Can Labour deliver on fees?

The opposition must give universities guarantees about funding if it wants to gain support, argues Bill Rammell

August 7, 2014

60 per cent of parents question the value of going to university. Yet the vast majority still want their children to go

In recent years there has been much talk about “uncertainty” over university income. Yet, in reality, since the introduction of variable fees in 2005, the funding environment for higher education in England has had a stability that the university leaders of the 1990s would have given their right arms for.

The introduction of variable fees – which I presided over as minister of state for higher education – added in net terms to public funding, and preserved the unit of resource that had been so seriously eroded in the 1990s. Although the change was much criticised, it brought about genuine co-financing, was built on a progressive post-graduation repayment system, and heralded an expansion in access.

As substantial policy changes go, this can be championed as a real success story, and one of which the Labour Party should be proud.

The coalition’s changes in 2010 arguably deserve a harsher critique. The breaking of the Lib Dem pledge on tuition fees left a nasty taste in the mouth, and surely contributed to the continuing detachment from, and cynicism towards, politics among students. And whereas Labour’s reforms established co-financing, the coalition’s changes meant virtual privatisation of the funding source in England, albeit with backstop support from the state through the student loan book.

Within the context of austerity government, however, these changes stand out as a relative success story. No one can really deny that higher education has fared much better, financially, than the rest of the public sector. Local government leaders yearn for the funding “challenges” we face. And after a rocky first year, access has continued to expand. David Willetts, now from the backbenches, can be proud of presiding over what is arguably this government’s most successful policy change.

But real change and challenge is on the horizon after 2015.

The coalition’s fee changes carried with them a fundamental mistake compared with Labour’s reforms. There was no annual inflator to the student fee, meaning £9,000 is in real terms worth £8,000 by 2015, and £7,000 by 2020.

On top of this, Labour is now proposing to cut fees to £6,000 and, eventually, move to a graduate tax. I will always be a loyal member of the Labour Party but I’m sceptical about this policy shift.

In justifying it, Labour has highlighted survey data suggesting that 60 per cent of parents question the value of going to university. Yet the vast majority still want their children to go, and despite £9,000 fees, student enrolments have continued to rise.

I worry that cutting fees to universities will undermine Labour’s historic 2005 achievement in bringing funding stability and security to higher education.

Party leader Ed Miliband has said that Labour would maintain the unit of resource by making up the £3,000 fee reduction with Treasury cash. I welcome that commitment, but I’m worried about its durability. I’m not the only former minister who learned from experience to be wary of Treasury promises for particular spending priorities. Priorities change with time.

I’m a political realist, though. The cost of living crisis is a legitimate part of Labour’s critique of this government’s record. It is crucial to provide solutions to that, and the fee commitment is one such solution. And in what is likely to be the tightest and most unpredictable general election for 40 years, the student vote in marginal seats could be pivotal.

So how can Labour deliver its promise on fees and yet take universities with it? Along with the commitment, I think universities need three guarantees from Labour.

First, the unit of resource commitment needs to be for the whole Parliament.

Second, the delivery of this commitment should be explicitly reported on annually by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

Third, and critically, Labour should commit to legislate to uprate the £6,000 fee annually by inflation.

This triple lock would enhance Labour’s pro higher education position, and keep universities on side as part of a progressive coalition.

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Assistant Recruitment - Human Resources Office

University Of Nottingham Ningbo China

Outreach Officer

Gsm London

Professorship in Geomatics

Norwegian University Of Science & Technology -ntnu

Professor of European History

Newcastle University

Head of Department

University Of Chichester
See all jobs

Most Commented

men in office with feet on desk. Vintage

Three-quarters of respondents are dissatisfied with the people running their institutions

students use laptops

Researchers say students who use computers score half a grade lower than those who write notes

Canal houses, Amsterdam, Netherlands

All three of England’s for-profit universities owned in Netherlands

sitting by statue

Institutions told they have a ‘culture of excluding postgraduates’ in wake of damning study

A face made of numbers looks over a university campus

From personalising tuition to performance management, the use of data is increasingly driving how institutions operate