Mr. James Doorley:

My thanks to Senators and Deputies for the invitation. The NYCI is the representative body of national youth organisations in Ireland. We have a wide membership, as the committee has heard already. Two of our members, the Union of Students in Ireland and the Irish Second-Level Students Union were before the committee this morning. My input is to try to seek to represent the interests of young people aspiring to access and already engaged in higher education studies in Ireland.

I will not go into detail on what the expert group has set out. Other contributors and the report have done that well enough. I am keen to focus on solutions to the problem as well as to highlight some of the challenges and potential consequences of pursuing some of the options proposed the expert group report.

The expert group identified the scale of the funding required and proposed three funding options. Option two corresponds to the status quo. We accept this is not sustainable, not only from a funding perspective and in the sense of the financial pressures it is putting on the higher education sector but also because of the €3,000 registration fee and a lack of sufficient supports in tackling inequity in the system.

Others have alluded to the fact that in one area of Dublin 4 a total of 85% of students progressed to third level while in Dublin 17 only 22% did. It is clear that the current system is not working to address the inequity in the system.

As acknowledged by the expert group, option one is straightforward and supports the principles of access and participation. There are good reasons to support the argument to continue and enhance State investment in higher education. We take the view that higher education should be accessible to everyone. It should be a right rather than a privilege. Investment in higher education makes good social and economic returns. These returns are reflected in statistics showing that 41% of people in Ireland now have a higher education qualification. The proportion is even higher among the 25 to 34 years age cohort. All societies need a highly skilled and highly educated population to attract investment and to stimulate and sustain economic growth. The Government has published a skills strategy which is predicated on the idea that people have the skills they require. Therefore, our aim should be to work towards this option. We acknowledge that it cannot happen overnight and, therefore, we maintain the Government should bring forward a plan on how this can be achieved. The report referred to a timeframe of 15 years and how it can be achieved in that timeframe.

Any increase in funding for the higher education sector must include measures to increase the participation of students with fewer opportunities than is the case at present. We are rather concerned about the high level of non-progression of first year college students. The Higher Education Authority produced a report the year before last. It highlighted that 16% of students did not progress to second year. That corresponds to more than 6,500 young people. This represents a significant loss to those young people as well as the cost to their families and the loss of a year. It is also a cost from a financial point of view and we need to address that issue.

Another option includes income contingent loans. We are opposed to this idea. It would represent a profound change in how we invest and support third level education. First, we are concerned about the financial burden it would put on young people. If we have learned anything from the crisis, it is the fact that heaping high levels of debt on people, especially young people, is not a sustainable model to pursue. The report adverts to evidence from Australia and the UK. We need to acknowledge that Ireland is not Australia or the UK and we have different circumstances. Even in post-recession Ireland, young people are already facing an extremely challenging economic situation, including access to employment. Where young people do get access to employment, they face issues around career progression and low rates of pay.

The report refers to income thresholds. That is relevant for now, but young people have no guarantee that those income thresholds will not change at some stage in future. This could also have a cooling effect on people or act as a deterrent. Young people have to make a choice. Should they take a low-paid job or get into debt? Many young people would be deterred from third level if they believed they would have to pay debt further down the line. It might be said that they do not have to pay it, but it is still there and they may have to pay it at some stage later on.

There is evidence in the report about Australia but Ireland has a much higher level of migration, particularly in the wake of the recent crisis, as we have seen. I believe the Cassells report refers to the basic idea in question, but there are many details that it does not address in terms of a income contingent loan system. I refer to the coverage, rates of payment, income thresholds and the question of who manages it. There is reference to the State managing it, but one must ask whether that could change ten, 15 or 20 years down the road. It would be a profound change. Once one starts with a system and agrees to it, one cannot go back. One cannot unscramble that egg. Any Government that would bring in a contingent loan system would be engaged in major change.

As I said, we are opposed to the deferred contingent loan system. We believe option 2 is the best in the longer term. We accept it would require increased State investment but we have believed in this country that the primary and secondary level education sectors should be funded by the taxpayer. I realise there are parent contributions; there is no doubt about that. Fundamentally, we believe investing in education is good social practice. Likewise, we believe this is the approach any Government should take in regard to the third level system.

I thank the committee for this opportunity. I am happy to answer any questions members may have.