Mr. Richard Kennedy:

I note on looking over my statement that I did not make it clear that we would be in favour of the contingent loan scheme for education, provided a limit would apply to the loan, as we would not want students to be burdened by exorbitant loans. Therefore, a limit should apply. We also believe that people who cannot afford to pay should be able to get grants in the normal way but people whose income is above the threshold should be able to apply for a loan under the contingent loan scheme. We are clear on that.

I do not know how much Ms Patricia King and I would have in common but, like her, I also understand the costs of education as a farmer. My income was above the threshold and that was not a problem and I had to play my part the same as everybody else. I would say to Senator Ruane and Deputy Catherine Martin that if land, which is the tool of our trade, was included in the calculation, the 40% of students from farm families who get the grant would be wiped out in terms of that percentage of students going to university. If they note the Teagasc income farm survey, which is an independent one, the factual position is that the average farm income is extremely low and it is accepted that it is low. Farmers who live in rural areas pay great attention to educating their families to the maximum of their ability and that would account for the differences between the two groups. That is our position on it. We understand there must be an increase in funding and we would favour the income contingent loan scheme, which should be capped to ensure it does not put too much of a burden on students.