Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Oct 2024

I remind members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment, even when on silent mode.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the following representatives from the USI: Mr. Chris Clifford, national president; Mr. Bryan O'Mahony, deputy president and vice president, academic affairs; Ms Emma Monahan, vice president, Dublin region; Ms Niamh Doherty, vice president, welfare; Ms Lucrecia Luna Smee, vice president, welfare, University College Cork Students’ Union; and Ms Ema Radlinskaite, vice president, communications and media, TU Dublin Students' Union. The witnesses are here to discuss financial supports for tertiary level students to include available grants, the duplication of applications, the assessment of parental income and key recommendation 6 in the joint committee report Future Funding of Higher Education.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite Mr. Clifford to make an opening statement, to be followed by questions from members of the committee. Given the time constraints, each member has a five-minute slot in which to ask questions to the witnesses. As they are probably aware, the committee will publish the opening statement on its website following the meeting.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory with regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

With those formalities out of the way, I invite Mr. Clifford to make his opening statement.

On behalf of the Union of Students of Ireland, I express my sincere thanks for the opportunity to speak to members on the vital issue of financial supports for tertiary level students. The topics at hand, ranging from the availability of grants and the duplication of application processes to the assessment of parental income, are critical to the welfare and future of students across Ireland. Finance is still one of the most significant challenges to equitable access to education. Many students are struggling, not just with tuition but also with basic living costs, including those of accommodation, transportation and daily necessities, all of which are increasing at a pace far greater than that of student incomes. The measures we will discuss today will, we hope, address some of these barriers and make higher education more accessible for all.

While the student grant system, especially through SUSI, provides invaluable support to many, gaps remain. We hear daily from students who are just outside the income thresholds but who still face financial hardship. Additionally, the increasing costs of living and stagnant grant amounts have left many students unable to meet their basic needs. It is crucial that we review the adequacy of existing grants, considering the growing pressures on students.

The process of applying for grants can be unnecessarily complex, with many students finding the duplication of applications a significant burden. In particular, we see cases where students are required to submit the same documentation repeatedly for various grants. Streamlining this process would reduce administrative pressure on students and their families, as well as improve efficiency within the system.

The assessment of parental income is a central issue. Many students are assessed based on their family income, which does not always reflect their personal financial reality. In cases where parents are unable or unwilling to provide support, students can find themselves unfairly excluded from essential grants. We believe there is a need for a more flexible approach that reflects the actual circumstances of the students, particularly those living independently or facing estrangement.

We would like to address recommendation 6 from the report Future Funding of Higher Education. The USI strongly supports increased State investment in higher education to improve equitable access for all students as we have a strategy on file for the reform of SUSI. Education is a public good that benefits society as a whole, and we must ensure that it is accessible and well supported. A sustainable model of higher education funding should prioritise public investment, ensuring that all students, regardless of background, have the opportunity to pursue tertiary education. Such an approach will secure the future of our education system and promote social and economic inclusion.

We urge the committee to consider the lived experience of students who face significant financial pressures while trying to access education.

Our proposals aim to ensure that all students - regardless of their socioeconomic background - can thrive and succeed in their academic journeys. We look forward to further discussions and welcome any questions or clarifications from the committee.

I thank the witnesses for coming and apologise for the delay, which was entirely on the committee's side and not theirs. I want USI's opinion on the assessment of income of parents of a learner. There was a very unusual circumstance that first brought this to my attention a number of years ago and it involved twins who were learners heading off to college. They had not lived with their biological parents for a number of years and were living with their grandparents. Everything else in their world was assessed on the grandparents' income. However, when it came to SUSI, because there was no formal documentation - it had never been a requirement of Tusla or anybody else who was involved in these young people's lives - it was very selective in the criteria it applied. They had received the letter from the local superintendent, which ticked that box. However, there was nothing from a court in place, which these young learners were never going to get as they had turned 18 years of age and were no longer minors. This was the first of many similar circumstances that have popped up over the past number of years. The level of stress and distress that placed on the learners and on their grandparents could have been very easily avoided if the application process took into account what a modern family looks like. It is no longer the stereotypical mam, dad and two children. Families come in all different shapes and sizes today.

