Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Not long ago, members had an opportunity to speak to some of the witnesses' colleagues in the colleges, universities and institutes of technology. I am concerned about the quality of the student experience both at undergraduate and master's level. Without a doubt, one can have large and successful class sizes for lectures but it becomes much more difficult if additional resources are not available to give students a personalised experience. At the previous meeting, a number of speakers referred to the social and mental health pressures that students experience. Greater contact with staff can substantially improve the student experience of third level education.

Do the witnesses have a view on the way in which third level staff are being recruited? How do recruitment policies impact on the quality of institutions and the experience of students? In the past decade, universities and colleges have shifted towards a model of limited staff contracts that are subject to constant renewal. In our system, many third level staff do not secure tenure in the traditional manner. I am not sure if the witnesses were able to identify the extent of this practice but it is especially difficult for women.

People doing PhDs are often offered welcome and supportive teaching hours while doing their PhD and this may continue for one year or two years after completing the PhD. While they have a reasonable expectation of making a career in third level education, many of them never move on to a tenured position. This is a significant problem. In STEM subjects, for example, unless one is in an environment where there are many campus companies and employers in which PhD students can secure well paid jobs, it can be very depressing and demoralising and the system can lose very good people.

I will raise a concern I expressed at previous meetings. The Teaching Council has moved to a two-year model for the postgraduate teaching qualification. Finding funding for these courses will be a significant challenge to students because postgraduate fees are set at upwards of €5,000 per annum. I assume the current rate will apply to all the third level institutions. I do not know if much consideration has been given to this issue. Many of those who come through access programmes are attracted to teaching because it is a way of securing a job and they are often attracted to teaching because their experience of education will have been very positive. I worry that students from working class backgrounds will be unable to afford postgraduate courses in education. Did the witnesses give any thought to that issue?

On the issue of funding, my preference is for a combination of State funding and the use of the national training fund. The fund has a major and positive role to play in this regard. We need employers to buy into third level education.

I am very concerned that there are so few structures around the national training fund which would prevent it being raided for other purposes, for instance, for paying social welfare. The overall Social Insurance Fund has come from a deficit five years ago of €2.8 billion to being in surplus this year and next, and increasingly in surplus. I wonder if the witnesses have a strategic view of how the national training fund should be managed. I believe it has been underspending on apprentices and apprenticeship-type education. That process has been slow. From my knowledge of Germany, Austria and France, in particular, where they operate the dual model, I support an increase in the national training fund and I put forward in the recent budget proposals that some of the fund would go to third level. It would also involve employers more in their contribution to third level given that it is not just society generally that will benefit in that employers will benefit from having very high quality graduates which we know is a very big draw, especially for foreign direct investment coming into Ireland.