Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Cassells and Dr. Doris and thank them for producing a report which appears to have earned the respect of all the relevant stakeholders. Needless to say, I fully concur that higher education has been at the heart of the country's transformation and needs to be fully restored to make it a key enabler of future development. Access is a key concern and one I share with other members. I taught in a DEIS school in Dublin for more than 16 years and I have known children who were the first in their family to attend college. Choosing to go to college is a major decision for such children and their families. It is important, therefore, that such children can make a smooth transition into third level education. I am concerned that a loans system would cause a child from a disadvantaged background to stop and wonder if he or she or his or her family are willing to take on the burden of a loan. This factor must be taken into consideration.

There is a significant deficit in third level supports for students with mental health issues. We hear, for example, of waiting lists of 18 months to access services and many universities and institutes of technology have noted a marked increase in the number of students with mental health issues. As the witnesses pointed out, the current system fails to recognise the pressures placed on families and students by fees and high living and maintenance costs. We must not increase the pressures and burden on students as this would cause even greater mental health problems when supports are not available to them.

It is assumed that 20% of graduates will emigrate and 10% will remain abroad permanently. It is a serious concern that a loans scheme would incentivise graduates to stay abroad permanently on the basis of a conservative assumption that they would not repay any of the loan while living abroad. Would a loans scheme result in the country bleeding its most talented graduates? That is a major concern.

I ask Mr. Cassells to elaborate on the loans students may face. He indicated that smaller student-teacher ratios are a desired outcome of a student loans system. The student-teacher ratio varies significantly between colleges and courses. Is it possible that, for example, students studying architecture would end up with a larger student loan than, for example, business studies students given the differences in funding required to run architecture and business courses? The former are more labour and materials intensive than the latter.

Mr. Cassells noted that the presidents of the universities appeared before the joint committee two weeks ago. At that meeting, they stated that the national training fund is projected to be in substantial surplus by the end of 2017, to the tune of €272 million? What are the witnesses' views on the possibility of directing some of this surplus into funding third level education? How precisely does he envisage this would be done?

If additional moneys are to be allocated to third level education, how can we ensure they go directly to students? There is a consensus in the health sector that money should follow the patient. How can we ensure that, where funding to third level is increased, the money will follow the student to ensure it yields an improved student experience and better learning outcomes?