The 12 Op-Eds of Xmas (Day 8)

Throughout the festive season, LDV is offering our readers a load of repeats another chance to read the 12 most popular opinion articles which have appeared on the blog since 1st January, 20109. The fifth most-read LDV op-ed of 2010 was by Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson, and originally appeared on 3rd November …

Jo Swinson MP writes on tuition fees

Today the Government has outlined its response to the Browne review, and the future of higher education funding. This is arguably the most challenging issue for Liberal Democrats in the coalition so far.

Our party has long prided itself on its commitment to education as the great leveller; the best way to create social mobility and equality of opportunity in society. The flagship “penny on income tax for education” was one of the reasons I joined the party in 1997. My first conference speech was in a debate about student funding, as we passed our policy to abolish tuition fees. Abolishing tuition fees remains Liberal Democrat policy.

I still believe that university tuition should ideally be funded from general taxation. Yet today, we’re facing a situation that is far from ideal. Labour left us with £1 trillion of national debt, and an urgent need to tackle the deficit – we are currently spending £120 million a day on debt interest alone.

Accordingly, the CSR outlined difficult cuts across Government, including in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, which until now has spent 70% of its budget on universities. By protecting science and arguing the case for further education which form most of the rest of BIS spending, the 25% reduction in the BIS budget has resulted in a £2.9 billion cut to the higher education teaching grant.

Without a way to replace this funding, our universities and students would suffer. Mass university closures, slashing of student numbers, severe reduction in teaching quality… not a tempting prospect. The alternative is to make up the shortfall by asking graduates to contribute more.

Of course, in the coalition agreement Liberal Democrats had negotiated an opt-out – an opportunity to abstain on the issue. We could have left it to the Conservatives to present plans for unlimited fees, with no regard for a progressive repayment system, and no requirements for top universities to do better on access for poorer students. Instead, we got involved to make a Liberal Democrat difference, and create a fairer system. That’s what Vince has delivered.

Under the government’s proposals, upfront tuition fees will be abolished for part-time students. Universities will be able to charge up to a £6,000 annual cap, which will replace most of the funding lost through the CSR. For those who wish to charge more, they will have to meet tough requirements on access for poorer students, and there will be an absolute cap of £9,000.

The graduate contribution system will be progressive, based on ability to pay. No graduate will have to start paying back until they are earning £21,000, and they will not accrue any real interest on their loan until then.

As their income rises, so will the interest rate they are charged, meaning that higher-earning graduates contribute more. If their income falls back below £21,000, for example because of maternity leave, their repayments and the interest accrual will stop. Richer people who want to repay their loan early will pay a penalty.

After 30 years, any outstanding debt is written off, which will apply to 60% of graduates: only the top-earning 40% will pay back in full. The bottom 25% will be better off under the new system than the current one. We are taking Labour’s flat rate poll tax for students and replacing it with a fairer alternative.

We didn’t win the election, so we can’t deliver on everything we promised to do as a Liberal Democrat government. On higher education funding, that means that rather than being able to increase government spending on universities, we have had to work for a fairer system.

I know that many members will find this difficult, but I hope it will also be understood that there is no easy answer to the unenviable choices we have to make. Cut higher education or further education? Or science? In the end, science has been protected in cash terms, and we have shielded further education from the worst.

Universities will still continue to have secure funding, but graduates will contribute more when they are earning more. We have improved the situation for part-time students, poorer students and poorer graduates. That’s a fairer system.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarNick Baird 19th Oct - 1:14pm
    @nvelope2003 - "Any idea what the Turks are up to in all this ?" Trying to redeem themselves as defenders of free speech and journalistic...
  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 19th Oct - 12:51pm
    This is very helpful, the posting and politics of the new D66 leader Rob Jetten. He seems to have a greater feel for our culture...
  • User Avatarnvelope2003 19th Oct - 12:36pm
    EU Regulations have the force of law ostensibly so that there is a level playing field. Which Nato or UN regulations have the same status...
  • User AvatarTonyH 19th Oct - 12:27pm
    expats - I actually agree with you, but unfortunately QT still has a big audience and is probably one of the only ways that significant...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 19th Oct - 12:25pm
    "Our sex discrimination laws, maternity leave, workers’ rights, environmental and health and safety protections started there." This is simply not true. For example the first...
  • User AvatarMichael Cole 19th Oct - 12:24pm
    I shall join the 'People's March tomorrow at Park Lane.