The decision by the Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, to increase basic student charges by almost 70 per cent has drawn a wave of criticism. The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) has labelled the move as the re-introduction of fees by the "back door".
Labour says the "savage" charges will impose new hardship on many families. Its education spokesman, Mr Joe Costello, has placed the increase in a wider context . He has linked the increase to the hike in VHI fees and in hospital and drugs charges. Many parents will be exasperated that something they have come to take for granted - "free" third-level education - is now being undermined.
Mr Dempsey is vulnerable to the charge that he did not consult widely on the decision to increase the cost of student registration, exam and support services from €396 to €670. According to the USI, a report prepared for the Higher Education Authority (HEA) recommended that any increase in these charges should only be imposed after consultation with students. On this occasion, the decision appears to have been rushed through the Cabinet on Tuesday and announced yesterday without prior consultation with the interested parties.
For all that, Mr Dempsey is correct when he says that each department faces difficult decisions and awkward policy choices at a time when the pressure is increasing on the Exchequer finances. Like his Cabinet colleagues, Mr Dempsey has been under pressure from the Minister for Finance to achieve significant cutbacks. By increasing student charges, Mr Dempsey has managed to eliminate the need for wider cutbacks in higher education, a not insignificant achievement. He also managed to avoid further cutbacks in primary education where, despite much recent progress, thousands of schoolchildren and their teachers still muddle through in dilapidated school buildings.
While the anger of students and others about the increased charges is understandable, it is important to put them in context. The reality is that 37 per cent of university students and 47 per cent of students in the institutes of technology who receive support from the local authorities and the VECs will not be liable for the charge. Mr Dempsey appears to have taken the view that those who are liable for the increased charges are well able to pay. This view may irritate may middle-class parents but there is undoubtedly more than a grain of truth about it.
The reality is that third level education - especially in the university sector- remains largely the preserve of the middle and upper classes. Last year, the Clancy Report commissioned by the HEA again underlined the extent to which the lower socio-economic groups remain locked out of university education. It is now clear that the decision to abolish college fees in 1995 has done little to improve wider access to third-level education, despite claims at the time that it would level the playing field. The abolition of fees was a considerable political gift to the middle and upper classes; it appears to have no wider social benefit.
Mr Dempsey can expect to take considerable political flak for his decision to increase student charges. But the truth is that he had little choice; the alternatives were surely worse.