Latest news with #studentunions
Telegraph
01-08-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Reeves tells universities: Let defence firms recruit your students
Rachel Reeves has called on universities to do more to ensure defence companies can attend careers fairs without facing intimidation. The Chancellor told The Telegraph there should be 'no barriers' to young people taking jobs in the sector as the world gets more dangerous and uncertain. The intervention was triggered by concerns that Left-wing student unions protesting the presence of defence firms at careers events was discouraging attendance. Ms Reeves told The Telegraph: 'A strong national defence can build a strong economy too. By backing Britain's defence industry, we can create new jobs, opportunities, and investments in our industrial heartlands. 'We can give the next generation the chance to work in high-skilled, well-paid part of the economy. 'But those opportunities can only be seized if we make them available to everyone. That's why it's right that companies should be allowed to attend university career events or recruitment fairs. 'There should be no barriers to young people having the chance to decide on their own futures or crucial part of the British economy being shut out of hiring the best and the brightest.' The Telegraph has been told of incidents when defence companies have cancelled sending employees to jobs fairs due to fears they will be barracked by vocal critics. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and concerns about the growing influence of China have contributed to Western nations, including the UK, markedly increasing defence spending. The Government has for months been taking steps to counter long-standing negative portrayals of the defence sector, talking up its importance to UK national security. Student protests create hostile environment Business leaders whose firms make military equipment have personally complained to the Chancellor that they were effectively barred from some university careers fairs. There is no ban by the university sector or individual universities on defence companies sending representatives to events where students look for future jobs. However, often a hostile environment is created by student protesters, according to multiple well-placed figures in the defence sector and the Government. It means executives are sometimes taking the decision not to attend certain careers fairs, fearing it would be an unpleasant experience for those employees – often recent graduates themselves – who are sent in. A source at one defence company described how they took that decision after learning of a planned protest where the firm would be accused of being 'dealers of death'. The source said: 'We have had instances where student groups on campuses have taken the fact we are there as a problem. We have seen some pretty unpleasant campaigns with those groups to try to agitate within student unions.' Defence firms have anecdotal evidence that confrontational protests have become more common since Hamas's Oct 7 attack on Israel, after which there has been heightened scrutiny of connections between the British defence industry and Israel. It comes amid pro-Palestine protests on campuses across the country in the wake of Oct 7 and Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is also aware of the issue of defence companies feeling they cannot attend some university careers events and is monitoring it. The concerns have emerged at a time when the UK is set to need even more home-grown engineers and scientists for the defence sector as government spending in that space soars. The Chancellor, who an ally said had been a consistent champion behind the scenes of Britain's defence companies, recently signed off a marked increase in defence spending. The UK's defence spending will rise from around 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent GDP by 2027 – or to 2.6 per cent when money for the intelligence agencies is included for the first time. There is also a looser ambition to hit 3 per cent by the early 2030s, as well as a new Nato target to reach 3.5 per cent on core defence spending by 2035. Labour has already pressed financial institutions to change their definition of environmental, social and governance to make sure that defence companies are not being locked out of potential funding. There was a 9 per cent drop in investment in defence companies from UK funds between the start of 2022 and late 2023, according to London Stock Exchange data. Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, met senior figures at defence firms and banks last December to press his concerns about barriers to investment in the sector. Meanwhile, Labour has also taken steps to protect free speech on university campuses since entering office last summer, retaining proposed Tory legislation in that space after initially signalling it would be dropped. Ms Reeves said: 'The world is changing and we can see that before our eyes. It is becoming more dangerous, more insecure and more uncertain. 'But the job of the Government is not simply to step back and watch that change happen, but to take action to keep our country safe. 'That is why we have announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War and an ambition to spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence in the next parliament.'
