Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 2015

Higher and Further Education Grants: Discussion

Chairman

We are here to discuss higher and further education grants, in particular the operation and effects of the current approach to income assessment. The joint committee last considered the higher and further education grant system in 2013, following the establishment of SUSI. Major concerns arose then but they appear to have been largely resolved at this stage. There was a lot of work done and engagement by the committee, on a cross-party basis, with SUSI to get some of the issues our constituents faced at the time dealt with. In the meantime, a lot of work has been done to improve the system, which SUSI now operates.

Some issues have been raised with us, as public representatives, and that is why we decided to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter. Deputy Jim Daly, in particular, sought this meeting to discuss the matter, in particular the operation of the approach to income assessment that is used for grant applications and how that affects applicants. The matter has given rise to concerns being expressed by members who have been contacted by their constituents.

To discuss this matter with the joint committee I welcome from the Department of Education and Skills, Mr. Brian Power and Ms Thérèse Gorman, and from SUSI we have Mr. Seamus De Faoite and Mr. Graham Doyle.

We also invited the Student Grants Appeals Board. However, the chair of the board has responded stating that the board, which is part-time in nature, is convened at regular intervals to consider appeals. The role of the board is to examine appeals to determine whether the terms and conditions of the scheme, and associated statutory instruments, are applied correctly. It is not open to the appeals board to depart from the terms and conditions of the grants scheme, regardless of the applicant's individual or personal circumstances. The board regrets that it is not in a position to attend the meeting today but has provided a written submission. The submission has been circulated to members and is on their database as well.

To commence our discussion I invite Mr. Power to make his presentation on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills.

Mr. Brian Power

I thank the Chairperson and committee members. I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today to discuss further and higher education grants, in particular the operation and effects of the current approach to means testing. I wish to clarify that my colleague, Ms Eilish Bergin, is seated beside me.

The purpose of this presentation is to present to the committee an overview of the system which provides for the making of student grants, by awarding authorities, to enable students attend courses of further and higher education.

I will be pleased to address any questions that the committee members may have at the end of the statement. The overall mission of the Department of Education and Skills is to enable learners to achieve their full potential and contribute to Ireland’s economic, social and cultural development. The provision of supports to promote equity of access to higher education is a key element of this mission.

Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt but I forgot to read the note on privilege, which I must do. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Mr. Brian Power

Equity of access to higher education has been identified as a national priority and has been clearly articulated as such in a number of published policy papers and reports, including in the national strategy for higher education, and the higher education system performance framework. National access plans are published by the Higher Education Authority in consultation with the Department and set out the specific objectives, actions and national targets for achieving equity of access to higher education over the lifetime of the plan, having regard to overall objectives.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

Can we take the presentation as read, given that Mr. Power must leave at 2.30 p.m.? I suggest that so there is ample time for questioning.

Chairman

Perhaps we can go through the headings.

Mr. Brian Power

I can give a briefer version, beginning with the statutory student grant scheme, which is germane to where we are. The Student Support Act 2011 is the legal basis that allows the Minister, with the agreement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the power to prescribe a scheme of grants. The unified single scheme first came into operation in 2011 and the eligibility criteria for student grants, including income thresholds, are reviewed annually and must be approved by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Any changes in respect of rates of grant, income thresholds or significant cost measures are announced as part of the budget.

More than 110,000 applications for student grants are received by awarding authorities each year, approximately 65,000 of which are new applications, with the balance being renewal applications for continuing students. In line with the transition arrangements from local authorities and VECs to the new centralised grant awarding authority, SUSI received in excess of 103,500 of these applications, approximately 94%.

In terms of the numbers involved, the State provides funds for the demand-led student grant scheme, which totalled €345 million in 2014. Since 2008, the number of qualifying students has increased by 42% to 81,600 grant holders in the current academic year. The budget for the same period has increased to €345 million. The vast majority of grant holders are undergraduate students, at 86.5%. A further 10.7% are post-leaving certificate students, with the remaining 2.8% being postgraduate students. Some 90.4% of maintenance grant holders receive an award at the rate of 100%, compared with only 3.68% of those awarded maintenance receiving the 25% rate. More than 19,000 students, 25%, qualified for the special rate of grant at the higher rate.

Regarding eligibility criteria, the student grant scheme plays a fundamental role in supporting families who are putting their children through further and higher education. The majority of students continue to be supported by their parents through the course of their third level studies. This may be financially, through continuing to live in the family home, or by providing support in a number of other ways. The purpose of the student grant scheme is to provide additional assistance where parental income, or capacity to provide support, is below a certain threshold.

The eligibility criteria for student grants, including the income thresholds, is reviewed annually. The student grant scheme recognises the particular pressures on larger families by providing for higher income thresholds for such families. Further increases in the income thresholds are provided for where additional family members are attending further and higher education at the same time.

A special rate of maintenance grant was introduced in 2001, recognising the additional needs of welfare dependent families in supporting students through college. The target group of those most in need was defined in terms of the dependants of people receiving long-term welfare payments, where the necessary conditions are fulfilled.

Income thresholds are necessary to ensure that grant support is properly targeted towards those who are most in need. The reckonable income limits for the standard rates of student grant generally follow the percentage increases in average industrial earnings as provided by the Central Statistics Office. This is provided on an annual basis and analysed. Any change to the income thresholds are subject to the approval of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

The reality of any programme of support that includes a process of assessment of financial means is that the defined income limits will invariably result in a proportion of applicants exceeding the specified thresholds, in some cases by small margins. The 2003 report, Supporting Equity in Higher Education, recommended introducing extra gradations to the student grant scheme. At the time, there was a 100% rate and a 50% rate. To increase equity in the scheme and to address threshold issues, 75% and 25% rates were introduced from the academic year 2003 to 2004.