A similar case happened arose a short time after that where an adult learner, who was 23 years of age, was a licensee and not a tenant holder. They were renting a room, which they had done for a number of years. They were never going to have a tenancy agreement; they were a licensee. Fortunately for them, the rent happened to include their bills, such as WiFi. They made one payment a month to the person from whom they were renting the room. They also faced barriers in applying for SUSI that could have been very easily avoided with a level of common sense, which I know can sometimes be a rarity.

Those are two examples I can give sitting here today. From USI's perspective, how common are these issues and what impact is it having on those who are seeking to go to college for the first time?

Those issues are very common, especially on distance limits. The flexibility on that is lacking. I was Munster Technological University, MTU, Kerry students' union president and we experienced several situations like that, especially among those travelling from rural Ireland. They travel on a road but obviously SUSI looks at the shortest distance possible, so it might say 44 km but it is 47 km or 48 km, so they do not qualify as they are not below the 45 km threshold. It also has a lot of mental health implications, as the Deputy says. There could be situations where the student has not talked to their parents for years on end and to try to get documentation is a real struggle for them. Those are a couple of examples but I will pass over to Mr. O'Mahony for a few more.

I was an education officer in Waterford and I experienced estrangement cases. As academic affairs officer with USI, numerous officers came to me and looked for support on how they can get around the stringent criteria that has been put in place by SUSI. Last year, SUSI came to us and told us there are so many different ways for students to get around estrangement but I have not seen any sort of list to support students in finding that documentation. If students are estranged from their parents and are post-18-years-old, they are not going to have a Tusla referral or they will not have Garda letters or anything like that because they may not have gone through a formal process.

Post the age of 18, an argument can happen and you can fall out with your family resulting in estrangement. What kind of formal procedures can you use? You are not going to file a report with the gardaí because you fell out with your parents. There are other stringent kinds of cases where there might be financial coercive control by parents and stuff like that. Time and again students have come to us looking for advice on how to get the documents but we cannot give any advice on estrangement because the criteria are quite strict and there is no flexibility with SUSI saying something makes sense and it will look at the situation. These are the criteria and if you do not meet them, unfortunately you will not be able to avail of SUSI and avail of college.

I wish to ask a subsequent question. A considerable number of years ago, another circumstance presented to me, where the step-parent income was not taken into account. Is that still the case and how common is it? If that is the case, then it is not being assessed on household income. The income of the mother of the child was taken into the account but the mother’s husband’s income was not because he was not the biological parent of the learner. Surely, in circumstances like that, not only are there issues for those who desperately need additional financial resources to be able to get to college and do the best they can there, but there is also an imbalance on the other side, where if it is a household income, then it should be a household income, not a parental-child relationship income. Is that still the case?

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I would have thought the most significant cost-of-living challenge that their members face is the cost of rent for those who are not living at home. To what extent does that vary based on USI membership around the country? Is it exclusively a Dublin and Cork issue or does it go farther than that?

Absolutely, 100%. Public-built student accommodation is one of the things. In addition, emergency accommodation in the first six weeks is very important for these students, especially those who finished their leaving certificate and are going into first year who might not find out until their second or third round and then do not have accommodation. This is something we absolutely-----

Absolutely. It is not only UCD. For example, Maynooth has new accommodation that is significantly more expensive than the rest of the accommodation around the local area. They are building one or two more complexes, and it is setting the tone for the rest of them to set that price. Speaking as a student of Tralee all those years ago, it has increased more than 100% in the past five to six years. When we see that, it is real financial struggle for our students.

UCC Students’ Union was here last week and presented a very well put together cost-of-living report. It was academically reviewed and done very professionally. One thing that struck me is there was an academic – I apologise as I forget his name – who was from the business department who talked about the numbers of students now who must work in order to meet the payments. Obviously, many people historically worked, but it was the number of hours that was of particular cause of concern to him. He gave examples of students who were working for 20 hours a week or so. How common is that? What impact does it have on the education of the student?

It has become very common. Nowadays it is more common to be in part-time or full-time work while studying than it was a couple of years ago. We see students all over the country who are working. It takes away from their student life. They are going to college and then straight into work. They do not have these opportunities to, let us say, join clubs and societies and put themselves out there, which can further increase the drop-out rates as well.

