Gilmore rejects calls for re-introduction of third level fees
Issued : Tuesday 8 April, 2008
Speech by Eamon Gilmore TD
Leader of the Labour Party, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs & Trade
The Leader of the Labour Party, Eamon Gilmore TD has strongly opposed recent calls for the re-introduction of fees for third level education. Deputy Gilmore who was speaking to the TCD Students Union questioned the suggestion that that under-funding in the third level sector was as a result of the abolition of fees. He said that at a time when we wanted to encourage more people through the doors of university, it would be short-termist to respond to a funding crisis in our public education system with what is essentially a tax on those aspiring to gain a degree.
"There has been much talk recently of the challenges facing higher education today. The heads of Trinity and UCD have warned of a looming crisis. Chairman of the London School of Economics, Peter Sutherland, has told us we need to get real about higher education funding.
"They have a point. There is a need to get real about what it really costs to educate our citizens - at all levels.
"UCD President Hugh Brady and Provost of TCD, John Hegarty, have argued that expanding student numbers have not been matched by a proportionate increase in core funding. The same is true at primary level, where expanding numbers have been blamed for a freeze on school extensions, a freeze on class sizes, and where core funding only covers 50 per cent of running costs.
"This is not to muddy the waters on the third level funding debate, but rather to point out that under-funding of education is not unique to the higher level sector.
"It is also true to say that under-funding at primary level cannot be divorced from the debate about what we want higher education to achieve. After all, the quality of Irish graduates will be determined by the education offered to them over a lifetime, not just as undergraduates.
"Therefore, it is a crude irony that under-investment in education coincides with a time when it is reaffirmed at every turn as the engine of a 21st century economy.
"And it is also ironic that, just as we need to expand the numbers of people entering higher education, both as first time students and those who are up-skilling, the concept of universal third level education is being undermined.
"Over the past few years, a thread of nostalgia for third level fees has run through many appeals for a debate on third level funding. The new orthodoxy that competitive advantage lies in the quality of a populations' skills, creativity and innovation has pushed the economic role of third level into the spotlight.
"Universities and institutes of technology have always been crucial to economic success. Now they are being asked to guarantee it. So it should come as no surprise that attention should turn to what we put in, as well as what get out of our third level institutions.
"But it does not follow that industrial policy - the need for a highly skilled population - should be paid for through a specific tax on undergraduates? This is not to say that graduates do not benefit personally from their third level education. They do, and over their lifetime they will be paid over 60 per cent more than someone whose education ceased at second level. But a progressive tax system should recognise that fact, and tax higher earners.
"Secondly, we should ask ourselves whether the third level sector is under-funded because fees were abolished, or because the abolition of fees was successful, in part, in encouraging greater numbers into third level - numbers which were not matched by appropriate levels of government funding. It is all very well to support universal education, but just because education is free does not mean it is cheap.
"Nor should it be forgotten that the free fees initiative replaced a system of tax breaks for third level tuition which benefited the better-off, and as such was almost self-financing.
"Finally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that education is a public good in itself, from which the whole of society benefits. To reduce the value of higher education to a cost-benefit analysis based on private investment by the individual is to lose sight of the important role of universities and other third level institutions in enhancing the public realm.
"Keeping third level free is about more than making it accessible to lower-income students, though it has had some success at that. It is a signal that there will be no arbitrary cap on learning, no artificial limit to a person's potential. It is the hand that holds the gate open for anyone with the ability, dedication and desire to enter higher education.
"It is important not to lose sight of who will be entering third level over the next fifteen years. One thing is certain: the traditional cohort of school leavers will not suffice.
"The Expert Group on Future Skills Needs recommends that 32 per cent of our workforce in 2020 should have a degree level qualification or above, compared to 20 per cent today.
"This figure includes 35,000 people currently in the workforce, who will need to be retrained up to degree level and beyond over the coming decade. But estimating the numbers is the easy part. The real challenge lies in attracting these learners through the gates of third level in the first place - something absent from the Expert Group's sums.
"In my view, one of the biggest challenges facing third level today is how it will respond to the needs and demands of a less traditional learning community. Correspondingly, one of the biggest challenges for Government and policymakers is to make that learning community less traditional.
"It is a fact that charging fees for education does not broaden participation. At a time when we want to encourage more people through the doors of university, it would be short-termist to respond to a funding crisis in our public education system with what is essentially a tax on those aspiring to gain a degree.
"After all, there are 100,000 extra children expected to enter an already over-stretched primary school system over the next decade, but no one would dare suggest that we privatise primary schools to pay for new buildings and teachers. If third level is as important to the economy as we are told it is, then the need for extra graduates should come with an understanding that the State will support them.
"We could begin with some creative ideas for helping the 35,000 workers identified by the Expert Group's report to return to education. The abolition of part-time fees would be a start. So too would be an increase in financial support for those on low wages who want to gain a degree.
"But we could be innovative too, and consider providing low-interest loans for mature students swapping the workforce, and an income, for a few years of study.
"The Business Expansion Scheme, which allows for investment in growing businesses, could prove a model for investment in human capital. Why not allow individuals to claim back the tax they have paid for, say, three years prior to returning to third level, in order to subsidise their investment in themselves?
"These are just two ideas that Labour will be examining as we develop our policies on third level access.
"It is imperative that the supply of third level education be of a high quality, and that the value of an Irish graduate be internationally recognised. But to achieve this, we need a steady and diverse supply of undergraduates in the first place. By all means, let us have a debate about the value of third level, but let's not price our potential undergraduates out of the market.
