Mr. Martin Marjoram:

The TUI thanks the committee for the opportunity to make this submission on the topic of future funding of higher education. The issue of funding of higher education has been a complex one for many years but has come to the fore especially since cutbacks of the last decade, combined with rapidly rising student numbers, and the publication in 2016 of Investing in National Ambition: A Strategy for Funding Higher Education, which hereafter will be referred to as the Cassells report.

It is important to note that in 2021, Ireland only spent 0.9% of GDP on tertiary education, compared to 1.4% in the OECD. The ratio of students to teachers in Irish tertiary education is also significantly above both the OECD and EU averages, and has risen dramatically from already unsustainable levels in the past year. The funding deficit, even aside from anything to do with Covid-19, will get worse in coming years as, mentioned in earlier hearings of the committee, student numbers are expected to rise by almost 30,000 in tertiary education in this decade. Even without an increase in student numbers over the next decade, the third level budget is 40%, approximately €100 million, off where we were ten years ago, according to The Irish Timesin January 2020. The Cassells report made clear that €600 million was needed by 2021. However, we are now in 2022 and little has changed.

The European University Association, EUA, has reported that public funding of third level education in Ireland, as a percentage of GDP, fell a shocking 62% between 2009 and 2019. In the same timeframe, student numbers rose by 28% and staff numbers fell by 8%. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, has found that between 2007 and 2016, real expenditure per student at third level education decreased by more than 34% in nine years.

The TUI believes that third level education, as part of the social contract, should be funded from Government revenues; that is, from taxation. Whence that taxation comes is then the issue. For its part, TUI has made the serious proposal that a 1% levy should be applied to corporation profits to generate a dedicated fund for higher education. Why, we may be asked, should corporate profits be levied in this manner? For the very simple reason that to do so is fair and provides those corporations with an opportunity clearly to demonstrate what they claim to have, but what is little in evidence, which is commitment to the society in which they base their enterprise. These corporations benefit hugely from having available to them a very deep pool of graduate talent in this country – supplied courtesy of the Irish taxpayer. In 2015 for example, the levy we suggest would have yielded some €550 million, an investment that would have done very nicely indeed in terms of resuscitating the exhausted and gaunt figure that is the Irish third level education system. Investment in the further education and training sector also needs to be addressed. Priorities in the programme for Government can only be adequately addressed if accompanied by additional funding. Areas such as Youthreach, adult literacy, post-leaving certificate programmes etc. have for too long been a Cinderella of the system. The committee has acknowledged the need for additional funding of the further education and training sector in its hearings of 1 March.

It is important that all institutes of technology have the opportunity to become technological universities if that is the wish of the community concerned. It is imperative that the two remaining institutes of technology, the Institute of Art, Design and Technology and Dundalk Institute of Technology, are expedited into the technological university sector. TUI members in both institutes have communicated to management, the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, the Higher Education Authority, HEA, and the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, their wish to move towards technological university designation. This position is supported by the TUI nationally. Dundalk Institute of Technology is currently being assisted by the HEA in this regard.

The HEA has found that 15% of graduates from institutes of technology attended schools participating in the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, programme, compared to just 8% of university graduates, and that 7% of institute of technology graduates attended fee paying schools compared to 13% of university graduates. According to Richard Thorn, the institutes of technology have 22% of their students registered as flexible learners - part-time, distance and e-learning - compared to 17% for the universities. The distinction comes in terms of socioeconomic class, in that 31% of students in the institutes come from the non-manual, semi-skilled or unskilled groups compared to 21% in the universities.

The TUI would like to make several recommendations to the committee. The size of SUSI grants and eligibility criteria for same should be significantly expanded. The TUI welcomes the current ongoing review of SUSI. Exchequer funding of higher education must be dramatically increased. This could be partly funded by a one percentage point increase in corporation tax with the proceeds ring-fenced for funding higher education. Staff-student ratios need to be reduced urgently. Apprenticeships should have greater support and visibility. Funding models must take account of the unique role the institutes of technology-technological universities sector plays in higher education access. Greater recognition of, and visibility of, the further education sector is vital due to the essential role it plays in supporting under-represented groups to access levels 5 and 6 of the national framework of qualifications, and also frequently then accessing levels 7 and 8 of the framework. Additional staffing of guidance services in schools, further education colleges, higher education institutions and in the adult guidance services would be helpful. The points system needs to be reformed. More progression pathways should be recognised. Additional support in the form of funding and staffing is required for student mental health support services in higher education institutions, HEIs, as well as for employee assistance programmes. Further funding is required to support access programmes in higher education institutions. Strong consideration should be made to extending a DEIS-style funding model to the higher education sector. All institutes of technology, IOTs, should consult staff in relation to seeking a pathway to technological university status. Emergency remote teaching and learning is, by definition, an emergency response to a crisis situation. It cannot be seen in any other context. Additional education needs students should have additional supports maintained if they attend further or higher education after leaving the post-primary system. Currently when they leave second level, their support is effectively cut off and then needs to be re-established by the relevant further or higher education institution. The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, may have a role to play here, especially in the further education, FE, context.

I thank the committee for listening to this opening statement. The TUI is more than happy to answer any questions that members may have. The TUI would also like to direct members to the more extensive written submission that we made to the committee in February, which provides more detail on the issues I have just outlined.