Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tá céad míle fáilte romhaibh. I was delving into my past during the presentations. For a while, it felt as if I was back in my bachelor of commerce class in University College Galway. Unfortunately, much of the material went over my head, although I tried to follow it as best I could. While the presentation was very interesting, it brings to mind the expression that while the doctors differ, the patient dies. Opinions on this issue diverge and it is difficult to identify where the true path lies.

On the social reading for the data and what it will do for key adult milestones, for example, mortgage acquisition and starting a family, the evidence from New Zealand and Australia, which was outlined previously to the joint committee by the Union of Students of Ireland, is that income contingent loans are having a negative effect on these milestones and delaying them by years. How do Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery respond to the evidence that people are starting families and taking out mortgages later as a result of income contingent loans?

Given that participation rates by mature students and part-time learners plummeted to 40% after income contingent loans were introduced in the United Kingdom, what impact would such loans have on these groups in Ireland? It should be noted that mature students and part-time learners have been targeted in the Access Plan 2015 to 2018 as groups to be incentivised to enter higher education.

According to the submission made by Dr. Doris and Dr. Flannery, there is nothing about an income contingent loan system that is inherently costly in terms of government finances because students repay most of their debt. However, the evidence from every jurisdiction in which income contingent loan systems have been introduced is that they are incredibly costly to the State, as evidenced by the need to increase fees every year beyond inflation levels to recuperate costs. How can we expect circumstances in Ireland to be different from those prevailing in other countries?

As previous speakers noted, interest rates will mean that students who cannot afford to pay €5,000 per annum will end up paying much more for higher education that those who can afford to pay €5,000 per annum. Is the proposal to provide a further 10% discount to those who pay upfront not simply an incentive for the wealthy, one which places lower income families at a further disadvantage?

I listened with great interest to Dr. Larkin and Dr. Corbet. What I picked up from Dr. Larkin's contribution was that we must look at the overall cost of education and follow the money. His basic argument appeared to be that rather than an education system, we have corporations in which there is significant waste and that much of the money being provided to these corporations is not being used to educate students. Will he indicate where the money is going? Dr. Corbet stated the model in place in Dublin City University was changed. How was it changed? How were the university's finances reorganised and where was funding spent and savings made?

There seems to be no end to the money available in third level institutions to spend on legal fees and hiring consultants, whereas money is not available to provide materials for science laboratories, etc. What does this say about priorities?

I am interested in the education-labour market mismatch to which Dr. Larkin's and Dr. Corbet's paper refers. It notes a mismatch of 33% in the case of Ireland. I taught in two third level institutions and I was shocked by the number of students who appeared to be doing the wrong courses. How do we address this issue? How much money is being wasted in the system? If we addressed waste and reduced the rate of drop-out at third level, we would reduce the need for income.

Reading Dr. Larkin's and Dr. Corbet's paper, it struck me that an income contingent loan scheme could be an Irish Water for education. That may be a simplistic conclusion but it appears that it is proposed to pump up to a €1 billion per annum into a system and ask people to pay for it before the system itself is fixed. In the case of Irish Water, large amounts were spent on creating the infrastructure of the company but we did not fix the pipes. Is it Dr. Larkin's and Dr. Corbet's view that we must first fix what is broken in the third level education system and ensure money is being spent in the right places before pumping money into it to prop up the current system and cost model?

Dr. Corbet referred to the context of household debt. One cannot view the income contingent loan as being the only loan a person will have. We all meet large numbers of graduates with arts degrees who are working in coffee shops, restaurants and hotels and earn the minimum wage or less. These people will want to raise families, get on the property ladder and take out mortgages. Would they have a future under a system of income contingent loans or would the system add to household debt and create an even greater divide between the haves and have nots?

Dr. Corbet also alluded to adaptability and resource management and summed up by describing third level as an education system as opposed to a banking system. This is the first time I have considered the issue from that perspective. I would welcome the witnesses' responses to my questions.