Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom ar dtús fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Mitchell O'Connor, go dtí an Teach seo inniu. I would also like to extend a welcome to guests in the Visitors Gallery.

We are all in agreement on the merits and advantages of a properly-funded third level education system. There is no doubt that we have enhanced our reputation worldwide through the education qualifications of young Irish people who leave universities. Frankly, this comes at a cost. When one looks deeply at the cost of funding third level education, I have to compliment Mr. Cassells and his committee on the work they carried out on behalf of us all. Some of the figures in the report are quite startling. The Cassells report notes to maintain the level of quality in our higher level institutions we have in place today will require investment of between €100 million to €120 million per year over the next five years. He stated also there is a requirement of €600 million base funding in higher education institutions by 2021. In addition, approximately €1 billion annual funding will be required by 2030. That shows the scale of the problem in front of us.

The Labour Party tabled the motion we are discussing. It is quite ironic. I agree with the comment of Senator Ó Ríordáin in his contribution that the Labour Party lacks credibility on this issue, based on its past record. I know he has accepted that and I know on a personal level many Members in this Chamber had no act or part in that. We can remember the former Labour Party leader, Mr. Ruairí Quinn, making commitments to abolish student fees. We all know what happened after that. The motion lacks credibility in that regard. That is nothing personal against any of the members of the Labour Party in this Chamber.

The motion calls for the abolition of student fees. While it is something we would all aspire to, when we delve deeper, the motion lacks substance. I think the content of the Fianna Fáil Party amendment to the motion is more credible. There is a crisis in third level education and that must be addressed. The cost of third level education has already prohibited many students, especially those whose families are just above the income threshold for a student support grant, and consequently receive no financial State assistance whatsoever.

The Fianna Fáil Party is open to considering the possibility of introducing an optional low interest loan facility for people just above the income threshold for third level grants. A few months ago a lady from Letterkenny contacted me about the debate on the Cassells report and the funding of third level education. Both she and her husband were working and had three children at college, they were not on the breadline, thankfully, but every single euro they had was going towards their children's education. She did not begrudge one cent of it, but if there was an option for them whereby a loan facility was available, they would certainly avail of it, because their life was on hold while their children were in college. Going out for a meal or going away on a holiday were off the agenda. If a loan facility was available, she certainly would consider it. We cannot dismiss that aspect.

We need greater Exchequer support and increased funding for universities and ITs as well as significant capital investment. Significant Exchequer investment in universities and ITs is required to enhance quality, including improving student to lecturer ratios, with great teaching and research output. There has been virtually no State investment in buildings and research facilities since 2008. Now an estimated 40% of higher education system infrastructure is considered below standard according to a recent report by the HEA.

On the issue of income contingent student loans, while we should be open to evaluating the proposals put forward in the Cassells report, the public cost of these loan systems are extremely uncertain and can be very high. We must be very careful not to underestimate the true cost of the system to the Exchequer and potentially to the student in the long term. Experience in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, as outlined earlier by other Members, shows that this model simply does not work. I call on the Government to further expand postgraduate maintenance grants in future, so as to ensure that students from more income categories are eligible. The removal by the then Minister, Ruairí Quinn, of grants for postgraduate education was certainly inconsistent with the then Government's stated policy that it was building a high skill, smart economy.

I ask the Government to make a commitment to increase both recurrent funding and capital investment to universities and ITs on a sustained basis for a number of budgets. If we look for extra money, we have to try to source where the additional money will come from. In that light, if the national training fund levy were to be increased by 14% each year for three years, it would reduce the gap by about €65 million a year. I realise this is a great additional burden on business, but I think the long-term benefits, not just to business but to society, would get over that difficulty.

The hits that students and their families have taken since 2012 have resulted in disjointed and inequitable access to education, creating an unfair advantage for families who can provide their children with financial support. Investment in higher education is necessary if we are to have a highly-skilled workforce and maintain our reputation as a country which is renowned for its research and innovation.

In summary, I think the motion, although well-meaning, is premature. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills which is tasked with a body of work, listening to all stakeholders to try to get their opinions, whether we agree with them or not, so that we will collectively arrive at a consensus. That is why I believe the motion is premature. I would go as far as to say that in many ways it is disrespectful to the work of the joint committee.Labour could be accused of populism in regard to this issue - I think that is a fair accusation because the motion lacks substance, as I said earlier. The one key issue on which we are all in agreement-----