Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science debate -
Tuesday, 8 Mar 2022

Future Funding of Higher Education: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I welcome a transition year student, Alex, to the Public Gallery. He is here to listen to the witnesses and the members. He said he was coming to listen to the Chairman but I am not sure about that. He is very welcome. It is very important we have people from secondary school who come to Leinster House on work experience.

I welcome from the Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, Mr. Martin Marjoram, president; from the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, Ms Clare Austick, president; from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, education sector group, Mr. Karl Byrne, chairman; from the Irish Federation of University Teachers, IFUT, Mr. Frank Jones, general secretary; from the Irish Research Staff Association, Dr. Andrew P. Allen, chairman; and from Fórsa, Ms Stella Griffin, assistant general secretary with responsibility for higher education. Mr. Byrne will make an opening statement on behalf of the ICTU education sector group, followed by the other union representatives. Ms Griffin will take part in the questions-and-answers session.

The witnesses are here today to discuss the further funding of higher education. The format of the meeting is that I will invite Mr. Marjoram to make a brief opening statement, followed by Ms Austick, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Jones and Dr. Allen. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee and there will be an eight-minute slot for each member's questions and the witnesses' replies. As participants are probably aware, the committee will publish the opening statements to the Oireachtas website following the meeting.

Before I 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 such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I also remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity.

If the witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be requested by the Chair to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative that they comply with such a direction from the Chair.

Unfortunately, we have apologies from a number of Senators, for various reasons. Deputies Alan Farrell and Ó Cathasaigh had previous commitments today but I have no doubt that they will see the opening statements on the public record, along with the back-and-forth of questions. I invite Mr. Marjoram to make his opening statement.

Mr. Martin Marjoram

The TUI thanks the committee for the opportunity to make this submission on the topic of future funding of higher education. The issue of funding of higher education has been a complex one for many years but has come to the fore especially since cutbacks of the last decade, combined with rapidly rising student numbers, and the publication in 2016 of Investing in National Ambition: A Strategy for Funding Higher Education, which hereafter will be referred to as the Cassells report.

It is important to note that in 2021, Ireland only spent 0.9% of GDP on tertiary education, compared to 1.4% in the OECD. The ratio of students to teachers in Irish tertiary education is also significantly above both the OECD and EU averages, and has risen dramatically from already unsustainable levels in the past year. The funding deficit, even aside from anything to do with Covid-19, will get worse in coming years as, mentioned in earlier hearings of the committee, student numbers are expected to rise by almost 30,000 in tertiary education in this decade. Even without an increase in student numbers over the next decade, the third level budget is 40%, approximately €100 million, off where we were ten years ago, according to The Irish Times in January 2020. The Cassells report made clear that €600 million was needed by 2021. However, we are now in 2022 and little has changed.

The European University Association, EUA, has reported that public funding of third level education in Ireland, as a percentage of GDP, fell a shocking 62% between 2009 and 2019. In the same timeframe, student numbers rose by 28% and staff numbers fell by 8%. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, has found that between 2007 and 2016, real expenditure per student at third level education decreased by more than 34% in nine years.

The TUI believes that third level education, as part of the social contract, should be funded from Government revenues; that is, from taxation. Whence that taxation comes is then the issue. For its part, TUI has made the serious proposal that a 1% levy should be applied to corporation profits to generate a dedicated fund for higher education. Why, we may be asked, should corporate profits be levied in this manner? For the very simple reason that to do so is fair and provides those corporations with an opportunity clearly to demonstrate what they claim to have, but what is little in evidence, which is commitment to the society in which they base their enterprise. These corporations benefit hugely from having available to them a very deep pool of graduate talent in this country – supplied courtesy of the Irish taxpayer. In 2015 for example, the levy we suggest would have yielded some €550 million, an investment that would have done very nicely indeed in terms of resuscitating the exhausted and gaunt figure that is the Irish third level education system. Investment in the further education and training sector also needs to be addressed. Priorities in the programme for Government can only be adequately addressed if accompanied by additional funding. Areas such as Youthreach, adult literacy, post-leaving certificate programmes etc. have for too long been a Cinderella of the system. The committee has acknowledged the need for additional funding of the further education and training sector in its hearings of 1 March.

It is important that all institutes of technology have the opportunity to become technological universities if that is the wish of the community concerned. It is imperative that the two remaining institutes of technology, the Institute of Art, Design and Technology and Dundalk Institute of Technology, are expedited into the technological university sector. TUI members in both institutes have communicated to management, the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, the Higher Education Authority, HEA, and the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, their wish to move towards technological university designation. This position is supported by the TUI nationally. Dundalk Institute of Technology is currently being assisted by the HEA in this regard.

The HEA has found that 15% of graduates from institutes of technology attended schools participating in the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, programme, compared to just 8% of university graduates, and that 7% of institute of technology graduates attended fee paying schools compared to 13% of university graduates. According to Richard Thorn, the institutes of technology have 22% of their students registered as flexible learners - part-time, distance and e-learning - compared to 17% for the universities. The distinction comes in terms of socioeconomic class, in that 31% of students in the institutes come from the non-manual, semi-skilled or unskilled groups compared to 21% in the universities.

The TUI would like to make several recommendations to the committee. The size of SUSI grants and eligibility criteria for same should be significantly expanded. The TUI welcomes the current ongoing review of SUSI. Exchequer funding of higher education must be dramatically increased. This could be partly funded by a one percentage point increase in corporation tax with the proceeds ring-fenced for funding higher education. Staff-student ratios need to be reduced urgently. Apprenticeships should have greater support and visibility. Funding models must take account of the unique role the institutes of technology-technological universities sector plays in higher education access. Greater recognition of, and visibility of, the further education sector is vital due to the essential role it plays in supporting under-represented groups to access levels 5 and 6 of the national framework of qualifications, and also frequently then accessing levels 7 and 8 of the framework. Additional staffing of guidance services in schools, further education colleges, higher education institutions and in the adult guidance services would be helpful. The points system needs to be reformed. More progression pathways should be recognised. Additional support in the form of funding and staffing is required for student mental health support services in higher education institutions, HEIs, as well as for employee assistance programmes. Further funding is required to support access programmes in higher education institutions. Strong consideration should be made to extending a DEIS-style funding model to the higher education sector. All institutes of technology, IOTs, should consult staff in relation to seeking a pathway to technological university status. Emergency remote teaching and learning is, by definition, an emergency response to a crisis situation. It cannot be seen in any other context. Additional education needs students should have additional supports maintained if they attend further or higher education after leaving the post-primary system. Currently when they leave second level, their support is effectively cut off and then needs to be re-established by the relevant further or higher education institution. The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, may have a role to play here, especially in the further education, FE, context.

I thank the committee for listening to this opening statement. The TUI is more than happy to answer any questions that members may have. The TUI would also like to direct members to the more extensive written submission that we made to the committee in February, which provides more detail on the issues I have just outlined.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Marjoram. I invite Ms Clare Austick.

Ms Clare Austick

A chairde, I thank the Chairperson and members of the joint committee for this opportunity today. I am the president of the Union of Students in Ireland, which is the national student representative body for students in third level education. Our core mission has always been to protect access to third level education. At every single opening I give, I must remind people that education is a right and not a privilege. However, the continual marketisation of education threatens how it is viewed and has only served to heighten existing barriers to third-level education. I must emphasise how much USI welcomes that future funding of higher education is being looked at and reviewed. For far too long, many students have been priced out of a third level education and did not get to excel in the ways they should have. We can certainly change how the future funding of higher education goes, going forward.

