time.

The Student Support Bill would fix many of our concerns but we have heard from the Secretary General that the money is not available to fix the entire system. We seek a legislative investment that will fix some of the concerns, for example, the unification of the grant schemes from four to one and the reduction of the application form from 26 to 15 pages. We are happy to note that the Department of Education and Science has been addressing some of these issues, including extending the pilot process for electronic funds transfer which eases the situation somewhat. We believe it is working on a plan for the implementation of the Bill when the situation becomes viable.

We are asking the committee to apply the pressure necessary to amend and enact the Student Support Bill as soon as possible. It is greatly affecting students' circumstances, their health, mental health and well-being, every aspect of their lives. We ask the committee to support the Bill and students.

In 1968 Brian Lenihan senior, then Minister for Education, said at the close of the debate on the enactment of the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Bill:

We all realise that in a small country like ours the main assets we have are the skills and talents of our people. I have sufficient faith in our people to believe that we have a great degree of intelligence, skill and talent, and that if we can devise an educational system that can absorb our people to the fullest extent of their abilities, then this surely is a praiseworthy goal for us to seek to achieve, a goal that can bring not only the greatest benefit to the individual but to the community as a whole.

Mr. Peter Mannion

Mr. Sullivan has given an idea of some of our main concerns. I will pass over to Mr. Gary Redmond, the president of the UCD students' union who has facts and figures on the inefficiencies within the system. He is also at the coalface, dealing with students in need. The committee should be under no illusion but that students, their parents and families are suffering because of the lack of clarity, information and financial support as the system is in meltdown.

Mr. Gary Redmond

I echo the sentiments of my colleagues and thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to present our case. I will start by talking about the inefficiencies in the maintenance grant system and move on to student hardship and some issues regarding the student registration charge.

I know the committee received a letter from me today enclosing a copy of part of the accounts from UCD. In early November UCD students' union, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act asked every local authority in the country to outline how many grant applications it had received last year and the cost of administering the grants, including salaries, computing facilities, and stamp duty on the three cheques. We have not received all of that information but I hope by Monday to be in a position to give the committee a detailed outline of the responses from the local authorities. To give it a flavour of the responses, however, Westmeath County Council last year received 647 requests for third level maintenance grants, of which 551 were successful, making an 85% success rate. The total administration cost for those was €45,620. That equates to approximately €71 for processing each application form. That sounds like a lot of money to process one grant application but that is the lowest end of the scale. At the other end, North Tipperary County Council received 526 applications and the total administration cost was €254,716 breaking down to €485 per application. This shows the inefficiencies in the system. I will prepare a detailed document on this and circulate it to committee members next Monday.

The student assistance fund in UCD has approximately €128,000 which has remained the same for the past few years. Last year the fund received 200 applications. This is slightly different from the student welfare fund which deals with unexpected issues such as bereavements or anything unforeseen. The assistance fund deals with foreseen and severe financial difficulties. This year to date we have received 420 applications for that fund which means that each person will receive only €300 or €400. These people have P21s and P45s and can prove that they and their families are in severe financial difficulty. Most are still waiting for their grant applications to be processed. One student who came to my office last week had been waiting 14 weeks to know whether the grant would be approved. This student could not pay the registration charge and had no access to the library and was at a severe disadvantage. This is a first year arts student who is not from Dublin and had to move away from home but could not afford to pay rent and was being threatened with eviction. The student could not afford a bus ticket to get to UCD. This is shocking in 2009.

I have already demonstrated the serious inefficiencies in the grant application and higher level maintenance grant system. My colleagues have outlined how we propose to fix that.

The student services charge rose by 67% last year from €900 to €1,500, a rise of €600. In 2008-09 UCD had approximately €517 per student to spend on student services. A year later, with a €600 increase in the student services charge, UCD has €503 to spend per student. In 2002, 2008 and 2009 as the student services charge rose there was a significant decrease in the core grant so whenever the student services charge goes up, UCD, like all the other universities and the institutes of technology, receives a letter from the Higher Education Authority stating that the Minister for Education and Science has given them permission to raise the student services charge to a maximum of €1,500 but in line with this the core grant will be cut by a similar amount in order to secure savings for the Exchequer this year and in subsequent years. The first of these letters went out in 2002. Any suggestion that this €1,500 is going into student services is a fantasy.

Students are visiting the offices of students' unions around the country asking why if they have paid €600 more this year on a student services charge they have to pay an additional fee to see the doctor, and why student services are being cut back. It is not a student service charge any more. Two thirds of the money goes back to the Exchequer by way of savings in this and subsequent years.

I hope that committee members will bring back to their constituencies a recognition that life is tough for third level students, hundreds of whom are waiting to receive their grants. They are really struggling. A student came to me earlier in the year who could not afford to eat that week because the grant had not been received. In 2009 with the dawn of the Celtic tiger we thought all these issues were in the past but they are back and are at the coalface of what I and my colleagues deal with every day around the country.

Mr. Peter Mannion

Realistically, the registration charge is the single biggest issue for students. The USI held a number of grants information evenings in August. We helped more than 1,000 families fill in the application form in the space of two weeks because they cannot understand them. Some 60% of the application forms are incomplete. Students do not fill in the forms, their parents do it because they are under the age of 23. The single biggest issue parents asked about was the registration fee. They asked if their child would qualify for the maintenance grant and, if so, would it mean they would not have to pay up-front €1,500? That is a lot of money when students do not have part-time work, parents do not know whether they will have a job in the future, banks are not lending and colleges refuse to give any leeway.

The registration charge is a massive dent in people's finances. We have always called for a cap on the registration fee. We need to look at where it is being spent and we need to be realistic about on what it is being spent. On that issue we desperately need the Student Support Bill which was the political answer to the problem. It was an idea for streamlining the system and preventing the problems in this area. The Bill was published in 2008 after a long time and as we approach 2010 the problems are worse. The ball is in the committee's court. We are willing to play ball but our students are suffering. We are here today to push that voice through.