One of the issues this committee has frequently looked at is the difficulty of PhD students and the limited resources available to them.

There was an announcement in the budget that the annual stipend available to PhD students would be €25,000. I presume the witnesses welcome that. What is their assessment of how that is going to help PhD students? Do they think it is insufficient?

Rent has been identified as the biggest cost-of-living challenge. What are the other cost-of-living challenges that we might not be aware of. Obviously, we are aware of cost-of-living issues as they affect the general population, but what are the other ones Mr. Clifford thinks we should be informed about that affect USI members?

We see a lot of hidden costs in colleges. There is a lack of transparency when students apply for courses. They might have to get mandatory software or other technology. Equity in education is affected when the hidden costs are not being looked at. Creative students must get material. It is very hard for students to prepare for these costs if they do not know about them until they get onto a degree course. These costs that they cannot afford can leave them very blindsided. More transparency from the colleges would be welcome so that students can prepare for what they need to pay for in college.

It is spread. For IT degrees, there is a need to get multiple different types of software. We had a cohort of nursing students one year who were told by the college that they all had to - mandatorily - get iPads, which is a huge cost. Then, when the college was challenged, it said that it was not mandatory but just a recommendation because there was no policy on it. Colleges try to slip in mandatory costs where it is not necessary.

There are also costs when students are on a placement. They must get new accommodation, transport, possibly a uniform and stuff like that. All degrees are affected to various extents.

I want to put a couple of questions, especially about students' working, which is something I am coming across more and more. When students are in college they should be in full-time education and focused on getting their degree or qualification but they are working one, two and three jobs in order to try to make ends meet. That is having a pretty severe impact on their education. Could I get a sense from the witnesses about where we are on that and if they feel it is leading to eventual burnout and dropout? That is what I hear, but I am not as close to the ground as the witnesses. Is that something they are coming across when people come to them? Is it a real issue that I am hearing about?

There needs to be a real improvement within colleges when it comes to mental health. There are large waiting lists. The ratio of counsellors to students should be 1:1,000 but right now we are looking at about 1:2,240, which is not a safe and ethical level.

Something to note when it comes to working is that a lot of students, including me, go home for the summer and work a lot to earn money to put us through college for the next year and if I do an extra week and earn another €500 I am suddenly over the threshold. In the summer, when people have the time to work, we graft and try to get the money we deserve and then we cannot get access to the financial supports we should be entitled to.

That should not be what we are aiming to do at all if people want to work over the summer months or even have a small part-time job. I remember working in a bar when I was in college. That was fine, as it did not impact on my studies.

It was something like two evenings at the weekend. However, 40 hours a week is different. We have to accept that the primary job when in college is to get an education. We have to make the space for that.

I want to discuss the travelling as well. That is a very changed context even compared with a decade ago. Will Ms Monahan give a sense of how far people are travelling? If we spool back a decade or a little further back, nobody was travelling more than an hour to get to college. Those who lived more than an hour away went to student accommodation. Where are we at now?

Last year, I was the community and citizenship officer in DCU. A lot of my time was taken up with accommodation queries but another aspect of my role was transport. Within that, students were coming to me looking for help to find accommodation that was not even close to the college but brought them perhaps as far as County Meath in order to have a slightly shorter commute. One of the scariest things we are seeing is that people are now paying for accommodation just to make their commutes shorter. On a daily basis, students are travelling one, two or three hours back and forth. As we were discussing earlier, the student experience completely changes when students are working and travelling and then being told that outside of lecture hours they have to do an amount of solo study. There are genuinely not enough hours in the day.

The transport is not even there for many of those students. When they come out of class they might have to run straight for a bus and they cannot take part in any extracurricular activities or any opportunities that would further their career prospects. The experience has completely changed due to these issues.

I am sorry that I was delayed. I have another committee meeting as well. The main issue that consistently comes up from students is accommodation. How many have dropped out at this point because they are unable to get accommodation? If they do not have the data for this year, are the numbers for last year available?