To fully begin the conversation, we cannot overlook the largest barrier in student access to education, which is the student contribution charge. We want to see an immediate reduction in the fees, with a commitment to sustainably funding the higher education sector through a publicly funded higher education model. If we really value our education system so much then we must act on our words. The State must be responsible for funding the system to the levels required to ensure high quality education for all students. To highlight just how bad it has become, I note that approximately 50% of the funding of Irish universities is private funding. This is the highest in the European Union and is the second highest in Europe. According to the OECD, Ireland invests just 0.8% of GDP in tertiary education, which is well below the 1.5% of the OECD average. How can Ireland prides itself on its education system when it is way below average?

In addition, the current student-staff ratio in Ireland is among the highest in the EU, and a minimum investment of €147.48 million per annum is required to bring Irish higher education institutions in line with international best practice of a ratio of 15:1.

The USI strongly believes that publicly funded education is the most equitable way to ensure that this increased funding is delivered. The onus should not be on existing or future students to prop up a crumbling sector, rather the State should provide support to the future workforce of our country. The future expansion of technological universities certainly poses logistical challenges. As institutes of technology across different geographical locations merge, investment in public transport links is crucial. Students must be able to access all buildings, resources and supports in campuses across the country. We must address the lack of public transport infrastructure available in rural areas in particular. Post merge, technological universities must also be supported, as the entire integration process can take a long time. They should be supported in building affordable, purpose-built, student accommodation.

Universal design for learning, UDL, played a critical role in online assessment and teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, outside the Covid-19 classroom, UDL serves as an important tool to help combat barriers students with disabilities face in both learning and social environments. UDL is critical in increasing awareness of barriers to participation and supports that a student may need. USI believes that the Government should provide funding to higher education institutions for training on UDL principles and guidance on a national framework to try and support colleges to integrate those principles into the entire teaching and learning environment.

Equity of access to higher education is a core component of the work of USI. Existing financial support structures are not optimal and they are not fit for purpose. There have been significant cuts to the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grant over the last decade. We fully believe that the student grant scheme is a huge opportunity to support students to access education and to progress their entire learning journey. We welcome the review that is being carried out, but funding must be provided to fully implement the recommendations that emerge. It is important to note the knock-on effect of a stagnant student grant scheme that is deaf to inflation and higher costs of living. It affects many people, such as disadvantaged and low-income families, engaging in part-time or full-time employment which may lead to students being unable to complete their studies satisfactorily. Similarly, international students experience many financial hardships, as they are often seen as cash cows to prop up an underfunded system. We cannot ignore postgraduate students either. We must ensure there is a national stipend in line with the living wage for research postgraduates, which would enhance engagement in research and encourage the involvement of more postgraduate researchers of diverse backgrounds.

Finally, I want to touch on student mental health and well-being supports. Student mental health and well-being is a fundamental element to the overall student experience. Worryingly, student mental health has worsened in recent years, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. We call for the implementation of the recommendations of the student mental health and suicide prevention framework. Sustainable core funding must be invested annually in support services for student mental health on campus.

Chairman

I am sorry, but I must interrupt Ms Austick. We have a copy of her submission.

Mr. Karl Byrne

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions' education sector group thanks the committee for the invitation to participate in this very welcome debate on future funding of the higher education sector. The congress group comprises a range of unions representing staff across all levels of the sector, including IFUT, the Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, Fórsa, SIPTU and Unite. It is our view that equal access must be a cornerstone of our education sector as a whole, otherwise we will simply exacerbate divisions and inequality in Irish society. A 2018 UNICEF report showed that teenage children of lower income parents in Ireland harboured little or no ambition to attend third level. Meanwhile, a 2019 HEA study revealed that children from affluent backgrounds were ten times more likely to score high CAO points than those from less affluent areas. An overriding goal of official policy must be to remove all barriers and impediments to access, and the further and higher education sector can play a crucial role in this process. However, this can only occur if the critical issue of funding is resolved in a sustainable manner, in order to maximise educational opportunity and participation for all.

There is broad consensus on the value of investment in higher education and the fact that the returns on the investment are public, political, economic and social. Indeed, the OECD has pointed out that as countries across the globe respond to the challenges of digital, technological and environmental transition, higher education has become pivotal to progress, given its key role in the formation of intellectual capital. Similar conclusions were reached by the Nevin Economic Research Institute in research carried out for the congress education sector group. This stressed the role of higher education as "a producer of increased skills and capacities in the population, and as a site of research and development". The Nevin institute warned that cuts to spending on higher education were self-defeating, as lower investment has a negative impact on long-term growth and living standards. Given the consensus around this issue, the question arises as to how we have arrived at a situation where we have the highest cost barriers to student participation in the EU and among the lowest spend per student.

These barriers include fees and significant increases in the cost of living for students and working families, and in particular the failure to deliver on secure and genuinely affordable accommodation. The core of the problem lies in the sharp fall in official funding over the last decade. Thus, between 2012 and 2016, total State funding for higher education fell by almost 15%. This reduction is in contrast to comparator states, where funding has always been consistently higher. In 2014, the spend on third level here amounted to 1.1% of GDP, compared with an OECD average of 1.5%. If we strip out private funding sources, Ireland's public spend on third level was just 0.8%, while the OECD average was 1.1%. It is now six years since the expert group on future funding for higher education delivered its recommendations and these trends have worsened since then. In 2019, the Parliamentary Budget Office concluded that funding per undergraduate student - full time, part time, remote and FETAC - was 50% lower than in 2008. In our experience, the funding shortfall has contributed to a worsening of employment conditions and a rise in precarious work, with research by TASC and NERI strongly suggesting the problem is most acute in the higher education sector. It has also sparked a creeping privatisation, and a more dominant role for private funding in our universities, a trend that undermines higher education as a public good.

In conclusion, equality of access must be the cornerstone of our entire education system. Education is an essential public good and must be funded accordingly. This includes a properly resourced and publicly-funded higher education sector. Crucially, this must be accompanied by engagement with all stakeholders, in order to develop a coherent and shared vision for the future of the sector. Indeed, the necessity for engagement is a key lesson from the experience of the Covid pandemic in the sector. I stress that this should be the first step, not the last one, once a decision is made on future funding. The annual cost of attending college has become almost prohibitive and there should be a full reassessment of the grant system to ensure it covers costs and that grants are awarded where they are most needed in a fully transparent manner. Part-time work and temporary work have a legitimate role at third level, but widespread insecurity of employment will harm teaching and educational standards. This applies to academic and support staff throughout the institutions, all of whom play a key role in the delivery of education and the proper functioning of the sector. I thank members for their time. We are more than happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Mr. Frank Jones

IFUT welcomes the opportunity to take part in the discussion on this matter that is of the upmost importance to our entire membership. IFUT represent thousands of members, all of whom work in higher education. Our membership includes lecturers, tutors, librarians and researchers. In our submission to the committee we outlined our concerns in relation to the increased reliance on the sector to secure alternative sources of funding, as the public funding is inadequate. We referred to reports from the OECD and others that provided statistical evidence to support our case that Ireland is performing badly with regard to publicly funding the higher education sector when compared to others within the OECD. We must consider why this is the case and make every effort to remedy the situation.

Higher education in Ireland has been underfunded for decades. While Government spending has slowly increased since 2014, the spend per student is still lower than the levels that were in place in 2011. Then, the State spent around €8,500 per year on each student in higher education, while today that figure is below €8,000 per year. Currently, we are ranked 20th in the OECD with regard to our spend per student.

