Professor Philip Nolan:

There are many questions and being a student by nature, I want to answer all the questions and get all the answers right but I will confine myself to the central question of why we are here. What concerns us is student success and the widest possible participation in that success. The nub of the issue is what funding model will ensure inclusive success and that the greatest number of students benefit from and are successful in higher education. That involves making students understand that college or university or an institute of technology is for them and that they feel there is a place for them within the higher education system. That involves institutions getting out into communities and working with schools to raise awareness and understanding of third level education in those communities, which is resource-intensive. When resources are constrained, one has to pull back and concentrate on teaching and research. That outreach to draw students into third level suffers.

The second issue that arises is how one pays for the education of the greatest number of students. Senator Ruane asked a pertinent question. Why does the State not pay? Would we reject an offer from the State to pay for all students? We would be foolish to reject such an offer. There was a detailed question about whether that is fair and progressive. Members have the Cassells report. I can confidently state that is the best ever assessment of higher education options done internationally. The State is enormously fortunate to have a report which draws on all the international experience, and evaluates it holistically and carefully. The report clearly states there are issues of equity around a system where the State pays for everybody. The issues of equity are straightforward. General taxation is levied on all citizens for a benefit that only apples to some citizens, which is a concern. The second issue is that some citizens do well out of higher education and the report clearly argues that it is a fairer system for those who benefit greatly and earn significant amounts to pay back the cost of their education. Third, once students access higher education, if resources are constrained, vulnerable students suffer the most. If we consider widening participation as an issue, it highlights that we have to invest generally in education in order that we can do the outreach and support all our students, including those who find it easy to get through university and those who find it more difficult. When resources are constrained, those two things suffer.

We also have to be careful about what is the optimum model for funding the higher education of those students. There is a strong set of indications in the report based on international evidence that an income contingent loan system may well be the fairest way of funding the student part of that, along with increased investment by the State and by employers. We could elaborate on that later.

We have to be careful about the lessons we learn from other systems and that is why I draw attention to the report. It is subtle in its analysis of what is going on abroad. If Ireland is compared with the UK, there are two different propositions. There was an ideologically-driven withdrawal of the state from education in the UK, particularly from humanities education, but that is not proposed here. It is proposed that the State and the graduate, who in partnership with the State will pay it back when he or she graduates, will fund it together. Some of the negative impacts in the UK, which are much less in Australia, are not proposed in the report. A different system is proposed. If the higher fees and withdrawal of the state in the UK are taken out, the UK and Australian experience is that over time, income contingent loans enhance participation.

I understand the fear and concern about debt aversion but the international evidence is that when we shift from students paying up-front to students paying their contribution when they graduate, participation increases over time. In our view, it is a fair system. It is arguable but the evidence clearly presented here suggests that that option is a fairer approach overall.