Mr. Peter Cassells:

The report deals with the question of access to different levels of education at primary and secondary levels, including the culture, career guidance and so on. Regardless of what new funding system is chosen - I am not steering the committee in any particular direction - there will be a need for a radical access programme that deals with career development, career guidance, DEIS schools, funding and so on and at the same time tries to address the barriers - such as the cost of living, travel, income foregone and the current €3,000 fee - for students with the capability of benefitting from education. If the ambitious level of funding being talked about is to be realised, the issue of what to do with the €3,000 fee remains. It cannot be increased because of the impacts it will have yet it will need to be increased if that model of funding is chosen. For this reason, all three options will need to be considered together. If they are considered in isolation each one will lead to a dead end. The fully State-funded system will lead to the dead end in terms of the significant tax increases that will be required. Option two will lead to the dead end of the €3,000 fee still being in place, what to do in regard to maintenance and the need to examine whether taxation can be increased to support State funding. Option three also could lead to a dead end if one believes people could be adverse to doing this. It also is important to ensure the wrong model is not introduced. For this reason, we believe an implementation group should be established to oversee this process.

One the point raised by Senator Ruane, we did look at the Dutch model. The only cost incurred by the group was in respect of my meeting on this issue in Amsterdam. The Dutch model is maintenance based. They introduced income contingent loans not in respect of the student contribution but in respect of maintenance and State grants. As I said earlier, we could end up with a hybrid system. Nobody should be thinking that we have to choose one option or the other. We could end up with a hybrid for two reasons, one of which is that it is what is acceptable. There is not much point coming up with something that is not implementable. We need a system that is capable of being implemented. It may that that is what is best suited to Irish circumstances right now.

On the national training levy, the State might want to invest a particular amount but that raises the difficulty of raising taxation and in terms of the demands of health services, housing and so on. There is a temptation to suggest the €600 million in the national training levy, or a sizeable portion of it, should be transferred to the training fund. The question that then arises is do we want a higher education system which is funded in part by industry and employers. If we go down that road, we will be heading towards the American system. We suggest that there are three beneficiaries, one being employers, although not only multinationals but the State and the health service as an employer, local enterprises and so on. A 0.1% increase in that levy would provide €50 million, which would go a long way towards supporting graduates into those industries. Apprenticeships are now moving up to high-end manufacturing. Many apprenticeships, particularly under the Danish and German models, are a step towards degree level programmes and even to PhD level. I do not think the training levy fund should be raided just because we are short of money. It should be viewed as an integral part of our funding system in the context of the benefits it provides to employers, with the decision in terms of an increase being made on that basis. We have suggested an increase of 0.1% for illustrative purposes but the increase can be whatever percentage the committee decides, bearing in mind that there should be no additional costs for companies competing in the context of Brexit.

The third issue was raised by a number of speakers, including Deputy Nolan. The report sets out the breakdown of costs for each of the areas. For example, it shows that the average increase in the demographics would be approximately 3,000 students per year. This would require an additional 350 staff, with the final cost being approximately €25 million. If the committee would like a more detailed breakdown, I am happy to have one forwarded to it. The report also shows that in terms of the reduction in the student ratio, in respect of which a reduction from 20:1 to 14:1 was mentioned, the cost for each point of movement is €60 million. It can be and has been done. All of the necessary detailed figures are available.

Deputies Catherine Martin and Cannon asked how we ensure we get the required outcome from this investment. The report is very strong about this not being a question of giving funding to the institutions but a question of the student experience because that is what determines the capabilities we have for the future in terms of jobs, the economy, societal challenges and so on. We have to ensure the investment is made at the front line. We dealt with the notion of accountable autonomy. The institutions argue for autonomy but we are arguing for accountable autonomy such that institutions would agree a compact with the Higher Education Authority on what percentage of students from particular backgrounds, in terms of access, they would commit to; what programmes they would provide; how they would be evaluated; the quality of programmes; student ratio and so on. That is the basis on which funding would be provided. If institutions want to do research and so on they are free to seek philanthropic funding for that or to apply for grants under Horizon 2020. If they want public investment they will have to agree a compact with the Higher Education Authority that could be rolled out over three to five years in order to provide certainty in terms of funding over that period but which would be evaluated on an annual basis in terms of the contribution being made. That is important because the committee will hear much argument in favour of autonomy.

I would give autonomy in one area - Deputy Cannon hinted at it. Once they have been allocated the resources, they should be allowed to deploy the staffing in the way that is required. At the moment there is the employment control framework introduced because of the difficulties arising from the crash. That meant they had to go to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, almost, to get authority for it. Now that that can be devolved and they are advised what their staffing budget is, they can decide what they require in terms of the types of people and the levels of qualification but stay within the budget. It would be possible to devolve a significant level of flexibility to the universities and the institutes of technology once a staffing budget is set for them to give them the flexibility as to who they want rather than having to get central approval for every one of them.

I will cover one other item before asking Dr. Doris to deal with the income-contingent loans, ICLs. A lot of detailed technical work went on behind some of these areas. If the committee members want a briefing - it does not necessarily have to be in public session - on the modelling done etc., I would be quite happy to have people make it available to them in order that they are not looking at things blind and wonderingwhat might happen in certain scenarios. It is fair enough for the committee members to ask what would happen if it were taken a stage further and done in a particular way and whether that could be made available to the committee. I would be happy enough to make that available to the committee.