During the period since 2011, the Irish universities slipped significantly in international rankings. In the late 2000s, two of our universities were ranked in the top 100 internationally, with one in the top 50. We now have no institutions in the top 100. The fall in rankings is directly linked to the reduction in spend. Cuts to core funding have resulted in a reduction in staff numbers. The employment control framework of 2010 to 2014 appears to linger across the sector, prohibiting HR departments from recruiting academic staff on the agreed and established contracts. The most obvious way in which the underfunding manifests itself is through the student to staff ratios across our institutions. According to the OECD, Ireland's student to staff ratio is at 23.4:1, far out of line with the OECD average of 15:1. Addressing this ratio must become the number one priority for the Department and for all of us involved across higher education. In an effort to address the need to have student-facing staff, universities have engaged occasional or hourly-paid lecturers. This committee must note that these employees are not, in the eyes of the institutions and universities themselves, lecturers, as lecturing staff are defined as those contracted to undertake a range of academic duties encompassing teaching, research, and contribution and scholarly activity. Given an opportunity, I will expand on this point. Across the universities, different job titles or terms that are used to describe those engaged in this manner include part-time teaching assistants, part-time assistant lecturers, occasional lecturers etc.

Those engaged in this manner are usually on short fixed-term contracts, only paid for their teaching without any of the other benefits associated with being an employee of a university in a position funded by the State. Our members in these grades do not have the opportunity to engage in research work. Being research active is core to the role of a lecturer and the university.

Some employers have failed to afford the terms of the public sector agreements to those engaged in this manner. The precarious nature of their engagement is further compounded by the fact that there is no sectoral engagement on industrial relations, IR, matters across the university sector. The education oversight group has not met since before the Covid-19 pandemic. While these workers are represented by trade unions which are members of the ICTU higher and further education group of unions, the employers will not engage sectorally on IR matters, either through the Irish Universities Association, of which they are all members, or through any other employers' umbrella organisation. Historically, the rationale for the universities’ refusal to engage on IR matters sectorally was, according to the universities, because to do so would interfere with the institutional autonomy they enjoy as a right, a right that we respect. However, UNESCO recommendation 20 from 1997 addresses this point. It states that autonomy should not be used to limit the rights of higher education staff and teaching personnel. The same document, in recommendation 27, provides that:

Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work ...

I ask the committee to consider how a precariously employed part-time assistant lecturer would be expected to exercise this entitlement without any certainty of employment into the future. We in IFUT know the answer.

In IFUT, we believe the failure to fund higher education adequately has given rise to a situation whereby our universities have become over-reliant on precariously employed staff and this has impacted on the quality of our higher education institutions and their global rankings. We need to address the student to staff ratio by engaging these academics, and others, on contracts agreed through local level or sectoral bargaining. Failure to address this matter will have a detrimental effect on the sector and society in general.

I thank members for their attention and welcome the opportunity to discuss these points with them.

Dr. Andrew P. Allen

I am the chair of the Irish Research Staff Association, which represents salaried research staff in higher education. Táim bródúil as a bheith anseo inniú chun labhairt ar son daoine atá ag obair i réimse an taighde in Éire.

Research is an investment that consistently makes returns that are greater than what we put in. Studies from Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, Indecon and University College Cork estimate that for every €1 invested in research, society reaps a benefit of between €3 and €5 to the economy. Research staff bring funding into universities, contribute to internationalisation of higher education, help to inform evidence-based policy and, although this is often under-recognised, contribute to teaching as well. Strategic investment in research is of benefit to various regions across Ireland and investment in research capacity across our universities, new technological universities, institutes of technology and other higher education institutes, HEIs, across all regions will be a great local, regional and national economic stimulus.

Research careers in HEIs are currently characterised by precarity, with research staff generally being employed on fixed-term contracts tied to specific research grants. The high turnover of research staff within the HEI sector means that experience is often lost from this sector. Research staff can also end up devoting a significant amount of time to chasing research grants where only a small number of candidates will succeed. Ireland has a demonstrable track record in producing long-term research, such as the study on which I am employed, the intellectual disability supplement to The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, TILDA. Given this track record, we should avoid precarity becoming part of policy.

Coming from a background in psychology, I am glad to see that mental health is on the agenda. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that job insecurity is associated with higher risk of depression and anxiety. Precarity reduces the health and well-being of research staff, and their productivity with it. It harms not only individual researchers but research groups and programmes that have higher levels of brain drain as a result.

In order to inform any policymaking decisions regarding research and innovation, it is first important to develop an accurate method of data collection regarding the numbers of research staff, a method that is universal across all HEIs on the island of Ireland. Data on gender, ethnicity, international or national status, level of seniority and contract type should be tracked over time and should include the career outcomes of the researcher. Where there are aggregated data, they should be made easily available, to the greatest extent permitted by data protection law. Research staff should be able to communicate with large numbers of their peers quickly and easily in order to maximise the potential for collaboration and avoid duplication of research effort.

In terms of policy, research career frameworks are important for research staff. A number of policies have been proposed that take an "up-or-out" approach, whereby research staff have to progress to a higher level within a relatively short period of time or exit the system. Why is this problematic? Let us look at the "up" part of the up-or-out approach. Career progression is good but there is a lack of funding in place for research staff to progress, which means they use increasing amounts of labour hours, paid for by the taxpayer, chasing increasingly competitive grants that they are less likely to get. Research staff who are generally least able to absorb risk are the ones who take on the bulk of the risk.

What about the "out" in the up-or-out approach? Some researchers may wish to stay within a particular role at a given level, drawing on years of experience to perform high-quality research, but risk being pushed out of the system when we take an up-or-out approach. The higher education research group proposed a funded research framework in the late 2000s. This is a model we should bring back.

A possible solution to enable research staff to continue contributing to academic research is for funding agencies and HEIs to put in place staff scientist positions and equivalent positions for arts and humanities, thereby creating alternative attractive career progression routes within academia. A report from the National Research Council, for example, recommends raising the salaries of research staff to "appropriately reflect their value and contribution to research". Unless the career prospects for early career researchers are improved, we risk losing the talent that will be essential for our future progress across all areas of research.

Alternative career paths, where research staff segue into roles more focused on other areas such as teaching or professional services, are to be encouraged, but they should not be seen as the necessary goal of all research staff.

I am here today to advocate not simply for research staff but for a sensible policy of investment that benefits everyone. Given the return to Irish society evidenced by research, we know that investment in retaining research staff is a win-win. I look forward to participating further in this process. Táim ag tnúth go mór le páirt a ghlacadh se cómhrá seo.

Chairman

I commend all our guests on their opening statements.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I welcome our guests. I also welcome Alex, who I hope finds this session interesting. I thank our guests for their opening statements, each of which spoke to what we need to do with the future funding model. My first question is for Mr. Jones from IFUT. He highlighted the impact that underfunding has had on the ranking of our institutes of higher education. In this committee, we have been slow to call out the impact that years of underfunding have had on performance. We know that because of the work of members of IFUT, other high standards have maintained in extremely difficult circumstances. However, it is important to accept that even with this great effort, we are inevitably being outperformed by better funded colleges. The student-staff ratio is much higher here than the OECD average. That will lead to a very serious impact on education and research output.

Mr. Jones also mentioned that the employment control framework extended from 2010 to 2014 and that it is still curtailing HEIs from offering full contracts. Perhaps we could examine that a little to see why that is the case and ask why, if the framework was to run from 2010 to 2014, it is still having an impact. We must also consider what is needed beyond adequate funding for the sector and what needs to be put in place to ensure, if and when the Government brings forward a sustainable funding model, that funding is reflected in better working conditions. The worst thing that could happen would be for us to have a new model but retain precarious working conditions. We need to make sure we bring change with us.

