Vol. 1065 No. 1
1. Deputy Donna McGettigan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the progress being made with regard to the current challenges in the apprenticeship system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14864/25]
I thank the Minister for taking my question this morning. The apprenticeship system is unfit for purpose and has been for several years now. What measures does the Minister intend to introduce to address the problems faced by apprentices and the system more generally? These have resulted in the system failing to produce qualified tradespeople at a pace that meets demand. These problems have plagued the system and previous Ministers have failed to address them. What reassurance will the Minister give us that they will be addressed during the Minister's term in office?
I thank the Deputy for her question. At the outset, I want to challenge the characterisation of "unfit for purpose". That is a strong phrase and is not one that was reflected in the parliamentary question as tabled. I do not believe that is true or fair to the system. There have been backlogs. Those backlogs are being worked through, for sure.
For context, there has been a strong growth in demand for craft apprenticeships in recent years, which reflects a booming construction sector, with yearly craft registrations rising by 34% from 5,300 in 2019 to 7,100 in 2024. Analysis conducted in the summer of 2023 showed that apprenticeship training capacity was indeed insufficient to meet that growing demand. I absolutely acknowledge this but I differ from the Deputy in that action was taken quickly on foot of that. To alleviate the growing backlog of apprentices who were waiting six months or longer for phase 2 off-the-job training in the education and training boards, ETBs, a backlog that had been exacerbated by the pandemic and the many workshop closures in the prior two years, a priority response was established by the National Apprenticeship Office, NAO, in November 2023. It was problem identified, problem diagnosed and problem addressed.
The implementation of this plan, to increase apprenticeship places and accelerate throughput in the system and increase capacity, was overseen in action by my Department. To successfully remedy the issue, significant resources were expended in the apprenticeship system and committed to it. Additional funding of €67 million in budget 2024 and an additional €77 million in budget 2025 was targeted at apprenticeship delivery. In addition, a targeted national recruitment campaign was launched in late 2023. This led to the recruitment and the introduction of 110 additional apprentice instructors. The combination of those moves, including the additional funding, the 110 instructors hired, and another 80 instructors converted from fixed-term to permanent contracts, were all measures that supported addressing the backlog.
While I agree that measures have been made into the phase 2, will this not push the backlog back into phases 4 and 6? We have a drop out rate of 3,400. Have they been included in the Minister's figures as well? When that number of people drop out, it shows that it is unfit for purpose.
The apprenticeship system is essential to problems the Government has yet to address. Consider the issue of housing. Skilled apprentices who are needed here to work on housing and other essential projects for the future are emigrating abroad to do their apprenticeships. Are those figures included? They tell us that they have no choice but to go abroad. Apprenticeships here are supposed to take four years but in reality they can take up to six years. This also leads to the system being unfit for purpose. This leaves apprentices working for extra years, sometimes at pay that is below minimum wage. There is a serious shortage of places for them to complete the classroom portion of the training.
Let us consider the result of the measures I spoke about, the additional €67 million, the subsequent €77 million, the additional 110 instructors and the 80 instructors converted onto different types of contracts bringing an additional 190 instructors into the system. This has meant that craft training places have increased by 43%. That brought places from 5,600 at the end of 2023 when the backlog was identified to more than 8,000 places in 2025, that is, in the current year. The Deputy mentioned people waiting for periods. The number of craft apprentices now waiting for more than six months for the phase 2 off-the-job training has actually fallen by almost 80%, from 5,319 in October 2023 to 1,140 in February 2025. That is a decrease of some 5,500 to roughly just over 1,000. That is a significant 80% drop. I do want to give some credit to the system for working through that.
With regard to people dropping out I will have to interrogate those figures and see the situation there. We are in a period of full employment in a burgeoning economy and people have many options. Some may choose to pursue other options at that stage.
