I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the matter which concerns the obstacles to applicants who apply late for grants awarded under the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968.
I came across this particular problem in a specific case which was raised by Senator John Doyle and it concerned a student in Trinity College who was, in my estimation, an excellent case for a higher education grant. He had limited means and had obtained the necessary qualifications in the leaving certificate to entitle him to a grant, but his application to his local authority, the county council, was late in the year in which he sat for the leaving certificate. When he applied in later years for the grant he found that he was not eligible for it unless he repeated his leaving certificate. The situation regarding this student was that he was following a medical course. His course was already under way in college and for the next seven or eight years of his life he would face examinations precisely at the time the leaving certificate examination would be taken. Therefore, without dropping a year in college, he was unable to repeat the leaving certificate, and so is ineligible for a grant as the regulations stand.
I made inquiries with the Department of Education about the regulations in general. I believe very firmly that if a student has qualifications and is, therefore, under the terms of the Act or of the local authority arrangements, eligible for a grant, and if he applies late in one particular year, he should not have to repeat his leaving certificate in order to become eligible for a grant. It seems to be a preposterous regulation that a student should have to repeat his leaving certificate. Therefore, I made representations to the Minister on 14th April, 1972, and have not received in any sense a satisfactory reply. I have had consultations with various members of his Department who were very helpful, but from the Minister himself I have had no reply in which he suggested that the regulations under which these grants are issued would be changed.
It is absolutely ridiculous that someone who has the leaving certificate qualifications in one particular year should have to go through the test again when, in all probability, he will be engaged either in doing other examinations or doing some work outside, if he has achieved sufficient qualifications to merit his entering university.
The particular case I was investigating is not a single instance of this injustice. For example, in certain subjects in university there is an age limit of 18 years. A student who takes the leaving certificate at age 17 is not eligible to enter the university in that particular year to sit for the subject he wants to study finds that he is still not eligible to enter a university without repeating the leaving certificate. This is a situation which should be changed. There is absolutely no justification for it and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say this evening that a change is being made in the appropriate regulations. I agree that as a matter of administrative agreement there must be a closing date. The closing date at the moment is 31st August. This closing date is the same for all the local authorities involved.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary brings the regulations into line with the local authority regulations in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland about which I have been making inquiries. They state that if somebody is late in applying to his local authority in a particular year, then he is eligible to re-apply at the same date the following year with the same qualifications without sitting any further examinations or without going through any further tests. The qualifications which he achieved in the year X will stand to him in the year X+1 in which he sends in his application.
There is another case which I have come across and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on it. I am not sure what the position is, whether the person involved would be handicapped in a similar way by these regulations. This case concerns a girl whose mother died during the first year of the girl's university course. She was summoned back by her family to look after domestic arrangements so she withdrew from the university; she had a grant and therefore she signified to her local authority that she was withdrawing from the college for one or perhaps more years until the domestic arrangements of her family had been settled, and she then would wish to continue the university course. To do that she would have to have a maintenance grant. If she is forced to re-apply for maintenance in the year in which she re-enters university, then it could be that under these regulations she will be debarred from receiving a grant unless she repeats the leaving certificate. This is the basis of my case. I fear strongly that there is no justification for a regulation of this type. I know that the local authorities under the 1968 Act make their arrangements and also that there has to be uniformity in the arrangements which they make for issuing grants. They obviously have to get the arrangements checked and agreed by the Minister and his Department. The situation seems clear to me. Those people who achieve university qualifications in one particular year, provided they have the qualifications for entrance to the university to do the particular courses they wish to do in following years, should have these qualifications regarded as making them eligible for grants from the State through the local authorities in following years without the need to repeat the leaving certificate examination.
I found, from discussions with officials in the Department, that there were a number of people who were in this situation. People apply late for various reasons. I do not argue that someone who misses the closing date should automatically get a grant in the first year. There have to be administrative procedures; one has to have closing dates and the Department and the local authorities have to adhere to them. This is not the point. As I have pointed out, in the North of Ireland people are debarred from a grant in the first year afterwards, but they are eligible from then on. The grant scheme in this country is an important step forward in higher education. It is a step forward because it manifestly increases the opportunities for those people who need help most of all, people who do not have the financial backing to avail of our higher educational facilities. In the way I see it, this change would be a minor one, but an important one. It would affect a number of students, such as those I have mentioned. It would affect people who find they cannot go to university. It would affect people who take their leaving certificate and decide to take some time off before going to university to learn, perhaps, something in business, or to learn some more about the outside world before making the decision as to what course they should choose. There is going to be a greater tendency to do this. It is a welcome tendency.
My impression of people who come in in this way—mature students—is that these people contribute a great deal. They are highly motivated; they know exactly what they are driving at. Their aims are often clearer than those of people who come to university straight after school, precisely because they have been around and have seen what they want to do. If their circumstances are straitened and if they have the correct qualifications for receiving a grant why should they be debarred? I do not know the answer to that question. The point of this discussion is that at the moment the regulations debar someone like this from receiving a grant. I feel strongly that there are no obstacles to changing this regulation. I know that people have made representations to the Minister. I know also that the Union of Students in Ireland have taken up this point. I never received any cogent reasons from my discussions with the people in the Department of Education why such a regulation should stand. Therefore, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to get this regulation altered.
Senator Brugha and Senator Quinlan rose.
