Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 2015

National Strategy and Framework for Higher Education: Higher Education Authority

Chairman

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask everyone present to ensure their mobile telephones are turned off or switched to aeroplane safe or flight mode.

As I stated, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the national strategy for higher education to 2030 and the higher education system performance framework 2014-16. I am pleased to welcome from the Higher Education Authority, Mr. Tom Boland, chief executive officer, Mr. Fergal Costello, head of system governance and performance management, and Ms Sarah Fitzgerald, system governance and performance management. I invite Mr. Boland to make the first of two presentations on behalf of the HEA. Mr. Costello will make the second presentation, after which members will ask questions. Their opening statements will be published on the committee website after the meeting.

Mr. Tom Boland

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to attend today's meeting. This journey began in February 2011 when the then Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, announced his commitment to a major reform of higher education following broadly the strategy set out in the national strategy for higher education to 2030, colloquially known as the Hunt report. Since then, the Higher Education Authority has taken on the mandate for leading implementation of the reform programme. We welcome this opportunity to brief and discuss with them some of the key aspects of the reform.

The context of the reform is the increasing demand for higher education. Our submission includes a graph showing projected future demand. It indicates that the number of new entrants to higher education is projected to rise sharply from the current figure of approximately 45,000 to 50,000 in 2020 and close to 60,000 by 2028. This substantial growth is driven purely by demographic change, with the number of school leavers set to grow every year to 2028. The projected increase refers solely to those who are already in the system. This rate of growth will mean we will do no more than maintain current participation, although increasing participation is a policy objective. The green line in the graph shows what would happen if we were unable to facilitate such growth in numbers and keep the number of entrants steady. In such circumstances, the participation rate would begin a sharp and sustained decline, which would have severe implications on two fronts. First, it would impact on our ability to meet the skills needs of the economy because we need more graduates and, second, it would severely damage the drive for equity of access and participation.

Resources are a key determinant of outcomes, both in terms of the efficiency with which they are deployed and the actual amount of resource available. In this respect, the story is troubling. Between 2008 and 2014, total income per student decreased by 22%. This reduction in the resources available is reflected in the reduction of approximately 2,000 staff across the system. To give members a sense of the magnitude of the decline in staff numbers, it is equivalent to closing University College Dublin, our largest university, and redistributing all of its students across the system. The student contribution has also increased significantly in recent years.

The Higher Education Authority and higher education sector in general recognise the fundamental crisis the country has endured in recent years and the necessity or virtual inevitability of such funding constraints. It is fair to note that the sector has accommodated increasing numbers of students throughout the economic crisis and continues to produce high quality graduates. The key point, however, is that this is not a sustainable position.

While struggling with current problems, it is important to look to the future and consider the role of higher education in that future. Evidence of an economic recovery is mounting. The Higher Education Authority sees this evidence in the improved employment outcomes for graduates and projections for the labour market prepared by SOLAS which show increasing demand for graduates. The SOLAS research, which was published in 2013 and is based on the ESRI medium-term review 2013-20, indicates that in a scenario of economic recovery, which is to be hoped for and appears increasingly likely, graduate outflow at the current projected level would fall short of labour market demand by 20% or 7,000 graduates per annum. There is now compelling evidence that the economy is recovering much faster than even the optimistic assumptions. SOLAS and the ESRI presented three scenarios for total employment in the labour market for 2020. Of these, the first option has already been exceeded and I expect the figure in the second scenario will be overtaken this year. At current rates of job creation, the third scenario will be realised well before 2020. In that context, as members are probably aware, the most recent figures indicate that unemployment has declined further to 10.5%. When one considers that it stood at 15.1% just two years ago, one gets some sense of the dynamic at work.

In another indication of the importance of higher education, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, issued a policy statement on foreign direct investment on 30 July 2014. In a section entitled "Nurturing our key differentiators", talent tops the list. The document states: "Ireland will be distinguished internationally not only by having a sustainable supply of world class core competences, but also by the higher order abilities of its workforce and graduate output". There is no doubt, therefore, that we need more well-qualified graduates. I propose to address how the reform agenda will contribute to meeting this requirement.

At its core, the reform agenda has one objective, namely, better quality outcomes, which is to be achieved by the creation of a more co-ordinated system of higher education institutions with clear missions replacing a more incoherent system of poorly collaborating, stand-alone institutions. This is to be combined with reform of the relationship between the State and higher education institutions, with a change of focus from inputs to outcomes and funding contingent in part on performance. The reason we need better quality outcomes is to meet demands, including demand from the economy for high-level skills, from would-be students for access to the life enhancing impact of a higher education qualification and of a vibrant, successful society. To meet these demands we need reform at a number of levels, specifically in structures, funding and governance.

I will briefly outline some key elements of reform. The first element is the creation of a co-ordinated system which delivers to national objectives. For the first time, a Government has set out its objectives for higher education. These include meeting skills needs, equity of access, excellence and accountability. The Higher Education Authority is accountable to the Minister for the creation of a coherent system approach to meeting these objectives.

Each higher education institution has entered into an agreement or a compact with the Higher Education Authority on how it proposes to address national objectives in a manner that is appropriate to its mission and strengths. The compacts also include metrics by which performance is to be measured. In subsequent years, as well as setting targets for successive periods, the Higher Education Authority will assess performance against agreed metrics, with up to 10% of funding contingent on outcomes.

Far reaching reform of the initial teacher education is firmly on track and will result in initial teacher education becoming university based, research led and integrated. This reform offers the prospect of improving the quality of education delivered to pupils across the entire education system.

Ireland must continue to value and support technological education in higher education. In addition to the continuation of institutes of technology, the national strategy identified the need to provide some institutes of technology with a developmental path towards university status. Technological universities will be universities, albeit with a strong technological focus, with close ties to enterprise in the development and will focus on delivery of academic programmes and research and programmes that are vocationally oriented from levels six to ten. The Higher Education Authority has recently overseen a process of review by an international panel of the plans of two of the three consortia which are seeking technological university status. Both plans have been approved to proceed towards the fourth and final stage of the process.

A particularly important feature of the structural reform of the sector, one which is worth special attention, is the development of regional clusters of higher education institutions, five of which have been established. This policy approach is consistent with developments internationally.

In March 2014, a British university think tank report stated:

In challenging economic times, government needs to invest in measures and assets that the regions already possess. These assets include so-called 'anchor institutions' ... that are inextricably linked to the history and character of the places in which they are situated. Universities are anchor institutions par excellence.

The OECD, if I might briefly quote it, states:

Higher education institutions can make a significant contribution to regional economic, social and cultural development. With globalisation this role is growing in importance. Too often the potential for synergy is thwarted by failures of communication between regional stakeholders and HEIs, weak or unclear policy signals, and conflicting agendas in institutions.

