Professor Vincent Cunnane:

I am head of one of the four institutes of technology that are not in deficit. However, my institute of technology will be in deficit very shortly. There were many questions regarding access and our proposal around levels 6 and 7. Access is something we do every single day. It is not a peripheral activity. It is a core activity of what we do and our raison d'être. Access is a central point. Whatever the committee does with the Cassells report, I ask it not to limit access to the third-level sector in any way. It should ensure that whatever it does increases access to the third-level sector. The committee may find a myriad of ways to do that and we have put a couple of them before it today. The overall figure of 56% mentioned by Senator Ruane in respect of students in receipt of some grant or other hides other areas like Donegal, where the figure is 72%, and Limerick, where the figure this year will be 70%. This is transformative. It is not an additive process. It is an transformative process because, generally, these are first-generation students whose families have no links to third-level education. They are coming to us for the first time and we must support them. They are also coming from disadvantaged areas so they may be coming from DEIS schools, may not have had the support they need and may not get the support at home which recognises a third-level education is their pathway to a professional qualification and a different life. Ensuring this access is really why we are here today. Those sort of students need additional resources. We do not judge students by the number of CAO points they obtain.

We do not say that is the level of their ability. We say that it is testimony to how they got in and that it also reflects their background but that it does not reflect their potential. Our concern and our job is to unlock potential. The students that Professor Donnelly spoke about - the type of students we all have - need additional resources.

Deputy Nolan spoke about retention rates. They are a function of our inability to put resources into what we know will make an impact on retention. We know how to solve retention. That is not the issue. The issue is that we do not have the resources or the people to put into it. The committee may put the figures - they are available - to us. The overall retention rate in the institute of technology sector is 86% and approximately 90% in the university sector. The committee might put it to us that our retention rates are much worse. However, my question is how is our rate so high.

The type of student we are dealing with is very different. Those students need supports. We are here to transform that. We also have the economic impacts the committee will hear about, but we are also about social change. We are changing society. What we do with the type of students we are dealing with is, in the main, transform their lives. This is an inter-generational activity as well, so there is huge added value for society. That is why we are advocating that level 6 and level 7 education should be free. The type of students that tend to go into level 6 or, potentially, level 7 education are those who are first generation students, from a disadvantaged background or from under-represented groups. Those students do not see themselves doing a four year programme, but they progress, and this is all about progression. Students progress from further education to our institutions, or come directly to us, progress through levels 6 and 7 and onto levels 8, 9 and 10. Our greatest day is graduation day when we see students coming through from those backgrounds. We all have examples of students who came in at level 6 and leave with a PhD. That is what transformation is about and that is what the institutes of technology are about. They are about opportunity and realising potential. We are trying to be dispassionate here, and failing perhaps, but the point is that these are all related activities.

On funding, we need some income contingent loans. They can be an additive. However, we also need maintenance grants. If the idea of the income-contingent loans is to remove the maintenance grants from the sort of students we have, then the Government will have failed. If we keep increasing access at the centre point of what we want to do, we will not do that, but we need a combination of a number of activities.

The biggest beneficiary of levels 6 and 7 education is not the person but society. Society benefits from higher education. There are societal benefits as we go further on in education, but the benefit moves to the person. Let us get it right. Let us make sure we leave no one behind in this new economy. Let us ensure they get in and are maintained in the process. We will continue to do our jobs within the context of that broad necessity, but access is a centre point of what we do.