A return of fees must not cause pain to to those on 'ordinary' salaries, writes Emmet Oliver, Education Correspondent
On the surface, the current free fees regime at third level throws up endless anomalies, injustices and inconsistencies.
For example, the sons or daughters of Ireland's wealthiest business people can currently cruise through a four-year course at UCD or Trinity and not pay a single cent during their halcyon student days.
However, a 21-year-old lower income earner who tried college a few years ago and now wants to return has to hand over about €4,000 a year for the pleasure of re-entering the groves of academe. That is because free fees only cover those entering third level for "the first time".
Such apparent injustices in the current regime will no doubt provide ammunition to those seeking the return of fees. And well they might.
There is something intrinsically wrong about enormously wealthy people having their third-level education bills footed by the ordinary taxpayer. The Minister for Education, Mr Noel Dempsey, has cleverly identified this as key to why change is needed in the area.
But wait a minute. The world does not neatly break down into paupers and princes. Like the economy generally people's wages are a complicated area.
Who exactly is middle class? Who precisely should be classified as disadvantaged? Is someone's salary judged on a gross or net basis? Should you take account of their mortgage payments? What about other outgoings, car loans, for instance?
If the Government is going to bring back college fees, somebody is going to have to provide answers to these questions. That is why Mr Dempsey, if he eventually decides to bring back fees, will have to be careful that any scheme actually does hit the wealthy and the comfortable, and does not end up causing pain to those on "ordinary" salaries.
So how might Mr Dempsey go about it? Well, if he takes as his starting point the current higher education grants scheme, his problem of catching Joe and Josephine Public in the fees net immediately arises.
Currently to qualify for full maintenance and fees, a couple (with fewer than four children) have to earn a gross joint income of less than €21,629. A cent over this and they do not qualify.
If Mr Dempsey took this as his fees cut-off point it would mean any couple earning a combined annual salary of over €21,630 would be liable to pay tuition fees. Depending on the course - arts and commerce are a lot cheaper than medicine or dentistry, for example - they could be liable for fees of about €4,000 a year and possibly more.
If this couple, earning a combined salary in the early 20s, were relatively young it is likely they would also be paying a mortgage. They would hardly qualify as a fully paid-up member of the middle classes after their mortgage and colleges fees are taken out.
Mr Dempsey, being a political realist, is likely to avoid such hard cases. But avoiding them could be difficult. Speaking to The Irish Times last week he emphasised again and again that fees would be aimed at those who could afford them.
He hinted that the grant threshold would rise so that people on modest incomes would not be victims. But how far can the grant thresholds come up? If they come up to meet salaries around the €40,000 level the amount of income coming from the fees scheme could seriously shrink.
If the revenue stream from such a politically unpopular measure turned out to be a trickle it could be reasonably argued what was the point of bringing back fees?
No doubt Mr Dempsey and his officials will attempt to frame a clever and equitable scheme, but it may not be easy.