Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) I beg to move, That this House has
considered e-petition 550344, relating to university tuition fees.
It is a pleasure, Ms McVey, to serve under your chairship for the
first time. I thank the petitioner for putting together a petition
on this important issue, and the 581,287 people—a very large
number—who signed the petition, particularly the 764 from Ipswich.
That number does not surprise me, because I have been contacted by
many...Request free trial
(Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 550344, relating to
university tuition fees.
It is a pleasure, Ms McVey, to serve under your chairship for the
first time. I thank the petitioner for putting together a
petition on this important issue, and the 581,287 people—a very
large number—who signed the petition, particularly the 764 from
Ipswich. That number does not surprise me, because I have been
contacted by many constituents over the past 22 months with
concerns about how university education has been impacted by the
pandemic and about having to pay full tuition fees, even though,
so often, their education and university lifestyle have been
disrupted.
The petition first calls for a reduction in tuition fees from
£9,250 a year to £3,000. Secondly, it calls for live debates to
be held frequently between Members of Parliament and students.
Though in principle that sounds like quite a good idea,
practically I am unsure how it would be arranged. If we were to
have those sorts of debates between MPs and students, where would
it stop? Would we have such debates for every interest group on
every issue across the land? It is important to remember that we
are a representative democracy and that, as Members of
Parliament, we engage frequently with higher education
students.
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
It is also worth saying for the benefit of those watching the
debate that there is the opportunity to visit Parliament and see
debates take place. As the hon. Gentleman says, debates between
MPs and students may be a little more difficult to organise,
although not impossible, but it would be great to see student
organisations come and meet MPs and see what goes on in
Parliament and how they can influence it.
I could not agree more. I have the University of Suffolk in in my
constituency, whose students have visited Parliament, and I was
very happy to receive them. It provides a good opportunity for
university students to engage with their elected representatives
and understand how Parliament operates.
The £9,250 fee means that those leaving university have an
average debt of £45,000. It is not a particularly pernicious form
of debt, but it still has interest applied to it. That debt has
to be paid over a number of years, often decades. In fact, it is
thought that only 25% pay it back in full—the interest and the
amount borrowed—while 75% do not. The concern about the level of
fees is that it could put off young people from the most
disadvantaged backgrounds from attending university. The
Education Committee published a report not long ago on white
working-class kids, and found that they were the least likely of
any group to be represented in higher education, with only 12% of
white boys eligible for free school meals ending up in
university. I think the percentage was slightly higher for girls,
at around 15% or 16%. That is a point that the Government need to
consider.
Repayment does not kick in until someone is earning £28,000, but
that can still be difficult for people who are trying to get by.
As I saw when I was trying to get a mortgage, it is taken into
account by mortgage providers. It does not impact a person’s
credit rating, but it does impact their likely success in getting
a mortgage. I have sat there and looked at my monthly outgoings
and ingoings, and clearly, if a certain amount is going out over
a long period, that does not make it any easier to get a
mortgage.
There are two slightly separate issues here. There is the
question whether, in the medium to long term, tuition fees should
be decreased, but there is also the impact of the pandemic and
the question whether or not there should be a partial or full
reduction for young people who have been impacted by the pandemic
over the last 22 months. It is important that we bear in mind how
young people and their mental health have been impacted.
We know that university is not just about the academic side of
things. It is also about the social side of things. For many
young people, the experience of going to university is
transformative in terms of their outlook, personal development
and access to university societies and everything else. I was
fortunate when I went to university. The first year enabled me to
get used to living in a large city, away from my family. Of
course, the first year is when students make friends, and they
are often the people they live with in their second and third
years. I feel great sympathy for young people who have had that
opportunity taken away from them.
I have also on occasion been quite critical of some universities,
lecturers and university unions that in my view have not always
done everything they can to get back to proper, in-person
teaching. My understanding is that, at the start of this term,
only four out of the top 27 universities had actually gone back
fully to in-person teaching. I question whether that is
appropriate, and I also question whether now is the time to be
talking about strikes, when university students have already had
their education impacted so much. I appreciate that often it is a
hybrid approach, whereby seminars and tuition are done in person
while lectures are done online, but I also talk to many
university students who would really appreciate in-person
lectures because the virtual ones are no substitute for accessing
lectures given by experienced academics. It is not quite the same
level of tuition as they were getting before the pandemic. In
fact, a Times survey of students who started university before
the pandemic showed that 60% thought that their education had
been either severely or moderately impacted during the pandemic.
