Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chuir roimh an Aire Stait agus, dála an scéil, fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht seo agus roimh cinnirí na mac léinn atá anseo linn sa Seanad inniu. I have no problem with the Labour Party jumping in ahead of the working group committee because I find it important that Members of the Seanad express their views on this important issue.

I canvassed views from friends and contacts with an interest in the area. One correspondent wrote back to me as follows:

As we speak many third level students are working around Ireland, Britain, Europe, and on J1 visas in America having left college two or three months ago. These learners have up to five months off between the calendar academic years and therefore have ample opportunity to earn some money to pay for tuition fees. During the college year many students work during the day, at night or at weekends to fund their study. Not every student can or does gain employment during the summer but the point remains — students do have a source of income during the length of their academic programme, and that also includes Leaving Cert. students who are about to start level six, seven or eight programmes.

This is not my view. I do believe, however, that students are responsible for their own learning. This means they attend regularly, they complete their exams and continuous assessment assignments to the best of their ability, and also that they pay a contribution towards their third level education. If students are financing their own higher education programme by way of proposed income-linked loans, it could mean they might be more accountable for their own academic lives and career prospects.

I do not say this with 100% certainty, however. What concerns me here today is that we stay with ideas. We need to be willing to accept that there are different legitimate points of view on an issue like this as we try to identify the common good and what it is that makes for the most just solution, having regard to finite resources. We need to be aware of the important value and privilege attached to a third level education. This is why I dislike the tone of today's debate. Competing parties, Sinn Féin and the Labour Party in particular, seem interested only in competing for the left-wing label. Listening to some of the Senators today, it sounds to me like they are less interested in student welfare and more interested in co-opting students as a lobby or demographic to be manipulated or taken ownership of. This lets down students and lets down this debate because there are legitimate issues here that need to be held in tension.

Knowing that one has to repay fees when one has reached a position of relative prosperity after college might help give students a real desire to achieve high grades by meeting all of the learning outcomes set out in their course of choice. I do not say that it definitely will, of course. It might perhaps create a healthier third level sector overall. Third level institutions are facing multiple challenges regarding growing learner numbers, funding provisions, and also retention and progression rates. Recent figures from the Higher Education Authority show that every year some 6,200 students, one in six, drop out during their first year in college.

These issues might be affected by the decision that we make here. At present students are taking out bank loans, with many being charged the associated interest fees. These loans are already a serious burden on the shoulders of learners. Income-contingent loans could be more equitable in that they allow students to pay back the State subvention when they reach a certain income threshold. My point is that we should not be afraid of ideas. We should not label as "ideological" ideas that are opposed to our own. I would rather hear the case being made for different ideas in an honest way that seeks to understand the point of view of the other side. What concerns me, however, is where we set this threshold. What threshold of income would a graduate have to reach before being required to pay his or her education back? This is the really relevant point here. If the threshold is high people have a fair chance to enjoy the benefit of their third level education and then give something back to society. A low threshold, however, would be less just.

We also have to be aware of the greed and ambition of higher education institutions. These institutions have sometimes inflated notions of their entitlements, not least to pay high salaries to their staff. Many of them are also becoming very conscious of their image in the international education marketplace but this is not always to the benefit of students. In the lead story in The Irish Times yesterday we learned yet again that some institutions have resisted declaring the millions of euro they hold in private trusts and foundations. We need to be very careful about the vested interests in education. We also need to be very wary of the possibility that the introduction of an income-contingent loan scheme could be taken advantage of by both institutions and, indeed, the State in order to ramp up fees and, by extension, the students' future debt.

Many students currently find themselves just outside the eligibility limits of the SUSI income indicators. They cannot get a grant, therefore, and must struggle financially through college or not go at all. At least the proposed loan initiative could help in this regard by removing the student’s parental income, via the grants support system, as a significant factor. That could be fairer.

The idea of an income-contingent loan, one of three possible third-level funding options proposed in the Cassells report, could be a way forward. I am willing to state that and to engage with the ideas on that basis. I note that a recent sitting of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills was told by Dr. Aedín Doris of Maynooth University's economics department that a careful analysis of the fiscal implications of income-contingent loan schemes shows they are feasible in Ireland. She concluded that a scheme, "would allow a substantial increase in higher education funding without reducing access and at a lower cost to the Exchequer compared with other alternatives". If that is true then it needs to be considered. What we need to test is whether it really is true.

There is a lack of realism in today's motion from the Labour Party and the way in which it is presented. It is just too ideological. The agenda is too much about co-opting students as a class with this superficially attractive idea. I agree, incidentally, that a significant number of people from rural and lower socio-economic backgrounds have benefitted from a publicly-funded path to third level.I come from a farming background and benefitted from it myself. An income-contingent loan scheme can also provide people from this demographic with the opportunity to go to college, upskill and compete in the labour market upon graduation. They will then be less vulnerable to future economic and social changes. The loan initiative need not force students to emigrate, cripple students financially for years after graduation, deter potential students from applying to go to third level nor leave the State with a large bill for unpaid fees. It all depends on how it is done.

The Minister of State has said that doing nothing about the future funding of higher education is not an option. It is estimated that the third-level sector needs an extra €1 billion investment and that has relevance to decisions to be made by the Oireachtas. Members must stay with the ideas and recognise that there are compelling arguments but that it has to be done right and cannot become an excuse for ramping up fees. It cannot become an excuse for the State not to invest in education. I am a firm believer in giving something back and that third level education is a privilege. If I thought that money could be more generously diverted to particular socially disadvantage areas that perhaps require greater investment, I would be very tempted to support this concept. However, Members must not allow themselves to be manipulated by political parties that are only interested in clamouring for votes and attention. We should focus on the common good and where that might lie.