This statement well reflects the Irish policy context. The HEA expects close collaboration between the institutions in a cluster, in the first instance around two priority objectives set by the Minister – academic planning and delivery and pathways to support access. However, this is just a beginning. The HEA also plans for much wider development of the clusters, and we will use strategic dialogue and funding instruments to that end. To generate the synergies referred to by the OECD, the clusters will be required to operate as knowledge hubs in close association with stakeholders, both public and private, including education and training boards, SOLAS and Enterprise Ireland, as well as enterprise and community interests.

There are several other valuable contributions to the reform process. These include improving the transition from second level to higher education. This includes such important objectives as simplifying the range of options, which sometimes can be confusing and unhelpful, being faced by students as they consider programmes in higher education. The HEA has also supported the establishment of the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning with the objective of supporting the development of good practice in teaching and learning and disseminating it within the higher education sector.

A further valuable development has been the inclusion by Government of SOLAS within the remit of Minister for Education and Skills. There is now a unique opportunity to take a whole of post-secondary education view of education and skills development. The relationship between further and higher education also has particular relevance in the pursuit of educational equity.

An important element of the reform agenda, and the HEA's mandate, is its accountability to the Minister, and through her, to the Government, for the performance of the higher education system. In June 2014, we made our first report to the Minister on the performance of the system. The process leading to the report will be outlined to the committee shortly by Mr. Costello. The report showed a system operating well to meet national objectives and showing strong ambition for future performance. While that is welcome, the HEA felt that this positive and optimistic note had to be balanced by our deep concern for the funding of the system and potential risks to quality. In our report, we stated:

It is the view of the HEA that there is now a high, and growing, level of risk that significant unfunded expansion in student numbers will damage the quality of graduate outcomes, defeat the objective of improving the quality of outcomes generally across the system and restrict economic development.

The HEA advises that the development and implementation of a comprehensive policy on funding of higher education is an urgent national priority requiring a whole of Government response.

These comments accurately capture the sense of urgency felt by the HEA on the need to find a solution to the funding of higher education. The setting up of an expert group, under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Cassells, to review the situation and to report to the Minister for Education and Skills by 2015 is a welcome development. I understand that Mr. Cassells will meet the committee at some point in the near future. The group recently issued a comprehensive paper to start the process of public engagement with its work, considering the demand for, and benefits of, higher education. In the meantime, and it may be two-to-three years before the impact of any recommendations from the funding group emerges and can be felt, demand for higher education will continue unabated and resources continue to be diluted. Therein lies the concern of the HEA.

Irish higher education is undergoing the most radical reform in the history of the State - that is no small boast. Its objective is to improve on the high quality we already enjoy from the sector and to equip it to meet future demand. Reform is happening with little fanfare and with strong commitment and leadership from the higher education institutions themselves. It will have a fundamental and lasting impact on the quality of the student experience and on the quality of the intellectual talent and skill-sets available in Ireland. There are grounds for much optimism but we urgently need to address the unavoidable connections between the funding of higher education research, the number of graduates and the quality of graduates and research outcomes, and the health of the society and economy.

I have tried to sketch out some of the high-level strategic issues. Mr. Costello, if it is appropriate at this point, and taking a less of the committee's time than I have taken, will outline some of the detail around strategic dialogue.

Mr. Fergal Costello

I will pick up on some of Mr. Boland's points. I will talk through the process by which we have engaged in what we call "strategic dialogue" with the higher education institutions. It is one that we are developing. We are still learning as we go through this. To date, the process has been quite successful in terms of what we tried to achieve. It is a process that has been looked at by other countries as to how to provide a model for future direction and steering of higher education.

The process is underpinned by a set of national priorities identified by the Minister and agreed by Government. That is the starting point. The priorities identified were economic renewal and development at national and regional levels; social cohesion, cultural development and equity, both nationally and regionally; public sector reform towards greater effectiveness and efficiency; and restoration of Ireland's international reputation. That sets the backdrop.

Within that, there are specific objectives for the higher education system set out for 2014 to 2016 and it is against those that the system will be held accountable. Those objectives are to meet Ireland's human capital needs across the spectrum of skills by engaged institutions through a diverse mix of provision across the system and through both core-funding and targeted initiatives; to promote access for disadvantaged groups and to put in place coherent pathways from second level education, further education and other non-traditional entry routes; to promote excellence in teaching and learning to underpin a high-quality student experience; to maintain an open and excellent public research system focused on the priority areas identified by Government and the achievement of other societal objectives and to maximise research collaborations and knowledge exchange between and among public and private sector research actors; to ensure that Ireland's higher education institutions will be globally competitive and internationally oriented, and Ireland will be a world-class centre of international education; to reform practices and restructure the system for quality and diversity; and to increase accountability of autonomous institutions for public funding and against national priorities.

Taking those national objectives as a starting point, each higher education institution, HEI, was requested by the HEA, having regard to its mission and strengths, to set out how it proposed to address those high-level objectives set out by the Minister. The HEIs were also required to state specific targets and objectives that would be met over a three-year period. Those proposals and submissions of the institutions were reviewed by the HEA, with the advice of a panel of external experts, both Irish and international, and were the subject of negotiation with each HEI. Out of that process came what we call a "compact" between the HEA and each institution. This compact is our reference point to monitor performance by the institution over the three-year period.

By aggregating the individual compacts, we are in a position to provide an overall picture of system performance, as well as considering individual institutional activity. Where system performance is identified to be falling short of national objectives, the HEA can engage with all or some institutions to realign objectives, the better to meet those national objectives.

It is important to stress that in designing the process, the HEA has been aware of international evidence that this should be a dialogue rather than a simple command and control approach. The autonomy of our institutions has proven to be highly valuable, providing creativity, innovation and efficiencies that could not have otherwise been achieved. The strategic dialogue seeks to work with that concept of autonomy, not to compel institutions to deliver objectives but to require institutions to conduct a searching self-evaluation as to how they, depending on their own particular strengths and capacities, can deliver against the national objectives set out.

As part of the system, as part of our accountability responsibility, the HEA is required annually to make a report to the Minister for Education and Skills on the performance of the system against national objectives. As Mr. Boland outlined, we made our first report in mid-2014. The key findings in that first system report include the following. The Irish higher education system is a high performing system. This is demonstrated by certain features, such as the resilience and responsiveness of the system during the economic crisis when 25,000 extra students came into the system, which facilitated retraining and up-skilling at a time of declining budgets. The report also found that there is an essential need to facilitate further growth in student numbers, and such growth should be planned not only in terms of higher education but in terms of post-secondary activity - the range of opportunities that are available in higher education and further education. In the compacts, the system of institutions has committed to further reform and has set challenging targets in key areas, such as participation, access, research and internationalisation.