Student grant applications are means tested on gross income from all sources earned inside and outside the State within a specified reference period. The assessment of income from the same starting point is considered to be fair and reasonable because this approach eliminates any distortion that might arise from different spending decisions in households. The means test arrangements for the student grant scheme are applied nationally. In all cases, gross income is assessed with certain specified social welfare and HSE payments excluded from income.

In the assessment for the special rate, the amounts taken into account are the basic weekly payment amount of the relevant social protection payment and any qualified adult allowance, where applicable. Any allowance included in these payments in respect of child dependants is excluded when the calculation of reckonable income is made for the special rate.

Significant progress has been made on increasing participation in higher education by most socio-economic groups. However, some socio-economic groups continue to be under-represented in higher education. There are also areas where participation rates are considerably below the norm, particularly in some of the large urban areas. Priority needs to be continued to support students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from families fully dependent on income support from the State. The principal support is the student grant scheme, and other targeted access supports include the student assistance fund, the fund for students with disabilities, and institutional funding for access made available through the Higher Education Authority.

There has been a consistent demand for increases in these resources in recent years.

In the context of making progress towards the system-wide objectives for equity of access for groups under-represented in higher education, the availability of new data resources arising from the centralised system will provide much greater detail on grant applicants, grant holders and the numbers and types of grants they receive. This will inform policy on the future direction of the student grant scheme as a key measure to increase participation of students in higher education, particularly for students who are still not making the transition to higher education.

Chairman

Our next speaker is Mr. Graham Doyle from SUSI.

Mr. Graham Doyle

Does the Chair want me to go through our submission?

Chairman

If it contains any general information that we already know, we can take it as read. I ask Mr. Doyle to address the specifics of the issues arising without giving the background to the grant system.

Mr. Graham Doyle

I thank the committee for inviting us to address it. I will outline SUSI's principal objectives and some of the improvements that have been made since we were established.

Our principal objectives are the delivery of a fully online grant application system for students; an integrated student helpdesk and document management services; a centralised assessment unit with automated processing systems to support consistency in the application of the student grant scheme and regulations; electronic payment of awarded grants to students and colleges; and cost minimisation through administrative efficiencies. To deliver on these objectives, we have made many improvements to our processes and procedures. Continual refinement of the online application process and the introduction of new services have made the grants system more accessible to students, while improved internal procedures and flexible staffing arrangements have streamlined and speeded up the assessment process to ensure that decisions can be given as early as possible. In particular, the introduction of direct data sharing with Departments and other agencies has significantly reduced the volumes of documents requested from students. Automated procedures have been implemented with colleges to confirm that students have been registered and can receive their grants quickly by electronic transfer. There are also efficiencies for more than 400 schools and colleges in dealing with SUSI as a single agency.

SUSI plays an important role in the provision of clear information for students regarding grant eligibility and the application process. The SUSI website provides a single point of information and we are represented at many college open days and national and regional career events. Our communications unit works closely with stakeholder groups, including student unions, parents, guidance counsellors and citizens’ information services, to ensure that information about student grants is widely available and accessible to all. Our online information services include a grant eligibility reckoner that is quick and easy to use and provides a useful starting point for those considering applying for a grant. In the particular context of today’s discussion, the functionality of the eligibility reckoner will be extended this year to provide an indication of eligibility based on a more detailed breakdown of income. Existing applicants can also follow the progress of their applications through a tracker in their SUSI account, and awarded students can view their scheduled grant payment dates and amounts. SUSI provides a comprehensive helpdesk service by telephone, e-mail and social media, as well as a service through which Oireachtas Members can make inquiries on behalf of grant applicants.

As reflected in our formal title of Student Universal Support Ireland, we seek to support students in gaining access to further and higher education by providing financial assistance in accordance with the provisions of the student grant scheme. The assessment of income is one of a number of eligibility criteria we are required to consider under the student grant scheme. As Mr. Power has already outlined the criteria, I do not propose rehearse them, but if members have any questions, I would be happy to address them.

For the purpose of considering whose income is taken into account for assessment, students are classified as either dependent applicants or independent applicants. Dependent applicants are assessed based on their own income and the income of their parents or legal guardians, whereas independent applicants are assessed based on their own income and the income of their spouse, cohabitant or civil partner. Income from all sources in respect of all relevant parties to a grant application is assessed to determine grant eligibility.

SUSI can verify details of income under data sharing arrangements implemented with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection through what we call our social welfare feed. This has led to significant reductions in the burden of documentary evidence for students and in the number of requests for additional information, thus leading to a more efficient processing of applications.

The scheme also provides that certain types of income can be disregarded or deducted to arrive at what is referred to in the legislation as reckonable income. These include a range of social welfare payments, Revenue-approved employment related expenses, holiday earnings, maintenance payments, pension contributions and non-recurring overtime. Following the application of any disregards or deductions, the assessed reckonable income is then measured against the prescribed income limits or thresholds set out in the scheme to determine the appropriate grant entitlement of the applicant. These thresholds may be increased in respect of dependent children and other relevant persons in full-time education. In addition, where the resulting assessed reckonable income is marginally in excess of a threshold limit, we will write to the student to request any other relevant information that may have a positive impact on the outcome of the application. If we are close to the threshold, we will always go back to the student. For example, we might try to take account of holiday earnings.