How many of those in these figures are actually finishing? There are 3,376 who failed to finish because they are not getting paid enough. The programme for Government states that the Government would "Ensure a skilled labour force by providing practical support for on-the-job training and apprenticeship schemes and consider additional measures". Has that process begun? At what stage is the process and what additional measures are currently under consideration? The Government also promised additional funding for apprenticeship training institutions. Will the Minister tell us how much funding is being allocated and when it will be available? The programme for Government further commits to target 12,500 new apprenticeships annually by 2030 and to introduce a new five-year apprenticeship action programme for 2026 to 2030. Has that commenced? Will the Minister outline the specific target numbers for each of the intervening years?
I thank the Deputy. A review is ongoing across the whole sector. There are many different types of apprenticeships now. There are the craft apprenticeships, which are related to construction skills, there are climate skills and apprenticeships for accounting technician and digital marketing - and my Department has a number of staff working in that apprenticeship - so it is very much a broader and more diverse sector and spectrum that might traditionally have been the case. They all play important roles. With regard to suggestions, I invite the Deputy to put forward suggestions. I am all ears. I am a new Minister. I am here to work with colleagues around the House so if the Deputy has any suggestions for improvement, I am open to hearing them. I look forward to that debate, and from all colleagues in the House going forward.
2. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science following the reduction to higher education student fees, if he will provide assurance that student fees will not rise again in the future; if he is considering fully abolishing further and higher education student fees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14941/25]
5. Deputy Donna McGettigan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his plans for the contributory fee; if he will maintain the cut in the fee, as has been set out in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14866/25]
I have a suggestion for the Minister. It is to abolish all fees for third level and for apprenticeships. We have critical shortages in skills across our economy and across our society. It makes no sense to have fees. My question today particularly relates to the Union of Students in Ireland's concerns that not only is the Government not going to abolish fees, which it should, but it is actually thinking of getting rid of the once-off reduction of €1,000, which was brought in over the last years. The Minister commented to that effect recently. Will the Minister give us an assurance that this will not happen and that we will move in the other direction?
I believe there is another question.
Should I ask my question or speak to it?
I apologise, it is a group question so only one speaker asks a question. The Deputy will get a chance to respond.
Yes, the Minister comes in and then Deputy McGettigan gets to respond.
Yes, that is fine.
It is unusual for Priority Questions to be grouped.
I do not mind taking them separately either. I am in the hands of the Acting Chair.
The Minister has four minutes.
I appreciate that.
The Deputies will both be coming in individually anyway.
It is unusual for Priority Questions to be grouped.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 5 together.
The programme for Government does indeed commit to reducing the student contribution in a financially sustainable manner over the lifetime of the Government. As part of the cost-of-living packages over the last three budgets the student contribution was reduced by €1,000 per annum on a temporary basis at a net cost of circa €99 million per annum. These measures were in response to particular cost-of-living challenges arising at the time and were not intended to be a permanent solution.
It is worth extrapolating the figures in totality. A €1,000 reduction of the type we saw during the cost-of-living measures equates to €99 million. A €2,000 reduction would equate to €200 million, and the full abolition, which the Deputy calls for, would equate to €300 million per annum. To extrapolate that over the term of the Government that is €1.5 billion. These are significant figures. I have an open mind on the Deputies' suggestions but I am sure the Deputies will agree that there are other competing priorities chasing those same scarce resources.
In considering how we can continue to address financial burdens for students and their families in a long-term, sustainable way, I am conscious of the opportunity costs and trade-offs associated with any policy option. We have to allocate resources in the fairest, most effective way possible. Given the reality of finite resources, allocations should be made in a targeted way to ensure those students most in need will be supported.
It is important to state that many students and their families do not pay the student contribution because their costs are covered by SUSI grants. In the last academic year, over 43,000 students had their full contribution paid for through SUSI, over 7,600 students received a 50% contribution, and a further 16,000 students had a €500 reduction in the student contribution fee. This means that 66,600 students in total, or almost half of all students, had the student contribution fee paid in full or in part by the State. In addition to those supports, my Department also paid out €368 million in the academic year in question as part of a free-fees initiative, which benefited all eligible students progressing through third level, amounting to some 143,000. All benefited from fee supports from the State, regardless of means, under the free fees scheme.
