Dr. Aedín Doris:

Deputy Nolan and others - I have lost track - asked about the overall cost of income contingent loans. There is a concern that this will be very costly. The concern was also raised by Dr. Larkin and Dr. Corbet. What is being missed is that, if we accept we need an increase in higher education funding, which, working in the sector, I certainly accept, there is no way to do it cheaply. The alternative of funding it through higher taxation will also add to the national debt and the deficit. What I showed in the analysis in the paper is that it will add substantially more to it, which will reduce the resources available for other uses, including the kind of uses that would be much more effective at promoting access.

I completely agree with Senator Ruane that access is paramount. I would never be in favour of these loans if I believed they damaged access. I said the same thing at the committee. We have a lot of evidence from other countries, thankfully, that we can benefit from. When fees in the UK went from €3,000 to €9,000 overnight, which was a huge increase in the prospective debt faced by students, there was no negative effect on access at all. Students understand that the investment they will undertake will pay back. They understand the high return on education. They also understand that these repayments will be made in the future and only if they can afford them. Australia and New Zealand found the same thing, which is that there is no negative effect on access. I agree with Senator Ruane that they should not be considered if there were.