In his opening statement on behalf of ICTU, Mr. Byrne mentioned creeping privatisation, which is a very important point. Privatisation does not always happen in one big sale to a private company. It can happen, and has happened, over time and we have seen the impact of that. Do our guests believe we need a step change in how we fund higher education to protect and restore the public nature of third level education?

One of my great fears is privatisation, because it is a quick fix. We have seen it happen across the board in essential services, including healthcare and housing. Now we are seeing it in higher education. How do we collectively stop that?

My next question was sparked by the IRSA's submission. Over the last ten years, the higher education sector has been underfunded but one exception to this is Science Foundation Ireland. SFI sets up centres in colleges and works on specific projects or research areas. Has the SFI model impacted on the working conditions in the higher education sector?

In its submission, the TUI called for a 1% levy on corporation profits to adequately fund higher education. Is there a specific reason for applying this levy on profits rather than expanding the levy on payroll that currently exists for the National Training Fund?

Ms Austick said the relationship between student accommodation and adequate funding for higher education is vital. I agree with her on that. We have not had an update on the student accommodation strategy since 2019 and the housing crisis means accommodation is the single biggest barrier for anyone who needs to travel to third level. I am concerned about the rising cost of fuel and the impact that will have on those who have been forced to travel long distances. Do we need a new student accommodation strategy, focused on public ownership and affordability, to go along with the new funding model? There were a lot of questions there. Each witness will have about a minute to answer but maybe they can expand their answers later on.

Mr. Frank Jones

I will be brief. The Deputy mentioned rankings. The student to staff ratio has a direct impact on the rankings but it affects much more than that. It affects the entire student experience because it affects the ability of lecturers and other staff to deliver on their contracts. It is very clear that this has a negative impact. The employment control framework I mentioned was in place for very good reason between 2010 and 2014. In 2016, Michael Cush SC conducted a review of precarity, short-term contracts and the use of fixed-term and part-time contracts for lecturers in universities. He made seven recommendations, one of which is that the employment control framework be lifted, allowing the universities the right to hire lecturers directly when necessary, so they would not have to go to the HEA or other organisations for approval. That is fine and dandy if they have the money to hire but they do not. That is why they do not hire lecturers but hire these hourly-paid staff on very poor fixed-term contracts of employment and they renew the fixed-term contracts, leaving us with very little option as trade unions-----

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

If the universities had the funding tomorrow morning, is there anything else that would stop them from doing that? Is it purely a matter of funding?

Mr. Frank Jones

It is purely funding. The problem is that when people such as part-time teaching assistants are employed on these types of contracts repeatedly, they secure permanency in their positions under the fixed-term work legislation but they are permanent in a job they should not really be doing. They should have the full lecturing experience. That will make the situation even more dire into the future. It is a big job. There is a huge task to be done here, not just in saying that from now on we will have no part-time teaching assistants and will only have lecturers. I like that the USI has put a figure on the student to staff ratio. That is important because we need figures and costs to aim for. It will also take time to tackle this. ICTU's submission stated that this should be the start of something and I agree with that. We should not just address the student to staff ratio by putting a load of hourly-paid, precariously engaged teaching assistants into a university because that will not sort anything.

Ms Clare Austick

The largest barrier in access to education is the financial cost. It is not a desire to attend college or awareness of it that is lacking. It is due to the cost of attending higher education, that is, the cost of student accommodation coupled with the fees, the cost of living and the hidden course material costs. It is everything together. The TU Dublin cost-of-living guide estimates that it costs €10,000 to attend one year of college. It differentiates between people attending college in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Letterkenny. We need a new student accommodation strategy that commits to tackling the student accommodation crisis in the most effective and efficient manner possible and has short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals. It has to be accompanied by making higher education accessible and reducing the student contribution charge immediately, if not abolishing it. We want the Government to provide support to colleges to build their own student accommodation that is affordable and based on a cost-rental model. We need a new student accommodation strategy and we need to tackle the financial aspect and the cost placed on students to attend college. Otherwise, we will not get anywhere.

Mr. Karl Byrne

I will come in on a couple of points. The Deputy asked me a direct question about privatisation. ICTU did a report that shows nearly 50% of money is now from the private sector. There has been a huge drop in public funding from what it used to be. It was close to 80% or 90% previously. That is why we are saying this should be the beginning of the discussion. When the report comes out we would love to come back to the committee and have a discussion because at that stage we can answer the questions on how to deal with what is being put in front of us. A number of the people here, including us and the representatives from the USI, IFUT and TUI, as well as SIPTU, Fórsa and Unite, are part of Education Futures, the campaigning group we put together to try to deal with future funding. We had three pillars, which are the metrics by which we should be measuring things when the report from the Department comes out. The three pillars - access, the quality of the education system, and decent work - set down what we need the future funding model to deal with.

The employment control framework does not just deal with academics but with all staff across the system. Even if a university wanted to hire a security guard, it is set in stone. That causes problems because if they do not have the funding, they might outsource or bring in a temporary cleaner or security guard. It is across the system. The employment control framework is a legacy of the crisis and it must be done away with. We need to have those discussions across the board on what having more money in the system means going forward and how we deal with it.

The USI has given a very clear report on the effects of the accommodation crisis on students and we support it on that.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I ask for a brief answer on the SFI model and the 1% levy.

Dr. Andrew P. Allen

I am not quite sure I understood the Deputy's question. What exactly does she mean by the 1% and the SFI model?

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I am asking about the proposed 1% levy on corporation profits. The levy on the payroll is ring-fenced for the National Training Fund. Why is it proposed to levy 1% on profits instead of increasing the training fund levy? Is there any reason for that?

Mr. Martin Marjoram

I think the question for the IRSA related to SFI.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Yes. Has the fact that the money is going to SFI impacted on the working conditions within the education sector?

Chairman

Deputy Ó Ríordáin has to leave soon so I will allow one reply and I will let Deputy Conway-Walsh back in before the end of the meeting. I ask for a quick reply because I want to bring in Deputy Ó Ríordáin.

Dr. Andrew P. Allen

I do not think I can speak authoritatively on that particular policy. Was the Deputy asking about larger-----

Chairman

I am going to allow Deputy Ó Ríordáin in because he told me he has to be gone before noon. We have shown Deputy Conway-Walsh leniency.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. As the Chair said, I will have to leave the meeting after this. I am very impressed with the presentations.

Many of the witnesses speak about access, those on the margins and disadvantage. We still have an issue in Ireland with functional literacy with 17.9% of our adult population functionally illiterate. It is something we regularly discuss here. I suppose the witnesses have all come here looking for money so we need to cut to the chase of what the discussion is really about.

There are a couple of topics regularly bandied around in Irish political discourse. If it is said in any forum that crime is out of control, most people will nod their heads in agreement. If anybody rings "Liveline" and says "crime is out of control, Joe", most people would agree. It does not matter what kind of international statistics we have about crime in Ireland versus any other country in the world, people would still nod their head and say crime is out of control. If we say people in Ireland are overtaxed, most people would again nod their heads and say they are overtaxed. Again, not to disparage "Liveline" but the caller to that programme would say "we are overtaxed, Joe". In any pub conversation, political conversation or electoral cycle, people will assume we are overtaxed, despite it not being true.

We need much more maturity in the Irish political discourse and we cannot pretend to invest more in public services, as the delegations are advocating, with zero cost. They have provided a very reasonable suggestion of a levy on the corporate sector here, raising €550 million. We made the political argument that to give away €500 million of tax cuts in the last budget, given the state of public finances, was not the right thing to do.