I thank all the contributors. Members will shortly ask questions. To clarify, the witnesses appeared before the committee 18 months ago and nothing has happened in regard to the Student Support Bill. The Minister has given a response to the effect that there may be some interim measures using the situation as it exists. It is clear that the McCarthy report may be implemented in respect of VECs which may result in a reduction in the number VECs which would have a knock-on effect. Perhaps some of the contributors would refer to that issue.

The letter and supporting documents from Mr. Redmond were circulated to the members. Similar to what happened with Trinity College Dublin, I suggest we forward the letter and memo to the private secretary and the Minister asking for an urgent response to the issues raised. A copy can be then sent on to Mr. Redmond. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The issue of third level fees has been dealt with. The issue of funding for higher education has not been dealt with adequately as of yet, but it is clear from the figures Mr. Redmond has sent in for UCD, for example, that if 67% went to student services in 2002-03 and 34% this year, that is almost a 50% drop in the actual amount going to student services. The Department has questions to answers. I will allow members to comment and ask questions but given the good turnout I ask members to keep within the two minute timeframe.

I welcome the USI and thank it for its presentation. I assure Mr. Mannion and his colleagues, so far as I am aware, there is a consensus across the committee about the necessity to get the legislation on the Statute Book. The problem is not in this committee but in the Department of Education and Science and with the Minister. Following the meeting today, it is crucial that the transcript be given to the Minister to see the accounts from the students and their representatives about the effect of his failure to bring forward the Bill, as promised. I regard the letter received from the Secretary General of the Department as another spectacular own-goal on the part of the Department of Education and Science. Why was it not made clear to us in advance of the Second Stage that these legal difficulties remained. Had it not got the advice at that point? It is an extraordinary admission on the part of the Minister about this most dysfunctional Department of State that once again, after the Bill got through Second Stage, we learn of new legal difficulties. That is an extraordinary admission which has got to be taken up at another point.

On a point of information for members, the legal issue was settled without admission of liability in April 2008. It was then that the concerns were expressed. That gives an element of the timing. Perhaps it did not know about it but we will ask the Secretary General to respond.

The dilemma is that we would have known about that had the Bill gone to Committee Stage as was envisaged at the time.

Absolutely.

It is the 18 month hiatus since that has been the dilemma. On 24 November, I received information from the Minister who informed me that approximately 45,000 applications had been settled this year alone. Let us take a conservative estimate of 60,000 applicants — the witnesses say there would be significantly more — for student supports this year, that means 25%, one in four, of all students who made application for one of the four maintenance supports have not received it to date — four months after making application. That is an extraordinary admission from the Minister's own figures which he gave me on 24 November. I would be interested to hear the witnesses' assessment as to the total number of applications expected this year. The number has to rise given that people have lost their jobs and inevitably they are now entitled to maintenance support. My estimate is that one in four have not received their supports to date. The obvious outcome is that students are dropping out of college and if they have not paid their college registration fees, which they should pay if they do not get the grant, they will not be able to sit their exams this year. Is not the obvious solution, even in the pathetic system of 66 separate bodies administering the grants, that the applications should be made in April or May and a decision on the application would depend on whether one got a place in college? All this hardship could be predated if the application was got out of the way.

When the Bill was first mooted I conceded that giving powers to the 33 VECs was a good thing. Having heard from the witnesses of the variety of costs involved, perhaps we need just one body to do all this work and whether it needs to be done within the public sector is another question. The CAO works well. There is confidence in what it does and we have got to look at introducing a potential one-size fits-all solution.

Yesterday in the House I raised with the Minister the issue of college registration fees. He now says that given the information which has come to light from Trinity College students union and University College Dublin he will ask the Higher Education Authority to examine the issue. So far as I am concerned that is like asking Gordon Gekko to do a report on social welfare because it is complicit in this matter. The HEA is part and parcel of a solution where every time college registration fees are increased the Government, of which the Chairman is a member, reduces the core grant. It is complicit in the con trick which the Minister and the HEA perform every time they introduce these fees.

I would be interested to hear the comments of the witnesses as to whether the HEA is competent to perform a review. This review will not be available before next Wednesday when registration fees may or may not be increased again. The HEA is inefficient when it comes to looking at this issue. The Comptroller and Auditor General needs to initiate an immediate investigation. If it is the case that a third of the cost of the registration fees goes to services and two thirds on the core grant it owes the USI money on the basis of the Universities Act 1997, section 40(1) of which states:

A university may determine and charge fees of such amounts for student registration, courses, lectures, examinations, exhibitions or any other event, service or publication held or provided at or by, or produced by, the university.

It does not refer to core grants. The USI has a very good legal case. It should consult its legal team on how the Department can continue to justify registration fees when effectively two thirds of the amount its student members are charged go towards the core grant. I would be interested to hear the delegates' comments on that.

It is worth reiterating the Minister's comments in the media, namely, that registration fees will not be increased unless the cost of supports for student services increases. On the basis of these two examples, I cannot envisage that happening. However, we will wait and see. The Government has stopped the introduction of a graduation tax or any form of third level fee.

It has stopped something coming in that was not there.

We have stopped it from progressing; that proposal was floated.

It has held open the back door.

If the Deputy is making a political point, I put it to him that if Fine Gael were in government, graduation taxes would have been brought in.

People know what would be my solution to the problem.

We must stick to the point, namely, that we do not know whether registration fees will be introduced in the budget next week, but judging from the Minister's statement and the evidence provided by constituent members of the USI, I do not believe, in all credibility, that they can be introduced. That is my personal view.

