Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their attendance. It would be great if all public policy was decided like this, with some of our top academics coming to a televised session to be interviewed by politicians. I think we would have better public policy if that were the case. It is absolutely wonderful that we have four PhD-holders here giving us their views even though they are different. I hope we are interrogating both sides to try to get some answers because it is ultimately us who must make the decisions. I wanted to say that because it is fantastic and it is a pleasure to be here listening to them.

I agree with Dr. Doris on one point and had never really thought about it like this previously. I am in principle in favour of free education - we all are - but it is true that one earns more the more highly educated one is. Therefore, it is a transfer of resources from the lower paid to the higher paid. There is no question about that. I have never heard that expressed before but I agree that it is the case. That is worth bearing in mind in all of this debate.

We in Fianna Fáil have kept an open mind on the Cassells report, and I have kept an open mind here today and will continue to do so. I have not yet been convinced by either side of the debate, which I think is good because I do not think we have got enough information to make a decision yet.

We have to hand Dr. Larkin's and Dr. Corbet's report. I heard Dr. Larkin speak at the Technological Higher Education Association, THEA, conference, and both met me subsequently. I thought this was very useful and I thank them for making their time available to many of us. We also have a response we requested from Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery, which is also extremely useful. However, by Dr. Larkin's and Dr. Corbet's own admissions, this is not finished; it is a work in progress. I do not know how but I was under the impression that this was a finished product and that of Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery is a response. Should the committee or the Chairman ask somebody else - perhaps the ESRI or a similar body - to examine all these issues and this massive body of work that has already been produced from these four generous individuals here? I wonder is that a route the committee should go down, but that is an aside.

There seem to be many assumptions built into Dr. Larkin's and Dr. Corbet's paper. Something that struck me was the 1% economic growth projection. I know there are recessions and so on but perhaps they could explain that a little more. It is not the figure political parties use in their manifestos but perhaps there is a happy medium somewhere else. I do not know.

Dr. Corbet and Dr. Larkin refer to graduates being available to repay the loan over a 20-year horizon. Will they elaborate on that point? Does it mean graduates would have a 20-year window within which to work? I would be a little surprised if that were the assumption.

Dr. Corbet and Dr. Larkin discovered through their research or made an assumption that 50% of graduates would be unable to pay the full net present value of the income contingent loan over a 20-year horizon. Their modelling, according to their presentation, "shows that we can be assured of repayment in only 31% of graduates". This strikes me as an extremely pessimistic view. If 50% of graduates were unable to repay the full value of the loan and repayment was only assured in 31% of cases, what would anybody be able to pay? While the loan would be substantial, it would not be the largest debt a graduate would have as a mortgage repayment would be larger. According to these projections, a very high percentage of graduates will be unable to repay the loans. Given the pessimistic scenarios presented, who would pay the general taxation that would be required under an alternative model? It seems we would not be able to do anything under these assumptions.

I am asking questions purely to elicit information. I am very grateful for the work the witnesses have done because it has got us thinking on a new level, which is what we need to do.