Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697805058035.pdf (Ireland)
NYCI Presentation to the Joint Committee on Education & Skills James Doorley, Deputy Director National Youth Council of Ireland 8th December 2016 1 | P a g e NYCI Statement to the Joint Committee on Education & Skills 8th December 2016 Good morning Chairperson, Deputies and Senators.

Thank you for the invitation to attend today’s meeting to discuss the findings of the Report of the Expert Group on Future Funding for Higher Education.
The National Youth Council of Ireland is representative body of national youth organisations in Ireland and we advocate on behalf of our member organisations on social and economic issues affecting young people.

We have a wide and diverse membership.

Our member organisations work with young people from all walks of life and from a broad range of different socio-economic backgrounds.
My input to today’s deliberations seeks to represent the interests of young people both aspiring to access and already engaged in higher education studies in Ireland.

The Expert Group has captured very well the extent of the funding deficit that exists in the higher education sector in Ireland, so I won’t spend time this morning reciting the implications of this funding deficit for young people and for future generations.
Given time limitations this morning and the remit of this committee, I would like to focus on solutions to the problem and to highlight some of the challenges and potential consequences of pursuing some of the options proposed the Expert Group.

The Report Findings – What are the Issues of Concern?

The Expert Group identified the scale of the funding required and proposed 3 funding options to address the funding deficit.
Option 2: Increased state funding with continuing student fees The status quo is not sustainable, not only in our view from a funding perspective and the financial pressures it is putting on the higher education sector, but also because the €3,000 registration fee and lack of sufficient other supports is not tackling the inequity in the system.

For example a ESRI report last year found that 85% students in Dublin 4 progressed to higher education compared to just 22% from Dublin 17.
2 | P a g e Option 1: A predominantly state-funded system Option 1 as acknowledged by the Expert Group is straight-forward and supports the principles of access and participation.

There are very good reasons to support the argument to continue and enhance state investment in higher education.

We take the view that higher education should be accessible to everyone.

It should be a right rather than as a privilege.

Investment in higher education makes good social and economic returns.
These returns are reflected in statistics which show that the 41 per cent of people in Ireland now have a higher education qualification and this is even higher amongst younger adults with over half of 25 – 34 years having completed tertiary education (OECD, 2015).

Any society needs a highly-skilled and highly educated young people to attract investment to stimulate and sustain economic growth.

Therefore our aim should be to work towards this option.
We acknowledge that this cannot happen overnight and therefore the Government should bring forward a plan on how this can be achieved in the medium to long-term.

This of course will require additional exchequer funding, but also should include a greater contribution from employers as suggested by the Expert Group.

Any increased funding for the higher education sector must include measures to increase the participation of students with fewer opportunities.
We are also concerned about the high level of dropout rates of first year college students, the most recent figures from the HEA in 2014 indicate that 6,414 or 16% of students did not progress to second year.

The impact and costs of such attrition rates are significant for the students involved.

Any increase in funding should include measures to counteract this problem.
Option 3 Increase state-funding with deferred payment of fees through income contingent loans We are opposed to the deferred payment of fees through income contingent loans (as outlined in the Expert Group Report), it is our view that the introduction of a loan system would place a great financial burden on young people to engage in higher education and as such, provide a disincentive to pursuing a third level education.
Evidence from the UK shows that once a loan system was introduced that there was a significant increase in the level of debt incurred by students.

Even in a post-recession era, young people in Ireland are already facing an extremely challenging situation, 3 | P a g e access to quality employment and decent salaries with career progression options are limited.

While more jobs are available, too often these are low paid, precarious and with poor conditions of employment.
A significant proportion of young people are engaged in temporary forms of employment, and 38 per cent are on the minimum wage.

Furthermore the high cost of housing is also a challenge for many young people.

The prospect of having to take out a loan to finance higher education is likely to deter many from pursing third level education, particularly acting as a deterrent for low income groups.

We would also envisage problems with a loan system in terms of repaying the loan if the graduate emigrates.
Evidence from Australia and in the UK demonstrates that repayment of the loan post-graduation has been difficult to recoup as many have emigrated.

NYCI Position NYCI is completely opposed to the deferred payment of fees through income contingent loans.

We do not think option 2 – limited increased state funding by continuing student fees, is sustainable either.

We think that option 1 is the preferred funding model but acknowledge that this cannot happen overnight.
We recommend Government plan to ensure a funding model predominantly funded by the state incrementally over a specific timeframe.

Furthermore, we believe additional financial assistance is required to support and enhance the participation of those from lower socio-economic backgrounds to access, perform and progress through the higher education system.
Conclusion I would like to preface my comments this morning by saying that there are no easy answers to this perennial problem of funding third level education but it is important that we avoid making access to higher education a reality for only a segment of our young people.

4 | P a g e