Notwithstanding these figures, which are important to put on the record to inform the debate, no decisions have been made and we are still early in the budget process. I am very much open to views and stakeholder feedback and I am inviting interested parties to a cost-of-education event that I intend to hold and chair next week. I will be hearing from students, representatives of the student population, access officers, student services employees, people who work with students on a day-to-day basis, advocacy organisations and those who advocate for under-represented students in education and minorities, and policymakers. My aim is to provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to have their say to inform the debate and my policy formulation on the cost-of-education issues. Following the event, I intend to publish an options paper, which will identify costs and potential impacts of various policy options identified, with the overall goal of reducing the cost of higher education. This will inform decisions on budget 2026. I look forward to the engagement and the policy discussion that will inevitably follow.
Yeah, right. Is the Minister considering getting rid of the temporary reduction in fees or not? He should just tell us straight. He should not get rid of it. Doing so is outrageous and he should be going in the opposite direction. Why? There is now a 15% dropout rate among undergraduates. Five thousand drop out in first year, representing an increase in recent times up to 12% from 9%. What government could stand over that when we have shortages in the construction profession, trades, the healthcare sector and industry? There is nowhere without a shortage of skills. It is insane to put financial and other barriers in the way of people. Students are dropping out not only because of fees but also because of financial hardship. The cost-of-living impact on families is clearly a factor. There are also the costs of accommodation and travel, stress and mental health pressure, but the financial aspect is big.
It would cost €255 million to get rid of fees and €100 million to get rid of postgraduate fees, and a fraction of that to get rid of apprenticeship costs, which we discussed earlier. It would be money well invested in people we need to make our society function.
The Minister will have to excuse my scepticism. He is bamboozling me with figures on this. The programme for Government commits to continuing to reduce the student contribution fee over the lifetime of the Government. What the Minister is saying here falls far short of the commitment to reduce the fees to zero. There is no timeline for this or detail on the increments. Higher education is a public good and those who avail of it contribute immeasurably to society. As already said, people are put to the pins of their collars trying to pay for this. Some parents have more than one child going to college and cannot afford to send them. They must decide whether to send both or none. This is very unfair on them. Other parts of the economy also require newly skilled graduates. There is increasing use of modern methods of construction and housing delivery and the programme for Government commits the Minister to promoting these. Graduates add value to our economy and society and must be assisted if they are to achieve their full potential. Putting financial obstacles in their way is short-sighted and counter-productive.
Deputy Boyd Barrett asked about the temporary reduction. It was a temporary reduction; that is the point. It is important that we put it on a more sustainable, long-lived, permanent track, and that is part of the consultation I intend to hold with students, student bodies, stakeholders and universities to understand what would be a more holistic, sustainable formula to meet the cost of education for students and their families.
I appreciate that Deputy McGettigan said I am bamboozling her with figures, but 66,600 students already receive a student contribution from the State, in full or in part, towards the student contribution, in addition to the 143,000 students who have their fees, apart from the student contribution, paid in full. There are very few undergraduates who do not have their fees paid by the State. There are a couple of reasons they would not be paid. In this regard, a student may be doing a second degree course or may come from outside this State. There are a couple of technical categories but the vast majority of undergraduate students have their fees paid in full by the State. In addition, the student contribution fee, which is a separate charge for one's course, is met in almost half of cases in full or in part by the State.
I absolutely understand that there are those who are put to the pins of their collars, as Deputy McGettigan put it. I know some and engage with them in my constituency and in my normal business. What I want to understand is why they are not eligible for SUSI grants and the existing supports. There are existing supports. If there are gaps in the system, these are exactly what I want to identify in the consultation. If the eligibility thresholds need to be examined, bars need to be widened or gaps need to be addressed, this should be done.