All income is assessed on a preceding year basis, that is, for the calendar year prior to the year of entry to college in respect of which the grant application is made. This is known as the reference period. However, the scheme also takes account of the possibility that a change in income following the reference period and up to the end of the academic year may have a significant bearing on the financial circumstances of the applicant. This is known as a change of circumstances and it allows income to be assessed on a current year basis. We provide an internal review mechanism whereby applicants can seek to have their grant application decision re-examined for the purpose of considering any change of circumstances or in respect of the assessed distance from home to college for the purpose of a maintenance grant.

Students who are not awarded a grant or who believe they may be entitled to a higher rate of grant may make a formal appeal to the appeals officer, who decides whether the application should be re-assessed by SUSI. In re-assessing applications on appeal, SUSI carries out a full re-examination of the application to identify whether there are any grounds, including on the basis of new information or change of circumstances, by which the original outcome can be improved. As I have already outlined in regard to the assessment of income both generally and in marginal cases, our approaches in providing the opportunity for internal review and in reviewing applications on appeal reflects an ethos of inclusion rather than exclusion which is central to our practice in the administration of the grant scheme.

I would be delighted to answer any questions members may have. We are currently preparing to open for our fourth year of grant application processing. We have received approximately 250,000 applications to date. The annual number of applications has increased from 70,000 in year one to an expected 115,000 applications in year four. We will be opening for applications in mid-April 2015, which is earlier than in previous years.

In our first three years of operation we awarded 170,000 grants. With these improvements, we have increased our throughput of grant applications, not only meeting but exceeding our performance targets under a management framework implemented with the Department of Education and Skills.

Senator Averil Power

I commend SUSI, Student Universal Support Ireland, for the fact that the applications process is much better. I know that there were teething problems in the first year, but most of the complaints I now receive are about the criteria to be applied under the scheme. We have, therefore, come a long way. Mr. Brian Power stated: "The assessment of income from the same starting point [gross income] is considered to be fair and reasonable because this approach eliminates any distortion which might arise from different spending decisions in different households." That is arguable because, at same time, it takes no account of different costs of living. Obviously, the income limits are far more generous for somebody living outside Dublin than they are for those in the capital, with no account taken of mortgage payments and so forth. The Department is treating families the same when disposable incomes are very different. The Government had initially indicated that it would review the means test. Like everyone else in the education sector, I have read John Walsh’s book and I am aware of the political reality as to why it was not done. A political decision was made not to look at the means test. Has this been parked at a policy level? Is the fairness of the means test being reviewed? A Dublin PAYE worker with a large mortgage might find himself or herself just outside the net, which is particularly unfair on him or her.

How will lone parents be affected when they lose the one-parent family payment? Previously, they were able to keep the payment and stay in education. As of 2 July, once a child is over seven years of age, lone parents will lose the one-parent family payment altogether. What assistance will be available for them? Will the back to education allowance be their only option? This is a significant issue and it is a very unfair cut. I know that the officials cannot comment on it, but I am concerned how lone parents will be dealt with by the education system. How will we ensure people will not drop out of education and miss the second-chance opportunity they need because of this cut to their income?

As they stand, the requirements for somebody to prove they have been estranged from their parents are very strict. I understand it is an issue the USI, Union of Students in Ireland, has raised with SUSI and the Department previously and that a commitment was given that it would be examined. Where stands the Department on this issue? I appreciate that set criteria are needed, against which applications can be judged. Sometimes, however, crude criteria can mean that people in difficult circumstances who cannot live at home because of domestic violence, for example, have difficulties in obtaining all of the documentation the Department requires to prove they are eligible for estrangement support. That can be unfair. Has the Department examined how other countries deal with this issue to come up with a better system to deal with the matter of estrangement?

The Student Grants Appeals Board can and does make recommendations to the Department on changes to the grants scheme. What changes has it recommended? Which ones have been accepted and which have not?

I raised the issue of the student assistance fund with the Minister in the Seanad last week. USI figures show that by the end of December 2014 many colleges had completely exhausted their allocations for 2014 and 2015. This means that a student in dire circumstances next month may be faced with dropping out of college for the sake of a few hundred euro for his or her rent. This fund gives colleges discretion and flexibility to help students in such circumstances, but it is now completely exhausted in many colleges. Is SUSI looking to increase the allocation in this regard?

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

Estrangement is the issue with which we deal most in my office. I know that strict criteria are needed in this regard but some of the documentary evidence requested is very difficult for people to provide. Students providing evidence from the Department of Social Protection have been told it is not adequate and that additional evidence is required. Will the officials comment on this issue?

After SUSI’s first year, a report was published on its operation, with several recommendations. Will the officials confirm that all of these recommendations have been implemented? If not, which ones are still outstanding?

Recently a proposal was made by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul that SUSI’s application process work alongside and on the same timeline as the Central Applications Office’s application process. Obviously, this would have huge advantages. Has any consideration been given to this? Would it be a major task to move to such a system?

The appeals process is very long. I understand one has to review all of the documentation. However, from the moment an applicant receives a grant refusal, he or she has 30 days in which to appeal. It is then viewed by an appeals officer, which can take up to 30 days. If the appeals officer upholds the decision, it can then be appealed to the Student Grants Appeals Board within another 30 days. The appeals board has 60 days in which to adjudicate on the decision. That comes to a maximum of 150 days, close enough to five months, to process an appeal. In that period some students would find it very difficult to remain in education and might have to drop out for financial reasons. I know that 150 days is the maximum period, but are there data for average processing times of appeals?

It is surprising that the appeals board overturns almost 20% of refusals. Essentially, one in five refusals, initially made by SUSI and upheld by an appeals officer, could be overturned by the appeals board. That indicates that there is something wrong with the process somewhere along the line. If the appeals board upholds the decision of the appeals officer, the course of action for a student is to take a High Court case. I believe this has happened on at least one occasion and the student involved actually won the case. Will the officials confirm this? Will they also confirm if any other High Court case has been taken?

