Ms Annie Hoey:

I sit before the committee as the voice of 354,000 students from throughout the island of Ireland who are calling on this committee to make the brave decision to introduce a publicly funded higher education system over the next 14 years. I am here as a spokesperson for students, staff and teachers who formed the coalition for publicly funded higher education. This coalition has the support of 1.9 million people and we are firmly united in our call for publicly funded higher education.

I have attended the past two presentations made to this committee on the future funding of higher education and I am aware that access is of great concern to everyone. The focus on access has become too narrow. Access to higher education should not just be about getting into college but getting on and beyond. As members will see in our supplementary paper, key targets of the national access plan - lone parents, part-time learners, those with a disability, adults outside the education system and those from lower income families - will all be adversely affected by increased fees and an income contingent loan scheme. There is also emerging evidence to indicate long-term effects of an income contingent loan scheme on future adult milestones such as accessing further credit, home ownership and mortgages. We must choose a funding option that sees fair access to a better standard of living, free from financial burden and free from debt. Far from being a radical idea, higher education systems mostly funded from public sources are actually the norm in Europe, while fully free public education exists in many strong and competitive economies, such as the Nordic economies and Scotland and Germany.

Universities are publicly funded in Germany, with 12 German universities in the 2014-2015 Times higher education world university rankings, up from ten the year before. Despite the fact that Ireland has the second highest fees in Europe and the eighth highest in the world, it has dropped down in the same rankings. In Germany, many vocational programmes are provided through a dual programme of training and education. This dual system allows for a developed, responsive and flexible system where people are not siloed into higher education but are provided with more pathways and access to a better standard of living that suits students and their needs. For young people from the EU, the chances of securing an apprenticeship in Germany have improved in recent years. For the first time, the number of people entering higher education matches that of people enrolling in programmes in vocational training. If we reimagine our higher education landscape by taking inspiration from the German vocational and apprenticeship models, we reduce the pressure on our universities and institutes of technology. By providing alternative pathways for post-secondary level education, participation is more fruitful and retention is improved for all. While considering how we will fund higher education, we should consider what ambitions we have for diversifying educational options. The current Minister for Education and Skills has often reiterated his ambitions for apprenticeships and training, so USI encourages the committee to delve deeper into funding models like Germany before making a final recommendation.

People should be educated based on their ability, needs and wants rather than on the wealth of their parents or their potential future earnings. Education is the most important investment any Government can make to ensure sustainable growth of the economy in the future. Higher education transforms society, enhances competitiveness and strengthens the economy. In most European countries, publicly funded or incredibly low fees are the norm, because education at every level is considered an intrinsic part of the social citizenship model. There is public support for publicly funded higher education. Out of 92,000 people who used our SmartVote web app last February, 57.3% agreed that third level education should be funded through general taxation. Despite what the Cassells report outlines as a reason a publicly funded model is too ambitious, public opinion agrees it is fair and balanced to fund higher education through public taxation.

The committee will see from our report that students are suffering and the status quocannot continue. It is also clear that increased fees are not a fair, palatable or practicable option with or without an income contingent loan scheme. Others who argue against a publicly funded higher education model declare it is not feasible. If that is the case, we have to ask ourselves why, if it is not a viable option, did the expert group include it as an option to begin with? Not to choose a publicly funded higher education system is just that - it is a choice. A choice will be made by this committee. I and the students who stand behind us hope this committee will hear the thousands who are joining us in our call for a publicly funded higher education system.