I think that many students share that view. I understand that
some universities have made arrangements for partial reductions,
but I am not sure how significant that is and, of course, the
majority of universities have not done that.
I have some concerns about whether decreasing tuition fees from
£9,250 to £3,000 would be the right thing to do in the long term.
As I said earlier in my speech, 75% end up not paying back their
debts in full. Currently the Government lend £17 billion in
loans. In March 2021, I believe that the outstanding amount was
£141 billion, which is a significant amount of money. If we
decrease the £9,250 to £3,000, who would fund that? Would it be
the taxpayer? Ultimately, I think that is what we would be
looking at: more taxpayer subsidy for university education.
(Poplar and Limehouse)
(Lab)
Interim results of a Muslim Census survey show that almost 10,000
Muslim students are foregoing university or are being forced to
self-pay. In 2013, the then Prime Minister, , committed to looking into
options for alternative student finance for those who want to
access higher education but not pay interest. Does the hon.
Gentleman agree that it is high time that the Government pick up
that work from 2013 and look at and present the options for the
many students affected across the country?
I do think it is important that the Government look at access to
university education and ways of making it more affordable, but I
also believe that the taxpayer is a key stakeholder. I will come
on to that very shortly. There is a fundamental question whether
we think it is the right thing for 50% of people to go
university. That was the aspiration of the last Labour Government
and I am glad that the current Government abandoned that 50%
target. I do not think that that was the right thing to do. Many
of those 50% going to university will benefit from it, get skills
and qualifications, and make a very positive contribution.
However, the reality is that, because the education system has
not in the past created multiple pathways for young people,
including technical education or an apprenticeship, young people
kind of meander aimlessly into university, under pressure from
their school and their parents, when university is perhaps not
right for them. There is no God-given right to go to university
for three years, perhaps to study a course that is not of great
benefit to the country, so I question whether that is the right
approach.
It is critical for levelling up that we invest in apprenticeships
and skills. For those growing up, there should be an academic
pathway, and those convinced that that is the route for them
should be encouraged to go down that route, but people should not
end up in university simply because there is no alternative,
which often happens. If we are arguing for greater taxpayer
subsidy of university education, surely it is reasonable for the
taxpayer and the Government to have a far greater say in who goes
to university, what they study and how that benefits UK plc,
because at the moment there is not always a sense that that is
the case.
I think there is great sympathy from all Members for what
university students have had to go through over the last 22
months, and there is a reasonable case for their not having to
pay full tuition fees for what has been a disrupted educational
experience, with almost none of the same advantages, in terms of
societies and socialisation. However, in the long term, the
Government are right to focus on the further education White
Paper and on getting rid of the 50% target, and realising that it
is not all about university. It is not unreasonable to consider
the taxpayer. Often, those on reasonably low incomes, who work
hard, actually subsidise the university education of people from
more privileged backgrounds, who may or may not be undertaking a
course that is beneficial to UK plc. That is not reasonable.
I do not support the petition with the higher education system as
it is currently is. If we had a much smaller pool of university
students, perhaps we could consider it at that time, but I do not
believe that it is in the taxpayers’ interest to back this
petition.
(in the Chair)
We will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 5.30
pm. Given the number of Back-Bench Members here, I will not set a
time limit.
16:42:00
(Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The
petition calls for debates between MPs and university students,
as the hon. Member for Ipswich () highlighted, on reducing
university fees to £3,000 a year. Considering that more than
1,800 of my constituents called for this, we might struggle to
facilitate that particular demand in Slough—which, by the way, is
the youth capital of Britain: the town or city with the lowest
average age.
The petition points to a particular issue with higher education
today: that students—our constituents—do not feel listened to.
For years, the Government and universities have skyrocketed fees
at will, without listening to students, robbing them of a voice
on a matter that will impact them for the rest of their lives.
