The PAYE sector and people in Dublin will take the pain if college fees return, argues Labour Senator Joanna Tuffy.
The unfounded assertion, sometimes blatantly contradicted by established facts, is a frustrating feature of much political discourse in Ireland. It is disappointing that in the debate that has ensued from the Minister for Education's kite-flying on the re-imposition of third-level fees, the presidents of UCD and NUI Maynooth have used this weapon, and no other, in supporting the call for the reversal of the decision of my colleague and former Minister for Education Niamh Bhreathnach to abolish fees.
Both Dr Art Cosgrave, and Dr Seamus Smyth, simply assert that "abolition of fees has done nothing to widen access to college". Have they analysed, have they even read, the four reports of Professor Patrick Clancy, covering a period of almost 20 years from 1980 to 1998, on patterns of participation in higher education in Ireland? If they have, they will have seen that before the abolition of third-level fees, the children of low to middle-income PAYE workers fared very badly compared to all other social groups. And if the Minister for Education reintroduces fees, these same parents and their school-leaving children will be hammered again.
What was the pattern of changes in participation rate (the percentage of the school-leaving age cohort admitted to higher education) during the 18 years covered by the four Clancy Reports?
The accompanying table shows participation rates for six socio-economic groups, and for the country as a whole, in 1980, 1986, 1992 and 1998. As the table shows, the national participation rate increased from 20 per cent in 1980, to 25 per cent in 1986, and to 36 per cent in 1992. During that period, the children of higher professionals (including doctors, dentists, accountants and barristers) and farmers increased their level of participation substantially.
For children from the lowest socio-economic group, unskilled manual workers, the participation rate also increased from 3 per cent to 12 per cent. So these three groups improved their position substantially between 1980 and 1992, even if the participation of school-leavers from the most disadvantaged background improved from an abysmally low base.
What about the pattern in three low to middle-income groups during the same period? The children of intermediate non-manual workers (including shop workers, gardai, soldiers, clerical workers) barely improved their position between 1980 and 1992, and their participation rate dropped between 1986 and 1992.
For the lower professional group (including nurses, and other medical workers, social workers, journalists, teachers) the pattern was somewhat similar - a small rise in the rate between 1980 and 1986, and then a fall between 1986 and 1992.
The position of children of salaried employees (including salesmen, army officers, insurance agents, ships officers) actually worsened during these 12 years, their participation rate falling from 59 per cent to 48 per cent.
So the facts that Minister Dempsey and the university presidents seem to ignore in their drive to bring back fees are quite plain: During a period when fees were in force, and during which the number of student places increased substantially, the children of parents in eight of the 11 social groups, including farmers and the wealthy higher professionals, substantially increased their participation rate in higher education. But the participation rate of children of parents in three low to middle-income, PAYE-paying groups, either worsened or increased negligibly during that time, and for each of the three groups actually fell between 1986 and 1992.
Only one year of college admissions, 1998, has been studied by Professor Clancy since the abolition of third-level fees in 1996; so changing patterns in participation rates since the abolition of fees have yet to be established. This has not stopped the advocates of re-imposing fees from claiming that the abolition of fees has worsened the position of the most disadvantaged group.
But does the preliminary evidence thrown up by Clancy's 1998 figures give their claim any support? It doesn't. In fact the figures suggest precisely the opposite.
As the table demonstrates, the group which showed the biggest proportionate increase in participation was the lowest socio economic group, almost doubling their participation rate from 12 to 22 per cent between 1992 and 1998, when the average participation rate across all groups increased by about a quarter.
And how did the children of the three middle-income PAYE groups, who did very badly relative to all other groups during the compulsory fees regime, fare after the abolition of fees? All three reversed the pattern of falling participation between 1986 and 1992, and showed increased participation rates. The children of lower professionals increased their rate from 42 to 48 per cent, reaching just about the national average rate.
So, what are some of the predictable consequences of the re-imposition of college fees by Minister Dempsey? It won't affect the very well off, the higher professional groups, business owners and many farmers who will be covered by grants anyways. What evidence there is suggests that fees will either worsen the position of the disadvantaged groups or not affect them one way or the other. But, school-leavers whose parents are low to middle-income PAYE workers - nurses, teachers, clerical workers, gardai, soldiers, shop workers - they are the ones who will suffer.
What's more, those PAYE families will find it even harder afford college, especially if living in Dublin, because their mortgage payments will be much higher than those of their counterparts in the 1980s and early 1990s.
While some universities might enjoy the additional financial control gained by the reintroduction of third-level fees, one has to ask if such a move would help to achieve equality of access to these third-level institutions. All of the evidence says it would not.