I thank the four delegates for their presentation and for the support of their colleagues. The story they have to tell is pretty horrific. Any parent or grandparent who watches his or her son or daughter or grandson or granddaughter study for the junior certificate and complete transition year knows the agony that young person goes through studying for the leaving certificate. Most parents want their children to go to college, an opportunity they may not have had. It is national policy, under the National Competitiveness Council, to increase from 55% to 70% participation in third level colleges, thereby including a cohort of our population who have never participated in third level education. This is an incredibly ambitious target. The Government, parents and teachers have invested heavily to achieve this and for them it is unbelievable to hit this wall of nonsense, inefficiency, contradiction, carelessness and downright political obstructionism from the Department of Education and Science. It is as if the Irish rugby team played for 75 minutes in a final, were ahead scorewise and then gave up for the last five minutes, thereby throwing away the chance of winning a Grand Slam. That is what has happened here. This is an excellent document because it is readable and succinct. I hope journalists and others follow it up because, I suspect, what is reveals is the tip of the iceberg.

I have a few recommendations and I will abide by the Chairman's admonition to adhere to the time allocated. I support very much the comments made by Deputy Brian Hayes, which I will not repeat. The USI should seek a meeting with the National Competitiveness Council and set out that a national strategy, which will be the pension plan for this country for the future, cannot be achieved and that participation rates of 60% plus cannot be achieved or sustained if — to continue the use of the rugby metaphor — the obstruction, hand-tripping and the eye-gouging that is taking place in terms of third level students continues. It is either willful or worse, but if it continues, a national strategic objective, which is shared by all the parties represented on this committee, simply cannot be achieved. Aside from the personal cost and the sense of betrayal or failure experienced by any young person who drops out of college — God knows what were the personal reasons of that young student in Cork — I can imagine and appreciate the added burden of possible strains that have spilt into the educational area. What I proposed is my first recommendation to the USI, as a responsible and effective students union.

My second question is one for the Chairman. If the Department of Education and Science is incapable of drafting amendments to the Student Support Bill, will it give that job to this committee? The Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party has legal advice available to it and we have legal advice and the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel available to us. The Government has a majority. If this Bill is in a queue of documents to be dealt with in Marlborough Street and slow progress is being made on those documents, we should do this job. The track record of the Department of Education and Science in drafting legislation would not merit it an E let alone a D in terms of a grade.

It might get stuck on Report Stage then.

We should at least get legislation to Report Stage. That would be progress.

That would be some progress.

This is the first time we have got a three-page letter from——

I have been advised by the clerk that it would not be possible for the committee to initiate that.

It is a request of the committee. I gather the Chairman has considerable influence with the Minister for Education and Science. It is a request. I suggest that if the officials in Marlborough Street are overworked——

We could certainly ask about that. Is that proposal agreed by members? Agreed.

Those are my two points. In the interests of brevity, I will leave it at that.

Some leeway was given to the two lead Opposition spokespersons, as is the norm, but I request other members, starting off with Senator Keaveney, to adhere to the two-minute time rule.

When we discussed this issue on the last occasion, some 18 months ago, I proposed a solution, which I still believe is the correct one, namely, that above and beyond the Student Support Bill, when students apply for their college courses under CAO or UCAS, they should also complete an application form for the student grant. The solution is as simple as that. I tabled an Adjournment matter on this issue to the Minister on 17 November. I ask that a copy of that Adjournment matter be circulated, given that we are talking about putting on record what was said here. In the reply to that Adjournment matter, the Minister is on record as having stated, "the Department is endeavouring to progress ... a single scheme of grants as provided in the Bill [as the earliest possible date] while further exploring the options for administrative streamlining ..." The Minister is also on record as having stated:

... the Department is [currently] engaged in the development of a new, more user-friendly application form for [students] ... As part of the overall programme of reform, it is planned to make application forms available [much] ... earlier in the year [so] ... that students can submit grant applications following completion of the CAO process ... It is also planned to introduce earlier closing dates [so] ... that the [processing and] ... assessing [of] grant applications can be brought forward significantly to enable early decisions on grant applications to be made by the awarding authorities.

Those are the boxes, which the delegates have been asking us to tick. I ask that the Minister do what he said he would do, namely, bring forward the closing date for receipt of applications for student grants to that of the closing date for receipt of CAO applications to enable the respective applications to be processed at the same time. I ask that a copy of the Adjournment matter I raised on this issue be given to the Minister as part of these proceedings — that is the reason I wanted to put it on the record — and request him to do what he said he would do.

In the reply to that Adjournment matter, the HEA is lauded for its initiative in setting up the www.studentfinance.ie website, which enables students to access information on the back to education allowance and the student assistance fund. One can download the application form for a student grant and a course acceptance form. The delegates might indicate the degree to which they find that website beneficial and effective? Would they agree that part of the problem is that more students are participating in third level education, which obviously adds further pressures?

On a different issue, which the Chair said I should mention, I am involved in the issue of student mobility on a committee of the Council of Europe. I would appreciate if the delegates would forward on to the committee details of any issues they have regarding student mobility.

When I was going to college in 1986 the first grants came through in the third week of December. That is not to say the current position is not important or urgent. This has been an issue for a long time and it needs to be resolved. On a lighter note, does the delay in the processing of grants impact on the social events in the universities? Does it have an impact on the feel good factor around campus, which is what a student is always seeking at third level?

The student delegates are welcome. They have done great investigative work that has exposed what, as Deputy Brian Hayes said, is the basis of a good legal challenge. Of the €1,500 paid in respect of a student service charge, only about one third of it is used for student services and the rest is used to shore up the core grant, essentially the cost of tuition. That points to how poorly third level education is funded. The colleges are obviously in difficulty. That is the reason Fine Gael came forward with a plan that would resolve that issue as well.

I heard the chairman say the issue of third level fees is out of the way but it is not out of the way when fees are being introduced through the back door by way of the student registration charge. I put it to the Chairman that this issue is not out of the way unless he can guarantee that a cap will be put on the student registration charge in the budget. That charge should be reduced to the amount going toward service charges, which is one third of the amount.

That is what I said.

It should be reduced to €500. Otherwise there is total dishonesty in the Government regarding how third level education is being funded. It is perhaps illegally taking money from students for student registration services from which they are not benefitting. Even the cost of going to the doctor is now compromised. I believe the students had a meeting with the HEA this week. What did they learn at that meeting about this issue?

