Donna McGettigan

82.Deputy Donna McGettigan asked theMinister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science when the student accommodation strategy will be released, and whether it will contain proposals to allow the providers of private student accommodation to hike rents more often than for those in purpose-built student accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7343/26]

When will the student accommodation strategy be released? Will it contain proposals to allow the providers of private student accommodation to hike rents more often than those in purpose-built student accommodation?

I intend to publish the national student accommodation strategy in the coming weeks. The strategy will support access to suitable housing for full-time students in publicly funded higher education institutions and aims to deliver additional student beds to meet projected demand out to 2035, without the need to have additional recourse to the private rental market. The aim behind the student accommodation strategy is to address the student accommodation requirements relating to purpose-built student accommodation without imposing additional pressures - the idea is to relieve such pressures - on the wider private residential sector.

The provisions relating to tenancy legislation fall under the remit of my colleague the Minister for housing, Deputy Browne. His Department sets the rules and implements the legislation relating to rent, rent resets and so forth. I have worked closely with the Minister to ensure that the legislation relating to the new rent pressure zones, RPZs, which was published on Tuesday, having been approved by the Cabinet, contains a provision to protect students by means of a three-year moratorium on rent resets within purpose-built student accommodation. As a result, we will avoid the scenario that was feared by many, including me, of an annual reset as students left their accommodation each summer. It would have been unfair to have such students facing rent resets. The legislation was predicated on the end of a tenancy. For student accommodation, we have predicated it on the property, which means that regardless of how many students come and go - and I expect that there will be a group of students coming in each year and that they will be replaced by another set of students the following year - they will not be facing annual resets. There will be a three-year moratorium for all those students in the purpose-built student accommodation sector. That is important, and I thank the Minister for housing for taking my submissions on board. We had detailed engagements on this matter and, as a result, that protection will be built in.

As well as rent protections, there are significant supports in terms of affordability. This was one of the reasons why I increased all the non-adjacent maintenance grants in the budget, thereby assisting 30,000 students and bringing the total allocation for the non-adjacent student grant to €146.5 million. There are also things like rent-a-room relief, the student assistance fund and significant other funding I have put in place for students in order to help them to meet their accommodation needs.

On 6 February 2025, the Minister announced that a new student accommodation strategy was in development, which would be completed in 2025. We were then told that the much-awaited strategy would be delivered in quarter 4 of 2025. We are now in 2026. While we are told the strategy will be published in the coming weeks, we still do not have a definitive date and the gap between strategies is growing further apart.

From March, student-specific accommodation providers will be able to reset rents to market value, and every three years thereafter. Is that correct? While it is welcome that these rent hikes will be attached to the property rather than the tenant, is it fair that students are being unfairly targeted for more rent hikes than others? While I welcome the rise in extra payments to help them, it simply is not enough.

We know the majority of students rent from the private market. What protections is the Minister fighting for to be put in place for these students who, as we know, renew their lease on an annual basis?

I do not know whether the Deputy listened to my answer but that is exactly what I just talked about. I know she has probably prepared a script but I will reiterate and repeat what I said a minute ago. Working with my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Browne, I have secured protections for students in purpose-built student accommodation to ensure they do not have that annual rent reset every year. I wish to be crystal clear for the benefit of the House and everyone listening: I have secured a three-year protection window for students in order that they will not be facing rent resets until 2029 at the earliest, that is, three years from now.

The original situation that was put forward in the rental Bill - I appreciate it applies to the wider residential rental market - talked about rents being reset when a tenant left. We were all students once and we know that the nature of student accommodation is that students typically leave every summer. It would, therefore, have been unfair and unduly adverse on those students to have those same rules. I have managed to negotiate with the Minister, Deputy Browne, and ensure they do not have those same rules. In fact, they have a three-year protection window. The reset will be allowed on the student property in three-year cycles rather than when the tenancy ends. That is a significant achievement. I talked to AMLÉ and other student groups about it in advance. I hope the Deputy will welcome it.

As I said, it is welcome that the rent hikes will be attached to the property rather than the tenants but the Minister is talking in the context of purpose-built student accommodation. What about those in private accommodation such as digs and private homes? Will they get any protection? We know housing is one of the biggest costs in a student's life, and the majority of students are in the private rental market. While rents are already unaffordable, if we continue to rely on private rental supply, rents will continue to increase to the point where they will push young people away from attending college because they simply cannot get student accommodation or afford it. What will be put in place for those in private accommodation?