I remember almost 30 years ago being a beneficiary of free education at third level and it opened doors for my family and other families like mine that could enter third level education. Maybe some doors would have been closed to us otherwise. Nevertheless, we lost the argument on the idea from the mid-1990s until recently. The suggestion was made that essentially this was an advantage from which only middle class people would benefit. The argument was that the funding mechanism should have been funnelled in a different way.

There is no way of adequately funding public services and making them free and excellent, as happens right across Europe, without having a proper discussion about the way we tax and people invest so they can feel proud of their tax system. They should feel it is a duty and we should get away from the political discourse around every levy and taxation measure. There is a language around "tax burden" and "squeezed middle" that always seems to come into the political discourse.

If I am going to nod my head and say the witnesses are absolutely right, as I want to, it would be dishonest of me to say they are right and we must absolutely fund what they want to achieve while telling people during my political campaigning that they are overtaxed. I do not believe they are. How do we fix that? How do we make that political argument and convince the people of Ireland that a fair, transparent and progressive taxation system does not need political buy-off or auctioneering around election time? Hard questions and choices must be made about how our taxation system produces highly educated and free citizenry. They are free to make choices and live their lives with an education that has lifted them. We cannot do that if we still get into the mire of comparing this tax to this levy and the assumption we are overtaxed. There is also an assumption that public services are not excellent, and that is part of the same right-wing, conservative discussion. As the witnesses are all seeking money, will they help me out?

Mr. Martin Marjoram

I thank the Deputy. I might repeat some of what I say now to Deputy Conway-Walsh when she returns. We brought forward the notion of a 1% levy on corporate profits and as has been pointed out by Deputy Conway-Walsh, there have been increases in the contribution to the national training fund. It clearly has not been nearly sufficient to meet the funding gap. The Deputy's broader point is correct with regard to the commentary that goes with taxation discussion.

In general terms Ireland is not particularly out of line when it comes to income and consumption taxes. It is out of line with its corporate taxes. It is why we have focused on a corporate tax levy and a specific levy to take it directly into higher education. As Mr. Cassells pointed out in his report, employers benefit hugely from what comes from our higher education sector. It is entirely appropriate for us to look for a contribution from them commensurate with the gains they make from the very availability of the talented work pool from which they benefit.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

It is a much more equitable suggestion than, for example, that of a student loan system. I believe this committee was unanimous against that.

Mr. Martin Marjoram

Absolutely. The Teachers' Union of Ireland has been very clear about that. I have spoken at rallies, including rallies organised by the Union of Students in Ireland, about this and we are utterly opposed to that. We are utterly opposed to our current position, quite frankly, and it is extremely unfortunate that the student contribution charge came in when it did in 1996 when a Labour Minister abolished fees. It was extremely unfortunate that the £150 levy or charge was introduced. It was the equivalent of €190.46 and it has been multiplied by 15 since as it has gradually worked its way up and become this enormous burden on students. It must be lifted and we fully support such an effort.

Mr. Frank Jones

It is a very important question raised by the Deputy. We must change the narrative and we can do that together; this is not a spend on higher education but investment in the country. There is a very positive Indecon report and my colleague might be quoting from it with respect to returns on investment in higher education. It was commissioned by the Irish Universities Association in 2019 and it deals with the spend on higher education and returns that come to the Exchequer from that spend. It is a really good investment for the country and it is worth us trying to discuss that and ensure there is value for money and good returns on that investment. That is what we are about. We are not just a bottomless pit seeking more money. We are seeking proper investment so there can be proper returns to society.

Mr. Karl Byrne

From the tax perspective, Mr. Marjoram has touched on our approach, while Mr. Jones has spoken to the investment perspective. We can marry the two of them while also looking at the returns that higher education provides to society in general. We can also consider the targets being set by the Government. For example, there is a target of 750 apprentices in the public sector but we do not know where they are going. There are only 50 live apprentices now in local authorities so even if we put apprentices into the local authority sector, we do not have craft workers with whom they could buddy up. Who would deal with such matters? How will we deal with Housing for All and retrofitting? How will we deal with any of this? We must invest now because we will also see societal problems down the line. When politicians have a conversation with people at the door, they should also be saying that if we do not invest now, things will get worse. If we do not invest now, we will not be able to do what we are suggesting. We will not be able to build student accommodation or deal with such issues.

This is also about societal value. I went to school in Kilbarrack, where only around four or five people went to the National University of Ireland colleges. In 1995 I had the grant and in 1996 I paid £50 as a registration fee in University College Dublin. I was part of the Goldilocks generation and a number of the politicians here would have been part of that too. Now a €3,000 fee is required. That conversation must be had about the effect we are having. I am from a generation that benefited from free education at third level and the State provided that for me.

We must consider societal benefit, investment and tax. This is about a whole discussion. That is why we are saying this is the start of a discussion. We would welcome the opportunity to come back to the committee when a decision has been made by the Department on a future funding model. We must deal with all those aspects and not just the spending of money.

We need to have a discussion on how it is spent, what we are targeting and what we are trying to do. As I said, we would welcome that conversation at that stage.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I am quite sure we will be in conversation again.

Chairman

Deputy Ó Laoghaire is the only one left.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

That is true. I am the last man standing. Deputy Conway-Walsh is coming back in a short while. The Western Rail Corridor is being discussed in the Joint Committee on Transport and Communication and it is a subject close to her heart. Deputy Conway-Walsh is keen to continue the discussion on this.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe go léir as an bhfianaise seo, na fíricí agus an argóint. Táimse den tuairim go bhfuil cuid mhaith i gcoitiantacht againn. Tá tuiscint againn ar cé chomh tábhachtach is atá oideachas sa tríú leibhéal agus go dteastaíonn infheistíocht cheart ann.

I will pick up briefly on the previous discussion. It is not necessary to repeat it. From my party's point of view, this is, as Mr. Jones has said, about investment. This is not only about the individuals who cannot benefit and, indeed, should benefit from third level education. It is about the value of this to us as a society and, to an extent, as an economy. I do not want to over-emphasise the latter but it is true as well. As a society, we need to invest in this.

The Cassells report was lengthy but to some extent it stated fairly simply that here is the destination, we need to get to it, there are many ways you can get to it but standing still is not adequate. The surprising aspect of this discussion is that to a large extent across political parties and organisations, such as Mr. Jones's own, but not limited to it, there is something of a consensus that it should be done through public funding.

The view on a graduate tax, a student loan system or anything like that is a minority view as far as I can gather including in the education sector as a whole. Indeed, many of the third level institutions and some of their leadership have a different view but several of them are also opposed. To some extent, it surprises me that the suggestion is somehow so resilient that it keeps coming back into the public debate when there are so many voices against it. I would make that minor point to agree with Mr. Marjoram on some of the taxation inequalities but perhaps the other point relates to social insurance. We are a bit out of step in social insurance as well in terms of PRSI compared to our European comparators.

The general point aside, I have some specific questions for Dr. Allen. On the issue of career pathways for postgraduate researchers and postdoctoral researchers, there are countries we can look to as doing this better but there are also countries we can look to where this is completely collapsing. The situation in Britain seems to be adverse for postdoctoral researchers, as far as I can gather, in the precarity that exists. Perhaps Dr. Allen can correct me, but there is a significant danger there in loss. I have not come across that "up and out" phrase previously but I think I understand what is meant by it. Can Dr. Allen give me a sense, when the opportunity to progress to full lectureship or a comparable occupation is not there, where is "out"? Where do they go? Have we any sense of how many postgraduate-postdoctoral researchers are lost to the system? Perhaps we do not have that information. If we do, it would be useful to have a sense of the scale of it. Obviously, the skills involved in their experience and the expertise would be quite considerable. I agree that there is a significant issue with the funding model. It is peculiar that much of the funding is State led but still comes in that compartmentalised fixed-round way.