Senator Marie Moloney

From the beginning I was one of the biggest critics of SUSI. Everything was going wrong; documents were constantly being lost and everything was topsy-turvy. I commend the body for the improvements and strides it has made. I have not received a complaint about its operations for some time. There has, therefore, been a vast improvement.

In the event of a student’s mother remarrying, is it correct that the step-parent’s income is not taken into consideration when assessing a grant application? Many people are not aware that if they lose their job, they can reapply following a change of circumstances.

If they do apply under a change of circumstances, however, a late application must be made. An appeal is submitted, they must wait for the response and then they have to submit a late application. It is a bit of a waste of time. Why can SUSI not just take the application and assess it instead of making people go through an appeal process?

Can the Department give an update on how the HEAR scheme is going? Has there been a good uptake? How is it working? Has it been beneficial to students? Has there been much feedback on it?

On the question of reckonable income, it is all very well to say a person has gross income of between €45,000 and €50,000 but what about that person's disposable income? A working person with that kind of salary might actually end up with less money than an unemployed person or one who works part time, after they have paid tax, PRSI, levies and everything else. We should move towards looking at people's net income for assessment. Has the Department considered a loan scheme for students who are not eligible for a third level grant?

There is a lot of messing around with applications, in particular for the one-parent family where the parent goes back to education. They are advised to claim the back-to-education allowance and then they find they are not eligible for the maintenance grant. They have to go back on the one-parent family allowance in order that they can qualify. We should move towards a situation where the back-to-education allowance qualifies a person for the maintenance grant.

Deputy Jim Daly

I thank the witnesses for their time and their presentations. I also thank the Chairman and the secretariat for arranging this meeting. It is important for us to review the operations of these grants to see if we can make the system better.

I wanted to use this meeting to emphasise the lack of discretion in respect of these applications. I know that SUSI has to operate within guidelines but while some schemes, such as the medical card scheme, have a very arbitrary financial threshold, there is more discretion in other schemes and I would like to see more discretion in this case. As Senator Marie Moloney said, it is bizarre to say that somebody on €40,000 per year can afford to send a child to college while somebody on €39,000 cannot. This cut-off point is arbitrary and too severe. What suggestions does SUSI have for us, as legislators, to improve the system within which it has to work? How can we bring less rigidity and more flexibility into the system?

I note that SUSI has turned out to be a huge disappointment in some quarters. There were huge hopes at one point that it would turn into another Irish Water and become a new whipping boy but it has disappointed many in the media and in opposition by putting together a very formidable operation. We cannot overestimate the achievement of SUSI in taking 43 awarding authorities and combining them into one system. There were teething difficulties, of course, and it is not long ago that this committee met its representatives in Buswells Hotel on the matter. I was very impressed with the presentation on that day. SUSI was the first body to get its head around the idea of Departments talking to other Departments, which is something for which we had hoped for a long time. A colleague of mine in the Dáil, Deputy Willie O'Dea, said not so long ago that nobody in Ireland would now consider calling their child Susie.

Senator Marie Moloney

"If you knew Susie, like I knew Susie."

Deputy Jim Daly

I do not have any information from the Central Statistics Office as to whether that turned out to be correct. I welcome the opportunity to engage with SUSI and review its operations but, apart from a few suggestions its delegates may make, the situation is out of its hands.

Have the delegates any figures for the number of people who are marginally over the limit? Some people will not even apply, of course, so there may not be complete figures. What are the delegates' views on the question of discretion? I regret that the appeals body is not represented today as the question of applying discretion would be more pertinent to it.

What happens with people who are estranged or where there is a question of a person being independent or dependent? I have constituents who had to prove they were independent. Although it is a strict test, I found it was a fair process and I have no difficulties with it as people could otherwise take advantage of it.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

I congratulate a Government which will spend €345 million on a benefit and cost system for students in third level education.

Chairman

Is there a mobile telephone near the Senator?

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

No. I do not bring telephones in here. I have made my position perfectly clear on that.

Chairman

There appears to be some interference from a telephone.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

I hope it is not anywhere near me. Can the witnesses comment on the fact that only 2.8% is being spent on postgraduate students? I think the Government has abandoned postgraduate education in the grant system, regardless of the question of whether one can pay. A lot of undergraduates do something like a leaving certificate plus 1. Can the witnesses comment on that?

The documentation gives details of matters which were the subject of appeal in 2011 and 2012, one of the greatest of which is for a repeat period of study. Can the witnesses give the number of students who appeal on the grounds of a repeat period of study?

Is there a lack of information regarding nationality and immigration status or is it a lack of the right kind of information that gives rise to appeals in that area?

Mr. Graham Doyle

Sorry, but I did not understand the Senator's last question.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

It relates to the matters subject to appeal in 2011 and 2012. There seem to be a huge number of appeals relating to a repeat period of study. Can SUSI and the Department comment on that? The figures relating to nationality and immigration status seem to be quite large too. Can they also comment on that? Is there a lack of the right kind of information? What are the pitfalls here? We have a young population but it is in a growth sector.

Mr. Brian Power

We will try to get to all of the issues. The question at the outset was on gross versus net income. A range of schemes are run across Government which use various means of income measurement. For the student grant scheme, it has always been thought that gross income was the fairest place to start. It means there will be no change to eligibility caused by decisions made within families about expenditure. Other schemes, such as those run by the HSE, allow for some expenditure to be taken into account in various areas, but in some social welfare schemes, means testing is carried out on the basis of gross income only. They may not, however, be the best examples to use. The student grant was examined previously and the conclusion was that gross income was the fairest place to start.