Students living in the private residential sector have the same rules as anyone else living in that sector. This is something I have looked at and discussed with the Minister, Deputy Browne. I have a limited remit because the Minister for housing and the Department of housing have full control over the rental rules and landlord and tenant legislation. I make submissions and I have engagement with them, as I successfully did in the case of purpose-built student accommodation, PBSA.

With regard to the private residential sector, there are challenges in trying to come up with student-specific rules for houses in which students might be living. To take a typical three-bed, semi-detached house in one of the university towns as an example, of which there are many in Maynooth in my constituency as well as all around the country, how can it become a student house if four people are living there, two of whom are students and the other two are working? What happens if there are three people in a house and one of them is doing a course at night? Similarly, I refer to houses in which there are a couple of student doctors or teachers on their first year of placement. Are they student houses or not?

I will be publishing my strategy in the coming weeks. I would have liked to have published it by now but it is complex with regard to the rules. I have implemented a number of the measures within it already, such as the increase in grants that I spoke about to help with affordability. Purpose-built student accommodation is the sector I will be focusing all my efforts on to deliver more beds.

Eoghan Kenny

83.Deputy Eoghan Kenny asked theMinister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the steps his Department is taking to investigate the significant overspend on the new SUSI IT system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6842/26]

I am taking this question on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny. Will the Minister inform the House of the steps his Department has taken to investigate the significant overspend on the new SUSI IT system, and will he make a statement on the matter to the House?

The City of Dublin Education and Training Board, ETB, made reference in its annual accounts to a legacy IT project for SUSI that started in 2015 – before either of us were in this House - but experienced a number of problems and delays. Ultimately, it did not result in the successful delivery of a completed system.

Although unacceptable, IT projects, unfortunately, can encounter difficulties both in the public and private sectors. It is often the case, having worked in IT many years ago, that IT projects fail. Sometimes, they can be rebuilt or remodelled and other times they are thrown away. Sometimes they are consolidated into a new system. In any event, where projects are funded by public money, it is imperative, as the Deputy suggested, and I expect he shares this view, that the reasons for the issues are fully understood and specific actions are taken to prevent any recurrence.

In the case of the SUSI project, a decision was taken in 2021 to terminate the contracts on the basis that it was not on track to deliver the expected benefits. Effectively, it was pulled up. It was realised in 2021 that it was not going to deliver the benefits expected. It was not on track or meeting the cost targets, etc., and the project was pulled and halted. I welcome that because sometimes, we see projects running overboard and over budget and no one shouts, “Stop”. In this case - it was the previous Minister not myself - credit is due that the rug was pulled and the decision was taken that enough was enough and that the project was out of order. Of course, that was done in line with the public spending code and legal advice following consultation by City of Dublin ETB with departmental officials.

An independent report was then commissioned which looked at why the problems occurred and it made multiple recommendations for any future project. I might get into those recommendations in my supplementary reply.

Notwithstanding the cancellation of this project, the need for a robust digital system for SUSI is as strong as ever. We need to deliver a resilient, efficient and modern service for over 100,000 students and their families who depend on the scheme. In this context, the City of Dublin ETB has a new IT project up and running since then, which is progressing. I will come back to that in a moment.

The Minister will be aware that this was highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts recently. Obviously, concerns were raised at that meeting that, as the Minister correctly said, this project was initiated in 2015. At that stage, the cost was €2.2 million. The cost indicated to my colleague, Deputy Kenny, is that it has now risen to €6.4 million, and we are still at the pre-project phase. What lessons have been learned? The Minister mentioned the report he received. What lessons have been learned about the overrun of almost €4 million? I have no doubt, given the job the Minister is doing, that an extra €4 million in his budget would be very welcome for him as well as for the many students about whom I and all colleagues in this House ring the Minister. What has happened in the meantime in the Department? What is it doing about the €4 million overrun? What will the final cost be on this project which, as the Minister said, is badly needed?

