Mr. Kieran McNulty:

I thank the committee for allowing me to speak to it today. I am speaking on behalf of the 17,000 students I represent in Trinity but also as a student who graduated last week having undergone a four year course in law. I was lucky to have received the SUSI grant for each of these years and to have had two parents who supported me.

The committee has a defining decision ahead of it. Students spend between €11,000 a year on college according to a DIT cost of living survey, if they live away from home. I have had students come to my office every week asking for help, financial support and in some cases food to get by. Accommodation costs rise and finding suitable accommodation remains difficult. The cost of living also rises. These students who have to work two to three part-time jobs, who have to barely get by on the SUSI money, if they get it at all, are very dependent on the outcome of this committee’s review. Our students in our union stand for no fee increases and this is what I am asking the committee for today. Students, as a whole, are greatly concerned about the proposals of the July Cassells report. We saw this at the USI rally in October when close to 2,000 Trinity students, which is a record, marched on the streets of Dublin with every other institution in Ireland. The report rightly outlines that more investment is needed now in higher level education. As Peter Cassells stated to the committee, the system is broken and needs a revamp. Staff-student ratios are unacceptable and universities are now coming to the end of their reserves, not to mention the desperate state institutes of technology find themselves in.

Student fees increased in recessionary times from €1,500 to €3,000. This report outlines in part how they could increase again to €4,000 or €5,000, to say nothing of cuts to grants. In a time of recovery, this is most unfair and a retrograde step for our country to take. Make no mistake, an income contingent loan scheme of €4,000 to €5,000 is an increase in fees and will be seen as one.

While I know the system here is not the same as the one in UK or in the USA, the countries where loans may be seen as having had a moderate success still have many pitfalls. Australia, for example, has tinkered with its system many times. It has charged more money for specific courses such as medicine or law, and the system may even be left behind by the current government. Youth Allowance - its version of SUSI - recipients are more likely to borrow from family and friends as well as others and go without educational books and materials than other university students. One in five loans there are not paid back and there is, similar to here, much emigration. Loans tend to rise. They tend to scare off students, particularly mature and part-time students, and they tend more and more not to be paid back.

The Institute of Technology presidents spoke passionately to this committee about maintaining access routes in their call for free education. A point made against the previous free fee scheme in the 1990s was that it did not improve access. A loan system will impede access for part-time and mature students. However, it is not only financial barriers that impede access. We have noted our recommendations for improving access in the report which was circulated to the committee.

If a proposed scheme will, at the worst, severely curtail access and, at best, keep access rates relatively the same as the loan system would do, why are we pursuing it? The report outlines that SUSI should be maintained and enhanced, and I would agree. Living costs need to be covered more than they are currently, as previous speakers have outlined.

I do not want only to discuss the loan option, as much of the political and media attention is focused on it. There are, after all, two other options. Ms Annie Hoey outlined the arguments for a publicly funded education scheme and I ask that it would not be dismissed. Our report outlines how such schemes work in Europe, not just in the idyllic models in Scandinavia. The second option two has not been discussed much either. It too should be examined and models should be created for all options, not just models for the loan option.

Our students have also brought answers and solutions to the committee. The Cassells report speaks of increasing the employer's contribution. It states, "This should be delivered by increasing the National Training Fund levy". It further states, "Each 0.1 per cent increase in the levy could raise at least an additional €50m per annum". If we raise this by 0.5% or even 1% this would go a long way. There needs to be a balance, on which I believe everyone is in agreement, but employers are categorically not playing their part. The word "talent" is used to describe Ireland's workforce to the world. There is a complete benefit for companies in contributing to higher and further education, and they need to do so more.

This committee has asked for advice several times on how to sell the option picked for higher education. This is a very easy way of selling it. Increase the employer's contribution only slightly and ring-fence it for higher education.

I thank the members for listening to me. I would be grateful if they read our report which was written and compiled by students. We are happy to come back and present or comment at any stage. This is a time to decide what we as a country stand for in looking towards the future. We need to decide if education truly is a public good and valued by this Government. This decision will affect us and the students who come after us most of all. I formally ask the members of this committee not to increase fees for students under any guise as part of their recommendation. We are their teachers, mechanics, engineers, researchers, doctors, therapists, nurses and even Senators and politicians. We are the future of this country and we deserve the best future that our country can give. We will play our part. We ask that our employers and politicians do the same.