Wes Streeting for National President

Earlier this week, Gemma Tumelty and I led a ‘Great Higher Education Funding Debate’ at Methodist Central Hall in Westminster. Bringing together 160 student officers and representatives with leading politicians, academics, think tanks and journalists, we examined the impact of top-up fees so far and the future funding debate ahead.

Below, I reproduce a comment piece I wrote for the left wing think tank Compass. It is the first in a series of comments I will be writing about the funding debate taking place at conference. This one centres on what our policy agenda should be for the 2009 review. The seven principles I outline below can be found in amendment 506a in the funding debate at Annual Conference.

—

Variable Fees: New Labour’s Worst Domestic Policy Mistake, argues Wes Streeting

(first published on Monday 18th February by Compass. See original article) 

Addressing a conference of student leaders last summer, Neal Lawson described variable tuition fees as ‘New Labour’s worst domestic policy mistake’ and he was right. For the past decade, Labour’s approach to student finance has been muddled, contrary to the Government’s stated aim of widening participation and confusing to the millions of full-time undergraduate students who’ve encountered one of the three systems that have been in operation in England alone during the past eleven years.

Equity and sustainability must be the key tests that apply to any funding system; on both counts the current system is a failure. While the market in fees is virtually non-existent so long as fees are capped at £3,000, let us imagine for a moment that the regime is taken to its logical conclusion: that the cap has been increased or lifted altogether. Within the cut-throat market of UK HE Plc. there would be big winners in the form of ancient and redbrick universities, able to price themselves at the top end of the market, and big losers in the form of modern universities and small and specialist colleges, struggling to compete. Labour Ministers should baulk at the prospect that, further down the line, spending per student could be greater in those institutions with the worst records on widening access and significantly lower in those institutions that are most successful in widening participation.

We have seen the futility of the market at work for two years now within the student support system. Rather than providing market incentives for students from working class backgrounds to apply to universities with the worst records at widening participation, the complexity of the system of bursaries, scholarships, grants and loans available has meant that they have had little impact on applicants’ choices and thousands of students are unaware of their entitlements.

With a few notable exceptions, it is widely accepted that the introduction of upfront tuition fees were the Achilles’ heel of Blair’s first botched attempt to reform higher education. As we approach the next General Election and the forthcoming review of the ‘top-up fee’ system in 2009, it is time for Labour to accept that variable fees are the Achilles’ heel of Blair’s second botched attempt and at the same time seize the opportunity that exists for a real debate about what kind of higher education system we want and how it should be funded.

I believe there are seven principles that should lie at the heart of the next reforms to student finance and funding following the 2009 review:

1) The expansion of higher education is necessary to ensure social justice and economic prosperity and must be funded accordingly. Labour was right to set the 50% target. The diversity of our higher education system is one of its greatest strengths and the entire sector must be funded fairly.

2) Higher education is a public good and the state contribution must rise to reflect this. The UK still lags behind other OECD countries in terms of the amount of public funding directed towards higher education. The Government should commit to increasing that contribution to match the OECD average.

3) Where graduates are to make a contribution to the cost of their tuition it should be based on earnings, not prices. ‘Why should the dustman pay for the doctor?’ asked those who justified the introduction of fees ten years ago. If we are to have a graduate contribution, I ask ‘why should graduates working in the public sector pay the same as someone who’s cashed in their degree to work in the private sector?’

4) Student support should be based on what they need, not where they study. The Government should abandon the notion that variable bursaries encourage access to top universities and instead ensure that students struggling financially receive the support they need, wherever they study.

5) There should be a structured business contribution to the costs of higher education. Business benefits enormously from higher education and must pay its fair share, not through tied funding that allows big business to impinge on academic freedom, but a structured contribution through the taxation system.

6) Upfront fees for part-time students should be abolished and financial support for part-time students should be equivalent to that offered to full-time students. Part-time students have been largely forgotten by the Government during the last 10 years, yet are often the very people that Labour wants to attract to university. It’s time to end upfront fees altogether and put in place a student support system that reaches those who need it most.

7) There should be a further review of postgraduate students support and the case for regulation of postgrad and international fees. Labour must ensure fair access to postgraduate opportunities and should seriously consider the regulation of postgraduate and international fees to ensure that students are paying a fair price and that the UK remains attractive to the international students who enrich our campuses and our country but are all to often treated as ‘cash cows’ by universities.

Some of Labour’s worst mistakes during the past decade have occurred when the Government has led without listening. It’s not too late for Labour to put in place a bold, radical and socially progressive model for higher education funding, but it will require ministers to enter the 2009 review with a genuine commitment to asking the big questions and taking on board answers they have so far been unwilling to hear.