An issue came up with me recently is that of somebody in digs who, as part of their SUSI application, was asked to provide a utility bill. Obviously if a person is in digs, he or she will not have a utility bill. Because of the lack of regulation in the sector, some students are going to pay cash. It does not give them the details. Is that a further reason to have digs regulation? Have the USI contacted SUSI about the fact that this impacts on students who cannot get a SUSI grant?

Absolutely, digs regulation is one of the most important issues that needs to be pushed, especially when it is so predominant now among students. It is not only with digs; we see a number of accommodation providers that are not RTB-registered. Students are forced into these situations because they have no other option. If they want to put in a report to the RTB, their worry is what to do when they try to get this place registered or report it being unregistered. Will they just get kicked out or what happens there? They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Another big issue that comes up a great deal is independence and proof of independence. I am not exactly sure, to be totally frank, how to change that. However, the whole issue of independence and people trying but not being able to prove their independence to get a grant s probably one of the main issues that I come across when it comes to SUSI. Do witnesses agree that is an issue?

There was not a massive amount of change in the SUSI grants in the budget. Some of the thresholds changed.

I asked the Minister how many students that would impact. He said about 3,000. If I am not mistaken, there are 15,000 in Galway alone, so it is impacting a very small number of people. Has USI noticed more and more that while people might think at the start that they are able to go to college, due to the costs, it ends up that they cannot?

Absolutely. We see a number of students who are unaware of the hidden costs that Mr. O'Mahony mentioned earlier and cannot afford it on top of fees and so on. Even if they get a SUSI grant, they still have to pay the hidden costs. We also see families with a number of children who are attending college at the same time. That is not taken into account. Their income is over the threshold but they are struggling because they are trying to get two or three children through college.

In the future, though it should be immediate, we need to figure out what exactly affordable student accommodation is. Everybody needs to come together. I know we are waiting on the student accommodation strategy, which USI has raised countless times with me and, I am sure, with the Minister. It is frustrating that we still do not have that. We need to bring USI, the Department, Irish Universities Association and everyone together to figure out how we deliver affordable accommodation and how much it costs. Has USI had any contact with the Minister to look at building at that kind of framework?

We were just contacted recently about the format of what the buildings will look like. That is still not affordable accommodation but at least progress is being made on it. Our estimate is one third of the living wage. That is where we stand on it but there is no official definition of affordable accommodation.

My time is up. I thank the witnesses. They do significant work, which is stressful because they are dealing with people in serious crisis situations. It is trying to figure out how to help them. In many cases, unfortunately, there is very little help for people. Fair play to USI. I look forward to joining the witnesses on their protest.

I echo Deputy Farrell's comment about the great work that USI does. I thank the witnesses for coming and sharing their insights and experiences. It is extremely important to us as committee members to hear people who are much closer to the issues than we are. It has been very beneficial. We will suspend for a changing of the guard, to let the witnesses from USI out and the departmental officials in.

On behalf of the committee I welcome Mr. Keith Moynes, assistant secretary, higher education policy division; Ms Ann Gorman, principal officer, higher education policy division; and Mr. Éamonn Dunnican, principal officer, corporate services and capital division, Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science; and Mr. Philip Connolly, director of services; Mr. Jonathan Oliver, grants operations manager; and Ms Eleanor Murphy, communications and customer services manager, Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI. The officials are here today to brief the committee on financial supports for tertiary level students. The discussion will include available grants, duplication of applications, assessment of parental income and key recommendation No. 6 of the joint committee's report on the future funding of higher education.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite Mr. Moynes to make an opening statement and this will be followed by questions from the members of the committee. Given time constraints, each member has only five minutes in which to ask questions and for the officials to answer. As our witnesses are probably aware, the committee will publish the opening statements on its website following the meeting. Before we begin, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in a such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Our witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity, either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I invite Mr. Moynes to make his opening statement.

I am grateful for the opportunity to brief the committee on the work of the Department and SUSI in the area of financial support for students. One of the Department's key strategic objectives is to "strive to ensure that learners all across the tertiary system are enabled to access the supports they require, in particular to meet the needs of vulnerable learners, people with disabilities and those from a background of disadvantage so as to promote widespread engagement with the education and skills systems and in turn contribute to individual, community and national growth and prosperity".

