Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. My notes are a bit all over the shop, but that speaks to the quality of the submissions we received.

If it is all right, I will focus my questions on Dr. Doris because what she presented is probably the most challenging to my own world view. I mean that in a good way.

Option 1, as she sets out, is that State funding is regressive. That challenges my world view in the context of how the State should operate. I would like to give her the opportunity to dig down into that and also into option 3, which involves income-contingent loans. I am focused on the idea of access and on people from non-traditional backgrounds who find it more difficult to access third level education. In the case of option 1, Dr. Doris states that is regressive. I understand that in the sense that she says we are paying fees for people who can afford it. I want to give her an opportunity to expand on that in terms of taxation revenue, as opposed to funding, and whether it stacks up as regressive.

Option 3 relates to income-contingent loans. This is something I have spoken about at the committee before. In that context, I worry about social capital. I worry about a student who is looking at the prospect of third level education and the idea of accumulating that amount of debt is a barrier too high for them. If you come from a middle-class background and there is sufficient family income, you might be comfortable with that level of debt from a social capital viewpoint. Could Dr. Doris point me to any international evidence or research which backs up her assertion that this is a more progressive model? I ask that because what she said challenges my world view, in a good way, and I want to give her an opportunity to expand on it a little.