They simply do not feel heard. I will focus my speech on ensuring
that their voices are at the forefront, and I encourage the
Minister and her Department to listen carefully to that
voice.
When fees were introduced in 1998, they stood at £1,000, but they
have now risen to an eye-watering £9,250, with university fees
last at £3,000 in 2005. The Government anticipated that their
grand plan to triple fees in 2012 would create a market in fees,
but in reality almost all universities began charging the maximum
amount, in part due to Government-backed loans and a lack of
incentive to offer anything lower. Early fears of a reduction in
applications were allayed; but, nearly a decade after these new
fees were introduced, it is quite clear that they have created
another crisis—for recent graduates. Unsurprisingly, students’
expectations of what a university course provides during their
studies and once they graduate have risen alongside their fees.
If we consider that the decision to go to university, often taken
at 17, is one that will have a financial impact for decades to
come, I do not blame them.
The perceived benefits seem to be waning. One third of
working-age graduates are not in high-skilled employment. Almost
half of parents would prefer their child to take up a vocational
qualification ahead of university. In 2020, for the second
consecutive year, the rate of graduate employment fell—a problem
that has been compounded for graduates entering an extremely
difficult job market over the past two years.
Many of the conversations around fees were reignited by the
pandemic, as students questioned the value for money of online
classes. Between September and December 2020, half of students
reported that moving fully to online learning would have a
negative impact on their academic experience, and one third have
indicated that their courses are, and were, poor or very poor
value for money. Astronomical fees and subsequent debts have
forced students to evaluate whether a graduation gift of an
average debt of £45,900 is worth it. That is without considering
the cost pressures of accommodation; those who for religious
reasons are unable to take an interest loan, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Poplar and Limehouse () has just noted; and the
mental health pressures of university studies. After all that,
the Government’s own calculations indicate that only 25% of
current full-time undergraduates expect to pay off their debt in
full.
On the set thresholds and time limits on debt repayments, I am
sure the Minister will say how everyone is treated equally under
the system, but I am afraid that is simply not true. Not only
have the Government already moved the goalposts on repayment
agreements, but they are set to do it again. In fact, most recent
reports indicate that Ministers plan on reducing the salary
threshold for loan repayments to below £25,000. That, alongside a
rise in national insurance, is an unforgivable squeeze on lower
and middle earners, while leaving wealthier students largely
unaffected. It is no wonder that current students and graduates
are concerned about the impact that their studies will have on
their future. Will the Minister guarantee that students will be
listened to and their concerns about loans, repayments and debt
taken seriously? Education has the potential to change people’s
lives and provide a better future. It should not limit people’s
prospects before their adult lives have even begun.
16:48:00
(Poplar and Limehouse)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
I know from speaking to students that many face extreme financial
hardship as a result of the covid-19 crisis. In fact, the
National Union of Students criticised the Government for ignoring
the needs of students throughout the pandemic, but this goes back
further, because successive Conservative Governments have failed
our young people, who have been disproportionately hit by
austerity. Under the Tories, young people have struggled, even
when they are in work, to get a decent start in their adult
lives. The Tories have run down our aspirations and standards and
shattered our local communities, so that people increasingly
believe that young people’s lives will be worse than their own
generation’s.
This is not just about education maintenance cuts, enormous hikes
in tuition fees and the burden of soaring debts. The whole
current university system compounds inequality. In particular, a
2017 report found that students from poorer backgrounds are
deterred from applying to university due to the fear of student
loan debt. Meanwhile, in recent decades universities have been
treated as private businesses, left at the mercy of market forces
while top salaries soar, so it is no coincidence that the
University and College Union is currently balloting staff at over
150 universities across the UK on cuts to pensions, pay and the
attack on working conditions. As Jo Grady, the UCU general
secretary, said:
“If the government pushes through regressive student loan
changes,”
it would be
“a tax on education and aspiration.”
Any move to lower the salary threshold at which students repay
their loans would be regressive and would further risk
less-privileged students being put off entering higher education.
At a time when the economy is crying out for a skilled and
educated workforce, it makes no sense for the Government to deny
young people access to the education that they need.
