Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

I thank the Chairman. I would like to second what Professor Hegarty and Dr. Day have said. They have dealt with the questions very well.

In response to the query on the reason for the dropout rate, I fully agree with Dr. Day's points. This has been the experience in NUIG as well. What is really lacking for students is the personal tutorial or personal pastoral resources that have had to be cut back because of the micro-management of the way in which the universities are allowed to employ a certain number of staff in a certain area and not in other areas. The dropout rate is affected - I echo something that has been said in the discussion - particularly because of the way in which our students are leaving school and going into the university at a young age, with the kind of examination they have done in the leaving certificate. Many university lecturers would worry and feel perhaps what may be needed in the university would be a first year where, as in the United States, students would be able to try out various different kinds of subjects and to learn how one learns for oneself in the university. I recall when I first went to Trinity College, one of the lecturers said to me that they would not look after me like my teachers did in school and that we would not be watched to see whether we did our homework. He said, "You're on your own here, folks."

While I am not saying people would be quite as harsh now as they were then, there is a certain feeling of being alone and coping with a big organisation all on one's own, and that is one of the reasons we need more investment in our students. Dropouts cost money to the student, the State and the university, and we all need to try to stop that.

Regarding the culture Deputy Cannon mentioned, what Dr. Day said is very true, but sometimes we look across the water at mainland Europe and think it is all wonderful. A few years ago, while Ireland held the chairmanship of the OSCE, I did a little work looking at human rights and various other educational matters in different European countries, among which was Austria and some parts of Germany, where this kind of system worked. The people there were not slow to criticise their system and say they were deciding to split students off into doing an apprenticeship or whatever else while they were still far too young. In this country we have downgraded what was the VEC system and have tried in a sort of snobbish way to say we will not call them VEC students and say they are different from the other children. We decided to turn them all into high-grade academic people. We have gone too far and we need to move to try to persuade people. We persuade them by producing a good apprenticeship system instead of muddling along producing a few apprenticeships here and there. We must provide a good system for people to go to before we start criticising the parents and saying they are all just taking the snob outlook.

Regarding governance and philanthropy, governance has improved greatly. In NUIG we have a system by which virtually every person who is a member of the Údarás also serves on one of its sub-committees and by which all these committees produce reports to the main meeting which are very carefully monitored. I am convinced that we have considered very hard risks and above all where we can possibly source funds in every way. We have developed our alumni trust extremely well and have had very good investment in buildings and the development of the campus in recent years. Anybody who has walked around the campus in Galway will see that there are outstanding new buildings, the funding for many of which has come from our alumni. We do not have in the west of Ireland all that many billionaires who can simply say they will give us funding for an enormous building out of their back pockets but we have our own alumni who have subscribed themselves and who have gathered together the money to do this. We have done reasonably well in philanthropy and we will continue to do so.

Regarding the question whether the State should finance everything, which is the position of a few speakers, my heart would say yes, and anybody who knows the history of my life would know that I would be inclined to feel that way, but it is just not going to happen. It will not be possible for the State, as things stand, to provide the entire funding for the higher education system. This was the idea behind the removal of the fees 20 years ago. However, because of this, fees have kind of crawled back again in the form of the student contribution and the system is as unequal as ever. The removal of fees has not made the system more equal. We are still faced with a system by which we want children from DEIS schools to be able to access third level education.

I can see there are downsides to a loan system, but it is the way in which it is designed that is important. I agree with both the other speakers that we must look very hard to see what has worked in other countries and above all what has not worked and what has been a mistake. Considering all the arguments made in the Cassells report, it looks to be probably the best solution. At least let us see if we can design a system that would work in this way. This does not let the State or the employers off the hook. I completely agree with Senator Ruane, who mentioned the employers' training fund. Mr. McCoy from IBEC in an article he wrote said there was a surplus in this fund and that it should be better used, and that is most certainly so. This fund should be drawn down. The employers will also gain from the better-educated graduates and they should therefore make more of a contribution. I am a little cautious about suggesting the loan should extend to cover maintenance.

I consider that maintenance grants should still be made by and large as they are made now and that people should get maintenance grants more directly than through such a loan system. This is again something that needs to be considered. Of course people need maintenance, and of course in the end there will always be some people who cannot afford to take on loans or to maintain themselves. There must be a way to encourage such people to go on to third level education.

That is more or less all I have to say.