Richard Boyd Barrett Demands Abolition of Third-Level Fees

I have a suggestion for you. Abolish all fees for third level and apprenticeships because we have critical shortages in skills across our economy and across our society. It makes no sense to have fees. But my question today particularly relates to USI's concerns and student union concerns that not only are you not going to abolish fees, which you should, but you're actually thinking of getting rid of the once-off reductions of a thousand euro that you've brought in over the last thousand years and that you commented to that effect recently. Can you give assurance that that won't happen and that we will move in the other direction? Thank you Deputy. Minister? So I propose to take the questions together. That's PQ 14866 and 14941. Deputy McEddie and Deputy Boyd Barrett. The programme for government does indeed commit to reducing the student contribution in a financially sustainable manner over the lifetime of the government. As part of the cost of living packages on the last three budgets, the student contribution was reduced by 1,000 euro per annum on a temporary basis at a net cost of circa 99 million per annum. These measures were in response to particular cost of living challenges arising at the time and were not intended to be a permanent solution. It is worth extrapolating the figures in totality. A 1,000 reduction of the type we saw during the cost of living measures equals to 100 million, a 2,000 reduction, 200 million and full abolition as the deputy has called for would be 300 million per annum. If we extrapolate that out over a term of government that's 1.5 billion. Now these are significant figures and I have an open mind and the deputies and other deputies suggestions but I'm sure deputies will agree that there are other competing priorities chasing those same scarce resources. So in looking at how we continue to address financial burdens for students and their families in a long-term and sustainable way I am conscious of the opportunity costs and trade-offs associated with any policy option and we have to allocate resources I believe in the fairest, most progressive, most effective targeted way possible. Given the reality of finite resources I believe this should be in a targeted way to ensure that those students most in need will be supported. It is also important to say that many students and their families do not pay the student contribution because their costs are covered by SUSIE grants. In the last academic year over 43,000 students had their full contribution paid for through SUSIE, 7,600 students received a 50% contribution and a further 16,000 students had a 500 euro contribution towards their student contribution fee. What that means is that 66,600 students in total almost half of all students had the student contribution fee paid in full or in part by the state. In addition to those supports my department also paid out 368 million in that academic year as part of the free fees initiative which benefited all eligible students so 143,000 students progressing through third level all benefiting from fee supports from the state and regardless of means as per the free fees scheme. Notwithstanding the above I think it is important to put those figures on the record and inform the debate. No decisions have been made and we are still early in the budget process. I am very much open to views and stakeholder feedback and I'm inviting interested parties to a cost of education event which I intend to hold and share next week. I will be hearing from students, representatives of the student population and the student body, access officers, student services employees, people who work with students day-to-day basis, advocacy organisations and those who advocate for underrepresented students in education and minorities and policy makers. My aim is to provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to have their say to inform the debate and inform my policy formulation on the cost of education and those issues. Following that event I intend to publish an options paper which will identify costs and potential impacts of various options identified all but the overall goal of reducing the cost of higher education that will then inform the citizens on our budget of 2026. I look forward to that engagement and I look forward to the policy discussion that will inevitably follow. Thank you very much Minister. I will come to Deputy Buy Barrett, one minute. Yeah, right. Are you or are you not considering getting rid of the temporary reduction in fees? Just tell us straight. You shouldn't, it is outrageous and you should be going in the opposite direction. Why? There are 15% dropout rates of undergraduates now, 15%. 5,000 drop out in first year and increase in recent times up to 12% from 9%. Now what government could stand over that when we have shortages in the construction professions and trades, in the healthcare sector, in industry, in everywhere? There's no way there's not shortages of skills. How? Why? It is insane to put financial and other barriers in the way of people. Why are they dropping out? It's not just because of the fees but the financial hardship, cost of living impact on families is clearly a factor. There's also then of course the cost of accommodation, the cost of travel, the stress, the mental health pressure but financial is big, right? So 255 million to get rid of fees, 100 million to get rid of post-grad fees, a fraction of that to get rid of apprenticeships which was discussed earlier on. It would be money well invested in people that we need to make our society function. So Deputy Boyd Barrett asked about the temporary reduction but it was a temporary reduction. I suppose that's that's