For the TUI and Mr. Jones, I am also conscious of the issue of fragmentation of employment and that there would be many people working in the sector who have bits and pieces of contracts - a few hours here and a few hours there. Is there an element to which the higher education authorities are not prioritising people who are already on the books so that they get more full-time jobs and consolidate their hours? Mr. Jones also expressed a desire - I will afford him the opportunity if he wishes - to expand on the point that they are not officially classed as lecturers, etc.

In response to Ms Austick, the issues with Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, are enormous. There is the issue of the adjacency levels. It cuts in a number of ways - the threshold to qualify is too low; people on relatively low incomes do not qualify; a large proportion of the people who get grants do not get the full grant; a fairly small proportion gets the full grant; and, in any event, the full grant is not enough to cover costs. SUSI falls shorts on so many fronts. I am glad it is being reviewed, but a review is all well and good. There was a stage where the student contribution was definitely a disincentive but the grant structure and the relevant cost of living was not so serious that large numbers of disadvantaged students or low-income students were put off. We are now reaching the point, because the SUSI grants are so inadequate, that a significant number of students are facing disincentives of that kind.

I have a question for Mr. Byrne on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I could be wrong on this but I imagine there have been discussions at congress level - I am not sure which trade union would necessarily represent them but perhaps it is SIPTU - about the non-teaching staff, such as the large number of caretakers, grounds staff and carpenters. Taking caretakers, and probably security as well, for example, many universities are outsourcing these services and privatising them, and some of the terms and conditions are probably under attack. I would say it is likely to be one of the first areas that universities look at when they are trying to cut costs. What is the future in relation to that?

There is a lot there but I am hopeful that the Chair might be lenient, given that a few others have perhaps benefited from such leniency.

Chairman

I know where everyone else has gone. There is an Oireachtas protest outside the Russian Embassy today. That is the reason we have so few here. My apologies.

Ms Clare Austick

On the first element, the supports that are available and in existence are not fit for purpose. They do not accurately reflect the cost of living. That is one of the big issues. In previous conversations with the Department, the Minister or other key stakeholders, it always has come down to whether we should have investment in publicly-funded higher education, whether the student contribution charge should be reduced or whether there should be investment in the existing financial support services such as SUSI and the student sssistance fund, SAF. From our perspective, it should be both. There has to be the complete abolition of the student contribution charge. It should be publicly funded. The sector is so significantly underfunded that the student-staff ratios are not average. The working conditions are not great for staff. Students are not getting the best, most meaningful, high-quality education possible because they cannot engage in societies or clubs, or have to work part-time jobs, and have to commute up to four hours each day. There are so many different scenarios that students experience because of the financial hardship that they are in.

In terms of the SUSI and SAF, we are still waiting on the SUSI review to come out to see what has been established and if there will be any financial increases in them. However, we must look at this in a holistic way. We must look at the criteria to qualify for the SUSI grant in the first place. Does one get the full maintenance? Is it only a portion of it? Is it only the fees that are covered? There is the non-adjacency rate as well. Postgraduate students need support. International students cannot avail of the SAF or the SUSI grant. They have no real financial support at all when they come into Ireland and in some instances they pay up to nine times the amount that Irish domestic students do.

There is one other point I want to come back on because I just need to say it. On the argument for a publicly-funded higher education system, you can take the practical economic approach in terms of the investment and what it does for society but there is also the emotive element to it. Publicly-funded higher education would provide individuals, but also the collective, the opportunity to upskill, to reskill and to participate in lifelong learning encouraging them to constantly strive for more information and knowledge.

It supports society in the context of being creative and thinking outside the box and promotes social justice and equality. There is also the economic argument whereby for €1 of investment, there will be a €3 return. There are many positives to a potentially publicly funded higher education system.

This comes back to how we view our education system and whether we see it as a right. If so, we cannot put a price on it. Otherwise, we view it as a privilege, although I hope nobody in this room or anybody listening to the meeting thinks that way. Ultimately, it is a right, not a privilege, and we need to invest in it and ensure that regardless of someone's background, whether he or she has worked or whether he or she wants to attend college or higher education at any stage in life, he or she will have the opportunity to do that. We need to fund the system. We need to have a publicly funded higher education system and invest in student accommodation that is affordable, but also ensure the financial supports that are already there are fit for purpose.

Mr. Martin Marjoram

I agree with everything that has been said. I might come in on the point made by the representative of the Irish Research Staff Association. It related to a different question, but the Teachers Union of Ireland has negotiation rights on behalf of researchers in the institutes of technology and the technological universities. It has been a very difficult and arduous path to try to do what we want to do, namely, to improve and standardise the terms and conditions. What we want are terms and conditions that are directly comparable to those of lecturing staff, that is, the same kinds of contracts, the same level of permanency, the same pension rights and rights to leave and so on. It has not been easy and, after many years, we have not made the progress we wanted. There are a plethora of contracts, some of which do not have a pay scale but rather a single point where people stay for however long they remain in employment. Other than that, there are those who have no pension arrangements made for them whatsoever. Bizarrely, some of the funding that comes in comes from the funding body with 20% added onto the salary portion for a pension contribution, and that has been sent back in some cases, although we really do not understand why there is such a bureaucratic difficulty in doing anything with that money on the part of the host institution. We are trying to progress these issues, and while it is not easy to do, our intention is to continue with our negotiations and to try to improve the terms and conditions of researchers to a level comparable with those of lecturing staff.

In technological universities, in particular, we want to see an expansion of research capacity, but not a hived-off or separated research activity that is disparate from lecturing. We think research and lecturing go together, and that is one reason it is a good idea to have comparable terms and conditions in order that there can be interchange and there can be a time in an academic's life when there is a greater focus on one than the other. The closer together the contracts are, the easier that is to do.

There has been some improvement for the sector. The review of the model in 2019 applied €5 million in funding directly to the sector for the first time. That was a small sum - the review had recommended 5% as opposed to the €5 million figure, and it will need to be ramped up to 5%, which would be about four times as much - but it has certainly helped with multiannual planning for research and the building of capacity. That has been positive but it needs to be built on to a far greater extent.

There was a question about the fragmentation of employment. To build on what Mr. Jones talked about, TUI was a little ahead of IFUT in gaining the benefits of what he mentioned and of the Cush report. We met Michael Cush in numerous engagements to try to replicate progress we have made for our teaching grades with regard to far better terms relating to achieving permanency after only two years, as opposed to what is laid out in employment law, where four years has to have passed. One important aspect of it relates to the augmentation of contracts after a single year of holding additional hours. I think that was the point that was being made. We should not have people in the system who are not turned to for additional hours that become available. We are adamant that is what should happen. We have an agreement and a circular letter that states that should happen, but there remain implementation difficulties and it is something we are concerned about. The Cush process, like many of these trade union processes, arose out of industrial action and, frankly, out of saying enough is enough. Nevertheless, we got something positive and it has improved matters, and we are still working to try to make it as effective as possible by following precisely what was laid down in the circular and the agreement.

Ms Stella Griffin

I might address the question on support staff. I look after predominantly administrative staff in the technological universities, the IOTs and the ETBs. We got that name changed to professional, managerial and support staff, PMSS, because it was a big bugbear for our members that there were academic and non-academic staff, which in itself suggests the latter were more important. Much of what has gone on since the austerity years, and is still continuing citing the ECF, relates to specific-purpose contracts, and there is an awful lot of outsourcing of agency staff because of the ECF. Trying to establish the extent of the cost being incurred by the employer was difficult and, as members can imagine, it was quite expensive compared with direct labour, which is what we are advocating for. Under fixed-term contracts, members who worked tirelessly had some security under the legislation whereby after four years, they could become permanent and have security of tenure, whereas in the case of specific-purpose contracts, they did not. There is an awful lot that has to be done in that regard.