The decline in funding, together with that sharp growth in numbers, means that the system is becoming more fragile. Key areas of concern we identified were the sharp decline in staff-student ratios, emerging skills shortages in an increasing range of labour market areas and difficulties in sustaining widening access to higher education.

The report also found enablers are required to allow the system to continue to contribute, in particular through reform of the regulatory framework within which our institutions operate. The failure to meet the objectives the Minister has set out is not just a failure for higher education but is a failure in terms of broader Irish societal and economic competitiveness and development. The full findings are contained in the system report, copies of which we have forwarded to the committee.

In 2015 we are currently completing an interim review with institutions of their performance to date, and intend in autumn 2015 to more formally review progress against the performance targets set. Those findings will in turn inform funding allocations to institutions for 2016 with up to 10% of funding allocations for 2016 contingent on performance against those established targets.

The new process is a major reform of Irish higher education. It has already improved the transparency and accountability of the system not just to the HEA and Department, but to a wider public. There remains much to be done, and that work is ongoing. We would welcome an opportunity to return to the committee at a future date and provide an update on the progress we are making.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I join the Chairman in welcoming the HEA CEO, Mr. Tom Boland, and his colleagues, Mr. Costello and Ms Fitzgerald. I thank them for their presentations.

At the end of his presentation, Mr. Boland said there were many grounds for optimism, but he said we urgently need to address the unavoidable connections between the funding of higher education and research, the number of graduates, the quality of graduates and research outcomes and the health of our economy and society. The overall theme coming through is that although the HEA is doing much good work in terms of what is available to it, as an overseeing and managing body for the third level sector it has grave concerns over the sector's ability to perform the task expected of it without urgent address of the funding situation.

Mr. Boland also mentioned his concern that the follow-through on the recommendations from the group under Mr. Cassells might take two to three years. I ask him to flesh out further his concern over that. I also ask him to take us through the discussions that have taken place over the past four or five years over funding of the sector. It seems to have been kicked around a bit and several reports have been commissioned. However, it seems that action continues to be delayed. I am concerned that the latest working group under Mr. Cassells is leading to further delay rather than action on previous recommendations.

I ask for an update on the technological universities, particularly in the south east. On clustering and the HEA's work with the ITS, there has been some concern in recent times that there has been some mission drift from the IT sector relative to the original objectives. Is that a matter of concern for the HEA? Is it being addressed?

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

I welcome the witnesses. An Teachta McConalogue asked about the resource issues and I would be interested to hear the witnesses' comments on that.

As one who comes from the west, I am interested in the geographic dispersal of students. One of the key system objectives is to promote access for disadvantaged groups, putting in place coherent pathways from second level education. It shows that the geographic pockets of socioeconomic disadvantage have remained like that following decades of Government policies that have concentrated poverty in these areas. Do the witnesses agree with that statement?

A student survey as part of the strategy was published in 2013. What other goals from the strategy have been achieved? Has any progress been made to facilitate greater mobility of staff between higher education on the one hand, and enterprise and the public service on the other, to promote knowledge flows and to capitalise on the expertise within higher education for the benefit of society and the economy? Has any progress been made on the strategic goal of having contracts for academic staff reviewed with a view to recognising academics' professional standing and requiring comparable levels of accountability to those in place in the wider public and private sectors?

Coming from Galway, I cannot let the opportunity go without asking about the issue of equality in NUI Galway. I have met people from the SIPTU academic branch in NUIG. Their sense is that there is a culture of inequality across the broader third level sector. Has the HEA any methodologies in place as part of this strategic plan to investigate that and to ensure it does not happen?

As a Gaeilgeoir, I am concerned that I do not see anything regarding the Irish language. Where do the Irish language, Irish language education and staffing levels in the Irish language sit within the overall framework?

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

I do not know where to start. I will ask one general question to Mr. Boland. Does he believe there would be a place to write a national strategy for higher education about teaching at third level? Based on my reading of the National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030, we seem to have this fear to align it independently to what it is. It is consistently aligned to research. Of course, it has to come out of that in so far as no one will be teaching without any background. As a discipline and as the way forward in third level education, it is the only one. It is certainly one of the major ones.

I can see that there has been great progress because at one stage there was research and administration, which was at the lowest end of the scale in terms of priorities. The HEA has made great progress in this respect. Would it be possible to write a strategy about teaching? What does the Higher Education Authority consider to be great qualitative teaching at third level? That is the real question. It does not obfuscate itself in massive qualitative, creative, ethereal answers that go on for pages. What university or third level institution is responding to this challenge in an interesting, creative, imaginative and different way?

Much of the research in the document is taken from the Carnegie Foundation, or other organisations from Boston or elsewhere in the United States. Do we have our own research? I am aware that Áine Hyland and others work very closely, but they come from teacher-training backgrounds.

What has the Higher Education Authority done to insist that anybody who walks in the door to an undergraduate or postgraduate class has an actual teaching qualification and not something set up by the HR department, which is some kind of a course given by somebody with an overhead projector? Under this approach there is no difference between teaching nine-year olds and 19-year olds. All that changes is the level of the information and the fact that one wants students to continue learning themselves. One expects that from a nine-year old as well.

I taught in third level for a long time. I remember armies of people setting themselves up in third level as the teaching and learning unit. Some of them had never stood in front of a classroom containing, 30 students, 14 postgraduates or 55 undergraduates.

They were throwing out verbs like "understand", "relate", "quality" and "add". It was interminable but nothing was done.

As I am fearful about that, I will revert to my major question to the HEA which Mr. Boland may be able to answer. Does he think someone could write the strategy for teaching and what is meant by it? While many papers have been written about it, I am talking about something far more generic off which to bounce. Where does the HEA see the arts within third level education? I am not talking about the music departments in UCD or in UCC run by the great Kellys but about where the HEA sees them fitting in within third level education. They appear to be disappearing as greater numbers of economists are engaged. We are rolling over - tummies in the air - and getting them scratched by every banker, economist, technology person or great computer person who walks in the door. We are all rolling over. Where does the HEA envisage universities having a role to play in the breakdown of the apartheid in education between apprenticeships and how a university perceives itself? I do not include the VECs in this as I believe some of them are the finest universities in Ireland. I acknowledge these are big concepts and thank Mr. Boland, who might try to answer some of my questions.

