The very, very, very slow progress of the fees proposal
Another bit of news today regarding the likelihood of a plan by the government to reintroduce fees. In a nutshell, today’s news is that nothing will happen just yet. The Minister for Education and Science will, it appears, put a draft proposal on fees to cabinet colleagues this month, but won’t put a formal proposal to the cabinet until September. Assuming that this proposal is for the reintroduction of fees, and assuming further that the government adopts it, we don’t know what the timeline will then be for the implementation of the decision; except that, obviously, nobody will be paying fees for another year at least.
The Minister also indicated to RTE that ‘people would be pleasantly surprised that the system he would be proposing – if adopted – will not be as financially difficult as perceived.’ It is hard to know what to make of that, exactly. And here is one of the problems. While members of the cabinet may be about to have details of what could be proposed, nobody else has any real information, and therefore nobody can subject the proposal to analysis or present any informed views or feedback.
It is, I think, time to involve the third level community in this whole project. It is important that any proposal is considered in terms of its practicality, and those best placed to offer views on that are those who work in the institutions. It is very hard to have an informed debate when nobody has really been informed, and it would help the atmospherics of the whole thing if this gap were to be filled. I hope that the Minister will take that opportunity.
Tags: Batt O'Keeffe, fees, tuition fees
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
July 2, 2009 at 5:54 am
I think he is correct in not removing the free fees at the moment. Mind you, not that he has all that much say in the matter.
The free fees, a huge gaping opportunity for a new tax, and not just on those who use the education facilities which is what you are advocating. Ah no, whatever cost you and the Brothers dream up, can be passed on in total and without all that much whinging. It can be called the education levy, fixed at E8,000, index linked and in perpetuity. And the laugh of it all the Government can add 10% and call it the Registration/Capitation fee.
‘the atmospherics’, do you mean this in the old, wood paneled smoke filled and reeking of body odour, or as Princeton defines it ‘hissing and crackling noise caused by electrical interference’. Static, really.
Is it true that you and your staff do not pay any fees or the Registration/Capitation fee for yourself or any family.
July 2, 2009 at 7:22 am
Vincent, nobody pays fees.
July 2, 2009 at 8:44 am
Yes they do. It is only one of your many products that has a free fee attachment to it.
Outside of that, how does this apply to staff, 100% discount or none. And does it extend to their kids.
I have noted that there is for UCC a form for the revenue collectors about this exact point.
July 2, 2009 at 9:44 am
I have very mixed feelings about this.
I was able, as a mature student, to take a “career break”* in the mid 90s and thereby obtain a very decent degree (first class honours, student of the year, wooh, hooh!). This allowed me to get a good job. Ten years later, I’m still working for the same company and have a very adequate salary. I’ve been paying my taxes since then and imagine I’ve paid back the investment that the Irish State made in me.
The main point I want to make is that without free fees I should not have been able to do that and the likelihood is that I would have had to give up the job I was in at that stage due to a stress-related illness. Therefore, I (and my loved ones) would have been a burden on the State.
* I didn’t call it a “career break” then. I was drinking in the famed last chance saloon, somewhat beaten and pretty depressed. I shall always be grateful for the support and encouragement of my family, the excellent experiences I had at college and the fact that the free fees system gave me a good shot at a second chance.
I would not have a problem with paying an additional % of my income as a “graduate” tax if it is decided that we cannot afford the current system.
July 2, 2009 at 11:30 am
The speculated reason for the delay is the same reason for the delay in announcing the majority of cutbacks. To allow Lisbon II to occur whilst sentiment for a yes vote is high. Cutbacks and fee’s etc would further erode what little government support there is and Lisbon II may suffer as a consequence of a protest vote, would be the speculated thinking in FF circles.
Lisbon II date to be decided today, either late September or early October: http://www.tribune.ie/breakingnews/article/2009/jun/23/cabinet-may-set-date-for-lisbon-referendum-today/
However this really should be brought up for discussion now, as there will be plenty of bad news leaks over the summer about cutback proposals anyways to anger the electorate, so may as well start discussion now.
Apologies if this comment derails the discussion into a referendum discussion!
July 2, 2009 at 11:45 am
Excellent point John , once again it looks like our government are going to take short term gains rather than the long term investment that producing a skilled workforce produces.
And how the government can even draft such a proposal without participation from the third level community , the people best placed to advice them straight away if their proposal is even fiscally achievable, beggars belief.
July 7, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I can’t really find any credible argument against the re-introduction of fees. All the evidence suggests that the majority of the benefits from third level education accrue to the individual (there are of course external benefits to society).
I don’t accept that fees would be the largest contributory factor to people from lower socio-economic groups attending third level. The real barriers occur much earlier in life and the subsidising of third level means resources are directed away from where they could be used more effectively to increase third level participation – that is in the employment of resource teachers, lower teacher/pupil ratios, improved technologies in schools etc.
Where a student loan scheme is used then finding the fees upfront is not an issue.
The double-taxation argument suggests that third-level graduates are already paying through taxes on higher income. There is an inequity here where there are two individuals earning the same income but one achieved her income through entrepreneurship or serving time (perhaps as an accountant etc) and the other earns his due to a third level qualification. The former is subsidising the latter. The latter should repay the state’s contribution to his success, while the former has had no (direct) state support (except of course probably primary and secondary schooling).