The results of today's Irish Times/MRBI poll on the possible re-introduction of third-level fees indicate a predictable level of opposition to the plan. Over 60 per cent of voters oppose the return of fees for those who can afford them. Opposition is highest among the better-off, and in Dublin. This is the very group who received what one leading educationalist has called a "fantastic subsidy" when the Coalition Government abolished fees in 1994.
On the basis of today's poll they are determined to retain this political gift.
The Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, is unlikely to be much influenced by the result of the poll. His proposal has already drawn considerable criticism from opposition parties and from student groups. Both the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, have appeared to distance themselves from the proposal. However, it may be that this was a calculated move designed to settle the nerves of voters in the run-up to the Nice referendum.
Now that the referendum is out of the way, the Government will come under considerable pressure to clarify its policy on the fees issue. The Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, believes the abolition of fees was a socially regressive move. Does Mr Ahern and Ms Harney share this view?
Mr Dempsey has made a persuasive case for the re-introduction of fees for those who can afford them. He is clearly exasperated by the gross inequality of our education system - where students from the affluent suburbs are ten times more likely to go to college than those from families lower down the social ladder. Mr Dempsey's officials are now examining how the €175 million spent by the State on student supports and fees could be better used to help achieve greater equality. The minister's plan is to divert any savings made from the possible return of fees to new access measures. He clearly envisages a situation where more generous maintenance and other grants will make it easier for poor students to get to college.
It is a laudable plan but one which is fraught with difficulty. The political forces ranged against the plan - including, one must assume, members of the government parties - are formidable. There are also significant practical difficulties. The minister must radically reform the higher education grant system which is skewed against the ordinary PAYE earner - but greatly benefits the children of farmers and the self-employed.
Mr Dempsey's challenge is to devise an equitable grants scheme which identifies those who can afford to pay fees and assists those with real needs. He can expect a storm of protest and special pleading on behalf of various groups. But he should not be diverted from his course. The elitist nature of third-level education in this State has been a blight on this society for a generation and more. Mr Dempsey, at least, is endeavouring to do something about it.