Senator Averil Power

I apologise for not being present for the HEA's initial presentations although I caught some of them on the monitor upstairs. I have a few questions that have not yet been touched on. The witnesses might provide members with more detail in respect of the growing concern that there may be a shortage of places for the next third level year. The concern is that students will be either unable to get places or the points will increase exponentially for some courses as a result of lack of supply. The HEA might give members its analysis on the extent of the problem and whether measures are being taken to deal with it and to ensure there will be sufficient space.

The broadening of entry routes has been discussed previously by the joint committee with the universities and the institutes of technology. How much progress has been made in ensuring that, for example, students in first year are not going into mechanical engineering where there is a limited number of places but instead are going into engineering as a whole? There have been discussions here previously about the Australian model, where people enter faculties rather than specific courses. How much progress has been made and when will real change become evident? While there has been some tinkering in recent years by individual institutions, when will real, systematic change take place?

There has been concern about Irish institutions falling in the international rankings. While I can understand this concern, one also must be mindful that these rankings do not capture everything one would wish. They over-emphasise some areas, while not giving acknowledgement to others. Both the country and the HEA would wish to measure the institutions both on their research, teaching standards and facilities and their contributions to the local economy, extent of access, provision for people with disability, second-chance education and so on. I made a suggestion to the Minister in the Seanad last week that the HEA might consider bringing in its own system whereby the country's priority areas would be set out and there would be a transparent system of publishing how individual institutions are comparing against an agreed set of metrics. I seek the witnesses' feedback in this regard.

I believe Mr. Boland stated that in future, the performance metrics will be used to determine 10% of the funding that goes to individual institutions. The presentation also states "In subsequent years". When will that be and how close are we to doing that?

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I thank Mr. Boland and his team. At the outset, I compliment Mr. Boland on his availability to anybody who wishes to discuss the strategy at any time. His energy sometimes amazes me. He has been available to the unions and to various conferences nationwide and I compliment him on that. I am a little concerned by the requirement for mergers before the establishment of technological universities. My colleague, Deputy McConalogue, adverted to the position in the south east. It is clear there is not a happy relationship there and while I do not necessarily want Mr. Boland to go into it, were one to believe everything one reads, it would suggest that at present, one of the institutions concerned is ready to go while the other is a lame duck trotting along behind. It strikes me that if the south east is ready to go with one institution, this probably should be considered.

The cluster issue also causes me some concern. If one considers the west-north-west cluster, it proposes the inclusion of Letterkenny Institute of Technology as part of a cluster that extends as far east as Athlone, as well as taking in Galway, Sligo and Castlebar. If one is travelling to Galway from Letterkenny for a meeting, it is a two-day journey as far as I am concerned. Therefore, I am a little concerned as to the direction being taken in trying to force together these institutions. Is the underlying aim to rationalise? In the context of rationalisation, what will happen to regional provision? Again, taking Letterkenny as an example, despite its international reputation the catering school in Killybegs was closed and moved to Letterkenny. I acknowledge there are probably funding issues there, which brings me to the issue of funding and the funding of the mergers. From what I can gather, the HEA seeks greater resources, yet the mergers are to go ahead based on whatever funding currently is available, which means cutting deeper into the current system. I would welcome Mr. Boland's views on that.

The relationship between further education and higher education in Ireland has baffled me for the past 20 years. One can take year 1 and year 2 of a further education course in many further education colleges and then transfer to year 3 in a British university. However, in Irish institutes of technology and universities one must go back to year 1 with little acknowledgement of the period of study in further education colleges. Why are the British able to accept our level 5 and level 6 qualifications, while our own institutions are not? There is a breakdown in link-up in this regard.

Senator O'Donnell referred to the apprenticeship issue. There is a huge job of work to do to upgrade apprenticeship because each time I see a graduation of a class of higher education students, I wonder how many of them would have made good mechanics, painters or whatever. This is a role here for both SOLAS and the HEA.

With regard to the attrition rates in first year and leaving aside the issue of attrition altogether, there are also latent aspects of attrition if one falls out of year 1 of a course for which one was completely mismatched. We ask children of 17 or 18 years of age to choose a course that will determine their career trajectory. They may find when they embark on the course that it is not what they expected and there is no second alternative or second chance. I acknowledge some institutions will allow a little flexibility in first year if one wishes to move across courses. However, if one is deemed to have fallen out, the financial cost is astronomical. Has the HEA strategies in place for this?

Chairman

We will come back for further questions. Does Mr. Tom Boland wish to respond?

Mr. Tom Boland

I hope to address all those questions with the assistance of my colleagues, as well as any supplementary questions where I have overlooked something. A good starting point is with Deputy McConalogue's issues regarding funding because ultimately, it is the issue that underpins just about everything. For a number of years - for all the reasons of which we are aware - the resource per student has been falling dramatically. Although it is very hard to set it out in real empirical terms, there is a connection between the resource per student available and the quality of outcomes. At present, we are not seeing evidence of significant damage to quality.

What tends to happen in a situation like that is that one does not see the damage to quality until it is done. Unwinding that then becomes the problem.

However, we are seeing very clearly, from student surveys for instance, that there is a deterioration in the quality of the student experience in higher education. That does not involve students having a good time. A very concrete example is the perception of students, which is a reality for them, of there being much less connection between academic staff and the student. It is very important for all students, in particular for those who are weaker academically, that they are mentored through the higher education system. Simply because of a lack of resources or resources being stretched, and the number of students involved, there is less of that happening.

Taken over a long period of time, if a student does not get that kind of mentoring, inevitably it will eat away at the quality of the graduates from our sector. Above all things, Ireland needs to avoid a situation where the quality of our graduates is called into question, nationally or internationally. They are probably our largest resource as a country. That is the kind of dynamic which is happening.

A Deputy asked why it has not been dealt with sooner. To be frank, it is a very difficult issue. Setting up the group under Peter Cassells is an excellent initiative. I am a member of the group. The process is taking some time because the group is not jumping into the options. It is taking an approach which involves asking why higher education is important and what it contributes. It is trying to build up a broader understanding, across all stakeholders, of the importance and value of higher education and why it should be funded, however that funding is to be provided.

The HEA provided one report to the then Minister some five years ago. We were not then in the space of the very severe constraints on public funding, constraints which are likely to continue for quite a number of years. At the time our approach was to outline our funding in regard to international comparisons. We need to go much deeper and develop a coalition of understanding as to why higher education is important and how we might fund it.

As I highlighted in my opening statement, in the meantime we have to be concerned because numbers are growing - they need to grow - yet resources are not available. A couple of things might help. I fully accept the challenges to the Government, but it would help if there were no further cuts to the higher education budget. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has signalled that there was some adjustment to the employment control framework. This is important because rather than giving more money to institutions, sometimes one can get great efficiencies and impact from existing resources by giving them more freedom.

