Mick Clifford: Third-level fee rise sparks backlash — but who is really hardest hit?
The topic that has got many people angry enough to pick up the phone is what looks like an increase in third-level fees. This payment is called a 'registration fee'. It stood at €3,000 but was reduced in 2022 to €2,000 as a cost of living measure. This was one of a number of supports provided by the Government to offset steep inflation.
Then, this week, the minister for higher education James Lawless, let it be known that the fee will revert to €3,000 in the next budget. Cue outrage.
It should be noted that the Government is being hoist on its own petard. Once the reduction was introduced there was no way it was going to be clawed back until the election was done and dusted. Those who send their children to third-level are the heart of the electorate. They needed some loving if they were to do the right thing at the ballot box. Now the returned Government is learning that unless you want to be reckless, there arrives a reckoning. What they giveth before the election, they taketh away once returned to the pig's back.
Opposition
The first strand of opposition to the measure came from, well, within the Government. Fine Gael are all against it. A primary reason for this is that one area where the party is wildly popular is the fee-paying second-level sector, from which practically 100% of Leaving Cert students go onto third-level. (Nationally the figure is around 75%).
Those parents are willing to fork out up €8,000 annually to give their children the best start and advantage possible, and that is laudable. But apparently, for some at least, it is outrageous that they should be asked to revert to the original registration fee for a third-level which is already subsidised by all taxpayers, not just those who have offsprings attending the sector. What we have, we hold, would appear to be the prevailing sentiment.
When the news broke, Liveline went into overdrive. At times like these, I always revert to my favourite example of Liveline outrage. This was back in 2009, in the wake of an economic crash that would ultimately result in widespread devastation, most particularly on those least able to bear it.
One of the measures introduced by a government on the precipice of bankruptcy was a €200 tax on second or more homes. So onto the radio comes this woman who was absolutely devastated. Where, she demanded of Joe, was she supposed to come up with the €1,400 that would be required for her seven properties? Did the government think money grew on trees, or maybe in the flower boxes at the windows of her various properties? So it went in the last days of the suspended reality that informed the Celtic Tiger years.
Financial impact
Any increase in taxes or fees or charges is going to have an impact on a cohort of the population. That goes without saying. For some people this impact might reverberate in the weekly food shopping, which is pretty devastating, particularly when there are children involved. For others, quite possibly, it might demand a rethink of various holiday plans. And, for more again, the impact might be on a lifestyle that has come to be considered a right rather than, in any element, a luxury.
Just a few facts might be noteworthy in terms of the debate this week. A household must be earning at least €115,000 to be liable for the full registration fee. That's not a huge sum these days, but it is over twice the average industrial wage.
Nearly all parents who have to pay the fee are homeowners, putting them on one side of a growing divide in society today. As homeowners, they pay a property tax that would be considered a joke in the vast majority of developed countries. Their wealth, as measured by their biggest asset, has increased exponentially in the last fifteen years.
This cohort of society is also likely to be among those who account for the €158bn which the Central Bank reports represents household savings in the State.
On paper, in general, by the standards that apply to society as a whole, the cohort liable for the full registration fee are doing relatively well in today's world
There will be some who have particular circumstances which would render an increase in the fee as delivering a blow rather than an adjustment. Included among these are parents who must locate accommodation for their offspring.
Certainly, some allowance should be made there, but beyond that, are we talking real hardship for a considerable number of people?
Is it all about who shouts the loudest on air, delivering narratives that are heavy with emotion but simply cannot be verified?
There was no outrage recently when the CSO published its latest Survey of Income and Living Standards which revealed that over a quarter of a million children are experiencing 'enforced deprivation'. These children are defined as living in a household that was unable to afford the goods and services which are considered the minimum essentials for a decent standard of living such as being able to buy a winter coat, afford a new pair of shoes or being able to replace broken furniture.
These children, in all likelihood, will never have to worry about third-level education, not to mind registration fees. According to the ESRI, childhood poverty increases the chances of 'greater interaction with the criminal justice system', and is also associated with 'lower third-level education and higher rates of unemployment in adulthood'. Should children in these circumstances be given any kind of priority when it comes to deciding how best to spend public money?
Apart from priorities, a whole range of financial watchdogs and monitors have asserted that the State is underfunded. This is definitely the case in third-level education. Infrastructure to support home building is particularly bad, but extra funds will also be required to tackle an aging population and the ravages of climate change. Where is that money going to come from? At the rate we're going it won't be from those at the heart of the electorate who shout the loudest.
We live in difficult and uncertain times. There are various problems and challenges across society, some life-defining, others worrying and yet more capable of heightening public anger. But are priorities to be decided exclusively on who is best at utilising the media, at threatening politicians to withdraw support, at knowing how to play the system?
