Bryan O’Mahony: Yes. It was the only thing standing between staying in education or dropping out
The €1,000 relief on or reduction in annual student fees/student contribution at third level over the past two years was not a luxury but a means of survival for most students already struggling with sky-high rents and having to work full-time just to be able to afford basic necessities. Plainly put, it was the only thing standing between staying in education or dropping out.
The removal of the relief, quietly suggested by the Minister for Higher Education, James Lawless, doesn’t seem like an accident. At the time of the relief’s introduction in 2023 it was framed as a big step towards making higher education more accessible to students from all walks of life, particularly in the face of a cost-of-living crisis.
The timing of the suggestion on a recent Sunday appeared a calculated move right before the CAO change-of-mind deadline, and two days before student union officers across the country handed over the baton to their successors.
The consequences of this decision, if it goes ahead, will have a lasting impact on students. Ireland is one of the most expensive places for higher education in the EU. Meanwhile, the rent and cost-of-living crises persist. In cities such as Cork, Limerick and Dublin, the rent for a bedroom in shared accommodation has climbed beyond €800 a month. Many students are working full-time jobs to keep up, and having to choose between food, fees and housing.
READ MORE
Removal of the relief will penalise those who are already struggling. Students from migrant families and working-class backgrounds and those with disabilities are disproportionately affected, as are students who are estranged from their families and those students who are carers and parents.
Ireland’s persistent underfunding in higher education has been the biggest roadblock to ensuring quality or sustainability in the system. According to the OECD, “Ireland invests significantly less in higher education compared to other OECD countries, resulting in under-resourced institutions and increased financial pressure on students through higher fees and living costs.” The Cassells report made similar findings almost a decade ago.
This Government has repeatedly relied on small and short-term promises to tackle structural underfunding and now is breaking the promise it made in the Programme for Government for 2025 – to reduce the cost of going to college – and letting students foot the bill. The message the Government sends is very clear – students are pawns in its game, and promises made to students are merely linked to elections.
We have had students calling on us for support from all over the country, asking us questions we are unable to answer, due to the lack of answers or clarity from the Government on this issue. Students are reconsidering their CAO choices, thinking about deferring or leaving the dream of getting an education altogether as a result. This is not an abstract policy change that has been mooted – it affects the lives of students across the nation.
[ Third level fees row looks set to rumble on for a whileOpens in new window ]
The pandemic was a good indicator of how students, despite hardships, strived towards the chance of a better education. The €1,000 fee relief should be retained – not just as a symbolic act, but as an acknowledgment of the urgency in making higher education more accessible in practice. Alongside that, we need real SUSI reform, and long-term public investment in the third-level sector through the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science.
This decision by the Government is more than about €1,000. It is emblematic of how low third-level students are in the list of priorities for this Government.
Bryan O’Mahony is president of Aontas na Mac Léinn in Éirinn (AMLÉ), the national representative body for more than 370,000 students. It advocates for students’ rights and ensures their voices are heard on key societal and political issues, including education, welfare, and justice.
Gerard Howlin: No. Further reducing the tax base, which is what cutting students’ fees will do, is bad policy
Free fees are fool’s gold and reduced fees are cut-price education. That the debate about funding third level has narrowed down to a €1,000 relief on already-reduced student fees is ludicrous. Third level, and further education, drives the economy and builds a better society. The leaders it produces are in classrooms, public administration and hospitals as well as technology, law and business. Their education confers lifetime advantages of better opportunity and higher income.
The almost-hysterical and highly politicised debate about €1,000, without any wider concern for the future, is a dumbing down and a shame in a country that has invested so much in education. What isn’t paid by students is paid by the State. Clearly there is a public good to justify that. Many students pay nothing because they are the too few from disadvantaged backgrounds who get there. And €3,000 a year is a knock-down price for an extraordinary lifetime advantage. Further cutting student contribution is neither an effective nor value-for-money use of public money. But then the politics underpinning the promise of further reductions, and eventual abolition, is based on the fool’s gold of endless resources. The party is over, but the band plays on.
There is a perennial tension between funding for students and funding for higher education. Abolishing student fees in the 1990s was a boon for private secondary schools but did a lot less, despite its cost, for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The CAO results are a postcode lottery. More students are coming from everywhere, but too few of the hard-to-reach have ever been found. That is as much about social capital as money but that’s too complicated to count in a shouty debate.
What many fail to realise is how this false economy shafts students themselves. They are between the crosshairs. Firstly, numbers in third level are rising but are still far from peak – which is predicted in 2030 or later. So underfunding is deepened because increased State funding won’t compensate simultaneously for lost income and increased student numbers. Secondly, demographics generally are shifting fast, and today’s students are destined to be the longest-lived generation ever, supporting an ever-increasing number of dependents over decades. That dependency would include the full cost of third level for every taxpayer if fees are abolished. Thirdly, these promises are based on the false premise of endless resources. This debate is part of the hangover, the morning after.
Further reducing the tax base, which is what cutting students’ fees will do, is bad policy; students will pay dearly for starting on their first day in work. Significant self-sufficiency in third level supports better funding overall and supports quality education now. It also supports the fairer distribution of the tax burden, which otherwise will be borne by today’s students over their working lives. It may suit their parents now, which is the driving political force. But piling them high, and selling them cheap, sells out students – who will have to pay many times over for a once-off freebie turned into a permanent taxpayer-funded deficit.
The Dáil will debate this issue on Tuesday and, in the prism of politics, cynicism and short-termism may prevail. Systemic issues requiring attention such as course quality, the future funding model, the future-proofing of graduates, CAO points system, aligning programmes to employment needs and the role and operation of the research system will get scant attention. A figure of €1,000 is easier to bandy about. If you don’t know the value of what you are talking about, the price won’t matter.
Gerard Howlin is a public affairs consultant and former government adviser