I agree with the Deputy. Following the notice of termination in 2021, the City of Dublin ETB commissioned KPMG accountants to draft a report focusing on lessons learned arising from the project and what had gone wrong, which included looking at supplier issues, the delays and all the factors that combined to render the project unsuitable. A number of recommendations came out of that. I will not go into them all because there are almost a dozen of them but I can share them with the Deputy afterwards. I think they are on the public record already. They include things such as having a clear business vision, the importance of getting the requirements right at the outset, having a layered approach and having a front-loaded design stage front and centre. For example, the new project uses a cloud-based architecture which means it sits on the web as opposed to a single server. That is meant to have better distribution and fewer failover issues. There are a number of recommendations that range across procurement, business planning and IT robustness. There are ten recommendations and they are all being implemented. The new project is up and running and adhering to those recommendations.

I will ask the Minister again whether he can give the House some indication as to what this project will finally cost. I am sure he has that information by now. The initial cost was to be €2.2 million. A total of €6.4 million has been spent on it so far. Questions remain as to what steps the Department has taken to investigate this. Has anyone been held accountable for the fact that there has been a €4 million overspend on money that is so important? We all appreciate the importance of education in this State and the job the Minister does day in, day out for third level and higher level education. Has anyone been held accountable? What steps has the Minister put in place? What will the final cost of this project be? In 2015, it was to cost the Department €2.2 million but - I will say it once again - there is already a €4 million overspend on this project.

In respect of the cost overrun on the project, the figures that I have available to me tell me that the cost of the project was approximately €3.8 million between 2015 and March 2022.

That figure emerged at the Committee of Public Accounts recently. The project included internal staffing costs, external providers, coding and software that were built up and engineering work that was carried out. Some of that was carried forward, but much of it was not. Approximately two thirds of it had to be abandoned but around one third of the work product was carried through into the new phase.

Some of the process improvements include things like better business requirements. Before one starts to write a line of code, one should know exactly what one wants it to do. That would be good practice in any software system, as would mapping the processes, the ins and outs, the workflows and the toll gates within it. That basic process mapping is important. Improvements to reporting structures will catch these things early or earlier than was the case previously. Project management capability is so important in this, as does ensuring that somebody has an eye on things and that there are reporting structures, toll gates, Gantt charts and all of the things we would expect. That is all ongoing and under way within the new system.

I have asked my officials for a detailed report because I am not satisfied with this. It happened before my watch, but, at the same time, it is not good enough. I have also asked for a detailed investigation.

Donna McGettigan

84.Deputy Donna McGettigan asked theMinister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the number of applicants who applied for SUSI grants in each of the years between 2020 and 2025; the number that were unsuccessful in their applications; the measures he will enact to the appeals process to maximise the number of applicants who are successful; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7344/26]

Why do SUSI grants show a steady yearly rate of difference between funds awarded and funds paid? Given the consistent numbers being refused SUSI grants annually - with the largest number of refusals being on the grounds of insufficient documentation to confirm eligibility - will the Minister introduce reforms to reduce the rate of refusal?

Over €351 million has been allocated for students supports and related activities this year. In addition, it is estimated that the free fees initiative costs for the current academic year will be in the order of €450 million. That is just shy of €1 billion in student supports in the current year alone. When we are engaged in budget planning and negotiations, student supports are the primary item on the agenda and take up the lion's share of available moneys. Significant moneys and effort are being put into supporting students across a very wide range of needs and areas. Taken together, the allocation figures I have just given reflect the Government’s continued commitment to ensuring student access. Access is the fundamental premise here. We want to create maximum opportunity for people and that means access. Nobody should be deterred from going to college because of the cost involved. If people feel deterred, I very much want to hear about it in order to figure out why and to get into the permutations of each individual case such that I can fix any loopholes or anomalies in the system.

The student grant scheme, with which the Deputy is very familiar, provides assistance to students attending courses. A part-time fee scheme was introduced last year in respect of a number of undergraduate courses. This provides fees support to eligible part-time students for the first time. Previously, part-time students were outside of the system.

Just under 80% of applicants are successful every year. The Deputy's question is about those who are not successful, but it is worth pointing out that around 79% of applicants are successful. The vast majority of students who apply actually succeed and are awarded grants. In the context of the 20% who do not get grants, 3% to 4% of those students pull their applications themselves. For whatever reason, they withdraw their applications and leave college. That is one issue. There are a number of other reasons that I will get into when I make my supplementary reply.

In 2023 and 2024, approximately 22% were unsuccessful. In the subsequent academic year, the figure was 21%. There seems to be a percentage that is common across the years. I am given to understand that SUSI is a demand-based scheme. In other words, whatever moneys are not spent are handed back. Is there a cap on the number of SUSI grants that can be paid out or is the fund indefinite in nature?