I understand the purpose of the employment control framework, but it is time to move away from a crude control of numbers and give institutions more freedom in terms of how to structure their human resources within a budget and safeguards for public finances now and in the future. In that context, the institutions should have more flexibility around voluntary redundancy schemes, because it would give them more flexibility in regard to how they manage their staff.

We would advocate considering some of those issues in the short term. Another area which is quite important concerns allowing institutions to be more entrepreneurial, in other words, to make money for themselves. There is a provision for universities in terms of a framework whereby they can set up companies and pay academic staff some additional pay to support the activities of that company.

A good example is where a university has a business school which is providing programmes in China and is earning a significant amount of funding from that activity. It is no good for the university to employ Chinese staff to provide the courses in China because the reason the Chinese are interested in the programme is because it is an Irish university programme. They have to have significant involvement by Irish academics, but at the same time they have their jobs at home.

The corporations framework, as it is known, will have given some freedom to the universities in that regard. It allows them to leverage their resources, such as highly qualified academic staff, to earn revenue. In broad terms, they are some of the short-term and long-term areas where we would suggest some freedoms for the sector to the Departments of Education and Skills and Public Expenditure and Reform.

I will seek to address some of the other issues. I totally agree with Senator Ó Clochartaigh about the importance of access in terms of the regional dispersal of institutions. One of the noted successes in our higher education system is the regional technical colleges, as they initially were, and the institutes of technology. There is absolutely no intention to unsettle or dismantle that. It is a well-recognised aspect of our system. We are currently holding meetings with the institutions and regional clusters.

We had a meeting on Monday with the Dublin Institute of Technology, IT Tallaght and IT Blanchardstown. A very fundamental part of their approach to coming together as a single institution is that each campus will be a complete campus, not in the sense of providing the full suite of academic programmes but in terms of all of the student services. It is important to have fully equipped campuses in the regions.

Chairman

There have been complaints from some members about the high level of activity on their computers when witnesses are speaking. It is somewhat distracting.

Senator Averil Power

I prefer to take notes. They are of more use to me later.

Chairman

I am not referring to any one Senator. A few people have devices on. I have been asked, as Chairman, to make that point.

Mr. Tom Boland

I will try to be brief but cover the points. On NUI Galway and equality, the university has received particular publicity in recent weeks. Regrettably, it is not unique in terms of the relationship between the proportion of female academics and female professors. Ireland is not unique, unfortunately, and there are a wide range of issues.

Tomorrow will mark an important event. The Minister for Education and Skills will launch the Athena SWAN charter. All seven universities and 14 institutes of technology have signed up to it. It is a self-enforcing system whereby institutions commit themselves to the principles of the charter, which concern gender equality and are currently focused on science and mathematics, and submit themselves, initially on a school basis and ultimately on an institutional basis, to international peer review of how they are performing. The results are published accordingly.

I will not go into it in detail now but they have a system of bronze, silver and gold medals for both schools and institutions. The value of that is that, first, it will give an impetus to the issue of equality; it will allow sharing of best practice and; for the institutes and universities that have committed to it - all of them have - it will mean that there will be a way of assessing their progress over time.

At the same time, and in this context also, the HEA is considering whether it would be an appropriate time for us to conduct a wide-ranging review of equality policies and how they are being implemented across the sector. We have the power to do that. One of the things I would like to consider with the board in the context of the Athena SWAN process, which has a strong review element in it as well, is how we would meld those two processes together. It is a live issue in the HEA and in the Department. If members have an opportunity they can watch that space tomorrow in the course of the launch of the Athena SWAN charter.

On the Irish language, as a matter of statute the institutions have a responsibility to promote the Irish language. While we have just spoken in somewhat negative terms about NUI Galway, of course it does very positive things, in particular in the area of the Irish language. The HEA does not have a specific programme in this regard.

Mr. Fergal Costello

What we have done in the past is to delegate specific funding to institutions to help them maintain an infrastructure for the support of both the teaching of Irish in terms of students and also more generally in terms of conversation. We continue to do that and to get reports on that. I would be happy to get the detailed information and provide it to the committee. The funding is not massive. Unfortunately, we do not have a great deal of funding, but if we were not able to specifically ring-fence and earmark it, it might fall even further. We are trying to continue to support the Irish language in that way.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

The reason I raised the question is that a number of institutions are doing very good work, for example, DCU and Fiontar, and a number of the teacher training colleges but there does not seem to be an overall strategy. The approach seems quite piecemeal and I wonder in the context of a broader strategy on education whether it is something that could be considered because it would draw all of those very positive elements together. The staffing of the institutions is an issue as well in terms of having academic staff who can teach through the medium of Irish.

Mr. Fergal Costello

One of the things that has re-energised the debate in recent years has been the focus, in particular at a European level, on Irish as an official language and the need to make sure we are providing skilled translators. The relevant Department is working with the HEA on that to support particular programmes. We will get the detail on it for the committee.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

I thank Mr. Costello.

Mr. Tom Boland

I am heartened to hear Senator O’Donnell's strong plea for teaching. We strongly support the view that lecturers in higher education have as much a need for a professional qualification as a primary schoolteacher. Progress is being made in that space. A very particular element of the progress is the setting up about two years ago of the Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning with funding from the HEA. The forum made a comprehensive presentation to the board of the HEA last week. Senator O’Donnell might get an opportunity to review the website. The objective of the forum is very much along the lines she spoke about. It is about giving greater visibility to the teaching mission of higher education institutions, and also to share best practice, identify where there are poor practices and to disseminate best practice internationally generally with a very strong focus on improving the quality of teaching and therefore the quality of learning in higher education institutions.

Those of us who have been in the higher education system – it has obviously been quite a while since I have been – have all had the experience of some quite poor teaching as well as the evidence of some very inspirational teaching. This forum is our recognition at the level of the HEA and the Department of Education and Skills of the importance of the teaching mission of higher education. The perception reflects the reality that there is a very strong focus in institutions and outside them on research outcomes, spin-out companies and all of that good stuff, but the key outcome and output from the higher education system is human capital – people with knowledge and skills, well-educated people in their discipline and for life. That requires high quality teaching as well as a good student experience to improve the capacity of students to engage with their learning in a really constructive way. The committee should make no mistake about it; this is a very high priority for the HEA. We are not proposing to do as the committee suggested – to devise a strategy for higher education, other than that our strategic approach to the quality of teaching is in fact the creation and the support of the Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. Already in a short space of time it is showing great progress. Perhaps Mr. Costello wishes to add something.

