Ms Michelle Murphy:

I thank the Deputies and Senators. To come back to the Chairman's first question, our organisation is on record that we foresee higher taxation, which means raising national income. This is not just for funding higher education but for the pressures I outlined, which were also noted by Deputy Nolan, in regard to waste infrastructure, broadband, public transport and demographic pressures, not just in education but in health services, child care, the fair deal scheme and housing - the list goes on. We have publicly supported this in the past and have written about it.

Within the context of increased PRSI and increased State funding, there is a strong argument from an equity perspective for an income-contingent loans scheme. The Department of Education and Skills in 2009 published a very detailed paper looking at a variety of options and looking at countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. However, the detail has to be simple. For example, is it the State that guarantees it? Any form of income-contingent loan should not in any way prevent State resources being allocated to other areas where there is need, which is critical.

No matter what option is picked, more investment is needed. At the moment there is significant pressure on the national income from other areas so, as a society, we are going to have to reconcile ourselves to the fact the Government will have to raise the amount of national income collected on an annual basis in order to fund the services and infrastructure that people expect. I agree with Deputy Nolan that we need a framework for prioritisation and that framework has to be able to deliver a vibrant economy, decent services and infrastructure, good governance, sustainability and just taxation. We need to be able to explain to the people that, in order to get their social services, we need to prioritise and, therefore, some things will have to wait. However, they need to be convinced that, in the long run, the State will be able to deliver the services they expect.