I was disgusted to read in the newspapers that there is a possibility the Government could put a cap on the number of students going to college. Did the students union discuss that with the HEA? In the students' view, what would be the impact of capping the number of places, so fewer students could go to college? At least one way out of the recession is to invest in our students through third level education, first, for the long term to cater for the innovation and knowledge needs of this country and, second, for the short term given that we have the highest youth unemployment we have had in decades. One person in every three aged less than 25 years is unemployed. I am keen to see how all of this is being resolved. Naturally, if the Government caps the number of students in third level it will solve its problem in the interim because there will be fewer students to support.

Before Deputy Ulick Burke speaks, Deputy Ruairí Quinn has had to leave on other business and sends his apologies.

I welcome the representatives of the student bodies. Is there any research on the number who applied in the last academic year for a grant who failed to be granted either part or all of their grant? Deputy Brian Hayes mentioned that one in four is a conservative estimate of the number who, four months later, have not received their grant. I am certain there is a hard core within that figure who will not get a grant.

There are inconsistencies between individual grant bodies, be they VECs, county councils and so forth. There is inconsistency in the demands for verification, particularly with regard to the self-employed. Another area that is causing serious concern is where students are being denied grants where there has been a family break-up. The grant bodies are forcing either the student or the partner with whom the student resides to go to court to verify the income of the person who has left. That person might be out of the jurisdiction as well, which adds to the problem. People have thrown their hat at the process in absolute frustration and opted out of college altogether. These inconsistencies and demands are absolutely deplorable.

I contacted Galway County Council last week about an application that was made on time. It was submitted on the last day. The council had thousands of applications that had not yet been opened. If that is the situation, there is something particularly wrong with it, regardless of the embargo. I agree with Deputy Hayes that something parallel to the CAO might be far more efficient and effective, as well as the change of dates Senator Keaveney mentioned.

I thank our guests for their presentation. They have given a picture of the student's experience in this crisis and, let us not beat about the bush, this is a crisis. They painted a graphic picture of the student surviving on digestive biscuits for a week and the student renting half a bed in Galway. That brings a new dimension to cohabitation. From our point of view, we meet with students and make representations on their behalf, as Deputy Burke mentioned. However, there is no short-term solution. We have reached the stage of recommending the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in certain cases, but the students then tell us that their parents have already appealed to that society to buy books for their children in primary school. Education cannot be supported by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

The witnesses mentioned that 16 awarding bodies had yet to make a payment on 18 November and that 12 bodies will be assessing until January. Can they give us details of who those bodies are?

Like my colleagues, I welcome the representatives and thank them for their presentation. The stories outlined by Mr. Sullivan were very harrowing, and two of them were in my home town. It is particularly disturbing that a student would not have any proper food for more than a week and that one was admitted to the psychiatric wing of Mayo General Hospital. Indeed, many of the points he made referred in particular to the west of Ireland.

Could Mr. Redmond say how the number of applications vary per county? In the west, for example, are there a greater number of applications than in other areas? With regard to the processing of applications, are some counties particularly slow relative to others? Again, I refer to the west of Ireland because I am aware that until a week ago my county was only processing applications up to 24 August. It is crazy. Students ring me all the time trying to fast track their applications. In one case, the college last week told a student not to turn up on Monday morning as the registration had not been paid. Until it was paid, the student had no business attending college. It is a crazy situation, given that the person concerned had an entitlement to go to college. Mr. Redmond said 85% of applications have been successful. What is the breakdown between the full grant and the partial grant?

The witnesses highlighted a particular case with regard to the cost of processing. There should be some sort of system across the country whereby the processing costs in all counties would be similar. A cost that ranges from €70 to more than €400 per application is unreasonable. It is something this committee will have to address.

Can Mr. Redmond say where the money is sourced for the student assistance fund? I note the reference to local businesses in the west. It is very commendable, particularly in the current economic climate and even if they are dependent on the student market, that they are prepared to put money into the student assistance fund. Does that happen in other parts of the country and what other avenues are open to the students to fund that fund?

I welcome the representatives and thank them for the work they have put into the presentation. It is helpful for the committee to have those figures when examining this issue. We are aware from our constituencies it is causing major problems and hardship for students seeking third level maintenance grants.

The crux of the matter appears to be that there is a lack of consistency among the awarding bodies. There are 66 awarding bodies, between county councils and VECs. One inconsistency is the cost. The witnesses gave the example of Westmeath, where it costs slightly more than €70 to process an application, while in north Tipperary it is more than €400. That is totally unacceptable, as is the average of €209. I held clinics in my constituency at the weekend and I have a couple of dozen cases on hand where people applied on time but cannot get their grant. Some of them will not be allowed to sit their examinations in January if they have not paid their registration fee. Colleges need to back off a little and support students rather than hinder them. The Department is responsible, in conjunction with the local authorities, but the colleges must also give a little leeway and discretion.

I am in favour of Deputy Brian Hayes's suggestion to have one national awarding body. Let us deal with that by providing staff resources, cutting down on administration costs and having consistent decisions. Donegal County Council is awarding grants to an individual student, but the same category of student is being refused by Donegal VEC. That case is on my desk at the moment and I am fighting with the VEC on behalf of that student. That situation is unacceptable, so we must seek consistency. I also support the suggestion of reducing the administrative form, which runs to 23 pages. The form is cumbersome and would put students and families off applying for the grant, so it should be streamlined.

My question relates to the service charge. This committee invited heads of universities here and discussed the issues of service charges and third level fees with them. They were pushing for third level fees as well as increased registration charges. It is clear from the UCD example, however, that the money the university heads maintained went towards student services, in fact, did not. About 66% of it is not going to student services. Is that consistent across the other colleges and third level institutions? If so, this committee has a responsibility to question the third level institutions again. It is unacceptable and we cannot allow third level institutions that are currently demonising students, to get away with that sort of behaviour. As Deputy Beverley Flynn said, one student was told not to turn up. I heard of a case where a student was reading in the library and was told to leave. That is unacceptable.

