Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 25 February 2014
100. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if his attention has been drawn to the anomalies within the Student Universal Support Ireland grant application system that are causing extreme hardship for many students. [9431/14]
View answerMy question relates to Student Universal Support Ireland and the anomalies and hardship the criterion of estrangement is creating for students.
I understand the Deputy is referring to how students are categorised for student grant purposes. For such purposes, students are categorised according to their circumstances - as students dependent on their parents or legal guardians, or as independent mature students. A student may be assessed as an independent mature student if he or she has attained the age of 23 on 1 January of the year of first entry to an approved course, or of re-entry following a break in studies of at least three years, and is not ordinarily resident with his or her parents from the previous October. Otherwise, he or she continues to be assessed on the basis of parental income. Only in exceptional cases, where compelling evidence of estrangement from parents or guardians is provided, can candidates who are under the age of 23 be assessed without reference to the incomes or addresses of their parents or guardians. While satisfying the criteria outlined may cause some difficulties for certain students, I have no plans to change these eligibility arrangements.
I want to focus on people under the age of 23 who may be estranged from their parents. I will give two examples of the difficulties that are being caused. I know of a student who has provided SUSI with letters from her local general practitioner, from the counselling services within her college and from other Government Departments stating that she is estranged from her parents. I am trying to understand why SUSI has responded to this case as it has. The only statutory instrument I can find that relates to this issue is SI No. 159 of last year, Article 21(3)(b) of which provides that students may be assessed on their own means "where it is established to the satisfaction of the relevant awarding authority" that the student "is irreconcilably estranged from both of his or her parents". The statutory instrument does not set out how that can be proven. It seems from the responses to the parliamentary questions I have tabled on this matter that the only evidence SUSI will accept must come from a social worker or from someone employed by the HSE. That creates problems for a number of students who might not have any business with a social worker or any interaction with HSE officials. That is where the problem lies.
I understand the Deputy is talking about people under the age of 23 who are still deemed to be dependent on their guardian or parental home. I presume that in the cases of manifest estrangement which have been brought to the Deputy's attention by his constituents or by others, the evidence that was produced was not deemed to be satisfactory to SUSI. Is that correct?
That is correct.
If the Deputy gives me the details of the particular case, I will have a look at it. If the Deputy is suggesting that we should revisit the definition of estrangement in the case of a person under the age of 23, with reference to the level of proof and evidence that should be supplied to SUSI, I will have a look at that as well.
I appreciate that. I want to record that the SUSI system has been much improved this year. Great advances have been made. The number of cases coming into my office this year is quite small. I had to deal with hundreds of cases last year. We are talking about a small number of cases of parental estrangement. I will mention the example of a woman under the age of 23 who is married and is living with her spouse. She is being assessed on the basis of her parents' income because she was living with them on 1 October last, even though she is now living separately from them with her spouse. They have their own income stream. These little issues are creating problems. Maybe we need to consider widening the burden of proof. The current approach, whereby the agreement of a HSE official or a social worker is needed, is too narrow and is creating extreme financial hardship for a small number of students.
I thank the Deputy for the point he has made. I look forward to getting the precise information on that particular case. We will look at the general principle he has raised.
