Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is true. I am the last man standing. Deputy Conway-Walsh is coming back in a short while. The Western Rail Corridor is being discussed in the Joint Committee on Transport and Communication and it is a subject close to her heart. Deputy Conway-Walsh is keen to continue the discussion on this.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe go léir as an bhfianaise seo, na fíricí agus an argóint. Táimse den tuairim go bhfuil cuid mhaith i gcoitiantacht againn. Tá tuiscint againn ar cé chomh tábhachtach is atá oideachas sa tríú leibhéal agus go dteastaíonn infheistíocht cheart ann.

I will pick up briefly on the previous discussion. It is not necessary to repeat it. From my party's point of view, this is, as Mr. Jones has said, about investment. This is not only about the individuals who cannot benefit and, indeed, should benefit from third level education. It is about the value of this to us as a society and, to an extent, as an economy. I do not want to over-emphasise the latter but it is true as well. As a society, we need to invest in this.

The Cassells report was lengthy but to some extent it stated fairly simply that here is the destination, we need to get to it, there are many ways you can get to it but standing still is not adequate. The surprising aspect of this discussion is that to a large extent across political parties and organisations, such as Mr. Jones's own, but not limited to it, there is something of a consensus that it should be done through public funding.

The view on a graduate tax, a student loan system or anything like that is a minority view as far as I can gather including in the education sector as a whole. Indeed, many of the third level institutions and some of their leadership have a different view but several of them are also opposed. To some extent, it surprises me that the suggestion is somehow so resilient that it keeps coming back into the public debate when there are so many voices against it. I would make that minor point to agree with Mr. Marjoram on some of the taxation inequalities but perhaps the other point relates to social insurance. We are a bit out of step in social insurance as well in terms of PRSI compared to our European comparators.

The general point aside, I have some specific questions for Dr. Allen. On the issue of career pathways for postgraduate researchers and postdoctoral researchers, there are countries we can look to as doing this better but there are also countries we can look to where this is completely collapsing. The situation in Britain seems to be adverse for postdoctoral researchers, as far as I can gather, in the precarity that exists. Perhaps Dr. Allen can correct me, but there is a significant danger there in loss. I have not come across that "up and out" phrase previously but I think I understand what is meant by it. Can Dr. Allen give me a sense, when the opportunity to progress to full lectureship or a comparable occupation is not there, where is "out"? Where do they go? Have we any sense of how many postgraduate-postdoctoral researchers are lost to the system? Perhaps we do not have that information. If we do, it would be useful to have a sense of the scale of it. Obviously, the skills involved in their experience and the expertise would be quite considerable. I agree that there is a significant issue with the funding model. It is peculiar that much of the funding is State led but still comes in that compartmentalised fixed-round way.

For the TUI and Mr. Jones, I am also conscious of the issue of fragmentation of employment and that there would be many people working in the sector who have bits and pieces of contracts - a few hours here and a few hours there. Is there an element to which the higher education authorities are not prioritising people who are already on the books so that they get more full-time jobs and consolidate their hours? Mr. Jones also expressed a desire - I will afford him the opportunity if he wishes - to expand on the point that they are not officially classed as lecturers, etc.

In response to Ms Austick, the issues with Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, are enormous. There is the issue of the adjacency levels. It cuts in a number of ways - the threshold to qualify is too low; people on relatively low incomes do not qualify; a large proportion of the people who get grants do not get the full grant; a fairly small proportion gets the full grant; and, in any event, the full grant is not enough to cover costs. SUSI falls shorts on so many fronts. I am glad it is being reviewed, but a review is all well and good. There was a stage where the student contribution was definitely a disincentive but the grant structure and the relevant cost of living was not so serious that large numbers of disadvantaged students or low-income students were put off. We are now reaching the point, because the SUSI grants are so inadequate, that a significant number of students are facing disincentives of that kind.

I have a question for Mr. Byrne on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I could be wrong on this but I imagine there have been discussions at congress level - I am not sure which trade union would necessarily represent them but perhaps it is SIPTU - about the non-teaching staff, such as the large number of caretakers, grounds staff and carpenters. Taking caretakers, and probably security as well, for example, many universities are outsourcing these services and privatising them, and some of the terms and conditions are probably under attack. I would say it is likely to be one of the first areas that universities look at when they are trying to cut costs. What is the future in relation to that?

There is a lot there but I am hopeful that the Chair might be lenient, given that a few others have perhaps benefited from such leniency.