Dr. Catherine Day:

I thank members for their questions. On how to diversify funding, which is the topic most debated at every governing body meeting and across the universities, as in all other cases there is no silver bullet or no one way of doing it. For example, UCC has just signed up for a €100 million from the EIB, which is one way of doing it. While a loan has to be repaid the EIB rates are very favourable. The money will be used to make capital investments in student accommodation, laboratory facilities and so on. This is not the answer to future funding but it is part of it. I understand that the EIB finances part of student loan systems in other member states so that this is an avenue that could also be explored.

The other area on which everybody is keen is philanthropy. Not only is the university sector targeting the philanthropists, but so also is the charity sector and cultural bodies. It is a source of funding and a means of staying in touch with one's alumni that is underdeveloped in Ireland as compared with other countries. It could be helped by the introduction of a tax credit in return for a contribution to one's former university. This is a way in which the State could help universities to get more funding without it necessarily having to pay for it. All universities are competing strongly for funding under Horizon 2020, the European research programme. I know that UCC has been very successful in that regard. The question that arises is how one deals with the patents and the rights coming from the research that is developed in the universities. These are also areas that could be developed. These are all small contributions but we are living in an era when even small breaks in financing can help a lot.

On the question of loans in other member states, there is no perfect model. In any event, every country has to develop its own model. We can learn a lot from what has worked well and not worked well in the case of other countries. We must be practical. It is difficult to argue that there is not a need for increased funding for third level education. If one starts from there one then has to be very pragmatic in terms of where one seeks to find that funding. Given all the other calls on public funding in Ireland today and conceivably into the future it is hard to impossible to see how a fully State funded system would materialise. This leads us to a need to identify other sources of funding. I believe that a loan system, well designed, has its place. Some of the objections to it, such as whether it would encourage people to emigrate, can be taken into account in the design of the system. People are pursued across international boundaries for offences such as non-payment of speeding fines and so it is possible to ensure that people repay loans and so on.

The design of the system will be important. As I said, it may be possible for organisations such as EIB to at least contribute to financing of a loan system. It would be fundamental that any such system would promote access from communities that otherwise would not have it. This can also be provided for as part of the design of the system. The reality is that if we are going to meet the funding needs of the future in this sector then contributions will have to come from everywhere. That is why Cassells talks about State funding, funding from students and from the employers, which picks on the point made earlier about the training levy. All sources have to be pursued. There are several beneficiaries from education, including society at large, the individual concerned and employers. We have to find a way of ensuring that everyone contributes. The impact afterwards on the individual can be dealt with by the design of the system.

Drop-out rates were mentioned. I would like to pick up on one aspect of the drop-out rates because it is an issue that has been discussed a lot in the governing body of UCC. To reduce the number of drop-outs, we need a higher number of staff. An 18 year old on signing up for a subject at university does not always know whether he or she will be suited to it. Often, he or she will not realise that until after a couple of months into the first year. When professors and teaching staff identify that a student is struggling and is not in the right discipline they should be able to offer him or her guidance and counselling in regard to a transfer to another course so that he or she does not have to drop out. UCC is currently trying to do this but it does not have sufficient means to do so. If a student does not get that type of individual attention and the system does not pick up on it he or she can be lost to the system, which is devastating for the student but is also a loss for society. That is one aspect of the drop-out rate that I wanted to mention.

On governance, there is a much stronger awareness now of the responsibility that comes with public funding, including the need for accountability. Having been in charge of the accountability of the EU system to the political level I can say that the UCC system - I am sure it is the same for the other universities - is very much state-of-the-art in terms of identifying risks, mitigating and dealing with them and not running a deficit such that the State will have to pick up the tab. That is no longer the philosophy. Therefore, if the universities can raise money in different ways they should not have to be as controlled as they are when in receipt of direct State grant funding. There should be more trust in the system. That is what I mean by the governance having improved. There is a need to trust the universities to know best what their students need, what their systems need to deliver a quality product and to be accountable for delivery of the quality.

Brexit is a cause of great concern. The competitive environment for Ireland is going to be much more challenging once the UK leaves the European Union, and for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that the pressure on the UK to be more competitive is going to be much greater when it is outside the European Union. This will make the UK more aggressive in terms of competitiveness. Our capacity to retain, attract and maintain the sort of service and industrial economy that we have will be important. I would also like to reference agriculture in this context because UCC has a very strong research capacity in the food sector. In all of these industries there is going to increased pressure once the UK leaves the EU. We have an opportunity to market ourselves as the English speaking member state of the European Union. We could be very attractive for inward investment provided we can provide the talent in the form of graduates that inward investors will be looking for. Brexit is both an opportunity and a challenge for us. The answer to that challenge lies, in part, in the provision of high quality third level education.

On apprenticeships, I believe the most important thing about third level education is learning how to learn. A student who leaves school at 15 with no qualifications will find it hard to be adaptable in the future to learning new technologies because he or she will not by that age have learned how to learn.

What I see is a type of cross-over between what used to be called the academic and vocational education in that many people with a primary degree go on to do more vocational training. They have higher level education but they also realise they need more vocational training. The distinctions of old are fading but we must get people to understand that. Parents see that through the experience of their children. Perhaps that is a clue in part to how to change the culture. What is most important is that one learns how to learn, then one learns how to be adaptable and flexible and that something one did between the ages of 18 and 22 years does not give one an automatic right for the future. One must go on learning and be adaptable all the way through life. That is what higher level education gives a person.