Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Professor Ó Catháin. I propose to take the questions from members together before referring back for responses from the individual witnesses. If the witnesses wish to follow up on questions or comments afterwards, we will accept written submissions following the meeting.

I will start the ball rolling with questions on the presentation. I commend the sector on having 27% of entrants from targeted socioeconomic groups, with 18% being mature students. Interestingly, 32% were admitted having first obtained further education and training qualifications. I would be interested to hear a little more about the sector's future plans to expand this access.

You spoke about the institutes assisting regional development and being engaged in collaborative research with industry. Research income of €68.5 million is generated and €5 million is generated from industry-funded research. Given the valuable role of the sector in providing research opportunities, the €5 million appears to be a low contribution from industry. Is there any way this figure could be increased? What are your thoughts on that?

You also spoke about staffing. Are there issues affecting the redeployment of staff in ITs and would this mean some staff are not fully utilised?

With regard to the 28 Horizon 2020 projects in receipt of €9.6 million, which goes directly to the institutes, do you foresee Brexit having a negative impact on this funding or do you believe there could be more opportunities in that area due to Brexit?

Regarding the funding proposal you are suggesting, and I appreciate your clarity on that because we must have clarity, you propose that it should be free at the points of entry and exit up to levels 6 and 7 and that from level 8 the existing student contribution should remain. There is merit and logic in that proposal. However, it could potentially discriminate against high achieving students who come from low income families. That could be a concern, in that perhaps they are not being rewarded for pushing the boat out in respect of their academic abilities.

Also on the future funding issue, what are your views on the impact of the impending legislation regarding the possibility of institutes becoming technological universities? On a philosophical note, would that dilute much of the excellent work the institutes do in terms of the very practical vision they have and their contribution to regional development?

Finally, I have two questions which I put to the university presidents as well. How do we build public support for funding for third level? It has to compete, regardless of whether one likes it. We would love to have a situation where there was far more money being put aside for education overall, but the reality is that third level funding is competing with funding for primary and secondary levels and, indeed, with funding for special education. The weight of public opinion needs to be convinced about the merit of the State putting more money into third level funding. Second, there is the debate about balancing autonomy and accountability, which is hugely important.

I will now hand over to the members. I call Deputy Thomas Byrne.