By Joe Rukin
The Queens Speech, which officially opened the current session of parliament outlines what changes the government has planned for student and university finances. Despite Minister for HELL, Margaret Hodge not wishing to 'pre-empt' the finance review when lobbied by students a couple of weeks earlier, since then herself, Number 10 and the DTI have had no such qualms, despite the review being put back AGAIN, and are talking of raising tuition fees and privatising universities.
Even though the education finance review was initially due to have reported months ago, it was only last week when the government finally set out its aims for the review, or cynically speaking, they've figured out what they want it to say. Those aims are;
-To improve access to universities by groups of people currently under-represented in higher education, especially students from low-income families.
-To "set universities free" to build on their strengths and compete in the increasingly global market.
-To strengthen standards of teaching and research.
-To respond to employers' demands for more, high-quality graduates.
-To reform student support
-To cut "red tape and bureaucracy"
-To encourage stronger higher education-business links
When it comes to 'Setting universities free', we're back to our old friend, GATS, the World Trade Organisation treaty which privatises everything forever. Under preparations for GATS, the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) has finally admitted it is considering proposals by which foreign companies could take over British universities. State schools have received an exemption from the free market, but it is now up to universities to persuade the government that they should be shielded too. With the elite Russell Group of universities shouting from the rooftops for top-up fees and deregulation, this is hardly likely to happen.
The General Agreement on Trade & Services (GATS), if approved, dictates that in any example of a 'market' where some form of fee is charged, it must be opened to allow private bodies to compete. The Association of University Teachers is adamant that it will oppose GATS, though it has in the past been riddled with Labour careerists who have said one thing and done another. Former General Secretary, David Triesman, is now the Gen Sec of the Labour party, and former press officer Andrew Pakes is now 'head of attack' at Millbank. A spokeperson for the AUT said
"The likelihood is that there is going to be an impact on poorer students unable to pay the fees. There are also problems because you are not able to regulate, you won't have the same quality assessment and there will be no quality standards. We also believe, because they will be in a more competitive market, they will be using agency workers on short-term contracts. We think the end result is going to be the lowering of quality and the possible reduction of available places."
As for top-up fees, Tony Blair was left squirming by opposition leaders at two Prime Ministers Questions on the spin. Tory leader Iain Duncan-Smith asked him to definitely rule out top-up fees, after new Secretary of State for Education, Charles Clarke and Hodge had both refused to do so. When pressed Blair was insistent, but refused as usual to answer the actual question and come up with a simple yes or no
"We of course stand by our manifesto, but I do not believe that the issue is top-up fees. The issue is how we ensure that our top universities get the freedom and the independence that they want, and how we make sure that as those universities develop they are able to guarantee access for poorer students. I assure the right hon. Gentleman not merely that we will stand by our manifesto commitment but that when we publish our proposals for a review of higher education and finance, it will be against the background of increasing access for the poorest students in our society."
The exact manifesto commitment that Mr. Blair was talking about is one line, "We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them". This in itself is an inaccuracy, as institutions can charge top-up fees currently if they wish, but all the extra money (above the £1,100) would be reclaimed by the Treasury. In the more comfortable surroundings of the Number Ten press briefing a week later, the pledge was totally forgotten by Blair, as he borrowed a phrase from Margaret 'Nothing, has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out' Hodge, saying that "No options had been ruled out" and that "The only thing that could be discounted was no change at all.". Although most political commentators take this as a belief that Labour would most likely introduce top-up fees in 2006 if they won a third term, if universities were 'set free', the government might not technically introduce top-up fees before then, but the universities themselves could. Mr Blair said he has four key aims;
"One, that the status quo cannot continue because the universities are not well enough funded. Secondly that universities require more freedom and independence from government. Thirdly, however, that we have to improve the access of poorer students to university. And fourthly we mustn't do anything whereby we effectively put a financial barrier in between people and their desire to go to university."
