Investment in education is the most important the Government can make for the country, writes RUAIRÍ QUINN
THE LAST time the Government aired the prospect of the reintroduction of third- level fees was in 2003, when a pre-election spending splurge and an economic downturn had left the exchequer alarmingly bare.
It should come as no surprise that as public finances diminish, the issue of third-level fees should creep back up the agenda.
It is important to keep this in mind from the outset. When Batt O'Keeffe says that third-level fees for the "better off" are back on the table, it is not out of any great desire for redistribution from rich to poor. It is not even out of a desire to see Irish universities compete with the best abroad. It is simply a revenue-raising measure to compensate for a decade of under-funding of the third-level sector.
UCD president Hugh Brady and Provost of TCD John Hegarty have argued that expanding student numbers have not been matched by a proportionate increase in core funding. As a result, they say universities have suffered a 40 per cent cut in net funding over the past decade. This was the same decade, Government Ministers are fond of reminding us, in which we saw an unprecedented boom in income.
If O'Keeffe is so concerned about ensuring "high standards in our third-level colleges" in "a situation where the economy is weak", why, in a time of plenty, did his Government oversee such a dramatic decline in third-level funding in real terms?
The third-level sector is not underfunded because Labour abolished fees in 1996. The free fees initiative replaced a system of tax covenanting for third-level tuition that saw the exchequer give out almost as much money in tax breaks as it took in university fees. As such, the abolition of fees was practically self-financing.
Rather than blaming the abolition of fees for the current crisis, it would be more accurate to ask whether the third level sector is under-funded because the abolition of fees was successful in encouraging greater numbers into third level - numbers which were not matched by appropriate levels of government funding. It is all very well to support universal education, but just because education is free, does not mean that it is cheap.
This lesson seems to have been lost on this Government for the past 11 years. At primary level, expanding numbers have been blamed for a freeze on school extensions, a freeze on class sizes and core funding which only meets half the average running costs of a school. Sound familiar? Yet, the Minister would never dare suggest we privatise primary schools to pay for new buildings and teachers.
Why would charging fees for primary school be seen as beyond the pale, but charging fees for third level be seen, in some quarters, as pragmatic? Is it not important that our education system allows our citizens to progress as far as their talent and hard work will take them, and that there should be no arbitrary cap on their knowledge?
Education is a right that comes with citizenship - not a conditional right that sifts richer from poorer citizens. This is as true for a third-level education as it is for primary and second level.
Arguing that the "better off" should pay for their third-level education is usually how the pill of a return to fees is sweetened. Well, I have news for the Minister. We already have fees for the better off - it's called income tax. Yes, university graduates will earn 60 per cent more over their lifetimes than someone who left education after secondary school. A progressive tax system would recognise this and tax higher earners accordingly.
It is not clear from the Minister's announcement who the "better off" are, and what kind of income the third-level sector would glean from them. Would these students become more valuable to hard-pressed institutions than students who bring no such bonus? How could the Minister be sure means testing for fees will be fair, especially given the imperfect grants scheme?
And, finally, would the Government be able to promise any future deterioration in its finances would not prompt fees for the "better off" to become fees for the "getting by", and, eventually, for everyone?
If we are to have debate on the matter, let it be had in the open, with all the facts on the table.
The Government's own report on Ireland's future skills needs states that our economic wellbeing depends, in part, on increasing the proportion of school leavers progressing to third level, from 55 per cent to 72 per cent. It recommends that 35,000 people already in the workforce need to be educated to third level and beyond. If the Government is not prepared to pay for this expansion in student numbers, it should let us know.
Investment in education is the most important a country can make in its own future. If the Government thinks it can secure our future, and our children's future, on the cheap, or for the few, it is sorely mistaken.
• Ruairí Quinn is Labour Party spokesman on education. He was minister for finance from 1994 to 1997 when the decision was taken to abolish third-level fees