I am unconvinced by the concept of having no means test or a free-for-all, based on our saying we will have universal abolition. I do not know whether Deputy Boyd Barrett agrees with me. The programme for Government refers to a sustained reduction in a financially sustainable way, not about abolition. Deputy McGettigan referred to a reduction to zero. That would be abolition. That is not mentioned in the programme for Government. I want to support students and their families and make education accessible. That is why we are paying the fees for 143,000 students and supporting 66,600 students in part or in full with the student contribution fee. However, I am open to the conversation on how we can target those who really need the support.
If 5,000 undergraduates dropping out each year does not concern the Minister, he really needs to rethink his being the Minister for higher education. It is obvious that we have an urgent problem affecting our entire economy and society owing to the lack of skilled people, as well as the mental health issues and all the stress put on the students who drop out and their families. I suspect there is a financial reason. Every year, the most profitable multinational corporations get €800 million in research and development tax credits. These are companies that are already making astonishing profits. I suggest that the Minister redirect some of this tax credit money towards getting rid of fees for students, postgraduates and apprentices. That would benefit our society a hell of a lot more and be a lot better for the sustainability of our economy and society. This is a simple suggestion on how to pay.
Free fees worked in secondary schools and has helped Ireland greatly. There are huge issues with the SUSI grant. People who are trying to prove they are separate from their parents in order to get the SUSI grant are not getting it. There is an issue with the way in which SUSI considers people's circumstances. If you were working two years ago, SUSI will look at your income at that time, not at the past year, in which you might have lost your job and did not have an income to pay for the fees. Education is a fundamental right. Charging parents a contribution fee discourages students from accessing higher education, particularly those who may struggle to afford the fee. As already stated, there are issues with the SUSI grant.
Many students already face financial hardship, forcing some to take on loans or part-time jobs, and this affects their academic performance. If institutions require additional funding to maintain or improve academic quality, this should be the responsibility of the Government, not the students.
I thank the Deputies. Deputy Boyd Barrett should note that I am of course concerned about students dropping out. One or five is too many, never mind 5,000. I would like to understand the reasons. Some analysis would be helpful and I will look into this. I understand that meeting the cost of college has never been easy. I also understand that if the supports, which are abundant in the system and paid for by the State, are not reaching those most in need, something is going wrong. I am not convinced that flat abolition or having free frees, or whatever you want to call the arrangement, is the answer. This would represent a use of scarce resources that could perhaps be more targeted at those in need. I believe in the progressive policy "To each according to their needs", not "To each, everything", so we have to be prudent and progressive in how we manage the allocations.
I am surprised that Deputy Boyd Barrett takes aim at the research and development tax credit.
It is a really useful measure and that research and development support is exactly the kind of thing we should be encouraging. We all know about global headwinds, changing economic tides, trade tariffs and so forth. We have talent, research and development and innovation in this country and that is what has fuelled the enterprise model we have pursued since the sixties and seventies, which has successfully widened the public good by widening the resources available to the public good.
All the other things we want to do in terms of education, housing and health are supported through that type of revenue because that is the economic model we support and subscribe to and that creates the resources. Private enterprise creates the public good, which can then be distributed to do all the things we want to do in this Chamber on a daily basis. I am a big supporter of that model.
3. Deputy Donna McGettigan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his plans to close the funding deficit in the university sector, first identified in 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14865/25]
Under the austerity measures introduced after the economic crash, funding to third level institutions was cut. Universities were asked to more with less money. To make up the funding shortfall, a student contribution was introduced. Austerity is supposedly over and we were promised these cuts would be reversed but this has not happened. What measures does the Minister intend to introduce to close the funding deficit and when will they be enacted?
The Cassells report was published a number of years ago and that was superseded by the Funding the Future framework. That was published in May 2022 and outlines the vision for how higher education will be funded and how this will support students, employees and wider society. The framework identified a figure of €307 million as representing the quantum of increase in core funding required to deliver enhanced performance, strategic reforms and strengthened quality of outcomes. An additional €307 million was identified as optimal to progress the system.
Over a number of years, additional core funding is being prioritised through the Estimates process in order to deliver on the increased level of funding identified in this framework and to provide enhanced system capacity to respond to national priorities. The enhanced higher education system performance to be delivered in return for increased investment is to be aligned to strategic priorities defined in that framework, alongside parallel efforts to address the cost of education as a barrier to participation, which we discussed in the last question.