I agree that tuition fees of £9,250 a year are just too high—I
oppose tuition fees altogether. The lesson from the Government’s
tuition fee fiasco is simple: use progressive taxation, by taxing
wealthy working adults, to invest properly in public
universities. That way, every student can access free higher
education. We all benefit from an educated society. Education
fosters and nurtures people’s talents, and overcomes injustice
and inequalities.
Does the hon. Member agree that sometimes young people have ended
up in university when they could have been better off doing an
apprenticeship or engaging in technical education?
I agree that a number of different options should be, and are,
available for students across the country, but a significant
number of young people who would like to go into higher education
do not feel that that option is open to them.
Education fosters and nurtures people’s talents, overcomes
injustice and inequalities, and helps us to understand each other
and form social connections. I am proud that Labour’s 2017 and
2019 manifestoes committed to ending the failed obsession with
the free market in higher education, to abolishing tuition fees,
and to bringing back maintenance grants at the required level.
Education must be a universal right, not a costly privilege. A
thriving higher education sector is critical to our economy, our
culture and, ultimately, our future.
16:52:00
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey.
Governments invest in what they value. I am so grateful to the
2,474 people in York who signed the petition, and in particular
to the University of York and York St John University, which
worked so hard throughout the pandemic to ensure that students
were well supported and cared for, and that their financial needs
were met.
We have to face facts: we are experiencing a crisis in higher
education funding right now. Although the UCU is right to
highlight particular concerns about staffing and the fact that
staff are consistently being given casualised contracts—which
does not represent good investment in a quality university
workforce—we also have to acknowledge that pay for our academic
and support staff has fallen by 20% over the last decade,
pensions have been cut, and inequalities relating to gender and
disabilities, and for black, Asian and minority ethnic staff,
have grown.
The current higher education funding system is so broken that we
have to find a different way of looking at it, and that comes
down to the fundamental principle of where we invest for the
future of our economy. If we value higher education—as we
should—we should invest in it and in the students who want to
obtain qualifications and contribute to and progress our economy,
so that we can be world leaders not just economically but in
research and in the other things of which we have been so proud
in decades past.
The pandemic has been the most challenging time not only for
academic staff, who had to learn overnight how to deliver courses
online, but for students, who have been paying for tuition that
they have perhaps never received and for practical experiences
that they might never have. I have certainly spoken to many
students in York, including archaeology students who were unable
to go on digs and science students who were unable to get into
the labs. They feel that they have missed out on major parts of
their education and are therefore bitter about the fact that they
have had to pay for an education that they have not received and
that there is nothing on the horizon. I have said previously in
this House that the Government should introduce a degree-plus
programme whereby after graduating people can continue to access
their university by way of catch-up—whether through seminars or
through practical experiences—to give them the opportunity to
catch up on the valuable education that they have missed.
We have heard about the societies and social activities in which
students engage to formulate that holistic perspective on life,
which is so valuable in our education system. I thank our student
unions, which have made a massive contribution during the last 18
months. In York they have been leading on the support that
students needed, putting in place facilities for them to continue
their education and get vital wellbeing support, which I know so
many people have valued. However, there is a bitter taste in
their mouth. They have written to me to say that they want to be
included not only in the debates about their future and their
contribution to their courses, but in discussions about student
financing.
Many students will not pay off their debts, although I know that
the Government are tempted to lower the repayment threshold to an
earlier point in their career after graduating. Many people who
have degrees are very low earners, particularly if they work in
the voluntary sector or in public services, whereas many who go
straight from school to an apprenticeship or into employment can
be incredibly high earners. Personally, I do not support a
graduate tax as an alternative to university tuition fees. I
believe that we should be investing in the education of young
people and, indeed, mature students, and paying for it through
our general taxation system. It is a simple formula and
principle: the more someone earns, the more they pay and the more
they invest in other people’s future. It is fair and
proportionate and, I believe, very much the way forward. I would
welcome the Government looking again at the whole issue of
student finances and removing the penalty that students have to
pay for their education, when it should be an investment in the
future.
