Mr. Kieran McNulty:

I thank the committee members for their questions. I will deal first with Senator Ruane's query about the Australian model. As I mentioned in my submission, they have tinkered with their system many times, including charging more money for specific courses. The Universities Australia report in 2013 stated that students receiving a youth allowance would not only have spent years in college struggling to survive on incomes below the poverty line, but will also have generated debts which could keep them impoverished for years. That is quite a stark review of the income contingent loan system there, which is commonly referred to as the best in the world.

The difficulty of chasing loans from people who emigrate was mentioned earlier. In 2012, there was a spate of headlines about people being arrested in New Zealand when coming home for holidays because they had not paid back their student loans. That is how the New Zealand system has tried to recoup loans that have not been repaid. I do not know if we want to go there.

There has been an overall decline in full-time undergraduates receiving youth allowance or AU study schemes from 42.4% in 2000 to 35.2% in 2006. University fees in New Zealand increased for ten years until the government introduced legislation that allowed for increases of only 5% per annum. If one contrasts this to the UK, although I know the system is not the same as in the UK, the loan system has only been in place since 2011. It was said in 2011 that the threshold would never go above £9,000 for student fees, yet universities pressured the British government into accepting £9,250 and that will increase further. This is what tends to happen with loans.

I will now turn to Deputy Thomas Byrne's questions. The question of students who are just above the threshold for SUSI grants has arisen a lot. Some 27% of students in my university receive the SUSI grant. I would argue that a huge percentage are just over that threshold, so much more account needs to be given to levelling and maybe even to zoning. That is because of adjacency rates, so if a student lived 21 km from university he or she got the full grant, but now if one lives within 45 km the grant is cut in half. That needs to be examined, particularly given that transport costs in rural areas are quite high. The system is not as competitive but if one is living in an urban area then accommodation costs need to be looked at also.

Senator Ruane asked whether a loan scheme would be preferable to the status quo. I would not think so because as she rightly said, people are getting loans already. I received a loan for my final year as well. If an income contingent loan system is introduced, that would mean in effect that people would get two loans. I was on SUSI but I still had to get a loan to cover my living expenses, although I do not live exorbitantly. Option 2 has been categorised as the status quobut it is the status quowith more funding. I would argue that Option 2 is allowing for a general decrease in the student contribution, ring-fencing it as it is, or for using public funding more to enhance the grant system.

The student assistance fund needs to be reviewed. A separate union in our university has argued for the restoration of postgraduate grants, which could be looked at in our current system. A SUSI review group would be great.

As regards those who argue for an income contingent loan system, I have never heard an acceptable answer from people on the Cassells report as to why there is an automatic increase in the fee in the two models laid out. Since 2008 our fees have increased. From 2011 to 2015 they have risen from €1,500 to €3,000. In a time of recovery, why are we saying that it should go up to €4,000 or €5,000 while categorising this as a matter of fairness? Is it necessary to have an income contingent loan scheme that goes to €4,000 or €5,000? My worry is that it would rise, which is why I am firmly opposed to it. It is a slippery slope. I would like to hear whether members of this committee support an increase in fees. In choosing to examine the loan system that is, in effect, what the committee will be doing.