So as expected, it seems that whatever change there is, students will have to pick up the bill, with Charles Clarke suggesting that the better off should pay more for higher education so that students from poorer backgrounds can be subsidised and given a chance. Like Blair, Clarke has evidently been listening to Margaret Hodge and spouted the sort of stereotypical rhetoric we have learned to expect in justifying top-up fees;
'Perhaps the most surprising argument against having students contribute to the cost of their education, whether through fees, loan repayments or taxes, is the so-called "middle-class backlash". Yet many young people do not think twice about taking out a loan or credit to buy a car or holiday.'
Though of course Hodge is still the master and could not be outdone in the tactless comment stakes, asking;
"Should the dustman continue to subsidise the doctor or should the doctor contribute towards the cost of their own education?"
Of course if they were both graduates, the Dustman would actually subsidise the Doctor more under the governments new plans, but besides that 1) Maybe the Dustman might one day need a Doctor, and 2) What if the Dustman's kids want to go to uni and, say become a Doctor?
Speaking to a meeting of Universities UK, she made the clearest indication yet of what to expect-
"Yes, we want every student to have the right to fulfil their potential, but surely they too have the responsibility to contribute towards the cost. If the student does not contribute then the taxpayer must. And is it right that every student should continue to be subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of at least £3,000 to £4,000 - the present subsidy we give to the tuition costs of every student, even with the £1,000 tuition fee - when many of those taxpayers have never had the privilege or the benefit of a university education?"
"We have to decide whether our new investment should go into student support or into the universities themselves. That is a tension which we must resolve. The choices are difficult, and our job is to distribute those resources fairly in the best interest of Britain as a whole. Should the dustmen continue to subsidise the doctors or should the doctors contribute towards the cost of their own education?"
The batty old fruit-loop continued, and even claimed that a fear of debt does not put students off going to university. I'll just repeat that in case you missed it. Fear of debt does not put students off going to university. She then had the cheek to suggest that her generation of students worried about money- with full grants, no tuition fees, book bursaries, travel bursaries and being able to sign on over the summer you might of think the only worry was how to spend it all, but no
"Kids these days do know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. All the surveys on student attitudes show that they worry about money but 'was ever thus, even in the golden heyday of free tuition and grants."
The only question now is whether the government believe they can get away with implementing a graduate tax, because lets face it, it's the only way they can make a hike in tuition fees sound slightly better than it is. The principle of a direct taxation for a direct service would be broached, which opens the gates for other such taxes, but more importantly it does nothing in the here and now. Although some may argue the lowest earners will pay the most, some may see it as more equitable, only in that such a tax would not be a 'barrier to entry into the system', as a higher upfront fee would, it's just a question of who wins the argument, remembering that Tony Blair thinks a 'graduate tax' would be seen as another attack on the middle class, and it's not as if he doesn't know it's them who got him elected.
BBC, Minister heats student fees debate
BBC, Students protest against top-up fees
BBC, Parents oppose student top-up fees
BBC, UK rift over student fees
BBC, Education reforms to continue
Guardian, NUS 'amazed' by Hodge's funding views
Guardian, Hodge makes a case for raising tuition fees
Guardian, The full text of Margaret Hodge's speech to vice-chancellors
Guardian, Blair refuses to rule out top-up fees
Guardian, 'Tough choices' ahead over university funding - Clarke
Guardian , Cambridge rules out top-up fees
Guardian, Hodge keeps quiet on student funding
Guardian, Private school parents 'should foot university bill'
Guardian, We must face top up fees, says PM
Guardian, Moves towards university privatisation 'unstoppable'
Guardian, Ministers 'should not be bullied' into top-up fees
NUS Online, Minister refuses to answer questions from students
EDP24, Warning on university fees rise
Mail, Will graduates soon be taxed?
Mail, Minister: 'Let middle classes pay more for university'
Independent, Richard Garner: University top-up fees are offensive but necessary
Guardian, Struggling universities could be privatised
Ananova, Minister calls for £15,000 university tuition fees
