The scale of the crisis in the public finances could hasten the return of third-level fees for the rich, writes STEPHEN COLLINS
MINISTER FOR Education Batt O'Keeffe has put the cat among the pigeons by reopening the debate on third-level fees. The political challenge facing the Minister was illustrated by the immediate hostile reaction not just from the Opposition parties but from Fianna Fáil's Coalition partners.
The cool reaction from his Fianna Fáil Cabinet colleague and predecessor in education, Mary Hanafin, showed that O'Keeffe will have difficulties bringing his own party with him, never mind anybody else, if he is really serious about changing the system.
Noel Dempsey found out the hard way when he was minister for education that it was difficult to get a considered debate going on the issue, such is the passion it arouses. He was eventually forced into dropping the proposal to look carefully at whether reintroduction of the fees, abolished in 1996, might actually be necessary to preserve the quality of third-level education in Ireland.
O'Keeffe, though, would be well advised to keep his nerve and have a long and hard look at what should be done. He should also bear in mind that while his proposal has generated predictable hysteria at a political level, that does not necessarily reflect the situation on the ground.
He will certainly recall that Niamh Bhreathnach, the minister for education who abolished fees in 1996, actually lost her seat in the general election of 1997. The abolition of fees was designed to restore the fortunes of the Labour Party but it actually lost half its Dáil seats in 1997 and Bhreathnach lost out in the constituency of Dún Laoghaire, where more families probably benefited from her decision than in any other constituency in the country. Whatever message that conveyed it certainly did not seem to suggest that third-level fees is the huge electoral issue that many in politics think it is. The more important point for O'Keeffe is the requirement to ensure that Irish third-level education maintains the highest possible standards. The university authorities are adamant that they need a reintroduction of fees in order to provide proper undergraduate education at third level in the interests of students and the longer-term interests of the country.
It appears to have become a trend in recent years for third-level institutions to devote less attention and resources to undergraduate courses, where there are no fees, with a corresponding increase in emphasis on postgraduate courses where fees can actually be charged. This will have a distorting impact on education over time.
The other aspect of the case is that the country has suddenly been plunged into a public finances crisis and there is bound to be a squeeze on all aspects of State spending, including third-level education. If enough money doesn't come from the exchequer, where is it going to come from?
There is also the reality that since the abolition of third-level fees many middle-class families have opted to spend significant amounts of money on private second-level education for their children. Why should the exchequer have to foot the bill at third level for these students if their parents are willing to pay for the privilege of exclusive second-level education?
A range of national and international studies has shown that third-level education increases the long-term earning ability of an individual. It seems bizarre that such education should be provided free to families who have the financial resources to pay for private schools, particularly as the country has a perfectly good free second-level system.
The Minister has spoken about conducting a thorough examination of the funding requirements for third level and a detailed analysis of how the current funding is being used before he moves on to consider whether or not fees should be introduced for the better off. That analysis should not take too long as all the information is already there.
Once it is completed he has to decide if fees are warranted and, if so, who should pay. O'Keeffe has indicated that they will only apply to the better off - but defining who is to be included in that category and what the income limits should be will certainly cause a great deal of contention.
The Minister's first task will be to convince his Cabinet colleagues and then his own party that it is a necessary step. Getting the Cabinet on side will be tricky because the Progressive Democrats have consistently opposed the reintroduction of fees, although the logic of the party's position, apart from pure electoral considerations, is not all that clear. The Greens are also opposed to third-level fees. The party shares the view of the Labour Party that universal free access to third level is an end in itself.
It is not just the three non-Fianna Fáil Ministers who will have to be won over. Mary Hanafin made it very clear yesterday that she is not in favour of fees either and that view may well be shared by other Ministers.
It seems that the odds are stacked against Batt O'Keeffe being able to move on the issue. The only thing that may change views is the scale of the crisis in the public finances, which still doesn't appear to have impinged on some Ministers, never mind the general public.
When all Ministers are faced with the need to come up with significant cuts in their own spending programmes, the return of third-level fees for the rich may not seem all that much of a problem in a few months' time.