Over the three budgets since the publication of that strategy, an additional €164.4 million has been secured in Exchequer and employer funding, with a commitment to deliver a further €100 million by 2030 from the National Training Fund. The €164.4 million includes €58.7 million that was secured in the last budget - budget 2025 - for funding the future. That additional €58.7 million will create space for higher education institutions to increase staffing and capacity, enable a greater alignment of provision with priority skills needs and facilitate the further development of tertiary programmes.
With Government colleagues and elsewhere, I will continue to advocate for continued Exchequer investment in future Estimates processes to deliver on priority commitments, including priorities such as healthcare places, therapy places and tertiary programmes.
I welcome that the Minister said he will try his best to get this but this €307 million deficit was first raised in 2016. The Irish Universities Association, IUA, has said it will not fund pay increases. Has this been sorted? That also lends to this deficit. The austerity programme introduced in the State punished ordinary people and bailed out the banks and the bondholders, and it caused increasing hardship for many of the most vulnerable of our citizens. It is incredible that it is still causing hardship today.
The first Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science promised to reverse the cuts and address the funding gap. This was Simon Harris, and there have been two other Ministers with this portfolio since and nothing has been done. We have an ongoing cost-of-living crisis in the State and yet, hard-pressed parents are asked to shell out for student contributions to try to give their children a good education. Universities have, in some cases, increased the cost of student accommodation to try to bring in funds. This puts further economic strain on students and their parents.
On the Deputy's comment about the two other Ministers since; there have been three Ministers in the past five years since this Department was created. The Tánaiste served for four of those years, the then Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, served for six months and I have been here for two months. Give us a chance and let us see where we are. I will certainly make my best efforts, as the Deputy acknowledged.
The figure has been met. The gap of €307 million was identified and there was the Cassells report which I was there for. I met the author of it at the time. I contributed to that report as a then Opposition TD and the Funding the Future framework brings that up to date. That figure of €307 million has been identified but that has been incrementally brought down. There has been €164 million of investment to date, with a further €100 million to follow in this Government term.
That is a programme for Government commitment. That is one I absolutely intend to honour and I will have those discussions as part of the budget Estimates process. Indeed, I would like the Deputy's support on that because I presume she will be participating in the relevant committee at the time. That is something that is very much a goal of this Government.
I ask again about the pay increases that are not being funded. That is a big issue and while I welcome increased investment in higher education, there is still that deficit to be filled. More funding does not necessarily mean better outcomes if inefficiencies persist. As students already contribute significantly through fees so there is a clear need for the Minister to assess the needs of higher education. I acknowledge the Minister has said he is committed to doing so and I look forward to seeing great advances in third level institutions as education is the key to our future.
The Deputy mentioned more funding does not necessarily lead to greater outcomes. That is why it is all the more important it is delivered in a strategic way and, as I said in my first response, the Funding the Future framework does have that at its core - to align funding with enhanced performance and strategic reforms and quality of outcomes. I agree with the Deputy and that is why we are doing it in a targeted, measured, managed fashion.
In terms of the pay awards, that is a slightly separate issue. Funding in respect of the public sector pay awards is separately provided for as part of the annual budgetary process.
It is not. Has it been?
There was a pay agreement entered into between Government and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions last year and in the Revised Estimates, an amount of €24.9 million was provided in the base for the higher education sector in anticipation of that pay deal being agreed. That is a slightly separate track. I appreciate there are competing priorities, as always.
That highlights the difficulty of any report, be it Cassells or Funding the Future, in anticipating and planning for higher education growth and for core funding to increase because there are always other competing demands and there are emerging issues such as pay disputes and pay awards that can follow. There is then a question of whether that comes from core funding, whether it is additional funding or supplementary funding or how do we make that jigsaw complete. That is part of the ongoing challenge.
4. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science if the bachelor of veterinary medicine will be delivered in Atlantic Technological University, formerly Mountbellew Agricultural College, Galway, in September 2025, as announced by his predecessor; if not, when this course will commence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14918/25]
First, I want to wish the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Harkin, well as I did not formally do it. For a number of years, I have lobbied about veterinary colleges and I welcome the announcement where Letterkenny and Mountbellew was going to be one of them and Carlow-Kilkenny and Waterford was going to be the other.
My understanding was this was going to kick off in September 2025. I have heard it could be September 2026. Can the Minister clarify what is going to happen with that and why it has been delayed?
I thank the Deputy for his kinds words to me and to the Minister of State, Deputy Harkin. We both look forward to serving this Department as a team and bettering the sector.
In terms of the Deputy's question, I am very interested in this area myself. I have made inquiries on it since I assumed the post. As the Deputy is probably aware, the HEA ran an expression of interest process in October 2022 to assess the capacity for expansion in key disciplines including veterinary medicine. Following the completion of the report and consultation with the Department of agriculture at the time, my Department directed the HEA to provide recommendations for the expansion of veterinary medicine education, having regard to competition, balanced regional provisional and diversity of approaches in delivery.
The HEA recommended the proposed programmes in Atlantic Technological University, ATU, and South East Technological University, SETU, be advanced. It is expected these programmes will have an annual intake of 80 additional veterinary students, which nearly doubles the current intake. My predecessor, and the then Minister for agriculture, Deputy McConalogue, accepted that recommendation at the time and jointly announced the planned expansion at the ploughing championships last year. Until that point, UCD was the sole provider of veterinary education in the State. The delivery of a veterinary medicine programme is complex. It involves specialist academic staff, appropriate facilities, laboratory equipment, curriculum development and accreditation is key as well. We can train vets but they need to have their granted accreditation to go out into the field. That programme validation is important as well.
The original estimated timeline for the ATU bachelor of veterinary medicine programme was estimated by the university to extend until September 2025. It recently released a statement that additional time would be necessary for them to validate the programme and to complete infrastructural development before the programme could open for application.
I have visited ATU and I have discussed this with its executive. The Deputy's question is on ATU but I have also visited SETU and had the same conservation with its executive because I am very keen that the veterinary programme should occur quickly. We need it. A significant number of students are studying in Poland and outside the State. The veterinary college in UCD has 90 students. That is inadequate. We need these additional 80 places but I am told by the colleges it will not be happening this year and they are saying it will be September 2026. I just advise the Deputy of that.
There are probably 200 youngsters out of the country at the moment because UCD is not fit to take the numbers who are looking for this. I understand that there is a lot of setting up to it, but the problem is, as the Minister knows in his position, that a delay of three or four months does not work in veterinary or in college because if it is not ready for September 2025, it will not start until September 2026. I know the Minister is only new in his portfolio. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is from this area. He represents Carlow-Kilkenny. They are looking to make sure there is provision in that area, but it would be a great development to have a veterinary college in our area, in the west of Ireland. It would help Mountbellew because there was an agricultural college there. It would also help the college in Letterkenny and places like that where they will be doing the study part of this. I ask the Minister to focus on this and to deliver this for those two areas because it is crucial.
I completely agree with the Deputy. My constituency is in neither catchment but is an agricultural constituency. It is an equine constituency. County Kildare is the home of the horses. I know many people who are interested in these courses and who tell me about the ongoing demand, the need for placements and the need for vets, including large animal vets. Small practice is its own area, of course, but we need people out on the farm and in large animal practice. As regards these programmes, with Kildalton SETU and Mountbellew in ATU, the Minister of State, Deputy Harkin, is a very strong supporter of the programme as well. We have met on it and discussed it, including on site in ATU when we both visited there recently. I give the Deputy my commitment that this will be followed through. The colleges are now saying September 2026. I have no reason to doubt that. It is probably helpful that they are being candid rather than just spinning a wheel for this September if they know at this stage they will not make that. They are being realistic about their target date but I will hold them to it.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I will follow the matter up with him as the months go by.