Students have also had to pay for homes they have not lived in
over the last year, and lockdown also impeded their opportunity
to work. They have faced the jeopardy of having to pay fees and
other costs, which has had a terrific impact on students’
financial and personal wellbeing. That must be recognised. We
know that young people today have more significant challenges
concerning their wellbeing and mental health, and the fees just
add to that. When people reach the loan repayment threshold, it
is often at a time when they are starting to think about future
housing or starting a family. The barrier of having to start
paying back student loans pushes those opportunities even further
away, and I know that, right now, young people feel that those
opportunities are running away from them.
If we train someone to be a soldier, we as a state are proud to
invest in that person, who will learn the necessary skills and
then work in that field. Yet when we train nurses, they have to
pay for that privilege, even though during the pandemic they
contributed by finishing their degrees early and working in our
hospitals. They had to pay for that education. The same goes for
doctors and allied health professionals; they have given so much
during the pandemic. My local student body reminded me today not
only that students have been asking for financial support, but
that they have heard the news that on graduating they will have
to make national insurance contributions as well. Therefore,
instead of receiving support they will have to pay out even
more.
We have to recognise the barriers that fees represent. They are a
barrier not just to people with lower socio-economic wealth, as
my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Poplar
and Limehouse () have described. They are
also a barrier to mature students, who are very much welcome in
the health professions and other spheres. When people have gained
experience of life, they then have to decide whether they can
give up work in order to study. If the barrier of tuition fees is
taken away, we could address the workforce challenges faced by
the health sector and many other fields. Our economy is desperate
for engineers, teachers and scientists, and for investment in
infrastructure and the future of our country. The economy is
struggling and we do not have the skills base that we desperately
need. As we can see so readily, that is having an impact on our
productivity. The barrier of tuition fees is yet another factor
deterring us from being the successful country that we long to
be.
As we look at wider Europe and, as always, to Germany, we see
that, while students may pay a small administration fee at the
start of each semester—€150 to €200—their education is free, and
yet it has the strongest economy, a growing economy, an economy
that we envy so much. If we are to learn from good practice
elsewhere in the world, it is important that we look at investing
in the right places. Nothing could be more valuable than
investing in education, in science and research, and in
opportunities for our future.
As we approach the economic events of the year—the Budget and the
comprehensive spending review—there is a real opportunity to look
at how higher education is valued by the Government, and the
investments they want to make in it. Higher education leads into
areas such as high-quality research, which has been so hampered
over the last year. It is therefore important to get right not
just the tuition side, but the research formulas for the future.
In exiting the EU, we have lost many opportunities; we want to
see those opportunities return so that we can be that place of
excellence. That is what draws students from across the world to
study here in the UK.
We must recognise the real cost of covid to students and to
universities. Universities are constantly trying to balance the
books. York has certainly invested in students during this
pandemic, and it is now looking to the Government for investment.
We know that tuition fees represent a broken system that creates
barriers. It is therefore important to take a deep breath, look
again and ensure that we have a funding system from Government
for our higher education sector, no longer placing that burden on
our students, who deserve so much more.
17:02:00
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I
pay tribute to the petitioners, who have done so well in bringing
this petition to the House for debate. I thank the hon. Member
for Ipswich () for leading it off.
I want to start by saying that in Scotland, of course, education
remains free. That makes a massive difference when looking at
graduate debt because the average debt on graduation in Scotland
is around £12,000, compared with anything between £43,000 and
£50,000 in England, depending on where the data comes from.
The hon. Member for York Central () asked an important
question: what is education about? Is it for personal benefit or
for the common good? That is ultimately what the debate should be
concentrating on. In schools, we educate children not just for
their own benefit but for societal benefit. Are we simply
providing young people who embark on tertiary education—who will
go on to contribute economically and societally to our
nations—with a service for which they should pay, or is it about
more than that? As legislators, we need to be clear.
Post Brexit, the UK’s economic success will rely on a
well-educated population. We know that there are skills shortages
in many areas, including science, engineering and healthcare, to
name but a few. But it is not just at graduate level. It is also
at technician level and at apprenticeship level—it is at many
different levels. Therefore I do not think we do young people a
great service—this has been mentioned by a number of hon.
Members—by encouraging as many of them as possible into higher
education when it might not be the best pathway for them.
