David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Acting Chairman's generosity. I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome the representatives of the education sector.

The amendment by Fine Gael, where it says that it affirms the commitment to equity in education, is a lot of blather. If it did, it would come out and say that it was in favour of free education. The whole phrase "free fees" is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms and is an absolute nonsense. Universal education is either free or fees are charged for it. I remember talking with the students in UCD about this when fees were introduced and I suggested to them that the best thing they could do would be to look at the question of means-testing and ensure, because this is the political reality, that the means test was sufficiently high to ensure that everybody who needed access to education got it. That is where the real battle should have been, in my opinion. I accept that there are still economic stringencies here, but this motion is a wishful one. It puts down what the ideal position would be, and I honour the Labour Party for doing so.

If an income contingent loan scheme is introduced, it means that 80% or 90% of students will simply bugger off and leave without paying the debt, and I think they would be perfectly sensible to do so. It is rather a pity. We do not like emigration, but that is the fact. The loans will not be paid back anyway, so that information might as well just be absorbed. I paid fees for my first 18 months in Trinity College Dublin, because although I did particularly well in the leaving certificate and was entitled to a county council scholarship, it was only tenable at UCD. Only one old cousin of my mother's had ever gone to UCD. He went in 1916 to study Irish. That was a bit of a facer for the family as well, and paradoxically, he was the only member of the family in recent history to be attacked by the IRA, though he got his vengeance.

It would be a real pity to expect that students should start their professional lives with their hands tied behind their backs. That is what a loan is. Having to pay this off hobbles people for years. Free education has always been opposed by the vested interests. Primary education was opposed by the landlords in the 19th century, who thought the cost would be too much. It was opposed for secondary schools in the 1960s because of cost, and laughably, it was said that it was of doubtful educational value.It was utter, complete and total nonsense.

I have been contacted by a large number of people and would like to give voice to their views. Sometimes this is one of the most valuable things we can do in Seanad Éireann.

I received an email from a young woman, a student in a secondary school. She is a member of the Irish Second-Level Students' Union and may be seated in the Visitors Gallery. She said:

I know that a loan scheme would be a barrier to education, especially for young people like myself. The idea of having to take out a massive loan to cover the cost of my education is certainly a deterrent for families like mine.

We, along with our parents, are extremely concerned at the prospect of student loans exceeding €20,000 per student, especially while some students' families are already struggling, impoverished, and cannot afford, or will be deterred by such a level of debt.

I say in passing to the Minister of State that every person who has spoken this evening has stated that, in principle, he or she is in favour of free fees. They have also stated, without exception, that they are opposed to student loans. I believe the Minister of State who is a caring and intelligent person will accept their views as being the views of Seanad Éireann.

I received another email from somebody in third level education. He said he had written to me to let me know that quite a large number of his friends and colleagues had dropped out of third level education "because they couldn't afford to buy the college textbooks." If someone could not afford to meet the cost of books then, how, in the name of God, would he or she be able to afford the price of education and university fees?

I received another communication from a man who said he would find it extremely difficult to afford third level education if this initiative was introduced. He said:

I am one of six children in the family. Three have gone to university and I hope that the other two will be able to do so as well.

He said that, in the nature of things, he would be unable to attend college if there were no free fees. I should not allow myself to use the obnoxious phrase "free fees" which I blame on Ruairí Quinn. He made an ass of himself in signing the initiative, but at heart he was a decent man. I am sure he wanted to have free education, but he was overcome by events.

The National Youth Council of Ireland which represents 49 national organisations has come out against this fees initiative. I have received communications from an officer of the Trinity College Dublin Students' Union and the education officer of the Irish Second-Level Students' Union, ISSU. I have also received a message from SIPTU stating: "We are absolutely convinced that the UK model of student loans is not the way to go". SIPTU is one of the largest, if not the largest, trade unions in the country. It has been estimated that the current level of indebtedness for a student in the United Kingdom is £50,000. How could anybody afford to pay such a sum? A person will be paying it off for the rest of his or her life. It is almost as bad as a mortgage.

A point has been made that is crucial to the debate - participation in higher education is not just a private good; i is also a significant public good. It is in the public interest to help to pay for education.

Let us compare the systems in place in Australia and Ireland. In Australia 24.4% of graduates have taken out commercial loans. In Ireland only 13% of graduates have done so, mainly from banks. Among the groups that are particularly hit by fees are women students who have a particular vulnerability. In Ireland the participation rate among the lowest socioeconomic groups in 2012-13 was 26% for students from semi-skilled-unskilled manual working class backgrounds and 23% from non-manual working class backgrounds. In Australia the participation rate among the lowest socioeconomic group was 16.9%. There is a difference of 10%, which is very significant. In 2016 the participation rate among the lowest socioeconomic group was 18%.

Another point that needs to be considered, one about which nobody has spoken, concerns the impact on students with disabilities who are already at a disadvantage. I am glad to say that Trinity College Dublin deals with them pretty well, in advance of many other colleges. Students with disabilities also have very considerable difficulty in finding work after graduating which would allow them to pay off a loan. They, too, are at a very considerable disadvantage.

One accepts that there is a very difficult funding position for universities. It is one of the reasons Irish universities have dropped down the world league tables and the figures are astonishing. Between 2008 and 2015 the level of State aid given to third level education dropped by 21%. The figure was 73% in 2008 and 52% in 2015. It is a really serious problem. For that reason, I am glad that the Government has appointed a special Minister of State with responsibility for third level education.