Professor Philip Nolan:

I want to make some very high level comments because I know we are coming to the end. Professor Deeks might talk to us a little bit about the Australian experience.

I am very struck by Senator Gallagher's remarks. One reality we must face is that there are many families in this country struggling to find multiples of €3,000 for more than one student going through higher education. Coming back to the Cassells report, if we move to a system where we balance those contributions more fairly between the State, the graduate and industry, we can design such a system well or badly. The advantage we have with the Cassells report is all that learned experience about how not to do it and some very clear pointers about how to do it. I am confident the implementation group recommended in this report could design a system that is progressive, fair, sustainable and which minimises the up-front burden on all the families of the State. If it is a balanced system, the State would have more resources to direct towards focused areas such as students with disadvantages or students that need support through postgraduate studies. There is an important element there about where the State directs its resources and its freedom to do so.

Senator Gallagher also mentioned we have run out of road on which to kick the can. Not only have we run out of road but there is a 10 tonne truck behind us as by 2030 we must accommodate 48,000 additional students to keep participation rates as they are. That is the equivalent of building University College Dublin and the Dublin Institute of Technology again. When one asks where is the need for capital funding, that is an example. Even if we allowed our participation rates to sink by 5% - it would be a shame to drop to 50% - we would still need to find 29,000 places. I must emphasise the urgency of tackling this problem that the Senator appreciates, which I accept.

There are two final issues. Members have been good enough to congratulate us on the work we have done. Professor Kilkelly mentioned that we have a crisis and the only reason we are not feeling it more badly is the work done by line staff, faculty and administrative and support staff. They are now stretched beyond the limit and I must make a case for the exhaustion of those public servants over the past ten years while delivering a standard of service that students get. They are proud to deliver that and have gone the extra mile but we have run out of road there too in terms of the physical capacity of staff to deliver.

Deputy Cannon also made a point. There are areas where universities could do with more autonomy in how they manage their affairs. In particular, we recruit staff internationally and the norms of how staff are recruited and remunerated internationally are different from here. With that autonomy we know we need enhanced accountability. We have a very sophisticated form of accountability through the Higher Education Authority and it has changed enormously in recent years. With simple reference to the report, which is available, I can say that 21% of our new entrants are socioeconomically disadvantaged, 8% are mature students, 6% have disabilities and 37% are in receipt of a grant of some kind. The State has very clear and appropriate access to how the system and individual institutions are performing. We would all be comfortable to see it strengthened, as it could be, but there are domains where autonomy could be enhanced to make the institutions more effective.