I thank the student representatives for their presentation, which is very helpful to us. On a cross-party basis we must get our teeth into this by working with the Department. We must pressurise the Department to move this matter forward because it is affecting all students, irrespective of their political affiliations. We must work on it on that basis.

I have a recommendation to make. Will the USI request its constituent colleges to send this committee details of the individual information they have accessed? Will the committee agree that for colleges that are not affiliated to the USI, for any relevant third level institution, including institutes of technology, for example——

Including the ones outside the jurisdiction, for example, in the North.

Fine. We will ask them.

The reason we have got this information in the cases of UCD and Trinity College is because of the digging that has been done by USI.

I am suggesting that we ask every college to do its own digging.

Many of these are hidden away.

I am asking the committee to agree that the clerk should write to student representative bodies asking them to send back research. That would give this committee greater clarity. I have no reason to doubt that the situation in TCD and UCD will not be replicated, but let us get a good figure.

It might also be a good idea to write to the accounts department of the colleges on that issue.

We should ask how many are outstanding.

These are publicly-funded institutions and their accounts are meant to be a matter of public record.

We have their accounts. Under the Universities Act all accounts come to this committee.

Yes, but we do not necessarily have a breakdown in terms of the support.

The dilemma is that we may not have a detailed breakdown. That can only be obtained by background documents at board level within each of the institutes and universities.

I take on board what has been suggested. In that context, does this committee agree that we should write to the accounts departments of all third-level institutions?

The request should seek the detail that Deputy Brian Hayes has specified.

We should include the three University of Ulster campuses and Queen's University, as well as Limavady and Derry Technical College. That would cover it all.

We can do that. We want to find out the amounts of annual income the colleges are getting, and the amount of expenditure on student support services. Will Senator Keaveney e-mail the list of colleges in the North to the clerk?

Yes. That is not to do with registration fees, but in general it concerns the number of students who have trouble getting their grant applications sorted out.

Can I mention one other point?

A couple of other members wish to speak. I will let the Deputy come in at the end, if that is okay.

I want to support Senator Ó Domhnaill's comments about getting the universities and the HEA to appear before this committee as soon as possible. I support his constructive proposal. We should do so the first week in January or as soon as we can. They should not be told that they have a month to come here. We need them here as soon as possible.

We can discuss that briefly in private after this meeting.

I thank the student representatives for attending the committee. I remember when they were here 18 months ago the situation they were facing was clear. I find it difficult to accept that we are still in this situation some 18 months later. I ask the student representatives to make their information, including figures on councils and VECs, available to me. While some local authorities and VECs are reaching the mark, it is quite clear that others are not. This situation should have been highlighted before now. As politicians, we all knew what was going on, but we were all living in our own little time warp. We are all concerned because the witnesses have brought forward information that must be acted upon. I ask them to make available to me whatever information they have in this regard.

I welcome the student representatives and thank them for their presentation. When we read the letter from the Department of Education and Science, the word "legal" comes up repeatedly in several paragraphs. Obviously some legal complications have arisen since Second Stage. Second Stage was completed in April 2008 and there was a legal case around the same time, which came into the summer of 2008. One can see from the letter that there was an interaction with the Office of the Attorney General, but it has run into legal complications. On the other hand, as several members said, we have the practical outcomes of this matter. We are all interested in the freedom of information request the USI put to the awarding bodies. The USI has said it will have that documentation for us by Monday, which will be of use. It is highlighting the huge difficulties that are there, but it also shows us the practical outcomes of what is happening with the present system. The sooner we have that the better.

Several good suggestions were made. Senator Keaveney mentioned the CAO application time coinciding with the grant application period, as well as the earlier application forms and closing dates. We are all at one on that. Rather than fighting with the Department of Education and Science, we should try to find a practical solution. We should get across to the Department that we are seeking to streamline operations and achieve more effective administrative efficiency. Whatever it takes to bring that about may not necessarily happen through the Student Support Bill. It may happen by a parallel route, but we are anxious to see it happen by whatever route is required. We should interact with the Department of Education and Science in that way. Let us all try to be positive. We want solutions for students, so we should try to see in what way that can be brought about. The information that will come from the awarding bodies will be very useful to us.

I welcome the fact that the Department's letter says it hopes to be in a position to have amendments to the Student Support Bill sufficiently advanced to progress to Committee Stage as soon as possible. I do not know what "as soon as possible" means, but I presume it means sooner than the last 18 months or two years.

I would not count on it.

I would not either, but one must take people at their word. In fairness, there were genuine legal issues and separate legislative issues. It would have been helpful if the Department had made that known to the committee before now.

As regards ways and means of streamlining, if north Tipperary is trying to vie for abolition it is doing a very good job as the costliest local authority in the country. It is highly likely that, come budget day, the number of VECs will be reduced down to 22 and perhaps fewer than that.

I would be interested in USI's views on my suggestion. I have been dealing with the HEA in a situation where students with disabilities, physical disabilities in particular, need supports. Sometimes they need care assistants on site but, because they are not getting their grant allocation in the first term, it is taking a long time for it to happen and not every student union is in a position to bridge that gap. The HEA will come back with proposals in that regard. It may be that there needs to be one central body for assessing that type of application. Why not the central applications office, CAO? If the CAO is already taking in the leaving certificate information, why not just tick another box? Why not include all of that income in the first place so that they have all the relevant information already stored and they can then assess in a one-stop-shop the grant provision and other supports at the same time. The expertise is already there. The monolith that is the CAO already exists. It does not make sense to farm it out to county councils. It is not their core competency in any event. I would be interested in USI's views on whether the CAO would be the correct central body because there is consensus on having a central body.