There are a number of income disregards to ensure that less well-off families should not have their social welfare income or outboard payments included in the assessment of income overall. There is a range of ameliorating measures in the scheme to help ensure gross income is reduced accordingly, where those measures impact on people from the point of view of social protection.

The issue was raised around the introduction of a broader and fairer means test, signalled by the Government. While there is no agreement at this point the issue remains under consideration in terms of fairness in means testing. That is still on the table, but it is an issue of policy for the Government to see how, if and when that should be done. That is the current status. On the issue of the one-parent family I will ask my colleague, Eilish Bergin, to make a comment on that.

Ms Eilish Bergin

We are very aware of the issues that arise from the decisions of the Department of Social Protection in relation to the one-parent family payment. We are liaising with the Department to try to ameliorate arising difficulties, particularly for those who are in college. A budget decision was taken on the back-to-education allowance a number of years ago and that has been implemented. It would be unfair to allow different sets of people be treated differently on BTEA. We are working with the Department to find ways to smooth the passage of Department policy in relation to one-parent family payments. That engagement is ongoing. The committee can be reassured we are very conscious of the issue and we work closely with the Department.

Chairman

Can you send an update to the committee in due course about what is decided?

Ms Eilish Bergin

Yes we can do that. It is understood that the Department of Social Protection is using new transitioning arrangements for moving people. This is a way we can work with the Department to ensure the smoothest possible arrangements for those students currently in education. This is a matter of ongoing discussion between the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Social Protection.

Mr. Brian Power

I thank Ms Bergin. I want to pick up on estrangement which I know is a major issue for a number of members. In the first instance, cases of genuine estrangement are relatively rare. Each situation presents unique and often difficult circumstances. Therefore, the scheme deliberately does not stipulate precisely how the grant awarding authority should satisfy itself that a person meets those criteria. This allows the grant awarding authority sufficient flexibility to assess evidence of irrevocable estrangement in each case. The assessment of a case of estrangement must be carefully considered to ensure there is enough evidence and demonstrate that the exceptional circumstances genuinely exist. The type of evidence required is fully dependent on the applicant's individual circumstances which are often very different from others. We must have evidence to allow the awarding authority to satisfy itself of the conditions of the application for exemption. This is one of the areas where grant awarding authorities have some discretion around the kinds of proof that they accept.

We met with the Union of Students in Ireland and with the Higher Education Authority on this issue. We also met our counterparts in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs because we wanted to link up with them to ensure the messages around this are right and the kind of proofs we are asking for are achievable from an individual's point of view.

Mr. Graham Doyle

I am glad to hear that Deputy Daly has had a good experience in dealing with this kind of case. Quite often cases come up through my own section within the Oireachtas helpdesk. In the context of numbers, as Mr. Power said, they are relatively low. SUSI had 103,000 applications altogether for the 2014-15 academic year. Of that number, 170 applications involved estrangement. A further breakdown shows that 50% of those 170 applications have been approved with students awarded the grant. Of the remaining 50%, only ten were refused and we are currently working with the other students. As Deputy Daly said, we must have strict criteria to ensure the system is not abused. We are also cognisant of the extremely sensitive nature of these cases.

We work on a case-by-case basis and we work with the students as best we can. We are very happy that the scheme is not restrictive in relation to evidence required. We take evidence such as a court order which indicates when someone is estranged from the parent. We would take as evidence a Garda incident report which shows a minor may have been removed from the home, or a letter from the HSE from a social worker to confirm that. The reality is however, quite often, that applicants may have none of this evidence. SUSI has met with the Child and Family Agency, and I have met with the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, at a management level. SUSI accepts evidence from the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul where it can indicate that an applicant is irreconcilably estranged from their parents. We do try to work in supporting the students. We get as much information as we possibly can to build a picture. If we prescribe which documentation we can only receive, that would restrict us. We find that the way we do it is working well. There are ten out of 170 applicants in the 20014-2015 academic year who were refused to date and we are still working with the other students.

Chairman

Any comments?

Senator Marie Moloney

I asked about the HEAR scheme and also about step-parents?

Chairman

Who is the question directed at?

Senator Averil Power

And the recommendations of the appeals board?

Mr. Brian Power

I will come back to that. The recommendations of the appeals board came up a number of times. The chair of the board, in consultation with the Department, convenes meetings and makes recommendations within 60 days of the appeal. The current average time for issuing a determination is now 25 days.

I appreciate that if one adds up all the possibilities for appeals, the amount of time a student has to submit and the amount of time that both the appeals officer in SUSI and the appeals board has to respond, it is a very long time overall, but we are watching those timelines quite carefully. There has been a significant improvement in the timeline of appeals on the SUSI side and we are down to 25 days in 2014-15 on the student grant appeals board from 46 days on average previously. That is a very important improvement overall.

The rate of appeal regarding the repeat period of study being at a particularly high level-----

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

The highest.

Mr. Brian Power

There is some discretion in terms of repeat period of study, particularly for exceptional circumstances. A normal repeat period is where a person, for example, may have failed an exam. It often transpires in the course of a case being dealt with by SUSI or the student grant appeals board that there are extenuating circumstances, the illness of a student or a parent, for example. My understanding is that part of the reason the appeals rate is quite high, at least at the student grant appeals board end, is that new information is often introduced at that stage, because of such circumstances. That is from a discretionary piece which is in that.

