Dr. Aedín Doris:

It depends. The further down the income distribution one is, the lower one's monthly repayments and the longer the repayment period. One pays a smaller amount over a longer period of time. People on very high incomes can repay the loans in four or five years. That gives one an idea of the order of magnitude involved.

By setting the loan repayment rate, whether at 8% of margin, 2% of total or whatever, one is setting the level one thinks is affordable. It is up to policymakers to decide on that. Nothing is set in stone that states the rate has to be 2%, 8% or whatever. One can decide on the level of repayments one thinks is acceptable and pick the one that gives that level. The beauty of these loans is that the maximum of a person's income they can take up is set by law, unlike standard mortgage-type loans where if one becomes ill or unemployed one still has to make repayments which can be a disaster and result in poor credit ratings for those who default. That is the beauty of these schemes. If, at the end of one's working life one still has not repaid the loan it does not follow one to one's grave.

If students do not have upfront fees to pay and see them being postponed in a way they think is affordable, the key issue then becomes the maintenance grant. Many issues of access raised by the committee are more related to maintenance grants. One of the major strengths of the report is that it envisages substantial reform of the maintenance grant system at the same time which, it could be argued, is only possible if there is some contribution to fees from students.

Senator Ó Clochartaigh mentioned geographic inequalities. One of the reasons that students from poorer backgrounds tend to attend local colleges is because grants do not allow them to attend any other institutions. Grant are the only way they can possibly afford to attend college. It is not optimal for people to choose courses solely based on proximity. If people want to study architecture in Dublin, we would like them to be able to do so. The aspect of the report that emphasises the importance of maintenance grant is significant.

I agree with Senator Ruane that intergenerational debt burdens are an important issue. The report comes at a time when we know the crisis has impacted most negatively on young people. There have been cuts to unemployment benefit and pay for entry level jobs has fallen. Younger people suffered more than anyone else during the crisis.

It is important to decide what level of burden one thinks is affordable and set the parameters in a way that provides affordability. It would also be really unfair to students if they are receiving a quality of education that is getting progressively worse. We are not doing anybody any favours by doing that. We have to believe that leaving the status quoin place is damaging young people which is not good for anyone. We need to take that into account when making decisions.

Bruce Chapman, with whom I have worked, said that when student loans were first introduced in Australia they were very much resented by the students who would be impacted by them first, but within a few years they thought the system was completely reasonable and fair. The students saw they were affordable, manageable and allowed them to attend university.

Deputy O'Loughlin asked which model we should go for. I do not think we have to go for any one country's model of income contingent loans, if that is the preference. We definitely should not go anywhere near the UK model; it is heading down a very negative road. The schemes in Australia and New Zealand differ in several ways. In New Zealand, one starts paying at a much lower income threshold. I am not sure I agree with that model. The Australian system is quite good, but it ran into problems when expanding to private sector providers which is something that needs to be considered in terms of regulation. If it is decided to allow private sector providers to access student loans, the system will need to be very carefully regulated. A lot of profiteering took place in Australia which increased the cost enormously without achieving much.