I share the sympathy expressed by other members of the committee regarding the genuine hardship facing students in this time of economic downturn and pressure. Deputy Brian Hayes and Senator Healy Eames are correct that a registration fee is a burden. We may not have the €7,000 to €12,000 or €40,000 liability that a student must pay back through whatever form of student fee imposed, but a registration charge in itself creates a significant hindrance regarding the ability of people to go through college, as the examples today show. I had to stop myself from laughing at some of them because they were so incredible, but the fact that Mr. Mannion mentions them with a straight face shows that they are happening and it is not a laughing matter. It is incredible and laughable that in this day and age that students are put in that position because of bureaucratic ineptitude.

In that context, I support what all of the members have stated. Even if one is speaking about the same budgetary allocation, doing it earlier and having it in place gives certainty to students. I cannot understand why it has been going on for years, even when times were good. As Senator Keaveney mentioned, 15 or 20 years ago one encountered the problem of grants arriving in December.

There is no logical reason that the Department cannot have a central system, particularly with the availability of information technology. In that context, the USI representatives have many questions to answer and comments to make. It would be fantastic if they would make their answers as brief as possible, but I accept there is a great deal of material to go through. We will start with Mr. Mannion.

Mr. Peter Mannion

I thank the committee members for their questions. I will answer a few of them and those beside me will answer a few more. We will be pithy in our responses.

It is important to realise that we can talk all we want about the Student Support Bill 2008, but there are students living in cars and on biscuits now. This is a real issue, not one of legal issues in the Department of Education and Science. We need results for our students, and the members need results for their students too. It is a major issue. Whatever we come up with needs to be put in place immediately. It is imperative that this happens. If anything is taken away from today's meeting, that aspect should be ingrained.

Senator Healy Eames asked about capping the number of students. We are completely and utterly disgusted by that proposal. That goes against one of the main pillars of USI, which is to create an education system that everybody can access. Capping the numbers goes against that and it is something with which we are not happy. It goes against the Minister's previous claim about opening education for people who were made redundant through the market activation labour task force. It goes against that complete ideology. We are completely and utterly appalled that it was even allowed to be put into the media as a viable option prior to a budget.

Did Mr. Mannion discuss it at the HEA meeting?

Mr. Peter Mannion

That meeting to which Mr. Redmond might refer further was to do with the registration fee. We will be discussing that issue with the HEA at the appropriate level, in the board. It is important to realise we will use these avenues because I sit on the HEA. Basically, what we are looking for is solutions for students, and capping the numbers is not a solution to the problem.

Senator Keaveney asked about student mobility. The education officer and I were in Poland last week with the European students union. Student mobility is a matter we investigate heavily across the continent. It is not a question for today, but a matter on which we can work and let the committee know the information from a student's perspective in a pan-European context.

Mr. Dan O’Neill

I thank the committee for giving us this opportunity. We give a slightly higher estimate of how many students are applying for the grant this year. We estimate at the lower end of the figures, it is probably 20% and up to 40%. We are living in a time of harsh realities. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, people from poorer backgrounds had choices. They could either go straight into the workplace or go to college. Now it is either sit on the dole or up-skill to try to get a job. We think the number of students applying for the grant this year will be much higher than the figures mentioned earlier.

On pre-dated applications, it is our policy that the Department of Education and Science, in consultation with the Department of Finance, should issue maintenance grant details earlier. We recommend that the details of the scheme be announced in February of each year, that the opening date for applications should be before the end of March and that granting authorities should begin processing grants from 1 June. That timeframe would provide students with more time to apply, etc., and would ensure that the grants are issued on time. Late grants are not a new development, but the harsh reality is that, this year, students cannot get the part-time jobs they could in the past and they cannot get the money from their parents to get them through. Students are really suffering this year.

It is surprising that the Minister for Education and Science stated that information on the registration fee not going towards student services is only coming to light now. Governing bodies up and down the country in institutes of technology and universities have known about this for years. It is surprising that the Minister did not know this. It would be wise for the Comptroller and Auditor General to go in and look at where the money is going. It is only right that students and their families know exactly where the money is going.

We will certainly ask the unions in the various colleges to forward any information to the committee. We have already asked most of our unions around the country to send on that information. Unfortunately, it is difficult for our local unions to get that information in many colleges. It is a matter with which we are helping them. It is only right that we should know where our money is being spent and an investigation into that would be wise.

Mr. Gary Redmond

I will deal first with the issue of the grant. As I stated previously, I intend to have all of the research from the Freedom of Information Act requests concluded by the end of the week and, at that point, I will circulate it to all the members of the committee. It appears that across the board at the very least we will see a 20% increase in the number of grant applications this year. In Wexford, for example, we will have a 50% increase in the number of grant applications this year, based on figures obtained last week.

One issue with the freedom of information requests is that we also sent the requests to the VECs, but VECs do not fall under the Freedom of Information Act. VECs have been extremely unhelpful in revealing figures to us on how many grant applications they have received and what is the total administration cost. I have absolutely no idea what the administration costs are in the VEC sector because it does not fall under the provisions of the Act.

On the welfare funding issues, I can only speak for UCD. In UCD, there are three tiers of student welfare funding. There is the student assistance fund, which is predominantly funded by the EU. As I stated earlier, that is for persons who are encountering ongoing severe financial issues. For the past number of years, that has been at €128,000.

Then there is the welfare fund, which is funded through a number of mechanisms, such as local fundraising, the university, local businesses, charity nights and quiz nights. That deals with unforeseen circumstances, such as funerals. It usually deals with sums of €100 or €200; the maximum amount of money the fund can give out is €500. This year, however, we have been obliged to introduce an emergency fund. Under this, the students union and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul can give out up to €150 straight away. This money is being provided by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul nationally. Each week — I do not recall on which day — students are able to make applications for emergency payments of up to €150. We were obliged to introduce this fund in order to try to assist students.

As stated earlier, I had one student in my office who could not afford to eat and another who could not afford to pay the bus fare in order to travel to an examination centre. The fund will allow us to deal with such people. Like all our other funds, that fund has been inundated with applications. This year we have managed to place additional moneys of over €100,000 into the welfare fund. However, this will not go anywhere near allowing us to deal with students who are experiencing financial difficulties.