Irish Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Should the €1,000 relief on student fees continue? A student representative and a former government adviser debate
Bryan O'Mahony: Yes. It was the only thing standing between staying in education or dropping out The €1,000 relief on or reduction in annual student fees/student contribution at third level over the past two years was not a luxury but a means of survival for most students already struggling with sky-high rents and having to work full-time just to be able to afford basic necessities. Plainly put, it was the only thing standing between staying in education or dropping out. The removal of the relief, quietly suggested by the Minister for Higher Education, James Lawless, doesn't seem like an accident. At the time of the relief's introduction in 2023 it was framed as a big step towards making higher education more accessible to students from all walks of life, particularly in the face of a cost-of-living crisis. The timing of the suggestion on a recent Sunday appeared a calculated move right before the CAO change-of-mind deadline, and two days before student union officers across the country handed over the baton to their successors. The consequences of this decision, if it goes ahead, will have a lasting impact on students. Ireland is one of the most expensive places for higher education in the EU. Meanwhile, the rent and cost-of-living crises persist. In cities such as Cork, Limerick and Dublin, the rent for a bedroom in shared accommodation has climbed beyond €800 a month. Many students are working full-time jobs to keep up, and having to choose between food, fees and housing. READ MORE Removal of the relief will penalise those who are already struggling. Students from migrant families and working-class backgrounds and those with disabilities are disproportionately affected, as are students who are estranged from their families and those students who are carers and parents. Ireland's persistent underfunding in higher education has been the biggest roadblock to ensuring quality or sustainability in the system. According to the OECD, 'Ireland invests significantly less in higher education compared to other OECD countries, resulting in under-resourced institutions and increased financial pressure on students through higher fees and living costs.' The Cassells report made similar findings almost a decade ago. This Government has repeatedly relied on small and short-term promises to tackle structural underfunding and now is breaking the promise it made in the Programme for Government for 2025 – to reduce the cost of going to college – and letting students foot the bill. The message the Government sends is very clear – students are pawns in its game, and promises made to students are merely linked to elections. We have had students calling on us for support from all over the country, asking us questions we are unable to answer, due to the lack of answers or clarity from the Government on this issue. Students are reconsidering their CAO choices, thinking about deferring or leaving the dream of getting an education altogether as a result. This is not an abstract policy change that has been mooted – it affects the lives of students across the nation. [ Third level fees row looks set to rumble on for a while Opens in new window ] The pandemic was a good indicator of how students, despite hardships, strived towards the chance of a better education. The €1,000 fee relief should be retained – not just as a symbolic act, but as an acknowledgment of the urgency in making higher education more accessible in practice. Alongside that, we need real SUSI reform, and long-term public investment in the third-level sector through the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. This decision by the Government is more than about €1,000. It is emblematic of how low third-level students are in the list of priorities for this Government. Bryan O'Mahony is president of Aontas na Mac Léinn in Éirinn, which is a student union representing more than 370,000 students across the country Gerard Howlin: No. Further reducing the tax base, which is what cutting students' fees will do, is bad policy Free fees are fool's gold and reduced fees are cut-price education. That the debate about funding third level has narrowed down to a €1,000 relief on already-reduced student fees is ludicrous. Third level, and further education, drives the economy and builds a better society. The leaders it produces are in classrooms, public administration and hospitals as well as technology, law and business. Their education confers lifetime advantages of better opportunity and higher income. The almost-hysterical and highly politicised debate about €1,000, without any wider concern for the future, is a dumbing down and a shame in a country that has invested so much in education. What isn't paid by students is paid by the State. Clearly there is a public good to justify that. Many students pay nothing because they are the too few from disadvantaged backgrounds who get there. And €3,000 a year is a knock-down price for an extraordinary lifetime advantage. Further cutting student contribution is neither an effective nor value-for-money use of public money. But then the politics underpinning the promise of further reductions, and eventual abolition, is based on the fool's gold of endless resources. The party is over, but the band plays on. There is a perennial tension between funding for students and funding for higher education. Abolishing student fees in the 1990s was a boon for private secondary schools but did a lot less, despite its cost, for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The CAO results are a postcode lottery. More students are coming from everywhere, but too few of the hard-to-reach have ever been found. That is as much about social capital as money but that's too complicated to count in a shouty debate. [ Middle class parents are the winners in third-level fee cut. That's why Fine Gael don't want to touch it Opens in new window ] What many fail to realise is how this false economy shafts students themselves. They are between the crosshairs. Firstly, numbers in third level are rising but are still far from peak – which is predicted in 2030 or later. So underfunding is deepened because increased State funding won't compensate simultaneously for lost income and increased student numbers. Secondly, demographics generally are shifting fast, and today's students are destined to be the longest-lived generation ever, supporting an ever-increasing number of dependents over decades. That dependency would include the full cost of third level for every taxpayer if fees are abolished. Thirdly, these promises are based on the false premise of endless resources. This debate is part of the hangover, the morning after. Further reducing the tax base, which is what cutting students' fees will do, is bad policy; students will pay dearly for starting on their first day in work. Significant self-sufficiency in third level supports better funding overall and supports quality education now. It also supports the fairer distribution of the tax burden, which otherwise will be borne by today's students over their working lives. It may suit their parents now, which is the driving political force. But piling them high, and selling them cheap, sells out students – who will have to pay many times over for a once-off freebie turned into a permanent taxpayer-funded deficit. The Dáil will debate this issue on Tuesday and, in the prism of politics, cynicism and short-termism may prevail. Systemic issues requiring attention such as course quality, the future funding model, the future-proofing of graduates, CAO points system, aligning programmes to employment needs and the role and operation of the research system will get scant attention. A figure of €1,000 is easier to bandy about. If you don't know the value of what you are talking about, the price won't matter. Gerard Howlin is a public affairs consultant and former government adviser
