Mr. James Doorley:

The Chairman asked where the money should come from, which is the fundamental question the report is looking at. We would argue this is about broadening the tax base through progressive taxation. We know many people who do third level earn higher salaries but, as a result, they will contribute to the overall system through progressive taxation. The idea is that we should not treat third level differently, given we do not ask people to take out loans to go to second level or to primary school, and, in a sense, we should look at education as a social good to which we all contribute, and we do that through the taxation system.

There is a concern that we will solve one problem - the fact the State has a funding problem at third level - but create another. We know what happened in housing, in which the State was very involved. The State built many houses and provided support to people through county councils to build their houses. It then went out of that sector and decided the private sector will deal with it and people can take out loans. We see now that the State is trying to solve a crisis. What might happen is that the State could solve the problem so that we know where we will get the resources to deal with investment in third level, which is through the contingent loans system, but we are then loading that debt onto individuals throughout the country who will have that debt for perhaps 10 or 20 years.

It is very important that we look at this issue from a youth perspective, in particular in regard to the post-secondary level and young people's options to progress their career, and that we do not just talk about third level. We seem to have a bit of an obsession with talking about third level. I believe we also need to look at the vocational education sector and further education, and how that is going to be funded. Mr. Donohoe mentioned that we can see from Australia and the UK that fees have a huge impact on part-time fees. I did not go to college when I left school because it was not an option for me at the time, but I went back afterwards. People who have decided not to go to third level when they leave school, but who want to go back afterwards to study part-time, could be disadvantaged by a loans system.

As Deputy Byrne said, the Government will make the decision on this. However, due to the lack of detail, I do not know how anyone could recommend the model of a contingent loans system presented in the report. While I accept the report acknowledges this, it does not address many of the necessary details. It is as if I went into a bank to get a loan and was told it would give me X amount but would not tell me the interest rate. There would have to be a lot more detail before anyone would agree to this. We believe we could end up just solving the State's problem. As Mr. Donohoe mentioned, if the State did go down the line of the contingent loans system, there is a real danger that, if the pressure does come on down the line, it would decide to decrease the income thresholds and put less money into third level, so the level of debt would increase and the number of people able to access it would decrease.

In terms of participation, particularly from low income groups and other under-represented groups, it is much more than just funding and is really around the supports at first and second level. However, it is also around the other supports that people need at local level to help them to aspire to go to third level and to feel that, if they do go, they can get a meaningful career and job out of it afterwards.