Mr. Fergal Costello

I have two points to add. The development of the student survey provides a further way of bringing the student voice into the equation. For too long it has not been as powerful as it should have been in terms of saying what is working and what is not working and how institutions are responding to what students perceive.

Another point relates to arts and humanities in the higher education sector and the stance of the HEA. The stance of the HEA is very positive, almost championing, in terms of the role of arts and humanities. There is a lot of evidence at this stage that there is no economic issue; arts and humanities graduates produce just as much impact, but perhaps in different career paths as STEM graduates. They are equally valuable. Our funding model does not discriminate. We do not have a bias towards science or engineering. We let students determine.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

More money is put into science.

Mr. Fergal Costello

It is true that we put more money in but that is because the nature of the teaching tends to be more expensive. That is not a judgmental statement; it is just the nature of the teaching tends to be more expensive.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

It does not give the results the arts give. Anyway, that is my view.

Mr. Fergal Costello

The key point is that we try to be fair. If the costs are different we try to recognise that.

One of the remarkable features in Irish higher education demand is that in the past 30 years 25% to 30% of Irish students continue to choose arts and humanities. It is a valid student choice. They continue to want to do it and we want to continue to support that.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

That was my question.

Mr. Tom Boland

Part of the basis for the Senator's question is a genuine one. When people talk about higher education, in particular when they talk about research, they focus very strongly on the science, technology, mathematics subjects as if that was the only area which had economic impact. There is a dawning reality internationally that the real power of innovation lies in multidisciplinary approaches – mixing the arts and humanities and STEM disciplines together. There are no major challenges facing the world that do not require both a hard science approach and a social science or humanities approach. It requires a blend of disciplines. The arts are a key part of the education sector and we would downgrade it at our peril. There is no danger of that from a policy point of view in the HEA.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

There is something very sad about having to have young students tell us where we are going wrong in our teaching. We should have a proper strategy and know what we mean by qualitative teaching across all disciplines. We take that very much for granted at third level. We do not take it so much for granted at first level and second level. That is what I meant by my remark earlier.

One of the things that leads to a deterioration in the student experience is the fact that a lot of the brochures from the universities’ admission departments are massive Las Vegas lies. They promise the students a world of experience. They promise them a thousand things but the promises do not manifest. That is true of departments as well as within faculties. The students come in with an expectation. I do not refer to student societies, I refer to their learning experience. The expectation falls consistently in numbers, groups, involvement and project work.

The involvement in project work falls consistently. Universities need to be very careful about the selling element, which is really not the suite they are getting at all. We would serve ourselves very well in this country if we sat down and asked exactly what do we mean by teaching at third level, what do we understand by quality across all disciplines, in order to see if we can devise a massive strategy and decide how we can lock into it.

Mr. Tom Boland

Much of that is addressed. For instance, on the issue of quality-----

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

I will look at this document.

Mr. Tom Boland

Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, has a particular remit in the area of quality and what constitutes a quality programme. The Senator is correct.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

I asked Mr. Boland what university was doing it and leading the way in this regard.

Mr. Tom Boland

I have no intention of answering that question.

Chairman

I will allow the Senator to ask supplementary questions.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

I beg the Chairman's pardon and I thank her.

Mr. Tom Boland

I agree with Senator O'Donnell. There is no question that teaching in higher education has been taken for granted in the past. However, I think it is being taken considerably less for granted now, and this will be the case in the future. The promotion system is part of that. I will answer Senator Power's questions when she returns to the meeting. I will also answer Deputy McConalogue's questions about the technological university, TU, in the south east. I will ask Mr. Fergal Costello to comment in a moment on Senator O'Donnell's question about apprenticeship and universities as he is very knowledgeable on that issue.

Senator Craughwell mentioned a few issues and he asked why we have mergers before TU status is granted. There are two motivating factors for the policy decision to develop technological universities; one is to do with the fact that Ireland has, based on its population, a very large number of institutions - I was going to say "too many", but what is too many? - with seven universities and 14 institutes of technology. The policy view was that our system could be better if there were fewer institutions. There is no proposal currently to merge any of the universities, but certainly with regard to the institutes of technology, given their size in particular, it was seen that some consolidation - some merging of those institutions into a smaller number - would have value for the institutions concerned, for the regions they serve and for their students. One of the objectives of the TU concept is to give a dynamic to that merger system, but the mergers have a value in themselves, even if they do not materialise into a technological university.

There is another motivating feature for a technological university. Some institutes of technology have the capacity to operate at university level, right up from level six to level ten, and they do so within the technological space. For instance, in seeking to bring technological education up to the highest levels of university education, one could try to entice some of the existing universities into that space. It might be successful, and some of them are less or more technologically focused than others. However, it would take a long time to do so. One way of doing it would be to invite the institutions - those that believe they have the capacity to do so - to put themselves forward for technological university status. In that context, what we want are high-quality technological universities, and to a degree, quality is also predicated on size and on scale. There is a view that there are many very small institutions all over the world which are of the highest quality, and American institutions are often cited, many of which are fine endowments. Such institutions do in fact exist. However, in an Irish context, given our structure and the strengths and capacities of the institutes of technology, better technological universities would be created by bigger institutions. The only way this can be achieved is by bringing institutions together to achieve that kind of scale. With one possible exception, there is no institute of technology in the country that would be big enough to compete internationally as a technological university. There is an objective to rationalise and to reduce numbers, but in the context of the need for a merger before an institution can become a technological university, it is primarily to do with ensuring that what is created is something of substance, of scale and of quality.

Deputy McConalogue raised the question of the proposal for a technological university in the south east. We are all very well aware - because it has been very public - of the difficulties that the institutions are experiencing there. The Minister for Education and Skills has appointed Michael Kelly to review the situation with two institutes in particular. I am hopeful of an outcome that can bring the two institutes together, but I will not attempt to predict the outcome. However, the work being undertaken by Mr. Kelly is worth doing. There is great potential for those two institutes to become a technological university and I think it is worth exploring it in a good deal more detail before people reach any conclusion that it cannot happen.

On the question of further education and higher education, the Senator is singing our song. One of the strategic objectives that both the country and the education system need to have is much greater coherence in post-second-level education - to join up further education and higher education in a fundamental, structured and strategic way. I wish to stress that further education has a value in and of itself, but it also has a value in terms of the progression of young people from second level education into higher education. The regional clusters already have a particular role in this regard. The creation of pathways is one of the two priorities decided by the Minister for the clusters to achieve. Even one year into the process we are seeing some reasonable progress in this space, but a great deal more needs to be done to join up higher education and further education so that there can be that kind of seamless transition to which the Senator referred from one sector to the other, and so that students will know in advance, if they enter into a programme in a further education college, that if they wish, their trajectory is through the institutes of technology at level six and upwards and towards university.