While I welcome the year-on-year drop in the numbers refused due to the increase in the household income threshold, I am still concerned about the number of applicants being refused due to a lack of documentation and, more generally, the number of refusals and grants not paid out. Mature students who are 23 or older have no choice, due to the housing crisis, but to live at home. They are being unfairly treated because they are being assessed on the basis of their parents' income, despite the fact that they are trying to live independently. What can be done about that?

SUSI operates an appeals process. It continues to refine its processes. I have asked it to do that. We ran advertisement campaigns last summer for the first time. I initiated that because some students were not aware of their eligibility for the grant. The income thresholds are now very high. They are up to €120,000 for certain grants, which was unheard of previously. Some families on middle incomes may not have been aware that they were eligible for grants. As a result, we ran advertising campaigns to make sure that they found out.

In terms of the reasons students may not succeed in getting grants, sometimes they are in receipt of other State grants. For example, if a student is receiving the back to education allowance from the Department of Social Protection, he or she cannot be paid on the double. Another reason is if an applicant does not progress. If students get to a certain point and drop out of the course, fail exams or do not progress for various reasons, they obviously cannot get grants. In addition, grants are not awarded if the course selected is not eligible. There are various courses, some of which are outside the system and would not be eligible. Another reason for refusal is if students have been studying for beyond the maximum period. Students who have been studying for a number of years and have exceeded their allowable term will not be awarded SUSI grants. Likewise, those who are in receipt of scholarships or bursaries from somewhere else will not be awarded grants.

I have the figures in front of me. A total of 4,924 applicants were refused because they were over the income threshold. However, the means test applies to the previous year and does not take into account things like job losses, although I am aware that there is a fund for people to whom that happens. One of the main reasons for refusal is insufficient documentation to confirm eligibility. Within that, many applicants from the North are not able to access SUSI because they do not conform and do not have the right documentation. That is a big concern. A total of 5,373 applicants were in that bracket, up from 5,064. It is a big concern. What can be done for those applicants? I am particularly concerned about those trying to claim independence from their parents who cannot do so because their parents will not give them a letter because they are not talking to each other. It is a big concern.

I understand the issue the Deputy raises about mature students and returning emigrants. Deputy Roche has tabled a question on that matter to which I will respond to in more detail later.

In terms of documentation, that is a difficult issue. I am sure the Deputy is not suggesting that we should give grants out without any application process or robust checks. It is taxpayer's money that we are talking about. The last question I answered was about the MySUSI project which went over budget and I am sure we would all agree that we need to get value for money and be prudent and robust when it comes to taxpayer's money. Obviously, certain documentation is required. If students are not providing it, that is a Catch-22 situation. They cannot really get their grant until they provide the documentation and I would not expect the system to work any other way, frankly. What we can do is provide guidance. We have online wizards and I intend to continue to improve and streamline that process and provide information earlier. As I mentioned, we ran advertisement campaigns last year in the various media to make sure students knew what they had to do and knew how to get the grant.

The Deputy mentioned that some students miss out because of income. The income levels are now at €120,000. As a result, the children of Members of this House can now avail of SUSI grants. That was not the case historically. We have gone right into the squeezed middle and beyond to a situation where 80% of households are now eligible for some kind of SUSI grant. That is historic.

Jen Cummins

85.Deputy Jen Cummins asked theMinister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his plans to support students that are estranged from family, to access SUSI and other supports on campuses. [7275/26]

I would like to discuss a sensitive issue with the Minister. How is he planning to support students who are estranged from their parents? How can such students access SUSI grants and other supports on campus? A number of students who are in quite challenging situations due to estrangement from their parents have contacted me. Their circumstances leave them financially vulnerable and potentially prevent them accessing third level education. The current system is bureaucratic and difficult to navigate. Sometimes the systems are seen, not the people.