By May, five TUs will have been established. This is an exciting time for many students who, in the first instance, would not have had access to the universities but now they do, at world-renowned institutions. It is important that rather than throwing money at the issue, there should be engagement with the relevant stakeholders, including all staff and us representing the members, to see what to do. I am an advocate of the idea that if you want to know how to do a job, you should ask the people who do it. Let us slow down and get this right. Let us carry out due diligence that will make us proud. Many rural institutions were set up because of local socioeconomic factors and afforded an opportunity for students to gain access to third level, and now they have university status. Deputy Ó Ríordáin asked how we can make this political argument. I do not think there is one person in a household who would not advocate for his or her student children to get the best opportunity possible. We have that now with these TUs. We need to fund them in such a way that Ireland can be proud and the students who qualify will receive recognised, world-renowned university degrees.

Mr. Karl Byrne

To return to Ms Griffin's point about professional, managerial and support staff, I am the sector organiser at SIPTU for the education sector, so I represent everyone from professors all the way down to cleaners at the universities. We have members in the IOTs and the TUs, and in the old FÁS training centres that are now ETBs, such as the instructors, the administration staff and so on. Ms Griffin hit the nail on the head. The outsourcing happens at the lowest level, where institutions feel they can implement it. It happens at the levels of security, caretaking and cleaning. In the university sector, the majority of those roles are outsourced. The best example of where that is not done is at Trinity College, and I think the benefit of that can be seen there. Outsourcing is about saving money, not having to deal with various issues and so on.

Furthermore, due to the ECF, if additional people are needed, there is the question of whether they will be taken in on fixed-term contracts, through an agency or whatever the case may be. This is why we have requested that, if a decision is to be made, it will not be a fait accompli. Once we have a new model for the funding, we should sit down and discuss what the new model for the sector will be and how we can move it forward.

Mr. Frank Jones

The situation is very dire in the university sector, more so than in the IT and TU sector. The reason for that is that there is no sectoral engagement and social dialogue, believe it or not, across the entire sector. University and employers' organisations are devising the researchers framework without any input from us. They are planning out the entire career of researchers through the seven points in the researchers career framework. When a researcher eventually reaches point 7, there is termination. A researcher can spend 15 years on a series of contracts and the employer's plan is to get him or her to point 7, where there is termination. There is no input from the trade unions or social dialogue. For this to work, there must be social dialogue. It is an absurd situation. The point is that without social dialogue and sectoral engagement, we will not get anywhere.

Dr. Andrew P. Allen

Just to go back to Deputy Ó Laoghaire's questions about where we are going, I think it speaks to the need for better and more reliable data within the HEI sector so that we can say with some authority how many research staff are going where. Reference was made to the UK. I know that with Brexit, they were struggling and there has been a lot of anxiety around the European funding that everyone is chasing. To reference a specific example from the UK, Bristol University has followed a really good model for a number of years that features tracks. There is a research track whereby staff can go further in their careers up to research professor level. In Ireland, most of the time people are trying to segue from being a post-doctoral researcher to a lecturer. They often change. It speaks to Mr. Marjoram's point that sometimes there is a different focus on research or teaching. Something like the Bristol model could be interesting to look at in Ireland.

Just to speak to Deputy Ó Ríordáin's point, we are talking about investment and the value of it here. We are not just looking for a big tranche of funding. Ms Griffin has touched on the issue of contracts of indefinite duration and specific purpose contracts. Research staff just want to be treated the same way most people in most sectors are treated, so that if someone works in a particular organisation for a number of years, he or she should have the same entitlement to be kept on and his or her work should be recognised after working in the sector for long enough.

Chairman

I have a small number of questions in the same vein. As politicians, we are often asked for funding. I do not want to be the spoilsport, but I am asking a very serious question. Different sectors and organisations are coming with a begging bowl looking for money. The witnesses are experts in the educational field. That is why they are before us today. Why is the higher education sector more important than, for example, saving the life of a person who is suffering from cystic fibrosis, or whatever it might be, in an acute hospital? They are the questions that I am asked if I am in a radio debate. I do not think there is anybody that does not want more funding for education, but there are so many asks out there. While it is a spend, it is an investment for the future to attract foreign direct investment, FDI, and everything like that.

I have been a huge advocate for the South East Technological University, SETU, looking at the geography of the south east and where we are located in County Wexford. We have been told by IDA Ireland that one of the reasons that we cannot attract FDI to Wexford and the south east is because we do not have a third-level education facility. That is particularly true in respect of County Wexford, and less so in respect of counties Waterford and Carlow. Now we have ticked that box. We have the infrastructure and the roads and everything like that. We have bypasses straight into Enniscorthy and fantastic infrastructure. I will be after the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, and the Government in general, looking for investment for infrastructure into the all the campuses of the SETU, including the campuses in Carlow, Wexford and Waterford. It is really important because we are behind in the south east. The number of people who do their leaving certificate and do not go on to further or higher education but go straight into the workplace is absolutely staggering. How do I make that argument? I am not just saying that it is an investment. There is something behind it as well. I mentioned the idea of attracting FDI. I would like the witnesses' views on that issue.

Mr. Martin Marjoram

Ms Griffin expressed very well the fact that we share the optimism for technological universities for all that there are challenges that remain. One thing, for instance, is that we certainly do not want the TUs to lose the really strong grip that they had on the teaching and learning side and the very strong relationship we had with the students. On the Chairman's basic point, if we look at our own history, what has lifted this country is education. It has been well expressed here in terms of that investment. Would we have gotten anywhere near where we are but for very progressive decisions that were made regarding second level education 50-odd years ago? We would not. We would still be scrabbling around with a very poor economy. None of the things that the Chairman rightly pointed to, such as proper healthcare and housing, are achievable without that base of education that generates the kind of economic activity and the kind of society that lifts us all. That is the very strong point. TUs give us an opportunity now to do better with regard to those who have not been coming to third level previously, to improve the pathways from further education into third level and into a qualification that is viewed on a par with a third-level qualification, and that adds that value to the local community. That is one great thing about technological universities, which the Chairman highlighted, is their regional remit and the fact that they can lift the region around them. There is very strong evidence, and it has been pointed to previously, that every euro spent on education multiplies in a local community. For example, I saw a study on Letterkenny Institute of Technology, which was scoring highest on this. Every euro spent was bringing €6 along with it. That is the argument. I know it has been repeated, but there is no point in trying to make up a better argument for something that is fundamentally true and totally backed up by our own history.

Mr. Karl Byrne

The Chairman hit the nail on the head. When we say that we want money, questions will be asked about housing, healthcare and medical care. I agree with the argument made my Mr. Marjoram. However, there is also the other side of the argument. How do we get the medical professionals into the field? At this moment in time, discussions are ongoing. We are engaging with the universities and institutes and telling them that we do not want a repeat of situation that occurred last year, which we knew had to happen because of Covid, where extra places had to be put into the system. If extra places are put into the system, they need to be planned and looked at. The Department is telling us that we need more medical students going into the system. That means that we need more labs and bigger lecture theatres, or we need to roster them differently. To provide the extra medical professionals for the hospitals, we need to invest to ensure that we have quality. I listened to the meeting of the committee a few weeks ago when the employers, such as the Irish Universities Association and the Technological Higher Education Association, were in. They were saying the same thing. We have got to a place where quality has not been affected. That has involved putting many shoulders to the wheel. However, quality will be affected if we do not invest in this regard. We had situations, during Covid, where we had overflow rooms for lectures because we could not fit everyone in the same room. We had to extend the number of lab sessions that we had because there were pinch points around restrictions to numbers in a lab or training session. Those are aspects of the Chairman's question.

