Mr. John MacGabhann:

I do not believe so. There may be a difference in terms of scale. Professor Norton referred to the economies and facilities that scale may provide. I would be exceedingly worried if there were a material difference in qualitative terms between a level 8 provided by one institution and another.

On the question of access and attrition, it must be borne in mind, and this links into funding as well, that what is at issue is not only the numbers currently in third level but the average of 60% proceeding to third level year on year. We are facing a demographic bulge that is working its way through primary and into post-primary level. Any planning that must be done must be for numbers significantly in excess of current numbers.

On funding, the TUI believes that the battle in this regard has been already lost. The political system needs to prioritise funding for third level. It has not done so to the extent required. It has instead relied on the relatively soft belief that one can transfer to private funding. Private funding in the Irish context means fees for the student. We do not have significant philanthropic availability in this area. In any event, it is unlikely to have hugely burgeoned in recent times. The TUI has previously suggested that those who are beneficiaries and can afford part of the burden should be taxed with the provision of funding. By this I mean those industries which through a liberal rate of corporation tax benefit most from the graduates who are supplied by our universities and institutions. We have previously suggested that a modest levy of, perhaps, 1% should apply in addition to the corporation tax, specifically for transfer to the funding of third level. We see no moral or practical reason this could not work.

In regard to retention, inescapably it is the case that at levels 6 and 7 and, perhaps to a degree at level 8, the absence of the more individualised style of provision which the learner needs, which is caused by an attrition in terms of staff and increasing pupil numbers, has an affect on the ability of the student to complete and the ability of the institute to support completion. I would like now to return to a matter not yet raised. Anybody who believes that deregulation of human relations functions, which essentially means deregulation and the dismantling of industrial relations agreements, is the way forward either in the short or medium term is pressing the wrong button because the group quintessentially at the heart of any progress in this regard is the academic cohort, namely, the staff. One cannot effect the changes that are sought without the allied and enthusiastic involvement of the academic staff. I know only too well that academic staff are notoriously difficult to coerce. They are not likely to become any more easy to coerce as time goes on.