If that continues to be the defining compass in determining policy there will be a bigger cost to pay in the future. And it won't be just those at the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder who will be paying it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
4 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Talk of revenge after acrimonious week for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael
There are a few politicians in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael who will spend this weekend contemplating revenge, maybe even plotting it. It is not a huge cohort, but there are enough there to make up a quorum of motivated individuals eager to maintain the internecine warfare of recent days. It all stems form the shockwaves generated by James Lawless' logical but politically unwise answer on RTÉ's This Week programme, that as things stand student fees could rise by €1,000 this year. Although the worried public outbursts from Fine Gael have ceased, the party remains steadfast in its view that Mr Lawless needlessly wounded the entire Government. One senior figure summed up the week saying, "we have many issues where we will lose support or struggle politically but this one could have been avoided." There is a feeling in the party too, as constituency office calls and emails are "off the charts," that it could be difficult to hold the line until October's Budget. Already there are broad hints that the final figure for student fees will be below €3,000 and the Budget reductions will this time be permanent Fianna Fáil believes it was Simon Harris' intervention that "escalated" the entire episode into a full-blown crisis which dominated Dáil debate for three days. The party's weekly meeting in Leinster House saw several TDs lash out at what was described as "media posturing" by Fine Gael. Those close to Simon Harris contend that he was merely trying to bring clarity to matters given his intricate knowledge of the topic as a former higher education minister himself. That defence drew nothing but guffaws from both Fianna Fáil ministers and TDs. "He's good like that isn't he," one scathingly said. Then there are those who are intent on settling scores. Battle plans from some foot soldiers have identified Minister of Agriculture Martin Heydon's efforts to retain the Nitrates derogation, as a possible point of attack. The Fine Gael tactics board has zoned in on Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan's upcoming decision on whether to accept the Judicial Council guidelines proposing an increase in personal injury awards, against the backdrop of rising insurance costs. Throughout the week, Independent ministers like Kevin 'Boxer' Moran have urged both parties to talk to each other more, and to be mindful of the financial strain many households are experiencing. Further up the chain the sores are felt less intensely though and there is a general view that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael ministers are generally working well together. Reports of friction 'overstated' - minister Reports of deep friction and lasting damage to the Government's cohesiveness were "a bit overstated" according to one influential Cabinet minister. The switching of portfolios after the general election is even said to have boosted a sense of mutual respect with ministers possessing a greater understanding of their colleagues' workload. There is a view in the higher echelons of Government that in the context of the many challenges it faces, this week amounted to little more than a "bit of pushing and shoving" or good old fashioned "ground hurling". The true measure of the coalition's sense of unity will be the Budget negotiations. These will be framed against the worrying reality that the economic good times are most likely drawing to a close. That means caution will be the guiding principle in the months ahead for the Fine Gael's Minister for Finance and Fianna Fáil's Minister for Public Expenditure. Both Jack Chambers and Paschal Donohoe are said to be of a similar mind about the approach required, and their working relationship is described as close. It is that key axis and how it navigates a Budget amid growing uncertainty, and without the option of a cost-of-living package, which will ultimately reveal if the coalition can function collectively.
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Will the Government really put McDonald's ahead of children in poverty?
With billions flowing into the Government's coffers from our corporation tax bonanza, there were some big winners from last year's pre-election budget. Among the biggest were the children of wealthy parents. While CSO statistics show that an average person receives about €100,000 in gifts or inheritances from their parents over a lifetime, Budget 2025 announced a €25,000 tax cut for the tiny fraction who receive more than €400,000. Such giveaways contrast sharply with below-inflation increases to most social welfare payments over recent years. This has left core rates of payments worth less today than they were in January 2020: a remarkable situation given the strength of economic growth and the tens of billions in new spending announced. These real-terms cuts have contributed to stagnating incomes for the poorest households as well as stubbornly persistent levels of child poverty. READ MORE Research published by the ESRI in partnership with Community Foundation Ireland has shown that 250,000 children live in households below the poverty line after accounting for housing costs: more than one in five children. A wealth of evidence shows this has enormous economic and social costs , with a lack of adequate resources compromising the ability of children to grow and thrive, even in adulthood. The importance of reducing child poverty has been recognised by successive governments, with ambitious targets set out in various plans, strategies and roadmaps since 1997. However, we have seen no real progress for the best part of two decades. Shockingly, the share of children below the poverty line after housing costs is no lower than during the worst years of the financial crisis. The reason child poverty persists is that whenever the opportunity comes to translate words into action there is always some