It is important to say that the Department recognises the rising cost of living, the wider accommodation shortage, and the impact that both of these are having on students. Officials from the Department continuously engage with the USI and other student union representatives on the challenges facing students. Regular meetings have been arranged with Ministers, most recently in September.

Over the past two years, the Department has held in-person stakeholder events to hear from students, student representatives, people who work in access and disability offices, and other key stakeholders on how the cost of education can be reduced. Three cost of education papers have been published by the Department which set out various options to reduce the cost of education for consideration in the Estimates process. The Department recognises that it is vitally important that we continue to support students who need financial assistance. Improvements have been made through successive budgets, including in budget 2025.

For the third year running, a €1,000 reduction in the student contribution has been secured under cost-of-living measures for undergraduate students in the 2024-25 academic year who are eligible for the free fees initiative. This is expected to benefit approximately 103,000 students. This year, like last year, the postgraduate fee contribution grant is increasing from €4,000 to €5,000. This is expected to benefit approximately 2,000 postgraduate students. Approximately 14,000 apprentices attending higher education institutions will see a 33% reduction to the student fee this academic year. Funding has been secured to increase the stipend awarded by Research Ireland to approximately 3,000 PhD students every year from €22,000 to €25,000 per annum. This represents an increase of more than 30% in two years.

The main financial support available from our Department for students attending post leaving certificate, undergraduate or postgraduate courses is the student grant scheme, which is administered by SUSI. This is a statutory scheme and is subject to meeting eligibility criteria such as means, residency and nationality. Eligible students may benefit from maintenance and-or fee grants. In March 2022, a review of the student grant scheme by Indecon consultants was published. This report included research on eligibility criteria, maintenance grant support and the potential impact of increasing supports. The report made several recommendations. On foot of these recommendations, significant improvements have been made to the student grant scheme in recent years. Improvements have also been made in budget 2024 and budget 2025. Student grant recipients attending both higher education and PLC courses in this academic year will benefit in full from budget 2024 measures, which were introduced on a pro rata basis last January, namely the restoration of maintenance grants to postgraduate students on a similar basis to undergraduates, an increase in maintenance grant rates, and, in addition, they will benefit from an increase to the income thresholds for the special rate, band 4 maintenance, and the 100% student contribution grants. Budget 2025 will increase all student grant income thresholds. Significantly, all standard rate thresholds will increase by at least 15%, effective from September 2025. The PLC levy of €200 was abolished with effect from September 2022.

Regarding the introduction of flexibility into the system, we were delighted this year, for the first time, to introduce a new part-time scheme. SUSI is administering this scheme, which provides fee support to 62 undergraduate courses, effective from this academic year. It is hoped that this new scheme will allow opportunities for cohorts of students who cannot commit to full-time education, including lone parents and carers, to reach their academic goals.

While we appreciate the main topic for discussion today is financial supports, it is important to note that the Department recognises that financial supports alone are not the only factor in student success. Areas including class size, access and disability supports, together with mental health supports, are important factors in assisting students. A major milestone has been reached in setting out a pathway for enhanced core funding in higher education as part of the funding the future policy framework. This includes a multi-annual investment over the remainder of the decade, with an additional €150 million per annum.

The fund for students with a disability in higher education will increase in 2025 by 18%, bringing it to a total of €9.5 million. The fund for students with a disability in further education is approximately €3.5 million. Just over €10 million has been provided to increase the student assistance fund for 2024-25, with €1 million of this being used, for the first time, to provide a pilot student assistance fund for post leaving certificate students in further education. The total fund for higher education and further education is €19.2 million. The Department supports a range of initiatives across the tertiary sector to support access to education for groups who are considered underrepresented in tertiary education. The Department has provided an additional €25.9 million for mental health and wellbeing supports over the past five years. In 2022, we received approval for the development of a long-term policy response and funding interventions by the State to stimulate supply of student accommodation.

