Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for leaving the meeting but I have caught up with the main train of the discussion. The Minister has not taken seriously the issue of the public good is served by ensuring people go to third level education and the damaging effect this measure may have in disincentivising people from entering education. The Minister is cutting off his nose to spite his face with short-term savings to the Exchequer but long-term damage to the capacity of the economy to recover. This involves investing in the most important resource that we need to recover, namely, human beings being educated, trained and skilled and able to contribute to generating wealth in the economy. There is simply no way around the point we are making, which is that this is damaging not just to the individuals involved and their families but also to the stated objective of Government.

I am not in favour of tax incentives but the Government is. If I had my way, there would be no fees whatsoever and education would be a right not a privilege for everybody because it is for the good of society. It would be paid for through progressive income tax and increasing corporation tax. The Minister is not interested in taking that road. Let me give a good example of the point I am making. The reason the late, and in my case lamented, Hugo Chavez went to Cuba to avail of its health services is that in Cuba, which is not a perfect society, the Government understood the need to invest in the health service. Cuba has a state of the art health service even though it has a relatively underdeveloped economy. The basic principle is to invest in health services because they are important and they do not put any obstacles to people accessing the health service.

It seems to me that principle applies to education. Even if it is the Minister's chosen preference to have fees and to put obstacles in the way of certain sectors of society accessing education and instead to incentivise different sectors of the economy, which is one of the favourite buzz words when it comes to capital in particular - we must incentivise research and development, the big investors, major capital investments - can he not see that what he is doing is inconsistent with that policy? Surely one of the most, if not the most important groups to incentivise are young people being incentivised to enter third level education, for their good and for the good of the economy? If we have people dropping out of third level education, it will do medium to long-term damage. In fact it will do immediate damage and it will also do medium to long-term damage to the capacity of the economy to recover.

Let me respond to Deputy Twomey's point, there were fees when I was in university but luckily in my case my parents could afford them. If that group can contribute to the collective education system they should through income tax but what is being proposed will hit a group that are just over the thresholds. It will hit people who are on the margin of whether they can access education. This measure will hit that group.