This is a difficult issue, and it is one that I have engaged with the students unions on. I have also spoken to my officials about it on a number of occasions. If students are living with their parents, there is a working assumption in the system that they are being supported by their parents to some extent at least. Perhaps that support is not through direct funds. Rather, it comes in the form of accommodation, meals and so on. These are the supports that we would normally expect within a family environment. How can we fairly and reasonably, with a view to prudence with taxpayer's money, correctly identify the student who may be still living in the family home and still having meals at the family table but who is not dependent on his or her parents or is estranged from them? That is not an easy one, and I am very mindful of the need to support any students who find themselves estranged from their parents. I have had individual representations made to me by Members in that regard. How do we ensure that we do not broaden support too wide such that every student suddenly becomes eligible? Effectively, we would see the millions of euro in student supports referred to by Deputy McGettigan mushroom into several billion.

It is a difficult one to get right. Having said, a number of the measures that I introduced in the last budget do not actually involve a means test. The €500 permanent reduction in fees, for example, does not require any means testing.

There are a number of other benefits available such as the student assistance fund, which now stands at €19.3 million, an historical high. That funding did not even exist until recent years. I increased it again in the latest budget. There are a number of discretionary measures and in many cases they are not means tested, so the estrangement issue does not apply, but I get that it is difficult. I am continuing to engage with student unions on this. If it is any comfort, although I know it is of no comfort in the individual cases, it is a very small percentage of applicants, a couple of percent, who are refused for reasons of estrangement not being proven. I might come back to the detail in the supplementary response but that is a general observation.

The number of people involved is not huge. I accept that in cases where people might be taking advantage of that potential, it would have to be ruled out because we have to protect taxpayers' money. However, I am focused on the small number of people who are estranged from their parents, for whatever reason. There has to be a trauma-informed mechanism in our education system and through the SUSI grant to support those students. What I mean by that is, if you are estranged from your parents, something awful has happened. I am aware of students who live in the same household as their parents and their parents have nothing to do with them. AMLÉ, formerly the Union of Students in Ireland, has made a number of suggestions to simplify proof of estrangement. The system still needs to be robust and broader reforms need to be brought in.

The trauma-informed view is extremely important. Having chaired the justice committee in the previous term, we saw many examples of trauma and how it led into addiction and triggered a certain path in life. I fully support a trauma-informed approach. It is one of the reasons I committed additional funding to the mental health budget in higher education institutions this year.

On mature students, to recap the rules, a student can be assessed as independent if they have reached the age of 23 on 1 January of the year they start and have not been ordinarily resident with their parents from the previous October. As such, if a student is outside the home and is aged 23 years or over, they can apply. For the avoidance of doubt, there is an estrangement option within the SUSI system. Applicants can declare on their application form that they are irreconcilably estranged and a specialist team works on those applications. Sometimes student unions and others will say this or that document was not accepted. I am told there is no prescriptive set of documents. It is case by case; it is discretionary. It may be a court order, although it does not have to be, a letter or a form.

We hear from students and groups who support them that the current system cumulatively creates hardships for those students. It is bureaucratic and burdensome. The proof requirements are narrow and assumptions about family supports perhaps do not match the student's reality. Given that there are so few of these students, could a body be set up to meet these young people and take a trauma-informed approach? I am not talking about the over-23s. I am really talking about finding a way to support those at undergraduate level who have come straight from school and are aged 18, 19, 20 or 21. The SUSI grant is one part but there are other grants. I am happy to see the Minister has put resources into mental health because, as we know, at third level, that is important, as are other aspects of health, for those young people who are estranged and living an independent life at a premature age in terms of what they need. As we know, being in your early 20s is still quite a challenging time for many young people.

I have the figures for those who cited estrangement on their application form. In the 2023-24 year, it was 184 students; in 2024-25, it was 165 students; and in the most recent year, 2025-26, it was 213 students. When I said it was a couple of percent, I exaggerated. It is 0.19% of total applications. However, that makes it even more pertinent that we address it. There might be a tendency to say it is a very small number but if is very small, let us fix it. That is my view. I welcome submissions and inputs. It would be very constructive if the Deputy or AMLÉ or other Members of the House were to share their thoughts on that in a way that protects taxpayers' money, involves a robust process that is fit for purpose and has checks and balances, while ensuring that students who are estranged are supported appropriately.

Charles Ward

86.Deputy Charles Ward asked theMinister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science if he will review the means test for SUSI grants for households impacted by the defective concrete crisis, in order that essential outgoings such as mortgages and rent are taken into consideration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7279/26]

I fully recognise the distress that has arisen from defective concrete block situation in the Deputy's constituency and in other constituencies. The Deputy may be aware that I met some members of his group. I have not had a Ministry directly relevant to the issue but at the MacGill Summer School two summers ago, I sat down with some of the group's councillors and we had a very good discussion. It really brought home to be the trauma the Deputy and his people are experiencing due to that.

