Rose Conway-Walsh on centralisation and funding in higher education
Rose Conway-Walsh questioned whether the higher education bill in its general scheme would centralise control, and raised concerns about democratisation under the 1971 Act. She also challenged the proposed funding model and CSO/Eurostat treatment of fee income, warning it could affect universities' off-balance-sheet status.
Main concerns raised
Rose Conway-Walsh asked whether the bill would result in centralisation of control across the higher education sector, whether the democratisation objective of the 1971 Act remains relevant and whether the bill furthers or contradicts that objective. She highlighted the 2018 Eurostat and CSO assessment and argued that if fee income is treated as sales, it would be hard to see how universities could remain off the state balance sheet.
Witness responses on governance and democratisation
Witnesses replied that there was no intention to centralise control and described the aim as strong, autonomous institutions with central support and an authority able to intervene where necessary. Speakers said they hoped the reform would increase democratisation and protect diverse institutional types and pathways between further and higher education.
Participation gaps and progression indicators
A witness cited stark participation disparities - 99% participation in third level education in Dublin 6 versus 15% in Dublin 17 - and referenced Dr Pat Clancy's earlier work from the 1960s and 70s. They urged clearer progression indicators, an annual dashboard of measures, and a special committee session on access to address persistent shortfalls despite some progress and record applicants under the dare-hear schemes.
Funding model, loans and CSO scrutiny
Speakers agreed on the need to design a funding and borrowing framework that preserves access to loan funding and avoids unintended consequences of the legislation. They recommended inviting the CSO for a dedicated session to examine categorisation and to ensure any borrowing model does not produce adverse balance-sheet outcomes for universities.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thank you. Just a couple of more questions. Do you think the bill in its current form in the general scheme will result in the centralisation of control in the higher education sector? That's a broader question for everybody. Also, in terms of the 1971 Act, that set out the democratisation of the third level sector as an objective. Do you think this is still relevant today? And does this bill further this? Or does it contradict it? And I just want to get back briefly to the funding model and the CSO categorisation. So, in 2018, we saw Eurostat and the CSO, when they revisited the assessment of the control of universities, they came up with, obviously, the criteria, autonomous institutions under public or private control or market or non-market. But the result of that was that the universities were seen as autonomous institutions under public control and as a market operator. So, I just cannot see how, I think that we can manage everything that needs to be achieved and still remain off the balance sheet. In 2018, the CSO report clearly states that all fee income, whether that's paid by households or by the state on behalf of households, is treated as sales. And this would mean that provided a funding model is correctly designed, that the universities could continue to have full off-state balance sheet borrowing. So, maybe Jim or Dr. Ryan, you could maybe address the last question, but then the other questions for everyone. Thank you. Joe, I'll cede to you first, if you like, this time. I don't want to come in first each time, but that's okay. Not at all, Jim. Thank you. I thank you, Deputy, for the question. On the question of central control, which I just, if you don't mind, I just mentioned a quick, I think no is the answer. I don't think there's any intention for that. However, the question is, what does the bill lead us to? I think strong, autonomous institutions, you know, with central support and with the ultimate ability of an authority to come in where it's necessary, I think, is the goal from a bill such as this. On the question of democratisation, absolutely. I think that's the way we've seen our higher education institutions go. And what I would love to see come out of this consideration of the reform is, you know, an increase in democratisation. And I think if we respect the landscape that we have now with traditional universities, technological universities, institutes, etc., I think there's a place for everyone in that. And obviously, we're trying to construct a system where people can move pathways through from further to higher education. Your last piece, I fully agree with you on this. So I think the critical piece, when we get down to consider what comes back from Europe on castles, is actually ensuring that we facilitate that access into the borrowing framework, that we construct it in a way. And again, my reading will be very much on the same lines as yourself, Deputy. Thank you. Deputy, I think. I want to make a point, just to say that in my comments earlier, one of the things I said was that wide and diverse governing body with strong, you know, good, strong regional membership would obviously guard very much against what you're talking about in relation to the whole area of centralisation. Deputy, on the question of democratisation, on the question of democratisation, I spoke earlier about the need for clearer indicators on progression. As I sit here in Sanding Mountain, three miles to the southwest, there is a 99% participation in third level education in Dublin 6. Three miles to me to the northwest, three miles to the northwest, there's a 15% participation in higher education in Dublin, Dublin 17. Now, these figures have not significantly changed since they were first taken out, first calculated by Dr. Pat Clancy in the 60s and 70s. Now, that is the greatest indictment on us all. It is the greatest indictment on the progress of the democratisation of education. We simply haven't achieved significant change. Now, and I think, and that's why I'm talking about progress indicators. We need a dashboard setting out indicators, and if we don't like the indicators, all we need to do is to improve them, not to have different indicators. So, I do think there's a problem here, and I think that, in fact, these indicators need to be revisited every year, and they need to be improved. I'm not saying nothing is done, okay, but at the same time, there is a significant problem here, and there's a significant shortfall. Chairman, I'm aware of your talk, but very briefly, I would say, I would urge the committee to have a special session on access in the near future, because I think there's a very substantive issue that we need to discuss there. We do need to recognise that progress has been made, but it's not enough. I mean, we do have a record number of applicants this year under the dare-hear schemes, and that's very encouraging. But it's those who haven't applied or who don't get in is the ones, I think, that we need to focus on, as Jermit has rightly outlined. On the loans issue, look at this simply, the point I was making is we need to avoid the law of unintended consequences in terms of the legislation, and I suppose that is, you know, it's important that we retain access to loan funding for the system, because otherwise, I think we could create a real problem. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I would say maybe to Chair, just to finish, I think we, and you may already have it in hand, but we would need the CSO in for a particular session just to examine that, as Jim said, so that there aren't unintended consequences and that we have a model that is suitable. Okay.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