I do not know if the committee is aware that every student pays a registration fee of €1,500. In addition to this, most ITs and universities impose a student levy. Due to the fact that there is no money to fund student services correctly, students have, in cases where it is necessary to build a gym, a pool hall or a common room, voted in referenda to put in place a levy that is additional to their €1,500 registration fee. UCD students pay a total of €1,650, while their counterparts in NUI Galway, UCC and elsewhere pay over €1,700.

Following the release of the accounts, the president of Trinity College Dublin's students union, Cónán Ó Broin, and I were invited by the chief executive of the HEA to attend a meeting on Monday last. The registration fee is supposed to be governed by a framework of good practice, which was established in 1998. This framework is supposed to set out how the students' services charge is distributed. The students' service charge is a colloquial name for this charge. It was established when the free fees scheme was introduced in order to offset the cost of student services, registration and examinations. That was the intention behind the fee when it was originally established.

To assist with how this money would be spent, the HEA set up a framework for good practice in 1998. The HEA has periodically written to the universities to ensure that this framework is still in place. The latter have assured the HEA that it remains in place. The universities issue the same reply when contacted because they do not want to review, on a yearly basis, how this money is spent. Under the framework for good practice, there is supposed to be a group, weighted in favour of students, in place to recommend to a university how the money is spent on student services. This has not happened across the country for a number of years.

The HEA has agreed to write to the universities and ITs and request them to provide information from their accounts with regard to how moneys for student services are spent. It also agreed to ask them to review the framework for good practice, which is simply not working right across the board. That is the current position following our meeting with the chief executive of the HEA, Mr. Tom Boland, on Monday last. We have been invited to meet him again in the new year when the information to which I refer has been provided. I am aware that my colleagues throughout the country have experienced tremendous difficulties in trying to obtain this information from various institutes and universities. It has not been easy to discover how money relating to the student services charge is being spent.

As already stated, the charge was established in order that a contribution might be made in respect of registration, student services and examinations. Towards the end of last year, the HEA and the Irish Universities Association, IUA, came to an agreement to allow library and IT services and spatial costs to be included and funded under the student services charge. The State is supposed to pay for tuition. However, without a library, it is not possible to have a university. If library and IT services do not constitute tuition, then I do not know what does.

If, as the Government states, that students are, for their €1,500 charge, obtaining student services, examinations, registration and library and IT services, then what exactly does the core grant cover? I suggest that both students and the State are obtaining appalling value for money in respect of the core grant. If, as the Minister states, the student service charge covers the various things to which I refer, then what does the core grant cover?

In the past, students were able to finance the registration fee — €1,500 this year and €900 last year — by obtaining part-time or summer jobs or getting bank loans and paying them off periodically. The part-time jobs to which I refer do not exist any more. Most of the students with whom I deal in UCD do not have part-time jobs and they cannot obtain bank loans. They have approached the major banks and building societies but none are willing to deal with them. I do not know how students in UCD can be expected to come up with the €1,650 their require in respect of these fees.

Senator Keaveney referred to social events. Student morale is at such a low level in UCD that the president of the university and I last week established a task force to investigate how said morale might be improved. Membership numbers for the various societies and sports clubs have gone through the floor. In addition, the numbers of those willing to attend social outings have plummeted. Universities and ITs are not nice places to be at present because students simply do not have any money. That is the cold, hard reality.

The first 12-week semester at UCD has already concluded and this week is revision week. As UCD is completely semesterised and modularised, students will commence their exams for the first six modules they have done this year next week. Some 50% of their year's work will be assessed next week and the week after, but I have a long list of students who do not even know whether they will obtain a grant. The first semester is over and there are students who have not even been given grants yet. Things are very tough.

I am concerned with regard to the 40 or 50 students who are dropping out of third level education each week. Will these individuals sit their Christmas exams?

Mr. Gary Redmond

Probably not. That number has probably increased dramatically this week. I have had far more students in my office this week who have informed me they cannot afford to live in Dublin anymore, that their landlords are threatening to evict them——

That is my question. Are these students dropping out to return home and planning to go back to sit their exams? We need to condemn the practice whereby students are not allowed into libraries to study. We are talking about publicly-funded universities and colleges which obtain core grants from the State — whether these are adequate is another issue — and they are not permitting registered students to enter their libraries. That is appalling. If I was the mother or sibling of a person who was living in a car or who does not have enough food to eat, I would tell them to return home to study and then go back to sit their exams. Are the colleges and universities facilitating such students in the context of allowing them to return to use library facilities, albeit on a reduced basis, and sit their exams.

The Senator has made her point. However, this matter is more appropriate to the heads of the universities. Representatives of Dáil na nÓg are due to come before the committee on 28 January. Is it agreed that we should invite the heads of the seven universities and Mr. Boland from the HEA to also appear on that date in order that we might question them directly in respect of this matter?

Absolutely. However, can our guests not reply to the questions I have posed?

I am not sure if they are in a position to do so.

Yes, but they may possess the information.

Mr. Hugh Sullivan

Where possible, students are moving home in order to save money. In that context, applications to halls of residence, etc., have fallen slightly. With regard to queries to the USI office — which is a very small tranche of the overall number of queries directed to the local unions — we are approached by 40 to 50 students per week who state that they will be obliged to leave education if they do not receive grants and who ask if we can do anything for them. The sad reality is that I am obliged to inform them that there is nothing anyone can do for them.

That is what I mean. Local authorities and VECs in Galway have informed me that it will be January before grants are paid. In the interim, will the students to which I refer have the opportunity to sit their first semester exams?

Mr. Hugh Sullivan

No. By then, these students will have missed their exams and will have lost out on potentially half of the credits they need to obtain for this year.

In other words, delaying payment of the grant is effectively pushing them out of education for the entire year.