I am pleased to tell the Deputy that payments under the enhanced defective concrete block grant scheme constitute a grant for a specific purpose which has been put in place to support homeowners to remediate their dwellings, and we know how that works. That will not be classed as reckonable income for a SUSI application. Effectively, it is disregarded and will not be taken into consideration in assessing. That is good news and very positive. There is a means test in the system for all. Other things are considered as part of that but in the Deputy's particular case, the defective blocks scheme remediation payments will not be taken into account as income.

I thank the Minister. To elaborate, for someone in Donegal, the cost of getting through a course at the Atlantic Technological University will be around €24,000 and it will cost €60,000 for someone who goes further afield and rents accommodation. For parents living in structurally unsafe homes, the issue is that when they go to rebuild the home, there is a shortfall. With the shortfall comes a decision as to whether to send their children to college. Over a five-year period, they have to decide whether to rebuild the home, at a cost to the family, and then whether they can get the funding from the banks. It comes down to that. I am glad and grateful the Minister is committing to this, but I want to make him aware that this shortfall will come into place for people as the scheme starts to ramp up, particularly in Donegal and in less economically well-off areas.

More broadly, in terms of supporting students and families, particularly on lower income levels, my focus has always been on targeted supports. While I have introduced universal measures on fees, and I will continue to do so, my focus is on ensuring that, for people who are on the verge of missing out and would not experience college otherwise and for vulnerable families and people who may be the first in their family to access third level education, the focus of student supports is to get those people elevated into a situation where they can make that leap. At the moment, some of those students just cannot make it, which is a tragedy. I want to target measures to help students do that. To give an example of that, the student grant was increased this year. I also increased all the non-adjacent grants so any student travelling beyond 30 km will now benefit from that, some by up to €430 or €350, depending on the band. I did likewise for postgraduate courses and apprenticeships, which are equally important. All those figures have been addressed and brought down through increased subventions.

That is all welcome but looking at the University of Ulster study on the impact of defective concrete crisis, the profound lasting effects on mental health and well-being going down the line have to be addressed. Last year, there was a 34% increase in youths seeking mental health service supports in Donegal, which is crazy. From day one, I know the Minister has been focused on making education more affordable. He said that and we can see it. Most of all, these young people need support. They have gone through trauma. The Minister has committed to funding mental health supports for students. Will he commit to ring-fencing mental health funding for students impacted by defective concrete? That will be vital as we move forward. We have 25,000 houses to rebuild in Donegal. It will take a long time. Families are developing and growing and we need to make sure they are looked after in the long run.

To reflect on the educational opportunities in Donegal, the Deputy's constituency, and I know he is a proud Donegal man, the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, and Deputy Gallagher have also made representations to me on many of these matters. I launched the veterinary school in ATU Letterkenny recently. It is great. There will be 40 vet places in the north west, primarily for large animal practice. This was badly needed because students had to go to either the UK or Dublin and many also travelled to Poland previously. Some did not come home so this is important.

I also visited the ETB in Killybegs with Deputy Gallagher and saw some of the supports it has put in place, in particular around the fishing community and changing lifelong learning there as people adapt to different skills. There is a lot of investment going into Donegal. The Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, opened the new sports facility adjacent to the ATU campus, which is a big win.

I increased the mental health budget. The Deputy referred to ring fencing but I try not to be prescriptive in terms of telling colleges how they award that funding. There is significant discretion for access and welfare officers. I also increased the student assistance fund to just under €20 million this year. Again, there is discretion. The Deputy knows very well the situation around defective blocks. I expect colleges to have regard to that. Local knowledge will be important.

Catherine Callaghan

87.Deputy Catherine Callaghan asked theMinister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the number of extra college places being created in September 2026 and September 2027 to ensure adequate supply of new speech and language therapists and occupational therapists, to meet the increasing demands of the care system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7277/26]

I would like to ask about the number of extra college places being created in September 2026 and 2027 to ensure there is an adequate supply of new speech and language and occupational therapists to meet the increasing demands of our care system.

