Forum Brief: Higher Education Bill

The government has published its long awaited Higher Education Bill.

The legislation sets out the details of its controversial top-up fees policy and signals a fresh battle between the government, some of its backbenchers and the opposition parties.

Tim Yeo, shadow education secretary, said: "Tony Blair intends to break his manifesto promise not to introduce top-up fees, burdening future generations with debt at considerable net cost to the taxpayer. Labour's plans do not add up.

"Analysis based on IFS and government figures shows that Labour's plan will cost taxpayers considerably more money than it will raise for universities."

Forum Response: Institution of Electrical Engineers

Dr Alf Roberts, chief executive of the IEE, said: "More funding is crucial if the UK's universities are to maintain their world-class status. We therefore welcome this Bill. However, we are concerned that higher fees could be charged for science, engineering and technology (SET) courses which are comparatively costly to deliver. Charging more for them could deter students from applying and exacerbate the shortage of skills in these areas.

"One solution, already suggested by Charles Clarke, is to encourage universities to subsidise these courses by charging more for degree course that are less expensive and/or highly oversubscribed. This is a suggestion we fully endorse for science, engineering and technology courses."It is also essential that the extra resources from increased tuition fees should supplement existing funding and not replace funding from general taxation."

Forum Response: Universities Council for the Education of Teachers

A spokeswoman for UCET told ePolitix.com: "It is widely acknowledged that the universities are underfunded and that if they are to maintain their position as leading players in the international community of scholarship they require further investment.

"It is also acknowledged that in funding higher education a balance needs to be struck between public investment by government and contributions from those who are the principal beneficiaries of higher education.

"UCET will be scrutinising the government's proposals carefully to assess whether or not an appropriate balance has been struck. We shall be particularly concerned to ensure that the proposals do not constitute a disincentive to those from disadvantaged backgrounds from accessing higher education."

Forum Response: Universities UK

Professor Ivor Crewe, president of Universities UK, said: "This Bill marks a critical point for the future of higher education.

"It makes an important and welcome contribution to addressing the financial problems of all universities. The accompanying measures for student support show how strongly the government has responded to the concerns of the sector, of students, and of its own backbenchers on funding and access issues.

"It strikes a fair balance between the needs of institutions and students to the benefit of society, the economy, and the country."

Forum Response: National Union of Teachers

Doug McAvoy, general secretary of the NUT, said: "Like health, education should be free at the point of delivery. The government is reneging on that fundamental principle. Our fear is that it won't be long till New Labour erodes that principle further down the education service rather than face the cost of educating our children.

"Sadly, the government has succeeded in side-lining the debate away from the principle and on to deals done with Labour discontents.

"The cost of expansion of access to higher education must be paid for through a transparent taxation system and not by stealth. Everyone in this country benefits when our young people are better educated. That fact should be reflected in the way we fund our education service at all levels.

"Our fears about the government's top-up fees proposal are that it will deter youngsters from less well off families, cause resentment amongst those from higher income families while not meeting the resource needs of universities.

"This is New Labour at its most divisive, leading to a more stratified higher education system.

"Instead of widening access, the fear of debt will narrow take-up and the whole country will be the loser."

Forum Response: Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) said: "ATL welcomes the concessions which the government has made and there is much in this Bill that we support. The proposals go some way to addressing our members' concerns over student funding. However the fundamental problem that variable fees will work against the government's plans to encourage young people from poorer backgrounds into higher education remains, not withstanding the promise of a review after three years.

"The support for students from lower-income backgrounds is welcome but young people whose parents have only modest incomes but who do not qualify for these bursaries will still be likely to be put off applying to top-ranking universities. As a result the well-documented educational disadvantage of low-income will be carried forward into the next stage of these young peoples' lives.

"The secretary of state has addressed the widely expressed concern that universities will be forced to put up their fees significantly in future years. But cynics might suggest that his proposals merely delay this problem to the other side of a general election.

"It remains to be seen whether this Bill contains sufficient concessions to satisfy Labour's back-bench MP's and ATL will continue to press our point of view as the debate unfolds in the House of Commons later this month."

Forum Response: Professional Association of Teachers

Jean Gemmell, general secretary of PAT, said: "Although we welcome amendments that will improve the situation for students, it's time for the government to stop its desperate tinkering with concessions to win a few extra votes and to listen to common sense and abandon top-up fees.

"Allowing universities to charge higher and variable tuition fees will deter many - especially those from families on lower incomes. We do not want to see a two-tier system of higher education, where only the rich can afford to go to those self-appointed 'top' universities.

"PAT would like to see a national maintenance allowance for all students in full-time tertiary education or training. This would be an investment in our young people. A massive increase in funding for higher education institutions is needed too, as an investment in our country's future.

"Although deferring payment until after graduation is better than paying up-front, we remain very concerned about high levels of student debt. Bringing back maintenance grants for some is welcome, but most students will still leave university massively in debt.

"As a teachers' union, PAT has long been concerned about the ability of young teachers to pay off student debts and we are worried that this is deterring many from becoming teachers.

"Most graduates saddled with student debts will naturally seek careers paying the highest salaries - which does not include teaching! We hear of newly qualified teachers leaving teaching because they cannot repay their loans and pay for accommodation on a teacher's salary - at a time when there is a recruitment crisis in the classroom.

"It is wrong to burden students with debt, making the start of their professional life very difficult. It seems that the prospect of debt is deterring many applicants from going to university, and this means that society loses out too.

"With student fees, large mortgages, dwindling pension returns and high living and transport costs, I'm concerned that many young people will be swamped by what is becoming an in-debt society."

Forum Response: SCOP

Patricia Ambrose executive secretary for SCOP said; "SCOP welcomes the Government's determination to engage students from all backgrounds in a high quality higher education experience. Accordingly, we endorse many of the measures announced today in the Higher Education Bill.

"In particular, we support:the abolition of up-front payment of tuition fees and the introduction of a Graduate Contribution Scheme on earnings of £15,000 or above.

"The proposal to increase the student maintenance grant from £1,000 to £1,500, although this may still not be sufficient.

"The intention to write off outstanding debts after 25 years, although we would also like to see the progressive waiving of debt for graduates entering key public sector professions (teaching, social care etc.).

"Adjustments to the proposals on student bursaries which go some way to alleviate the concerns of higher education institutions with high proportions of poorer students; the Government's commitment to an independent review of its policy on variable fees (if introduced) after 3 years.

"As the Bill progresses, we look forward to further dialogue on ways in which the student finance package can be developed to address outstanding concerns."