Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. One of my questions is around the loan schemes, although I admit that I hate to start with it. With the loan scheme, we will see an increase in fees of €4,000 or €5,000. Looking at the Australian model, there was a different economic climate when it was introduced. Our young people face an intergenerational debt burden in Ireland which is miles apart from the context in Australia. Was that taken into consideration? Why was the Australian model chosen rather than a fairer model like the Dutch model, which seems much better to me? Perhaps the witnesses can speak to that. Both speakers referred to migration in the context of repaying loans, however, they did not talk about it in terms of us losing talent or whether the loans would act as an incentive to migrate leading to the loss of good graduates rather than it just being a matter of the State absorbing the cost of their loans or fees.

My other question relates to access and participation. Both speakers referred to disadvantaged students and the worst off and the ways in which a loan scheme could increase access or has, in some cases, elsewhere. I find that logically difficult to understand. If we say that free fees did not work, can we also say that poor children were just waiting until they would have to pay the fee at a later date? It makes no sense. It means the poor child is saying, "I am not going to go to college while the fees are free but I am going to go when there is a loan in place which I will have to repay later". I do not understand how this impacts those students at all because that is not logical. I see a further unfairness in a loan system. As a mother, I am now in a position to pay my children's fees for college, which I will whether there is a loan scheme or not. A child from a less well-off family with no income does not have the option or choice whereas children from better-off backgrounds do. If the latter do not choose the loans, their parents will, in many cases, continue to pay. It is still those kids from more disadvantaged areas who do not have an option. The choice is taken away from them. Can the witnesses speak to that?