By Joe Rukin
After originally heralding the December 4th National Demo as 'The day top-ups were toppled', the National Union of Students had had to do a little backtracking as Charles Clarke decided to accept some of their arguments. Unfortunately, some of them weren't what was meant to be put. NUS had been keen to play up the praise Clarke gave them at a recent select committee meeting when he had said;
"I saw the NUS the day before their demonstration. I suggested three-monthly meetings with them. We had a very good conversation about a number of things on which we agreed. The reason why I want to have regular meetings with the NUS is because I think it is a serious organisation which represents students and they are entitled to regular meetings to discuss issues."
However according to the BBC, one of the issues they agreed on was the introduction of graduate tax;
"Students, who have campaigned against tuition fees and top-up fees, are against a repayment scheme which pays off a specific student debt. They argue for a graduate tax in which former students pay an ongoing contribution through income tax."
After the leak of the proposal to introduce top-up fees via graduate tax, Mandy Telford, the national president of the NUS said:
"Varying fees would increase the inequity between the haves and the have-nots. Richer students will have the advantage of being able to pick and choose what course they do and where they go, while poorer ones will go where they can afford to."
The NUS welcomed reports that the government was planning on re-introducing maintenance grants for the poorest students. These will be far lower than grants were on their abolition in 1998 and accessible to less students. Telford said;
"This is something we have campaigned for a long time, but the government seems to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other."
However, when it came to the subject of graduate tax, the spin was of 'welcoming the abolition of up-front fees' In an on-line chat with the BBC, National Secretary Penny Hollings said;
"We welcome the idea of abolishing up-front tuition fees which has produced a huge barrier for a number of people trying to go into higher education, and we welcome the suggestion of grants being returned for poorer students. We definately welcome it as a step forward, and I don't think there is any doubt about that, however when you're talking about people paying 3,000 plus when you graduate back and you're still talking about an elitist system then we're obviously far from a perfect system and we still need, there is still work to do, but we definately welcome this as a step forward."
In a similar forum, Telford offered a similar answer, claiming that graduate tax as the way to pay tuition fees was a 'Huge Victory'
"It answers part of the issue and the abolition of upfront fees is a huge victory if they're going to do it. For the National Union of Students, it's something we've been campaigning for and bringing back the grant for the poorer students because I do think the abolition of the grant hit those students that need the money the most - so bringing that back is a huge victory."
I wonder if that's the same sort of 'Immense Victory' NUS claimed when Blunkett ruled out top-up fees? It was left to Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrats' education spokesman, to point out to the press the problem here, saying the package was "a sell-out" for Britain's students and universities.
"Students from less well-off backgrounds going to top universities now face £12,000 in fees while presently they pay nothing, plus their maintenance costs of up to £12,000."
Yes, presently 40% of students pay nothing, and even if they don't get hit by top-up fees, they will now have to pay the base tuition fee after graduation along with the loan. The means-testing for the new 'grant' or HEMA will be lower than the current threshold for fees, meaning that students who are currently judged to be too poor to be expected to pay fees will be judged not poor enough to get the HEMA. In all, about 60% of students will pay more than now- before top-ups are taken into consideration, with the poorest 40% who currently pay nothing, and are the most unlikely to be put off by debt and drop out due to lack of money, now facing the possibility of £12k extra debt on top of their loans. And they'll know it'll be impossible to defer them if they hit a repayment threshold, which is currently set at about 80% of national average income. Is that what you call an incentive? No, it's what you call a 'Huge victory'!
Even university financial directors have come out against graduate tax. According to the Accountancy Age/ Reed Accountancy Personnel Big Question, almost three in four disagreed with this option compared to less than one in five who thought it was a good idea. George Sutherland of Edinburgh University said:
'The government makes a big deal of the value of a degree and that graduates earn so much more than non-graduates. That being so, the graduates already pay more in tax.'
When asked alternatives to how students should be financed, if not through fees or grad tax, Mandy managed to miss the open goal which had been presented to her by the recent news that DfES has underspent it's budget by £1.7bn just this year. That's enough to have paid the entire five years worth of grants since their abolition and fees since their introduction, with £470m still left!!! Or in other words, this years fees and non-grants would have been worth under 15% of this years underspend. And they say the money isn't there! However, the best Mandy could manage was more or less the same as she had said on Despatch Box a couple of weeks earlier;
"That's a very difficult question. We agree that education is in dire need of money; the universities need more money, the lecturers need more money as well. But students are cash-strapped at the moment and they've never been poorer - they are in greater levels of debt than ever before. We believe that if the Government actually put more money onto students - whether it's upfront or back ended, it doesn't matter - it's going to encourage more students either to drop out or not even to apply in the first place. So yes it is a very difficult question. We in the National Union Students don't particularly have an answer perhaps if I had Gordon Brown's books I might be able to come up with one."
Funding Special
Top-Up fees via Grad Tax, what a surprise!
Not to say we told you so!
Another 'Huge Victory'- NUS
Participation watchdog to come
Why not GATS?
No Postgrads- coming soon to a uni near you
Mature Students want balanced funding
Straw Strikes Back
NUS National Demo against something....
Step up the offensive
Has NUS acknowledged Graduate Tax?
Other Links
BBC, Tuition fees: Is payment after graduating the best way?
NUS Online, NUS responds to BBC leak over plans for £3,000 a year degrees
Guardian, New year revolution
Guardian, Students complain of mixed messages in fees plan
BBC, Student anger over top-up fees
Accountancy Age, FDs reject graduate tax plans