higher priority. This year that higher priority looks to be the hospitality sector, which has engaged in a sustained, well-funded lobbying campaign for even more preferential VAT treatment than it currently enjoys. VAT is currently levied on accommodation, catering and restaurant services at a reduced rate of 13.5 per cent, compared with the standard rate of 23 per cent. Estimates by Revenue suggest this amounts to a tax relief of almost €2 billion per year. Cutting the rate further to 9 per cent would cost more than €800 million more a year, sucking up most of the space available for new measures in the forthcoming budget. This is despite the fact the sector is – by any objective measure – doing well. CSO data shows that hospitality employment was 7 per cent higher in the first quarter of 2025 than a year earlier, while figures from the Companies Registration Office show there were 11 new companies incorporated for every liquidation in the sector. Even if the sector were struggling, a VAT cut makes little economic sense. Rather than supporting struggling small restaurants or cafes, the biggest beneficiaries would be large operators with the highest turnover. On what grounds can a multimillion-euro tax cut for outlets such as McDonald's possibly be justified? Yet the Tánaiste's recent elevation of this expensive and economically illiterate tax cut to a 'solemn commitment' would seem to place it ahead of all other promises in the programme for government. This includes a pledge to 'lift more children out of poverty, giving them the futures they deserve'. Doing so would have immense benefits, but unavoidably requires spending money. The most effective way of spending this money is to introduce a second-tier of child benefit. This would leave the current universal child benefit payment as it stands but give an additional amount to lower-income families with children, replacing the inadequate patchwork of existing supports. Recent estimates from the ESRI suggest such a reform would reduce child poverty by more than a quarter. This amounts to lifting more than 50,000 children out of poverty at a cost of €772 million. While substantial, this cost is about a quarter of achieving the same reduction by increasing the universal child benefit payment. Strikingly, it is also less than that of the planned cut to VAT for the hospitality sector. This is the reason a second tier of child benefit has been called for since 2007 by a range of expert bodies, including the last government's Commission on Taxation and Welfare (which I was part of). A second tier of child benefit would mirror reforms implemented in the UK over the 2000s by then chancellor Gordon Brown. Writing in these pages last year, he described the approach as a 'progressive universalism' that ensures 'a floor of basic social rights for all, but with more support for those who need it most'. When Brown gave a keynote address to the Irish Government's inaugural Child Poverty Summit last year, he was introduced by then taoiseach Simon Harris, who declared that 'ending child poverty is a defining challenge for any leader' . After 20 years without progress in reducing – let alone ending – child poverty, it is a challenge our leaders are failing. Whether that failure defines their legacies depends on the decisions they take in the coming budgets. Dr Barra Roantree is director of the MSc in economic policy at Trinity College Dublin
Irish Independent
4 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Minister wants to persuade EU to avoid ‘emission fines', but experts say threat of €26bn penalty is real
He said if financial penalties were proposed for member states for breaching emissions targets, each should be directed to spend the money on renewable energy or related measures in their own country. He does not accept estimates that Ireland may be liable to pay as much €26bn in costs, however, insisting this was 'pure speculation'. The colossal figure is at the upper end of estimates jointly published earlier this year by the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and Climate Change Advisory Council. Ireland has already had to buy tens of millions of euro worth of credits from other states to make up for missing 2020 targets, but the advisory bodies warned that the cost would escalate rapidly by 2030 if the country does not make dramatic emissions cuts. The minister insisted there was no specific mechanism in place in Europe to deal with breaches in 2030. 'There's no formula published and there's no informal formula as to what measures would be taken by the commission in relation to states that do not meet their target so it's just speculative,' he said. 'This is something I have discussed with the commission myself,' he said. 'Should there be financial impositions, I think the better thing to do would be to instruct and direct states to invest further in their own climate measures such as renewables.' He said other EU states shared that view, as they were also likely to miss their targets. Figures released yesterday show emissions fell by only 2pc last year – nowhere near the scale needed. Marie Donnelly, chair of the Climate Change Advisory Council, said the reduction was 'disappointing'. 'By delaying investment to deliver these reductions, the Government is increasing the risk and costs required to comply with targets that have already been agreed,' she said. 'It is better to make the investments now for households, communities and businesses, rather than paying large fines in a few years.' Friends of the Earth spokesman Seán McLoughlin said: 'A 2pc reduction, when we need to be making deep emissions cuts year-on-year, shows that the Government is still stuck in climate go-slow mode. We are falling further and further behind on our climate commitments, while the world continues to warm at terrifying speed.' Environmental NGO An Taisce said: 'The emissions inventories now published signal yet another year of climate action drift by the Irish State, and an ongoing failure of policy to address the climate emergency.' Social Democrats climate spokesperson Jennifer Whitmore said Mr O'Brien's attitude to potential fines was 'blasé'. 'The Government is delusional if it does not accept that severe financial consequences are now a very real threat,' she said.
