Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

41. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills the measures that he is taking to begin to address the €600 million needed for third level education funding to 2021; the measures he is preparing for budget 2018 in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16495/17]

Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

About an hour ago I chaired a briefing by the Union of Students in Ireland concerning its position paper on the funding of higher education. The student representatives have grave concern that the Minister is strongly considering the third option in the Cassells report of income-contingent loans as a system of funding higher education. They outlined to us forcefully how such a system would badly impact on the lives of students well into the future.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Broughan. Deputy Pringle earlier raised a rather similar question and I do not want to repeat myself. Peter Cassells chaired that expert group and looked at the pressure on higher education over the recent period where funding was effectively frozen and numbers increased. That has put the system under considerable strain. We are now considering how to establish a sustainable funding model for the future. Peter Cassells indicated a number of options, as the Deputy knows. I have not been sitting on my hands. I immediately worked on an Exchequer option with €36.5 million this year, a three-year programme with demographics built in increasing to €160 million over the three years.

With the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, I have set up an Exchequer-employer mechanism which will generate an additional €200 million by 2020, if approved in the budget.

The option of income-contingent loans involving the contribution of students is being considered by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills. Clearly we need to have political and social consensus on how we proceed. Peter Cassells has set out the merits of it in that people get a very substantially increased livelihood. If they get a third-level qualification, it dramatically improves their lifetime earnings and he is asking if people should contribute back.

People have raised other concerns, such as the cashflow impact and whether it would create a barrier for people from disadvantaged areas or whether there are other ways to ensure people from disadvantaged areas get access. Those issues are being thrashed out by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills. We are doing a technical evaluation of how it would work if it were selected. As Peter Cassells said, doing nothing is not an option. Therefore I have not done nothing. I am moving immediately on the areas where I have potential to act and have, I think, the support of the House. The view on the remaining element remains to be seen.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The student representatives outlined to us the impact on students. It is a huge struggle to get through college in the first place with the rents and other living costs, given the existing registration fee the previous Fine Gael-Labour Government dramatically increased. All of that adds to making it very difficult, particularly for people from disadvantaged areas. The Minister and I both represent a number of areas where the uptake of third level education is still below 15% or 20%, which needs to be the Minister's first task even as an ordinary Deputy.

We have had analysis on the economic front and the Minister mentioned his liaison with the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. A recent report by Dr. Charles Larkin shows that income-contingent loans could cost the Exchequer up to €10 billion, thereby adding significantly to our national debt. Because so many young Irish people traditionally emigrate, there could be a very negative impact on our national debt over which there are grave concerns, particularly in 2019 and 2020.

Overall it is clear that it would be disastrous, particularly for children, second chance education, maturer students, students with disabilities and so on. I urge the Minister not to go down that route.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think there was a question in the Deputy's contribution. I appreciate people will have different views and suppose Peter Cassells put this out so that it would be seriously considered. It is important people consider the case as it is made. I have an open mind on it, as do others. Deputy Broughan criticised the increase in fees but part of Peter Cassells's vision is that there would be no fees at the point of entry and that there would be substantial income support for those from low income families to get into college. No one has a monopoly and advocates are not hard-headed capitalists who view education as being for the privileged. Peter Cassells has envisaged zero fees and is examining this.

We need to have an honest debate. This is like the issues of health and pensions. We need to examine how we will fund these areas, which will place increasing demands on all our families. Will it be through the public purse or otherwise? We need to examine viable and sustainable funding models and I am trying to take the actions within my area that I can.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister mentioned employer contributions of €200 million. The rise in Exchequer funding is dismal compared to the level of funding before austerity began. What are the Minister's plans for the 2018 budget? Is the Minister considering any specific additional thing? The Minister's party seems to be the one party that does not have a clear view on the issue. One has not been articulated. Before the general election, it was shy about stating where it stood. Will the Minister promote a full-scale Dáil debate on this subject before the end of this term or the next one?

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to do a bit of an evaluation, as do all parties. One should not decide that one's mind is made up before evaluating the issue, which is the danger with the Deputy's line of questioning. We need to consider any proposal on its merits. As the Deputy is aware, I have specific proposals for 2018. I have indicated already that I have received a commitment for a demographic increase. In other words, additional money will follow the additional students in the coming year. This has not happened for the past nine years. Therefore, there is an additional commitment. On top of this, we will have an employer contribution. It is out to consultation but it is hoped that it will start next year and rise over time to 2020, when it will be €200 million. Those are two substantial commitments - €160 million from the Exchequer and €200 million from employers. What else the Oireachtas wants to do remains in issue. We are a minority Government. We have to work with others to see what is the consensus approach to the issue. Much like the health area, we must do it on the basis of how we will fund needs in a decade's time and not just say that we do not like the cut of a particular proposal.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. The time has expired and we must move on.