This is an all-of-government priority in terms of meeting the disability needs of our people. We made a decision at a Cabinet subcommittee early in the term that my Department can increase the number of therapists coming through third level and into the workforce. An interdepartmental working group is working with the Ministers for Health and Education and Youth and will examine the number of places we need to fill.

We have produced a list of the occupations with the most critical skills shortages in terms of disability and health care supports. That has led to a first-round call. Having worked with my colleagues to identify the particular therapies and occupations that were most critically needed, I made a call, through the HEA, to third level providers to ask what colleges were in a position to meet the call and demand. From that first response, starting in September an 478 additional places are being created across the different therapies. There is a second call under way at the moment.

The first call asked colleges with existing course provision through schools of nursing, therapy, medicine and healthcare whether they could increase the number of places on their courses. That call has now been completed and, I understand, 461 places have been created, rising to 478 over the next year or two. The next call asked colleges that do not currently provide those sort of courses and do not have schools in the relevant area whether they are in a position to provide such courses. For example, Maynooth launched a school of nursing which did not exist this time last year. That is one among many colleges that will ramp up its provision of different therapies. This is an all-of-government priority. As I said, I am happy to be able to deliver an additional 478 places in the first round. I have many more rounds to go, and I continue intend to continue to grow that workforce.

I thank the Minister for the response. It is very heartening to hear that there will be at least 478 new places coming on stream next year, or even this year if possible. The situation facing families across the country because of staff shortages in critical posts is beyond difficult. I am sure every Member of the House has heard from families on a CDNT list who are waiting for care. Across the HSE Dublin and south east region, which covers Carlow and Kilkenny, over 1,700 children have been waiting for CDNT services for over a year. Nationally, that figure stands at over 6,000 children. We must urgently prioritise the provision of these crucial services. I acknowledge that, as the Minister said, over 478 places coming are on stream but I ask him not to spare any ambition in the number of additional places he can provide for speech and language and occupational therapy students.

We are very much on the same page. I will give the Deputy a list of courses that have been identified in consultation with the Ministers for Health and Education and Youth and myself. Occupational, therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, dieticians, radiation therapists, radiographers, medical scientists, podiatrists, social workers and educational psychologists are on the list. That is not to say that there will not be further courses within that but they were the courses identified for the first round of expressions of interest.

The Deputy mentioned CNDT groups, which I deal with in my constituency at a local level. I can provide training courses through the system, and have done and will continue to do that, but they need to be matched by placements in the HSE and health service. Without that, people will not complete their courses. Some colleges have told me they have or can make capacity for additional places but they need a guarantee from the health system that there will be placements when people get to the relevant time in their course. I have engaged with the HSE and the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, on this. It is a critical gap or challenge in the system.

I thank the Minister for the response. I am heartened to hear that solid measures are being taken to provide more training places, not just for speech and language and occupational therapists but also for dieticians, physiotherapists and educational psychologists, in particular. It is a welcome measure.

We are all aware that this challenge is not just about training staff; it is also about retaining them. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, is working on reforming how therapies are delivers to ensure services are delivered more efficiently and effectively to those who need them without undue delay. However, Carlow CNDT still faces one of the highest rates of staff shortages. The most recent figures show that almost 45% of positions in the CDNT are vacant, despite sustained efforts to provide specialists. With that in mind, does the Minister have any plans to introduce an apprenticeship-style avenue for health and social care personnel to allow for continuous professional development in while in employment, perhaps even up to PhD level, to encourage higher retention in the sector?

I have explored that and my officials are actively exploring the apprenticeship route. There is also the recognition of private learning where somebody has worked in a related discipline and rather than starting on day one in year one they could come into the system midstream or at a more advanced stage, if we take into account their prior learning.

The issue the Deputy mentioned in respect of CDNTs is a common one. She referred to Carlow CDNT as having vacant places. A placement often determines where a student progresses long term in their career. A student who has a placement in a private practice, for example, may be more likely to stay with that practice and in the private sector long term. However, if a student is placed, for example, in a local facility in Carlow, Kildare or wherever it happens to be, they are more likely to stay there. It is critical that during their training students are exposed to different practice types. I have discussed with my colleagues on the Cabinet subcommittee the need to rotate placements so that a student has exposure to many different fields rather than just one and is more likely to return to that field.

They can be difficult and stressful environments in which to work. We need to encourage our graduates to go into those sectors when they leave college. I agree with the Deputy that we also need focus on retention measures.