Proper university funding must not disadvantage those from poor backgrounds, insists Ashok Kumar
Lord Mandelson recently announced the long-awaited independent review of top-up fees and university funding – putting the issue of higher education finance once again the forefront of political debate. It was with a heavy heart that I supported the introduction of top-up fees four years ago and it was under the strict proviso that the cap would remain in place. Extra investment is vital to ensure our universities remain international centres of excellence.
However, I fear that further marketisation of university education would be a disaster and exacerbate the current trend which sees fewer young people from poorer backgrounds going to the best institutions. Competition and extra funds may well drive up standards, but the cost would be the creation of a system where the ability to pay rather than academic ability would determine which university someone attends.
Those who advocate lifting the cap say the repayment system for loans is such that students only repay the debt when they can afford to. But the repayments are still considerable, especially as students often incur a range of other debts as well. According to NatWest, the average debt of a student graduating in 2007 is £12,363. The Skipton Building Society and Barclays have estimated that the average student debt in 2010 will be nearer to £20,000. Many people, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, will be put off by the prospect of incurring such debt when there is no guarantee that having a degree will inevitably result in earning high wages. We must not create a system where poorer students will settle for their third or fourth choice university because they are charging lower fees. Creating a hierarchy in course prices would undermine everything the Labour Party sets out to achieve.
We need a solution that allows universities more funds but doesn’t deter poorer students from attending the best university which their ability allows. The introduction of a graduate tax would require all university graduates to make an income-contingent contribution for 25 years of their lives.
This fair proposal would meet the key requirements of generating extra funds for universities and not burdening students with massive debt. A main argument in support of students making some financial contribution to their university education is that they are likely to make more money in the long term. A graduate tax would target this financial advantage in a progressive fashion. The initial cost of such a programme would undoubtedly be significant, but it would then go on to be self sustaining – unlike the current system. If we are willing to pay more than £150 billion to bail out the banks, then surely we can invest to create a higher education funding system that allows universities to get the extra cash they need while not deterring poorer students from fulfilling their academic potential.
The Government has made advances in many areas of education, but this could be undermined if we make the wrong decision about higher education funding system. The review panel must be brave enough to look at alternatives to fees and consult with students at every stage. Then we must put any policy based on its conclusions in our manifesto. Students will then an opportunity to have their say where it counts – in the ballot box.
Ashok Kumar is Labour MP for Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland
