Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their presentations. I tried as best I could to dissect them before the meeting but I did not understand some of the figures and I will seek clarification on them. The moment we allow the State to even step out slightly in respect of education, we will move towards the privatisation of our education system, which will not be a positive. I would like Dr. Corbet and Dr. Larkin to respond to my initial questions before I turn to Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery.

Could Dr. Corbet and Dr. Larkin elaborate on the New Zealand model given that the government there is considering the arrest of defaulting emigrants at its airports? People will be criminalised for returning home. Could they also refer to the Hungarian system? What impact could the introduction of loans have on the future borrowing ability of graduates?

What effect will the high current and expected household debt in Ireland have on the proposed ICL system? It was pointed out to me today that Australia's household debt is similar to Ireland's but the figures seem to be compared more as they are now than in 1989, when income-contingent loans were introduced and when, I believe, disposable income was quite steady. It was during the 1990s that Australia started to see a shift in its economy. I also ask the witnesses to explain how they believe the ICL model would not solve the third level funding crisis, in particular given the initial cost of the model. It was said it would take up to 17 years before we even began to break even. If the system is in crisis, what happens between now and 17 years' time? It is still not clear whether the training levy would be an additional resource to education or a replacement for lost resources, so there might not even be any revenue there either in the interim. What effect will an ICL model have on a future equitable or social policy in education?

There is a point in the written statement submitted by Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery that the fully taxpayer-funded system may seem attractive because it provides access to education at no upfront cost to the student but that that is regressive. Do they not feel that those who earn more should pay more? In my view, this would be a progressive, not a regressive, system. In response to another point in their statement that the amount one repays is based on one's monthly earnings, as we can see from the research by Dr. Larkin and Dr. Corbet, there is expected to be a high rate of default. Who do Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery expect to pick up the default? Is it the taxpayer? Who would absorb that cost?

There are two points in the presentation by Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery at which reference was made to incentives. I find it quite worrying that anyone would feel it appropriate to propose to give a 10% discount to those who could afford to pay upfront. That is inappropriate. I think they are proposing to reward those from wealthier backgrounds who will be in a position to pay upfront and almost punishing students from poorer backgrounds who will not be in a position to avail of a 10% discount. Even the inclusion of a proposal for such an incentive in the two witnesses' presentation is very worrying in respect of how they view equity of access to education.

I have one more question to put perhaps to both sides of the debate. The issue of gender, which I had not thought of, was raised in respect of gaps in women's participation in the workforce and how the debt will hang over them much longer if they have to take longer periods out of work to care for children. Is this already an unfair system when gender is considered, but also in respect of people with disabilities who will enter university burdened perhaps already with high costs in terms of their living costs, medication and wheelchairs if they have them or anything else additional they may need for their health? Have Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery considered that people with disabilities will be put off having a further loan put on top of them if they have any kinds of health-related issues?

I am very concerned that the burden of debt is placed on the poor. My child, for example, is in leaving certificate year. Were an income-contingent loan introduced today, I would pay her fees upfront with or without a 10% discount. The poor person, the person coming from a one-parent household or the person with no income coming into the house does not have choice; such people are forced into debt. The debt will therefore end up transferred onto the person with the lowest income because the person who has wealth has a choice whether to take an income-contingent loan. I feel that income-contingent loans on this basis alone should not be considered at all.