Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler seems to owe it to himself and the Government he serves to offer, soonest, an appropriate response to the forthright denial from members of the Education Commission headed by Professor Hilary Beckles, on the controversial issue that payment of tuition fees by Barbadian students attending the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies was among recommendations offered in their official report.
This is most important in the face of growing debates, some rather acrimonious, that the proposed new policy from the 2014 academic year for Barbadian students to pay 20 percent of their tuition fees was an idea located among recommendations in the commission’s report submitted to the Government, as claimed by the Minister of Finance.
Free university education has long been identified among the cherished legacies of Barbados’ “Father of Independence” and National Hero, Errol Walton Barrow.
It’s a policy that others in and beyond this region have envied and one proudly sustained, through times of plenty and scarcities in financial resources, by successive governments.
The Minister of Finance, therefore, has a clear obligation to the people of Barbados to address the trenchant denials that have come from commission members (who prefer anonymity at this stage), but already openly articulated by Professor Beckles, the respected historian and principal of the UWI Cave Hill Campus – as reported in the SUNDAY SUN.
It is quite understandable, given the nature of competitive party politics in a multi-party parliamentary democracy, why the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) now seems determined to exploit an unexpected political gift delivered by Mr Sinckler in his presentation of the now already approved 2013 Budget.
In his weekend intervention, Professor Beckles has pointed to recommendations advanced by the commission, among them that:
“Given the tremendous benefits of tertiary education to the growth and development of the public and private sectors in Barbados, a system of cost-sharing could now be considered for implementation . . . the model of financing could be adjusted to reflect: “85 per cent contribution by Government inclusive of a higher education levy; ten per cent contribution by the private sector; and five per cent contribution by the consumer.”
This offered proposal, as stated in the commission’s report, is intended for a phased expansion in amenities fee of about $1 500 annually, depending on the faculty with a view to renewal after ten years . . . .
Could it be that the Minister of Finance is guilty of a most unfortunate misinterpretation of this particular section, if not other observations and recommendations as well? It is after all human to err – by the best among us. It is therefore, quite important and necessary for Mr Sinckler to come forward, in a hurry, with a response to the commission’s contention of a misreading – to say it politely – of their report to the Government.