Mick Clifford: Third-level fee rise sparks backlash — but who is really hardest hit?
This week, minister for higher education James Lawless said that third level students will have to pay an extra €1,000 in fees this year compared to last year, which would see the contribution return to €3,000.
For most of the week, a cohort of middle Ireland was on RTÉ’s . Joe is no longer there to talk to, so they made do with Philip. And boy, did they have a lot to get off their chests.
The topic that has got many people angry enough to pick up the phone is what looks like an increase in third-level fees. This payment is called a “registration fee”. It stood at €3,000 but was reduced in 2022 to €2,000 as a cost of living measure. This was one of a number of supports provided by the Government to offset steep inflation.
Then, this week, the minister for higher education James Lawless, let it be known that the fee will revert to €3,000 in the next budget. Cue outrage.
It should be noted that the Government is being hoist on its own petard. Once the reduction was introduced there was no way it was going to be clawed back until the election was done and dusted. Those who send their children to third-level are the heart of the electorate. They needed some loving if they were to do the right thing at the ballot box. Now the returned Government is learning that unless you want to be reckless, there arrives a reckoning. What they giveth before the election, they taketh away once returned to the pig’s back.
The first strand of opposition to the measure came from, well, within the Government. Fine Gael are all against it. A primary reason for this is that one area where the party is wildly popular is the fee-paying second-level sector, from which practically 100% of Leaving Cert students go onto third-level. (Nationally the figure is around 75%).
Those parents are willing to fork out up €8,000 annually to give their children the best start and advantage possible, and that is laudable. But apparently, for some at least, it is outrageous that they should be asked to revert to the original registration fee for a third-level which is already subsidised by all taxpayers, not just those who have offsprings attending the sector. What we have, we hold, would appear to be the prevailing sentiment.
When the news broke, went into overdrive. At times like these, I always revert to my favourite example of outrage. This was back in 2009, in the wake of an economic crash that would ultimately result in widespread devastation, most particularly on those least able to bear it.
One of the measures introduced by a government on the precipice of bankruptcy was a €200 tax on second or more homes. So onto the radio comes this woman who was absolutely devastated. Where, she demanded of Joe, was she supposed to come up with the €1,400 that would be required for her seven properties? Did the government think money grew on trees, or maybe in the flower boxes at the windows of her various properties? So it went in the last days of the suspended reality that informed the Celtic Tiger years.
Any increase in taxes or fees or charges is going to have an impact on a cohort of the population. That goes without saying. For some people this impact might reverberate in the weekly food shopping, which is pretty devastating, particularly when there are children involved. For others, quite possibly, it might demand a rethink of various holiday plans. And, for more again, the impact might be on a lifestyle that has come to be considered a right rather than, in any element, a luxury.
Just a few facts might be noteworthy in terms of the debate this week. A household must be earning at least €115,000 to be liable for the full registration fee. That’s not a huge sum these days, but it is over twice the average industrial wage.
Nearly all parents who have to pay the fee are homeowners, putting them on one side of a growing divide in society today. As homeowners, they pay a property tax that would be considered a joke in the vast majority of developed countries. Their wealth, as measured by their biggest asset, has increased exponentially in the last fifteen years.
This cohort of society is also likely to be among those who account for the €158bn which the Central Bank reports represents household savings in the State.
There will be some who have particular circumstances which would render an increase in the fee as delivering a blow rather than an adjustment. Included among these are parents who must locate accommodation for their offspring.
Certainly, some allowance should be made there, but beyond that, are we talking real hardship for a considerable number of people?
There was no outrage recently when the CSO published its latest Survey of Income and Living Standards which revealed that over a quarter of a million children are experiencing “enforced deprivation”. These children are defined as living in a household that was unable to afford the goods and services which are considered the minimum essentials for a decent standard of living such as being able to buy a winter coat, afford a new pair of shoes or being able to replace broken furniture.
These children, in all likelihood, will never have to worry about third-level education, not to mind registration fees. According to the ESRI, childhood poverty increases the chances of “greater interaction with the criminal justice system”, and is also associated with “lower third-level education and higher rates of unemployment in adulthood”. Should children in these circumstances be given any kind of priority when it comes to deciding how best to spend public money?
Apart from priorities, a whole range of financial watchdogs and monitors have asserted that the State is underfunded. This is definitely the case in third-level education. Infrastructure to support home building is particularly bad, but extra funds will also be required to tackle an aging population and the ravages of climate change. Where is that money going to come from? At the rate we’re going it won’t be from those at the heart of the electorate who shout the loudest.
We live in difficult and uncertain times. There are various problems and challenges across society, some life-defining, others worrying and yet more capable of heightening public anger. But are priorities to be decided exclusively on who is best at utilising the media, at threatening politicians to withdraw support, at knowing how to play the system?
If that continues to be the defining compass in determining policy there will be a bigger cost to pay in the future. And it won’t be just those at the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder who will be paying it.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