I raised an issue related to housing. How do we get the apprentices into the system? We currently have the highest number of registrations that we have have ever had. We have a backlog that we are working through very quickly and, hopefully, will be cleared by the summer. We have engaged constructively with the FET stakeholders. We and the TUI have done that at all levels to ensure that backlog is dealt with. However, the questions remain. How do we deal with Housing for All? How do we deal with retrofitting? How do we deal with those areas? We need to invest. This is where the societal question arises. As a politician in the Dáil, the Chairman is being asked about healthcare and housing. That is where we are looking at all the parts that bring us to the point where we have the person in health to provide healthcare and the builder in construction to build the house that we want built. That is where we interlink. As Mr. Marjoram said, it is our education system that allowed us to advance going forward through the 1990s. That is something that we are asking.

We are at the point where we have to make a decision. There is a radical change with regard to digital and green technology and all that sort of stuff. Will we invest in that? Will we move forward as a country? Will we invest in our society and people?

The people around this table say that is done through the education system. In fairness to the committee, I have seen some of its comments on access and making sure people get into the system. That is why it is very important and why all parties have taken significant time discussing disadvantage and, as the Chair said, ensuring people have an opportunity after they leave school. It is all about lifelong learning as well, so that even if somebody decides to leave school and get a job, maybe at the age of 25, 26, 30 or 40, he or she has the opportunity to get back into the system.

Mr. Frank Jones

It is very important to look at the future funding. If we keep going the way we are going in terms of engaging researchers on very specific-purpose, externally-funded, short- and fixed-term contracts, there will be no blue skies research. There will be no Luke O'Neills in a number of years. We will not have researchers ready to go who are properly engaged and safe and secure in their employment to conduct research in areas they find important. We will be waiting until medical companies or other funding agencies decide what is important for us to research. We need blue skies research, not just for the purpose of research but for education.

We have seen that through Covid. Every news programme over the past two years relied on the few senior researchers left who are comfortably, properly and safely employed on contracts of indefinite duration, CIDs, in both public and private universities. We have another crisis, our climate crisis, which will put Covid into the ha'penny place. We need to have our people ready for that and properly safely engaged, rather than waiting on three-year externally-funded contracts that lead to definite termination at the end of the project.

Dr. Andrew P. Allen

I will address the Deputy's question directly as many people from different sectors will approach it. I have been working in research and teaching all my life and I am not here to tell the Deputy that my job is more important than that of a politician, doctor, cleaner, a person who works in Tesco or anyone else. However, if we want to invest in the future in terms of being able to work together for our society at large, we need to make this investment.

Chairman

There is a significant number of gaps in the market. Mr. Jones spoke about the researchers. Is there a point to made for getting a commitment from a student to stay in Ireland for a certain number of years after finishing his or her education and the State in some way educating or assisting that student with a financial contribution towards his or her education? Do the witnesses see where I am coming from?

Mr. Frank Jones

Yes. However, our preference is that the students remain.

Chairman

Students will not get free accommodation. That will never happen.

Mr. Frank Jones

It will not.

Chairman

Parents tell me that accommodation is one of the biggest financial challenges when their children go to college. I know of people who put their children's allowance away from when the child is born. They put every penny away. It is like a mortgage from the time the child is born for the child's education. I know it is not right but we will not solve that problem over night. I am interested the question I asked. In a perfect world, there would be free education but we do not have a perfect world. We might get to it in the distant future. However, could we make some financial contribution to attract students and to hold on to the expertise in Ireland Mr. Jones spoke about?

Mr. Frank Jones

The only chance we have of getting to this perfect world is to invest more in education. The Chairman is quite right. Challenges are on the way. We know there is no quick or fast solution. I do not think anyone would disagree with the Chair. The theme on our side is that we want to engage and start from here. We need to start from here. It is not a quick fix but it is nothing without this group here.

Chairman

I was a Minister of State for nine and a half years. There are ways and means of investing but it is not all about money or throwing money at it. It is about sitting down, negotiating and finding out where savings are to be made. There are considerable savings to be made in different parts. Ms Griffin spoke about contracts to one of the other members.

Ms Clare Austick

Very often we look at different sectors which are siloed. With regard to the accommodation example given by the Chairman, if support was given to colleges to build affordable purpose-built student accommodation and students had accommodation to live in, that would, potentially, free up the private rental market. We need to identify where education overlaps with different sectors and what we can do, collectively, to ensure there is a better, more prosperous, inclusive society going forward. Funding allocated to the entire education sector and to building student accommodation would, it is hoped, alleviate the wider accommodation crisis. We have to link up the different difficulties and challenges we meet and see where the intersectionality is.

Chairman

I know accommodation has changed over many years. Years ago, many students would have lived with widows or single women or single men. Is that accommodation still used? They were mostly women who were living on their own after their husband had passed away or their family had moved out and they had two spare bedrooms and provided accommodation. Is that accommodation still used in the way it was ten, 15 or 20 years ago?

Ms Clare Austick

I am not sure to what the Chairman referred.

Ms Stella Griffin

Students would rent a room.

Chairman

Lodging is the word I am looking for.

Ms Clare Austick

A rent-a-room scheme.

Ms Stella Griffin

Renting a room in a house.

Chairman

Is that still done?

Ms Clare Austick

Is the Chairman referring to digs?

Ms Stella Griffin

Yes.

Chairman

Yes.

Chairman

We are going a little bit further than we should.

Ms Clare Austick

A couple of people rent rooms to students but we saw during the pandemic that many people were very cautious. They did not want just anyone living in their rooms and they took their rooms off the market. Covid has exacerbated the pre-existing student accommodation crisis. We need affordable purpose-built student accommodation that is available to students. We need to ensure the rent is affordable and the rooms are up to standard. It is about finding places for students. Very often we look at providing course places for students, and that is all great and we want more people to attend college, but we cannot forget about where they will live or stay or how they will commute to college. Digs accommodation is available but it is very limited. It is not where it was pre-Covid-19.

Chairman

We continue to chase the Minister for third level students to be able to borrow. It is very important. There are huge opportunities, especially for the technology universities, TUs.

Mr. Martin Marjoram

Hitherto, we have not had that capacity in our sector. However, the employers' side has put forward strong arguments, which we fully support, that there should be borrowing capacity and a TU borrowing framework. The Minister has made encouraging statements-----

Chairman

Remarks on that.

Mr. Martin Marjoram

-----specifically focused on the issue of student accommodation which is a long- or medium-term project. It is hoped it will get up and running.

While I am on the subject of construction, one thing has come back quite strongly. While it is very welcome that significant money has been put forward to improve our infrastructure, the inflation level in construction puts enormous pressure on those trying to see those projects through. They are very necessary projects for some of our building stock. Covid highlighted many of the inadequacies with regard to ventilation and so on. Some of the buildings in the institute of technology sector go back 50 years or slightly more.

It is a big problem that must be addressed and one the Department must explore in respect of possibly having to provide extra funding to ensure those projects can be completed.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Marjoram. The world is a bit mad when one sees the Russians bombing the best of buildings in Ukraine while we are looking for such structures here. Does the Deputy wish to come back in?

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

No.

Chairman

Okay. I have nothing else to ask. I thank the witnesses for joining us for this discussion. It has been productive and I appreciate it. I apologise that so many members were missing, but the meeting has clashed with the protest outside the Russian Embassy.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.41 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 March 2022.