AFTER MONTHS of speculation, the Minister for Education and Science, Batt O’Keeffe, is poised, apparently, to bring forward his proposals on third-level fees. Officials are finalising a discussion paper setting out a broad range of options. But, the Minister is hiding behind his officials by withholding his views from the public. Perhaps he is afraid that his memorandum will be rejected by the Cabinet. He doesn’t even have the conviction to advance his own arguments in public.
Mr O’Keeffe deserves some credit for reopening the fees debate. The current situation where higher education is largely dependent on exchequer funding is unsustainable in the current economic circumstances and out of sync with the practice in most OECD states.
The Government may have high aspirations for the university sector as a key engine of growth towards the knowledge economy. But there is a disconnect between these lofty ambitions and the reality of under-resourced, debt-ridden colleges. Our leading universities are being asked to muddle through with only about 50 per cent of the funding available to competing colleges in Britain and Scandinavia. The higher education system in the Republic is in need of more funding – and it needs it urgently. A well financed and functioning third and fourth level sector is vital to attract international investment and jobs in research and development. An educated workforce has been cited again and again as a reason for establishing in Ireland.
That’s all agreed. What is disturbing now, however, is that the Minister has aired his options for third-level fees since he assumed office without coming to a conclusion. He has threatened families and students.
This is a time when family incomes are decreasing - through job losses, levies, pay cuts - and there are tax increases and more to come in the April budget. The Minister should try to bring certainty to family incomes in this economic environment.
In framing his proposals, the Minister has stayed true to one core principle; namely, that those who can afford fees should be asked to contribute. It is a good starting point for the debate on fees.
The key political challenge facing the Minister is to set the income threshold for fees at a level which will generate revenue for higher education – without imposing an unreasonable burden on families on average earnings. In truth, the constant speculation about the likely shape of the new student charges has already proved unsettling for many families.
The Minister waited until this week, for example, to clarify that the new charges will not apply to existing students. Why could he not have done this months ago? That said, it is reassuring to hear the Minister say that he will take full account of the additional taxes and levies already facing families before framing his proposals.
He should come to a conclusion about third-level fees and announce it as soon as possible.