There is still some discretion in the new single scheme, for example, in terms of the classes of applicant that would be considered. This applies particularly to the requirement that a student wishing to be classed as an independent student must supply sufficient information to establish to the satisfaction of the awarding authority that they are eligible to be classed as such. There is a certain amount of discretion on the part of the awarding authority to accept the evidence of independent students. There is some very compelling acceptable evidence, such as where a person has clear living arrangements, for example, where they have ESB bills or other utility bills in their name. We are handling students who very often have other arrangements, so there is some discretion built into that.

There is also discretion under article 21 regarding persons whose income is to be considered. Some discretion can be exercised, for example, where it is established to the satisfaction of the awarding authority that a dependent student's parents have been separated but no divorce or legal separation has occurred. Coming back to the area we have dealt with, namely, irreconcilable estrangement, the awarding authority also has latitude regarding being satisfied. As Mr. Doyle has said, and as we pointed out, as we evolve, our objective is to ensure that people who are genuinely estranged from their parents are able to access the grant system.

A question was raised about the overall number of appeals and the 19% overturn. We would caution that those are the overturns in terms of the number of appeals that end up with the student grant appeals board, which tend to be the most difficult and problematic cases overall. The most pertinent statistic here is the percentage of applicants who end up before the board. As a percentage of all the applicants each year, that would work out at about 0.4% overall, which, compared with other means-tested schemes, is actually quite good.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

Is it focused on only one area or is that 19% right across all of-----

Mr. Brian Power

It is across all the areas. Disputes regarding means over the limit obviously have the highest rate of appeal. People will contest means and whether means have been counted in or out. The other area, which has been pointed out by Senator O'Donnell, concerns the repeat period, which also has an extremely high rate of appeal. Other areas include applications for the special rate of grant, which is very often a function of means over the limit; documentation not received; postgraduate funding; and distance criteria.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

How many High Court cases have been taken on appeals?

Mr. Brian Power

My understanding is that there is one High Court case. I am not clear what the final outcome of this case has been, but we can find that out for the committee afterwards. We are only aware of one case.

We now move to the student assistance fund, SAF. There is an overall fund for third level access of €16.2 million. That is broken down by the HEA. It covers two funds: the student assistance fund, which is a discretionary fund run by individual colleges, generally through the access office of the college; and the fund for students with disabilities, which provides extra support via the HEA through colleges. That funding is made available to colleges through the HEA. The HEA has a finance committee that examines it and examines the level of demand for the SAF and the fund for students with disabilities each year. It splits that fund every year on the basis of the likely demand for each of those schemes. There is always room for extra funding, if available, and there is always a high demand on this. Interestingly, the HEA carried out a brief survey for us just before Christmas to see where demand was and it found that something in the region of 44%, almost half, of colleges felt there was a significant draw on the fund and they needed extra funding. Some 48% had enough for what had been asked for up to that point. The final 4% of colleges had less demand than they had had in the previous year. That is obviously a very small number of colleges, but otherwise it is half and half in terms of the increase or decrease in demand from the colleges. That is the information that has come back from the HEA. The allocation for the current year overall for the fund is the same and the HEA will look at the relative split in that for the coming academic year, 2015-16.

Senator Averil Power

The difficulty is that they both come out of the same pot. The money going to the student assistance fund has decreased from €8 million to €6.6 million in the past two years. I understand that the overall fund is the same, but more is going to the disabilities side. The students who can avail of the student assistance fund are our most vulnerable students. They have to be in extreme financial hardship, so they are even more vulnerable than the other cohort we are talking about today, who get maintenance grants. These students are a sub-group of that and a group whose members are often in such dire circumstances that a few hundred euro or a thousand euro might be the difference between them staying in college and dropping out. If they drop out of college, they end up on social welfare. They end up on a demand-led scheme, where the State is perfectly happy to pay them the dole, week in, week out, and will find the money to do so, but in the third level system, when there is not enough money in the student assistance fund, we are telling them that we cannot help them. The reality is that half the colleges had exhausted their allocation by the end of December.

Last week in the Seanad I stated eight had used 100% and another six or seven had used 80% of their allocation, and that is for a student year that started only in September or October. Perhaps within two and a half months of starting the student year, the affected students had no money. From the colleges' point of view, that means that if somebody turns up on 1 January or 1 March, he or she cannot be helped. This is problematic.

I accept the statement that the overall funding is the same, but the colleges have a responsibility to students with disabilities also. It is not fair to pit one against the other. The colleges probably have a stronger statutory responsibility to students with disabilities, which means they should get priority within the pot. However, the lesson is that the overall pot needs to be increased. The allocation has decreased significantly by comparison with a few years ago. In recent years when the fund was exhausted at an early date, top-ups were provided. This needs to be considered. It strikes me as irrational that we would let somebody drop out of education and then pay him several times over to be on the dole when, for the sake of a small amount of money, he could be kept in college, as he desires, to get a third level education and improve his prospects so he will, it is hoped, never end up as a customer of the Department of Social Protection.

Chairman

The Department cannot really say anything on that.

Mr. Brian Power

No. The only thing I can say is that in our work plan for the HEA for 2015, a review of the SAF is mooted. It will be interesting to examine these issues in the context of that review.

The other issue that is probably important in this regard is the consideration of the management of the scheme in each institution. Our understanding is that some institutions have a policy of making a full disbursal at the start of the academic year. Given the nature of the issues that arise for students throughout the academic year, we would have a question about that. This is one of the issues that might arise in the context of the review of the scheme.