In 2022 we received approval for the development of a long-term policy response and funding intervention by the State to stimulate the supply of student accommodation. A total of €100 million in capital investment already has been committed through the national development plan windfall allocation. Budget 2025 provided an additional investment of €7.5 million annually and recurrent funding for student accommodation, of which €6 million will support the activation of approximately 1,200 student accommodation beds for long-term leasing as part of the technological university student accommodation programme. In summary, significant steps have been taken to reduce the cost of education for students since the establishment of the Department. However, we fully recognise the challenges that students continue to face and the need to continue to prioritise multifaceted supports. We welcome the opportunity to engage with the committee and answer any questions members may have.

I welcome members of the Department before the committee this afternoon. In order for us to respond adequately to the financial challenges that are faced by students, we need to know how many of them are being forced out of third level as a result of financial pressures. Can Mr. Moynes tell us if there are any statistics on that or any way we can get that information?

That is a fair point. We have statistics to tell us things like retention rates in the system but they do not tell us exactly why students are leaving. We rely to a great degree on engagement with institutions, access offices and student union representatives but undoubtedly there is more work to be done in getting a granular understanding of the reasons why students drop out.

The Department does not have that knowledge, as that is a matter for the institutions. We have an expectation that there is an engagement with students to try to support and help them. One thing that is our responsibility to do is to think about funding. By increasing core funding, we can increase supports in institutions that can do that sort of outreach. There are also things that can be done to understand people who are at risk of dropping out such as, for example, questioning why somebody is not engaging with the email system or his or her course work and querying whether there are risk factors there. We feel that increasing the supports in institutions is the sort of thing that can help with that outreach to the at-risk cohort.

Undoubtedly. The more that can be done to reach out and support students, the more that can be done to understand the reasons people struggle in institutions. I am not critical of the institutions, they do a considerable amount of work already. This is not a critique. However, continuously getting more information to understand the risk profile of why people drop out and the reasons for that will help the institutions. It will also help us with regard to creating public policy to tailor interventions.

The biggest financial challenge that students face and we have just discussed this with the USI, is the cost of accommodation, particularly for students who are not living at home. What is the Department doing to try to encourage third level institutions to consider the construction of accommodation on campus? Also, what can the Department do to ensure that such accommodation as is put on campus is offered to students at a reasonable price?

Initially, we are going at it as a two-pronged attack. There will be short-term activation measures and as Mr. Moynes said in his opening address, there was €100 million in capital in the recent NDP windfall. That has gone to support over 1,000 beds. We have Maynooth on site with 116 beds, we have UCD hoping to go to tender with more than 490 beds and we expect that before the end of the year and then there is DCU, which is being retendered, with another 405 beds. Our departmental support in that space is contingent on 30% of the beds remaining below market value. We are on a tightrope in this space, as state aid rules prevent us providing funding. The agreement we have got is that 30% of beds must be retained for disadvantaged students below market rates. Ours is a support role to the institutions and that is what it will have to be.

Those are the short-term activation measures. We also have a TU feasibility study out there supported by €7.5 million in budget 2025, with €6 million of that going towards options for leasing, refurbishment, vacancy and purchase if there is suitable accommodation close to or near the campus. Phase one of that feasibility study kicked off last year, looking at that demand and supply and then options came back in to the HEA - the HEA is leading out on this for the Department - around the types of options. There is a challenge within the regions. Dublin is better served. For the regions this is a struggle. Therefore, what are the options available? Leasing will probably be a big element. As I said, €6 million of recurrent funding was guaranteed in the most recent budget. Phase two of that study is developing.

The institutions that get SUSI grants are primarily in the public system. There are some legacy institutions that received grants before. It is fundamentally a policy question about the scope of where we want to apply the resources. There is a constant challenge in that the private sector does a very good job in higher education. In a constrained resource environment do we focus on the public sector institutions or do we broaden it out? It is fundamentally a question of policy. I would be misleading the Deputy if I said there were plans to expand it out. Ultimately it is a policy question.

I want to return to the issue of purpose-built accommodation. Mr. Dunican can remain in the hot seat despite his recent appointment. A key issue is around a borrowing framework for technological universities. All of the universities Mr. Dunican outlined are universities rather than technological universities. I am obviously speaking from a particular bias where South East Technological University, SETU, or WIT as it was, has the experience in place and has done this before but is struggling to make it happen. Where are we in terms of allowing technological universities to get involved in this?