Mr. Hugh Sullivan

Exactly. The USI does not have a policy in respect of whether the VECs should be merged. However, we do have a policy which states that there should be a single authority for the awarding of grants. Given that this argument was not taken up in the debate on the Student Support Bill, we have accepted, for the time being, the proposal that the VEC will administer student support. That is the situation with the VECs. I think we would agree that it would be a very good idea for there to be a single awarding authority, particularly in the interests of cutting down on the level of administration. We would like such an authority to be similar to the CAO.

We were asked about the county councils and VECs which have not made a single grant payment. These are: Cavan County Council; Cork County Council; Limerick City Council; County Clare VEC; County Galway VEC; County Kildare VEC; County Leitrim VEC; County Limerick VEC; County Longford VEC; County Mayo VEC; County Offaly VEC; County Roscommon VEC; North Tipperary VEC; South Tipperary VEC, City of Waterford VEC; and County Waterford VEC.

There are also 12 bodies that will not finish processing until January. Does Mr. O'Sullivan have the details on those?

Mr. Hugh Sullivan

I do not have that information with me, but I can send that information on to members.

Is there an issue with regard to the registration fee in some colleges? Some VECs and county councils issued letters to students stating that they would get the grants. Some colleges accepted those letters, but others did not. Some VECs and county councils did not issue letters because they could not guarantee the students would get grants. Is that an issue?

Mr. Hugh Sullivan

Some colleges were lenient and accepted those letters, but others were distinctly harsh and did not accept them because they had no legal basis. They were basically only IOUs from the VEC or county council. Also, some VECs were not in a position to write such IOUs. This was an issue of concern, but the letters were considered a positive measure.

Is the HEA website helpful? If we advise that the Minister does as he proposes, would that be sufficient, leaving aside the Student Support Bill for the moment? I was interested to hear the suggestion that the closing date for grant applications should be in March or May so that the applications could be processed in June. I would have thought that students would want to complete all their forms early, including their application to the CAO, or whatever course they are applying to, and their grant applications. Then all the form filling would be done and they could concentrate on their exams, rather than having to fill more forms. Would simultaneous applications not be better?

That would not require legislation, but it would simplify the matter.

On 17 November, the Minister said in the Seanad that this was the route he intends to take. I cannot understand why it cannot be arranged to do it for the coming year. This committee and the students should work together and advocate this approach.

The immediate concern is that we will have the budget next week. USI believes the student registration fee should be capped and some of us believe it should be reduced.

I said last week that it should be reduced.

If the Chairman is making that proposal, I will second it.

This committee should support the Minister's statement that registration fees should not be increased unless the cost of student services increases. That would be a fair compromise. As I said, I would like to see a decrease, but, although we know the money is not going to student services, given the budgetary situation I cannot see the registration fee being reduced, much as I would like it to be. However, the committee could propose that there should be no increase in registration fees given the existing fee does not, given the evidence we have to date, cover student services.

Fine Gael policy is that there should be no student registration fee at all.

Fine Gael would have it amalgamated into a graduate tax.

However, given the situation we are in and the imminent budget, I will second the Chairman's proposal.

Is it agreed that we support the Minister's comment that there should be no increase in registration fees unless it is proven that the increase in student services exceeds the existing allocation?

I would go further and suggest that nothing should be agreed until we meet with the heads of universities and question them. However, I suppose it is a budgetary matter next week. I support the proposal.

Any increase should be underlined by proof that the money will be targeted at student supports.

We got no proof today that suggests it would.

We should make it very clear there should be no increase in student registration fees. We have heard about the despair and misery students and parents face currently. Now, it appears the Government will, by way of the HEA, try to keep students out of college.

Could we get the final response from the students now because some of us must leave?

Mr. Peter Mannion

A question was asked about www.studentfinance.ie. This website has received a high number of hits, which has impressed the HEA. However, the people who fill the forms and seek information are not all within the age group the site was set up to service or those it targets. What I mean by this is that USI must still run grant information evenings when all the information is in a one-stop-shop on-line. Why is this? Clearly, the website has not targeted the proper people. It is a good website and has all the information needed, but it has not been advertised properly. It probably needs to be revamped and targeted at the right audience.

With regard to the comment by the Minister that there should be no increase unless student services increase, it has been proven that €1,000 of the fee goes elsewhere, so it is very easy to say student services need more money. The idea behind the student services charge was that it should fund examinations, registration or student services. Therefore, it is very easy to argue that more money is needed, because the colleges only get one third of what is paid in. This committee needs to be fully aware of that. It is an easy way out to say we do not want a cap, unless such and such happens. The "unless" is too easy to prove because the colleges already get so little for student services. I urge the committee to reconsider its proposal and to press for a cap.

The committee has invited us, the HEA and the presidents of the colleges to appear before it. We all know there is an issue. What will happen if there is an increase in the registration fee next week? How many students will end up not going to college next year? What will be the knock-on effect of an increase in the fee. If the fee is increased a month before the committee has its meeting with the presidents and the HEA, that will not do any good for the students or USI. We need action now.

What percentage of those students on social welfare payments who have started college have got letters to say they must give up their social welfare payment because they are now in full-time education, but who if they were only on a part-time course could retain their payment? I have come across a number of people who got advice that if their course was called a part-time course, they could hold onto the payment they were getting.

Mr. Peter Mannion

This is something that has been brought to our attention, particularly with regard to the new courses that have been created as a result of the labour force activation task force. However, we have not quantified the number involved yet. We are quite worried by the situation, but we need more information on it from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We are hitting our heads off two walls as opposed to one in that regard. It is hard to quantify the numbers involved, but we know there are issues as they are being raised by students. Until such time as we get a clear picture, I cannot give figures to the committee.

Given that we have concluded our contributions, I wish everyone a peaceful Christmas and a happy new year. The committee has done a good deal of work since its return. I thank Mr. Mannion, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Redmond for their pertinent contributions.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 28 January 2010.
Top
Share