Consider the range of general issues concerning students falling out of higher education. Some of the issues are financial but some are very much academic. Some research done on this indicates students who embark on the wrong course very often find themselves in a difficult position. It is not necessarily for financial reasons that they drop out of a course. Since their entitlement to participate in the free fees scheme is gone for a year or whatever, they fail to get back in. Therefore, one consideration to be borne in mind in the development of the new national access plan is the need to ensure the existence of supports so that when students transition from second level into higher education, they will make the right choices and not be at high risk of dropping out.

Chairman

Senator Marie Moloney raised the issue of step-parents.

Senator Marie Moloney

I asked about step-parents, the HEAR scheme, the loans scheme and late applications.

Chairman

Regarding late applications where there is a change of circumstances, such that one must go through a double-----

Senator Marie Moloney

One must go through an appeals system before even being able to submit an application.

Mr. Brian Power

I will comment briefly on the HEAR scheme. It is not always appreciated that it is not a scheme run by the Department; it is run by the third level institutions. They have a legal responsibility for admissions and they came together to put the HEAR scheme in place. The Department has been quite supportive of it, and there has been support from the HEA also. We do not have the statistics on the scheme because it is not one of ours but we can certainly monitor it with the HEAR implementation team, which currently works out of the Irish Universities Association premises. The scheme assists thousands of students in getting into courses with lower points by recognising the disadvantage they may have suffered, educationally or financially, previously in their education overall. That is important. However, the most important part of the HEAR scheme from the perspective of individual students is that we try to use the access measure funding that is made available by the HEA to institutions to provide post-entry support for students. Thus, it can be ensured that, having gained entry to higher education, students will not fall out of it for want of internal supports. That is what we are trying to do in that regard.

I will move on to the improvements recommended by Accenture to the grant-processing system overall. Consider the improvements from the external review that were implemented. The implementation of the recommendation was undertaken by the CDETB in agreement with the Department and, as appropriate, with the Department of Expenditure and Reform because there are costs associated with those improvements. Many of the Accenture recommendations have been implemented, including those relating to streamlining and simplifying the student grant process; strengthening SUSI’s resourcing, programme governance and organisational structure; further developing communications and campaign management; further developing operational indicators and reporting; strengthening systems supporting the grant process; improving operational management and management reporting; enhancing operational controls; and formalising support from an expert group facilitating the transfer of expertise on the scheme to SUSI.

Also in prospect, and planned, is a new ICT system for SUSI. As members probably know, the system ran initially with a combination of four or five individual ICT systems that were put together at a time when nothing else could be afforded. We are moving to a space where we can have a new ICT system that should be able to do much more in terms of means testing, and with more automation. Perhaps the representatives of SUSI would like to comment on that also.

Mr. Graham Doyle

We have done a lot of work on the website. I have mentioned the eligibility reckoner. A key point is data sharing. Deputy Daly touched on it earlier. It has been significant and it has brought about significant improvements to the system. It has really helped us to obtain information. It lessens the burden on the applicant because we do not have to request the information and they do not have to provide it, and it also provides us with more safeguards because we are getting the information that has already been approved from Departments and agencies.

Another key point concerns the segregation of applications. Applications numbered 103,000 this year. Speakers have touched today on nationality, progression and the income of the self-employed, for example. What we do is break up the elements into queues. I will not bore the members with all the details. The system allows us to have a very focused approach to dealing with applications as they come in. This is based on a recommendation we have implemented.

With regard to my area, the training of staff, there is a comprehensive staff training programme in place. When we are busy, we are busy. In the middle of the summertime, when all the applications are in, there is a comprehensive training programme. We are opening in mid-April this year and the training is starting tomorrow. We have a month's training with all staff to ensure they are up to speed with the system.

The answer to Senator Moloney's question on step-parents is very easy, she will be very glad to hear. If somebody becomes a step-parent, we do not take the income into account, unless he or she also becomes a legal guardian. It is only in the case of a parent or legal guardian. Where a mother remarries, we do not take the father's income into account unless he becomes a legal guardian.

Senator Marie Moloney

What about late applications?

Mr. Graham Doyle

With regard to the change of circumstances, it is not as bureaucratic as the Senator may think. Earlier I referred to our internal review process. If somebody's circumstances change, he or she can inform us straightaway.

They do not have to make a new application as we already have their application. They will inform us of a change of circumstances, such as the person's mother losing her job. We will reassess the application based on-----

Senator Marie Moloney

I am speaking about somebody who had not yet applied.

Mr. Graham Doyle

If somebody has not applied he or she cannot come to us. For this year the deadline for priority processing was 1 August for new applications, but we extended this to 6 November. Even after the deadline we take late applications, but they must be dealt with as late applications. They cannot be considered as a change of circumstances if we do not have an application in the first place. We need to receive the information from the student. The number of late applications we receive after the closing date is not huge. Normally they are from people who either have a change of circumstances or somebody starting a course in January or February of the following year.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

The guardianship situation will change automatically when the Children and Family Relationships Bill is enacted.

Mr. Graham Doyle

The purpose of this discussion is how we assess income.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

It was a point of information.

Mr. Graham Doyle

If somebody is not a legal guardian we do not assess their income.

Chairman

This is a bit of an anomaly. If there are two adults in a household the Department of Social Protection takes both into account. Just because a step-parent does not have guardianship he or she will get away with not having their income included.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

They will now, after three months.

Senator Marie Moloney

I know of someone with no income, high up or low down. She is married to the main earner in the household but he is a step-father. She has no income to declare-----

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

She will when the Bill is enacted.

Senator Marie Moloney

Her spouse is over the limit.

Chairman

There seems to be an anomaly.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

Nationality and immigration status is high on the list of matters subject to appeal.