Essentially technological universities are on the State’s balance sheet. That is done by Eurostat which means there are much stricter rules around it than the traditional universities. What we are doing at the moment is a feasibility study to examine the prospects of how we might get a borrowing framework for student accommodation. Rather than looking at it in totality across the range of issues, how might we go about having a borrowing framework specifically for student accommodation? There is work being done on that at the moment and we are expecting some work back in by the end of this year. It is then a matter of testing that, thinking about institutional capability and engaging with the Departments of Finance and public expenditure. The Department of Finance is responsible for the balance sheet.

I do not like to put a timeline on it as we do not know ourselves what that looks like. Regarding the two-phase bit we need, we need information about how this would work from an institutional perspective. There is then an engagement process with the Departments of Finance and public expenditure about carving space on the balance sheet and what that would look like and the assurances they would need and the rules around that. It is a complicated issue. I would be misleading the Deputy by saying it is not a complex issue.

In terms of other things and the institutions, we effectively fund the totality of building projects.

SETU has got the veterinary school and pharmacy.

It is very badly needed. SETU is a particular example in that it functions as the university for the south east. We do not have a second option. On the make-up of the 30% at below market rates, the term "cost rental" is thrown around to such a degree that it is difficult to understand what it actually means. I have heard it applied to purpose-built student accommodation. I do not know what cost rental means in that situation because the model is so different. We are talking about what are essentially nine-month tenancies and looking at what is to be done with these units over the summer. They will not be sitting empty over the summer. The whole model of tenancy in respect of purpose-built student accommodation is quite different. Is the term "cost rental" appropriate to use in these cases? Is that what we are talking about when we refer to the 30%? Does it apply more generally? How do we set this 30%? When we say 30% of rooms are offered at below market rates, how do we set the price below market rates?

There are concerns because, as we have seen with purpose-built student accommodation developed off campus, although perhaps not with that developed on campus, it can be much more expensive than standard accommodation. Very often, it is aimed at those coming here from abroad. The funding model in our third level institutions sees people coming from outside of the EU as the cash cow that pays for an awful lot of what the universities do.

The work being done on specifications for the accommodation is critical. You do not want lavish accommodation. These units can be off the peg. They do not need to look different from campus to campus. Work has been done to standardise the designs and to drive them out. Things can be done to push down costs because, as Mr. Dunican has said, anything that goes up beyond a few floors gets pricey in terms of development cost.

I understand that. My time is running out, but I will allow myself a little bit of leeway. I want to speak about one of the issues the USI has raised. It arises when students have part-time jobs and, in particular, when they go away for the summer. In any earning situation, it is very difficult to limit yourself to a certain threshold. If I take a given number of shifts over three months, it is very difficult to predict in advance whether that will trigger a loss of eligibility for a particular grant. This question is particularly for the people from SUSI. How are we dealing with this issue? I would hate to think that, as was outlined to us in the earlier session, somebody could decide in good faith to knuckle down for the summer and make a few bob to take him or her however far it can into the academic year only to go over the top of that threshold by dint of that hard work. How can we counteract that? Is it matter of information or applying a certain amount of flexibility? How can we tackle that issue?

The concept of holiday earnings in recognised within the scheme we administer for the Department. There is a limit of €7,925 that students can earn in non-term time. Our website, susi.ie, contains all the information and allows students to see what they can earn in non-term time. Students who have earned holiday earnings can notify us through our application form. We will then get the information from the students and deduct it from their earnings over the year. The scheme allows us to reduce students' reckonable income by €7,925 in respect of earnings earned outside term time.

I do not have exact statistics as to how many students present to us with holiday earnings but we see it a lot. It is one of the big drivers of requests to students for additional information. We ask them to go their employers to complete holiday earnings forms to tell us how much they earned during that non-term time. However, we are confident that students are aware of it because we see it coming up in our day-to-day operations.

I thank the officials for coming here today. This briefing has been informative and beneficial. This joint committee is adjourned until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 5 November, when we will meet in private session followed by a public session. I remind Deputies that a meeting of the select committee will take place this Thursday at 1.30 p.m.