Ms Clare Austick:

On the first element, the supports that are available and in existence are not fit for purpose. They do not accurately reflect the cost of living. That is one of the big issues. In previous conversations with the Department, the Minister or other key stakeholders, it always has come down to whether we should have investment in publicly-funded higher education, whether the student contribution charge should be reduced or whether there should be investment in the existing financial support services such as SUSI and the student sssistance fund, SAF. From our perspective, it should be both. There has to be the complete abolition of the student contribution charge. It should be publicly funded. The sector is so significantly underfunded that the student-staff ratios are not average. The working conditions are not great for staff. Students are not getting the best, most meaningful, high-quality education possible because they cannot engage in societies or clubs, or have to work part-time jobs, and have to commute up to four hours each day. There are so many different scenarios that students experience because of the financial hardship that they are in.

In terms of the SUSI and SAF, we are still waiting on the SUSI review to come out to see what has been established and if there will be any financial increases in them. However, we must look at this in a holistic way. We must look at the criteria to qualify for the SUSI grant in the first place. Does one get the full maintenance? Is it only a portion of it? Is it only the fees that are covered? There is the non-adjacency rate as well. Postgraduate students need support. International students cannot avail of the SAF or the SUSI grant. They have no real financial support at all when they come into Ireland and in some instances they pay up to nine times the amount that Irish domestic students do.

There is one other point I want to come back on because I just need to say it. On the argument for a publicly-funded higher education system, you can take the practical economic approach in terms of the investment and what it does for society but there is also the emotive element to it. Publicly-funded higher education would provide individuals, but also the collective, the opportunity to upskill, to reskill and to participate in lifelong learning encouraging them to constantly strive for more information and knowledge.

It supports society in the context of being creative and thinking outside the box and promotes social justice and equality. There is also the economic argument whereby for €1 of investment, there will be a €3 return. There are many positives to a potentially publicly funded higher education system.

This comes back to how we view our education system and whether we see it as a right. If so, we cannot put a price on it. Otherwise, we view it as a privilege, although I hope nobody in this room or anybody listening to the meeting thinks that way. Ultimately, it is a right, not a privilege, and we need to invest in it and ensure that regardless of someone's background, whether he or she has worked or whether he or she wants to attend college or higher education at any stage in life, he or she will have the opportunity to do that. We need to fund the system. We need to have a publicly funded higher education system and invest in student accommodation that is affordable, but also ensure the financial supports that are already there are fit for purpose.