Mr. Graham Doyle

A key issue is communicating with applicants before they come to us. We need to get the information out through our website. We have extensive communication with our stakeholders. Senator Power spoke about the USI earlier and there are also individual student unions and parents. We have an advisory group which comes together from various areas. It is important that we disseminate information on nationality and repeat periods of study. Nationality can be a complex area for an individual who comes to the country with certain permission to be here. It is about us working with the students, which is what we do.

Mr. Power spoke about repeat periods of study. We communicate the message through various channels to students with regard to what is a repeat period of study. In this regard, people appeal decisions because of exceptional circumstances. Earlier I spoke about inclusion rather exclusion. If somebody tells us there were medical reasons he or she had to drop out we will consider this. We have dedicated personnel to deal with appeals, repeat periods of study and estrangement so we have a consistent approach and way of dealing with them. I hope I have answered the question.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

Yes.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien

I had another question.

Deputy Jim Daly

None of my questions was answered. I asked about marginal numbers and introducing flexibility.

Mr. Graham Doyle

My colleague will deal with Deputy Daly's questions, and I will deal with the question on CAO alignment asked by Deputy O'Brien.

As part of our data sharing we receive information directly from the Revenue Commissioners so bringing the date back to February would not necessarily work. The Revenue Commissioners have their own job to do and other information they need to obtain. The information may not be available to us at that time of the year. In the vast majority of cases involving leaving certificate students we cannot award grants until the end of August at the earliest because the students must receive their leaving certificate results and their CAO offers. The earlier the process is open, the longer people will wait for a decision. I know from experience I will receive queries through the Oireachtas helpdesk as to why people have been waiting for so long. We have brought the date back to mid-April. The current year, 2014 to 2015, has been very successful for the organisation. The extra month will make a big difference.

My colleague, Mr. De Faoite, has statistics for Deputy Daly.

Mr. Seamus De Faoite

To look at the bigger picture, 103,500 applications were received this year and 6%, or just over 7,000 people, were refused because they were deemed to be over the limit. We carried out analysis on marginal cases. We examined 282 cases within €50 of the thresholds, some of which were above and others below. Of the 282 cases, only 20% of them did not receive the higher rate. This goes back to the ethos mentioned by Mr. Doyle, that we look at all income disregards and the higher thresholds, so if we can get somebody within the income limit we will do so. Only five people did not receive any support from SUSI. They fell between €20 and €50. This is a small number in terms of the overall figure. Regardless of what the limit is, there will always be cases which will lose out. We have an internal review process and an appeals process. Every opportunity is given to people throughout the timeline.

The number of cases being appealed has decreased. This year 2,500 applications have been appealed and the number last year was 4,600. We ensure we deal with cases within the 30 day timeline. We must be conscious of the fact that if students want to come back we cannot be seen to be too hard on them. We want to give them as much support as possible.

Deputy Jim Daly

That answers my question. The 300 cases within €50 of the limit also vividly illustrate my point. Certain people will not even apply. If the €50 was broadened to €100, €200, €300 or €500 there would be a serious number of cases. We know €500 would not carry anybody across the road when it comes to going to college. As front-line practitioners, what changes do the witnesses suggest should be made to bring flexibility into the system?

Mr. Brian Power

As I said in my opening statement, when we examined this in 2003 we increased the number of gradations from 100% and 50% to include 75% and 25%. Wherever we draw the line, people will be on the margin and this will always be a challenge. We must continue to examine the grant scheme on an annual basis to ensure it is as fair as it can possibly be.

However, the type of issue mentioned will always be problematic for people on the margin; that will always be the case, wherever we draw the line. That is part of the overall challenge. Also, if we increase the number of gradations, there is the challenge of the cost involved. There is either extra costs for the system as a whole or, if one brings the gradations within the current cost, it ultimately means that some students will receive less. We must examine all of these issues in the round.

One of the issues in this sphere which was raised by Senator Marie Moloney concerns the possibility of a loan scheme. Again, all of the issues involved are being fully considered. The committee is probably aware that we have an expert group on the future funding of higher education. Funding of higher education is often understood as meaning the funding of institutions, but it also includes student funding. It is part of the piece. We have a full system where there is institutional funding, a free fees scheme under which funding is paid into institutions on behalf of students, a student contribution payable by individual students and a student grants scheme which includes not only student maintenance grants but also covers fees and the full cost of the student contribution in almost all cases. In terms of the balance and how the broad suggestion of a loan scheme might fit into it, the issue must be examined in the round. That is what the future funding group is examining.

Deputy Jim Daly

I was aware of a case which I mentioned at the committee previously-----

Chairman

We agreed that we would finish at 2.30 p.m.

Deputy Jim Daly

I will be very brief. In the case in question the lady concerned had received €150 in the reference year under the Haddington Road agreement. It was an additional payment. The PAYE sector is crucified in this regard because the scheme is very black and white. There is some latitude for the self-employed; that is the reality. However, those in the PAYE sector are limited to the bottom line amount. The lady mentioned had received €150 in the reference year as a once-off payment and it threw her above the limit. It is very difficult when one cannot have flexibility in the system in dealing with such cases.

Mr. Graham Doyle

We go through all such cases individually and work with the applicants to try to get them across the line as best we can. However, as Mr. Power and Mr. De Faoite said, there are going to be occasions on which people will just miss out, but it is not for the want of trying on our part to support them.

Chairman

I have to bring the meeting to a conclusion. as agreed at the beginning. If members have outstanding questions or issues arise later, they might send them to the clerk to the committee who will forward them to the delegates who can revert to the committee. I thank the delegates for attending and remind members that the select committee will meet at 3 p.m. to select a replacement to fill the vacancy on the Select sub-Committee on Social Protection.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 April 2015.