Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State on her appointment and look forward to working with her. I welcome all the visitors to the House.

I strongly support this motion, but not the amendments. We have heard many nice words and many words about education across the House. Some practical proposals have been made, including on grants, but the nub of the debate today is where we, as public representatives, stand on publicly funded and supported education and, specifically, on the question of income-contingent loans. I slightly disagree with one of my colleagues on the other side of the House in that it is not a case that the income-contingent loans might lead to better or more equitable education outcomes because the evidence shows they do not. It is not a question of "might" but of "do not". That evidence is not from people of left-wing or other ideological perspectives but from the very designers of the schemes. They put them into practice and the evidence shows they do not work. I will not go into all the figures because others have outlined them. With regard to access, to which everybody in this House says they are committed, the rate among the lowest socio-economic group in Australia, for example, is 16% while it is 23% in Ireland. In Australia, 70% feel they have to work part-time during their education because they are in debt from the beginning. They are chasing themselves all the way through their education. The percentage in Ireland is 41%. Therefore, there is no benefit in terms of freeing people to focus on their education. It does not lead to greater access.

In the United Kingdom, significant issues are associated with the fall-away in terms of access. One of the reasons we need to have this debate is the regrettable fact that the Cassells report did not dive deeper into the issues of equality. There is a considerable gender aspect. Women are deeply disadvantaged in this. There is a huge drop-off in participation by women, particularly part-time and mature students. The figure is very stark. Ireland is currently one of the world leaders in terms of the number of mature students who participate in our education system. In the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2015, there was a 40% fall in the mature student number. This is massive. Those particularly affected are those who feel they cannot go back to education after a certain period, including carers. We have a child care system in Ireland in which women are carrying that burden. Those who have had an education face an issue in going back into education. Women from ethnic minority backgrounds are affected. We have heard about disability. All the evidence, when drilled down, shows that inequality features right across the spectrum.

A point I wish to make in addition to that on individual access concerns the public good. There is a considerable public good associated with education - we have heard it talked about passionately - but there is also a danger in incentivising migration and encouraging people to stay away. Vulnerable departments, such as humanities departments, face real risk because we do not have in Ireland the same scale as in the US or UK. There is a real danger that we will see vulnerable departments, crucial to innovation and creativity, not getting students because of a more utilitarian route being forced upon them.

The dividend comes out in different ways. We need to have a progressive taxation system. Absolutely, if one has benefited from education and is earning high wages, something should kick in. It should be a progressive taxation system. When one is earning is when one should be paying back. Getting it at that end rather than at this end means we can recognise there can be social dividends. In respect of our institutes of technology, for example, the dividend students give back may not involve an arrangement as simple as paying back a loan to a financial institution, probably abroad and probably not paying tax itself. It may be that they would give back through the community, social change, the kind of innovation about which the Minister of State is very passionate, and the kind of creativity that is the foundation of long-term growth.

I cannot support the Government amendment. I have many ideas for how one could pay. Some of the research and development tax breaks associated with the knowledge box would be number one for me. I recognise Fianna Fáil is coming towards this position but I cannot support the motion because it involves too much of a process.