The funding of mergers was mentioned. The reality is that funding is, to say the least, very tight. The HEA has provided some funding for the restructuring of the sector - not specifically for mergers but for restructuring of the sector - of the order of €3 million for the past couple of years. International experience indicates that mergers can be expensive. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation; I am not quite sure whether it is the case that if funding is available, mergers are very expensive, but if funding is not available they can be done, as so often has to be the case, in a more innovative and shoestring way. So far, our experience with restructuring is quite positive. Great progress is being made even within the very significant constraints. The HEA has been able to give some small amount of funding but I do not have any expectation that this will increase. The challenge for us will be to try to maintain that small amount of funding.

I accept Senator Power's point about clusters and their geographical scale. To be effective, a cluster will have to be able to provide its region with a comprehensive suite of programmes. This cannot mean that campus A is doing engineering and campus B is doing physics and so on.

Equally, we cannot have troops of students going across the country on this two-day journey between Letterkenny and Galway, as was mentioned. I would not discount the value and use of technology, but ultimately clusters will only be effective if they provide for the needs of their region, however they do that. The geographical issues are there to be solved, rather than being absolute bars to progress.

If I have missed anything, Mr. Costello might pick me up on it. I will come back to him in a moment on apprenticeships. He might also talk about the shortage of places on the CAO, which is breaking news.

Senator Power mentioned the broadening of entry routes. A great deal of work and effort is being put in by the Department of Education and Skills, the institutions and various agencies into the whole transitions agenda. A good deal of progress is being made and it is expected to announce progress on a number of strands around Easter. In fairness, the institutes of technology and universities have engaged well with the process. As regards the specific broadening of entry routes, I would have to allow that there has not been enough progress. It is something we will be taking up with the institutions. In fact, I would go so far as to say that entry routes may well have increased since we started the process, although there has been some reduction lately. I consider this to be important in terms of assisting young people in choosing their courses, and also addressing some of the retention issues that were mentioned earlier. It is on the agenda therefore. I do not want to be critical because it is complex, but it is no secret that I would welcome greater progress on that.

As regards our dropping down the rankings, it has to be a concern because no matter how we rationalise it, our rationalisations will not necessarily be heard. If they are heard, they will not necessarily be believed either by international students or by potential international investors where this whole ranking matter seems to be getting a certain level of traction. I would not want to overstate it, though. Most well-informed people, including students, understand the limitations of international rankings. It is, therefore, something we have to bear in mind. To some extent, it may not be much more than a cosmetic exercise, but it is there and we must recognise it. However, as a national policy in terms of the organisation and structure of our higher education system, we would be unwise to pursue a ranking position either for any particular institution or any range of institutions. What we want from our higher education institutions is to be the best they can be in the interests of Ireland and its students. If, at the same time, they shoot up the rankings that is a bonus, but it is not necessarily a national objective for us to be at any particular ranking point. I do not want to dismiss it totally, however, as it is still something to which we must have some regard.

As regards having our own system of rankings, it is a sound idea. To some extent we have that. In a document accompanying this report to the Minister we published detailed information, including spider diagrams, around the relative performance of various institutions and parts of the sector on issues to do with access, research and international students. In fact, one can see quite well how institutions are performing, one against the other.

As part of our performance funding piece - we are going to model this - we are also considering whether or not we should have some element of internal competition for a small proportion of funding. In that way, the institutions that perform best vis-à-vis their compacts and national objectives, would get more funding. However, there are a lot of complexities and potential perverse incentives in such a strategy, which we are considering before we would roll it out. Performance funding will be done this year and will apply to budgets in 2016.

I will now ask Mr. Costello to address the apprenticeship issue and the CAO points.

Mr. Fergal Costello

To finish on performance funding, as well, that funding is obviously an important lever and we built that in. Equally, there is a lot of evidence that just by being transparent and saying that institutions are not performing and not delivering their set objectives, it has a sharp impact on institutional performance. Institutions are precious about their reputations and do not want to be seen towards the bottom of a list. Therefore, it is a question of performance funding and also the transparency of saying, "You said this but you have not actually delivered it".

In terms of apprenticeship, the point was made about the apartheid between universities and VECs. The higher education system has been involved in apprenticeship, particularly the institutes of technology, which have championed it for 20 years. Places four or six in an apprenticeship always go to an institute of technology, and that has been successful. However, it has been constrained by the small number of trades - 26 in total - most of which are in the construction sector. In Germany, there are 350 trades in apprenticeship. It is not construction alone; it includes bank tellers, ICT and a range of other activities. It is a good way of learning for many students in terms of having a work-academic balance. It is also an opportunity to work straight out of school, so we want to broaden it.

In last year's report, the Minister accepted that we should be aiming to broaden it. There is a call-out at present, which is inviting institutions, but primarily employers, to come forward and say, "We have particular skills needs and we think they could be served by an apprenticeship. We'd like to get some support from the Government and work in partnership around that."

We are due to get proposals in by the end of March concerning that call-out.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

My question concerned how the HEA sees its place in it.

Mr. Fergal Costello

We would very much like to support the universities and institutes of technology to broaden that range and have more apprenticeships in the higher education system to meet a different range-----

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

What is the HEA doing about that?

Mr. Fergal Costello

We were part of that review process. We made that recommendation and it was accepted by the Minister in terms of saying we can go beyond-----

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

Of the 320 apprenticeships that Mr. Costello mentioned - and I have read a lot about them - has the HEA picked out any that it could pursue and champion?

Mr. Fergal Costello

We have to some degree.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

Outside the construction industry because I know they are the obvious ones.

Mr. Fergal Costello

There are areas such as medical devices and ICT, which are obvious examples and could well do with an apprenticeship. However, the purpose of the proposal process is to invite employers, in particular, to come back in and state their needs. The report stated that for this to work there has to be a strong employer commitment because they are ultimately the main drivers of apprenticeship. If one does not have employers who are willing to let some of their staff undergo training two days per week or six weeks per year, the system will not work. Therefore we need a partnership of employers and the education sector to deliver those. The HEA is certainly right behind the idea of broadening it and bringing in more occupations and professions.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

It is moving very slowly, like a massive snail, at the moment. I have been hearing this and writing about it for three years.

Mr. Tom Boland

It is perhaps a bit slow, but we now have a strategy. There is an apprenticeship council and it is moving quite rapidly into this space. It is a substantial area of reform, although I did not mention it in my list of reforms. It is very important.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

Attitudinally, as well.