the point and this is, I think it's important we put it on a more sustainable, long-lived, permanent track and that's part of the consultation that I tend to hold with students, with student bodies, with stakeholders, with universities, to understand what is actually a more holistic, sustainable formula to support the cost of education for students, for their families and for all in receipt. It is important and I appreciate you say I'm losing you with figures but 66,600 students already receive a student contribution, a contribution from the state in full apart towards that student contribution, in addition to the 143,000 students that receive their fees paid in full, apart from the student contribution, their fees are paid by the state. There are very few people in undergraduate who don't have their fees paid with the state. There are a couple for reasons perhaps it's a second degree course, they're coming from outside the state, there's a couple of technical categories, the vast vast majority of undergraduate students have their fees paid in full by the state. In addition to that the student contribution fee, which is a separate charge to the fees for the course, is met in almost half cases in full and part by the state. So if there are families and I absolutely understand that there are, and I know them myself and I engage them in my constituency and my normal business, who are, as you put it, a dependent of colour, what I want to understand is why are they not eligible for SUSIE grants? Why are they not eligible for the existing supports? Because there are existing supports and if there are gaps in the system, that's exactly what I want to identify in the consultation. So if there are, if the LGBT thresholds need to be examined, if the bars need to be widened, if there are gaps, I believe, I don't know if Deputy Boyd Bar agrees with me, I am unconvinced by a universal, no means test, free for all, that we say actually we're going to do universal abolition. And actually the Parliament for Government talks about a sustained reduction in a financially sustainable way, it doesn't talk about abolition. So Deputy Mageddon talked about a reduction to zero, that would be abolition, that's never mentioned in the Parliament for Government. I want to support students, I want to support their families, I want to make education accessible, that's why we're paying the fees for 143,000 students, that's why supporting 66,600 students in part are full. But I'm open to the conversation of how we target that to the people that really need it. Thank you Minister, thanks very much. Deputy Boyd Barrett. Look, if 5,000 undergraduates dropping out doesn't concern you, you really want to rethink about being the Minister for Higher Education. Because it is obvious we have an urgent problem that is affecting our entire economy and society in terms of the lack of skilled people, as well as the mental health issues and all the stress that that puts on the people and the families dropping out. Now, what I suspect is it's financial. Here's a suggestion. Every year corporations, mostly the most profitable multinational corporations, get 800 million euro in research and development tax credits. These are companies already making astonishing profits. Redirect some of that tax credit money to getting rid of fees. For students, postgrads and apprentices, that would benefit our society a hell of a lot more, be a lot better for the sustainability of our economy and our society. Simple suggestion, that's how you cost, that's how you pay for it. Thank you Deputy Boyd Barrett. Yes, thank you deputies. Look, I suppose I, of course, I'm concerned, Deputy Boyd Barrett, about any students dropping out. One is too many, five is too many, five thousand. What I would like to understand is the reasons for that and some analysis of that would be helpful and something I will look into. I understand that cost of college has never been easy and I understand if there's an issue where the supports, because there are abundant supports in the system, paid for by the state, if they're not reaching those that are most in need, something's going wrong. I'm not convinced that a flat abolition or free fees or whatever you want to call it is the answer to that. I think that would be a use of scarce resources in a way that perhaps could be more targeted to those in need. I believe in progressive policy. I believe to each according to their needs. I don't believe to each everything. So I think that we have to be prudent and I think we have to be progressive in how we manage those allocations. Briefly, Deputy Boyd Barrett's point about the research and development tax credit. I'm surprised that the Deputy takes aim at that. I think it's actually a really useful measure. And I think that that research and development support is exactly the kind of thing we should be encouraging. We all know about global headwinds and changing economic tides and trade tariffs and so forth. We have talent in this country and we have research and development in this country and we have innovation in this country and that is what has fuelled the enterprise model that we have pursued since the 60s and 70s which successfully widened the public good by widening the resources available to the public good. So all the other things that we want to do in terms of education, in terms of housing, in terms of health are supported through that type of revenue because that is the economic model that we support, that we subscribe to and that creates the resources because that private enterprise creates the public good which can then be distributed to do all the things that we want to do in this chain on our daily basis. I'm a big supporter of that model. Thank you.