Mr. Tom Boland

Yes, it is important.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

We have had NGOs and other groups in here, even from the Traveller community, to speak to us. Their biggest ambition was to go to university. They are taught a system of education in which there is only one way towards it. There are no other trajectories which are just as qualitative vis-à-vis learning and functions within the economy.

Mr. Tom Boland

That is a very valid point. I have little doubt but that part of the solution to the sustainability of the higher education system is the strength of its other aspects, particularly further education and the apprenticeship system.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

Absolutely.

Mr. Tom Boland

We may well currently be in a position where too many young people, in particular, are being shoe-horned into a higher education model when, in fact, a further education or apprenticeship model might be more suitable for them.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell

Or equally valid.

Mr. Tom Boland

Yes.

Chairman

When the late Tomás Mac Giolla was a TD, he was very much supportive of the Dublin Institute of Technology and the whole VEC sector, including apprenticeships. He used to propose the idea that apprentices should be able to do stuff from the arts as well.

Mr. Boland mentioned combining arts, sciences and humanities. We need to consider this for apprentices also. As a public representative, I come across people who have done an apprenticeship but whose educational qualifications other than that are not high. These people are in a dead end and cannot get into other fields of work. This sort of combination of training might make it easier for them. It is necessary, particularly if industry dies out because of the economy. If they had this, they could then move into other areas. Last week, we were told that men over 35 are finding it hard to get work and that people of that age on the live register find it hardest of all. They lack confidence in their ability to read, write and deal with other aspects of the education system. If more combined education was included in apprenticeship training, it might help them.

Mr. Tom Boland

That is absolutely right. I was smiling a little as the Chairman spoke because I got into a lot of trouble a few years ago by saying much the same thing. I made the point that there were approximately 30,000 young men in the construction industry and that due to the apprenticeship model we had then, they had no other formal skills to fall back on in the event of a crash like that we have had. One of the key objectives of this new apprenticeship model is to have the apprenticeship system more connected into the post second level education system so that apprentices will have a broader range of skills and clear pathways for them to build on their skills as apprentices and crafts people, and to take those skills into other parts of the education system. This is fundamental. We can never again allow an apprenticeship system that creates a dead end for apprentices in the event the particular trades they have qualified in dry up.

Mr. Fergal Costello

This is also a CAO issue and an issue of the demand for places. We knew this issue was coming as it is a demographic issue and we will have significant numbers of 18 year olds for the next 15 years.

When we had the dialogue meetings with the institutions last year, they were predicting a growth in student numbers. They suggested the profile we were looking at was a growth in the overall system from approximately 199,000 students in 2012-13 to approximately 216,000. Our estimate is that this would more or less track the demographic growth over that time, although I am not sure it will capture the skills growth. That is a separate issue and we may still face a skills gap. This is a projection and the challenge for the institutions is whether they can take in those increased numbers, continue to give them a high quality student experience and quality outcomes. We are conscious that there is no good in the HEA just pushing more and more students through the system if the quality outcomes collapse. The number going through must be a number that is adequate and that can be supported and brought through properly rather than an increased number every year. This is an issue we will review every year and report back to the Minister on.

Senator Averil Power

It is anticipated that 216,000 places are needed, but how many of those will be funded?

Mr. Fergal Costello

The way the funding model works is that we get an allocation and we divide that among the numbers that come in. There is no strict link like with capitation, where for every student a certain amount such as €100 or €1,000 is provided.

Senator Averil Power

Is the funding the same as for the current year?

Mr. Fergal Costello

We do not know what the funding will be next year. We are not seeing any sign of an increase next year.

Senator Averil Power

Is there any Government commitment on the funding?

Mr. Tom Boland

The way the funding system operates is that there is a basket or allocation of funding and the more students there are, the more the funding has to be spread across those students. We have a system of funding per student, but it is from the overall allocation or basket that is already determined.

Chairman

On that, you have said there was a growth in numbers of approximately 25,000 over the course of the recession. Was that per year or overall?

Mr. Fergal Costello

It refers to the system as a whole. It increased from approximately 140,000 to 165,000.

Chairman

Presumably there will be a drop in those numbers if more people return to work. Some people went to college because they could not get jobs and while the funding stayed the same, it was able to accommodate those people. Would a drop in these numbers not allow others to take their place?

Mr. Fergal Costello

We would hope there would be an element of that. At the same time, we are seeing evidence that as the economy recovers, companies which had stopped investing in staff training because of the cost are now coming back in. Therefore, there are some going out and some coming in. To be honest, the rise in the demographic, in the number of school leavers, is so big that there is no chance at all we will be able to accommodate it. It is a significant additional pressure coming through.

Chairman

How do we compare with other countries? Is our situation unique in terms of our demographic?

Mr. Fergal Costello

Almost, although Portugal may have a similar demographic. In Europe, the challenge is empty classrooms and immigration and whether they can bring in students or people from elsewhere. Their demographic growth rates are far different. This is a real challenge for us. As we said in our report, this is our opportunity. Ireland is not like Saudi Arabia and will not discover oil, but we are almost unique in Europe in that we have a cohort of young students coming through who will be the target of every country in terms of their skilled workforce. It is the management of that resource that is our basis for future competitive advantage.

Chairman

Are there any other questions? No. We have had a good discussion and important issues have been raised. I expect we will invite the witnesses in again to discuss funding, once the expert group makes its report.

Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell

If Mr. Boland was to give urgent advice to the Government, what would it be? Across the whole area of higher education, is there something urgent coming down the track in the next two or three years that we are not giving sufficient attention to or is there anything that comes to mind that he would like to give advice on?

Mr. Tom Boland

At the risk of being prosaic, it must be money or not exactly money but how we sustainably support the higher education system we need in terms of the skills of the economy, leaving aside personal and social development. There is no short answer to this question, but this is where I hope the funding group will serve its purpose. It is not necessarily just a question of taking the figures for the number of students and saying resource per student multiplied by the number of students equals X amount of extra money needed. It is also to do with how we regulate the higher education institutions, the kinds of freedoms we give to the sector and the kind of accountability we hold the institutions to. In the university sector in particular, but increasingly in the institutes of technology, they have considerable capacity to raise funding themselves and they do that. That capacity could be increased. We need to look in an innovative and in the round way at the issue of a sustainably supported higher education system and the appropriate funding arrangements. This is the obvious issue, but not an easy one.

Chairman

That is a good point. Next week our meeting is on the 21st century university and what it means at which we will have representatives from Trinity College and the Irish Universities Association. We take a great interest in third level education and that is all part of our debate. I thank those who attended today for their contribution to this meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 3 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 February 2015.