I have mentioned already that in England the typical graduate
will start with a debt of anything between £43,000 and
£50,000—depending on what source is used—because of tuition fees
and, of course, the student loans that they take out. For some,
that will be impossible to repay, as has been mentioned by the
hon. Member for Ipswich. That was also recognised by the Office
for National Statistics, which said that student maintenance
loans should be treated as a deficit in the Government’s
accounts. That ONS announcement ended the fiscal illusion that
kept student debt off the Government’s books. We already know
that England has the highest tuition fees in the industrialised
world, and the ONS has confirmed what many of us have been saying
for a long time—this is not saving public money in the long
run.
The Government remind us regularly of how economically astute
they are, but we can see that, with student loans to pay for high
levels of tuition fees, they are simply shifting fiscal
responsibilities on to a Government 30 years in the future. But
the real issue for our young people is that the short-term fiscal
gains for this Government are won off the back of our young
people. Continuing to charge fees of more than £9,000 a year in
England is morally wrong. And we know that three quarters of
student loans will be written off eventually. The Government need
to start looking to Scotland’s lead and slash student fees or,
better still, abolish them completely. Of course, with the
student loans come spiralling interest rates. That has to be
taken seriously as well. We have to look at what, realistically,
we are asking young people to pay back.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) highlighted the
difficulties for his young people—they make his the youngest
constituency in the UK—in the graduate job market. Many of us and
many young people will be asking, “Is the debt really worth it
for graduate jobs that might be paying £18,000 or £19,000 a
year?”
Often, we talk about apprenticeships and college places. The
problem is that there is still not parity of esteem. We hear
Ministers advocating college and apprenticeships for young
people, but I wonder how many of them are advocating that for
their own children, because many parents continue to see
apprenticeships as second best. We need to change that; we need
to look at countries such as Germany in that regard. When
Ministers and parents all consider that university is the gold
standard of post-school education, it is no surprise that young
people see their place at university as a measure of success, but
are we really doing young people any favours by providing
unlimited access to courses that may not lead to great employment
and will almost certainly lead to debt? In Germany, technical
education is considered to be of equal value; for youngsters and
their parents, there is no stigma about skills-based courses.
That is what we need to get to.
Last week in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, in a
session looking at science funding, the Nobel laureate Sir Paul
Nurse said that
“we have rushed too much to send everybody to universities”.
We need to think carefully about how we change that.
Often in these debates, hon. Members cite the number of young
people going to university as the measure of success, but the
metric that we should be using is the number of young people
going on to positive destinations. We in Scotland are leading the
UK, with 93% of our young people in training, education or
employment. The hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned different
pathways for our young people, and we need to look at that
more.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse () talked about encouraging
those from disadvantaged backgrounds and how we can support them
to enter the job market. There are lots of things we can do, but
we should make university attainable for them by restoring the
tradition of free higher education, as we have done in Scotland.
We have done more than that: we have maintained education
maintenance allowance for those in schools or further education,
and bursaries for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in
higher education. This package works: Scottish 18-year-olds from
the most disadvantaged backgrounds are 67% more likely to apply
to higher education institutions than they were 15 years ago. As
others have said, Scottish students graduate with the lowest debt
in the UK. We firmly believe that access to university should be
based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.
We have a problem if we only educate graduates, because we need a
full range of different skills. I quite often use the term
“tertiary education” because the lines between further and higher
education are far more blurred in Scotland, with many other
further education colleges delivering degree courses. We also
have movement between further education and higher education. For
example, a youngster might do part of their training at an FE
institution and then enter a third-year university course. We
need to look at how we allow access to such courses.
Paying for education is a duty not only of Government, but of
business and society, including the taxpayer. We need to ensure
that we have a well educated population that can provide economic
growth in different businesses and sectors. We have a duty to
fund the education of our young people—whether that be further
education, apprenticeship education, or higher education—to
benefit society and fuel that growth.
The hon. Member for York Central mentioned the Budget and the
spending review. That is important because when we are looking at
university funding, budgets count and science funding counts, and
this Government have pledged £22 billion for research funding. We
want to see some movement on that over the next few weeks. It
would be good to see a strong statement in the Budget on that
funding. We also need clarity on participation in Horizon Europe,
which we still do not have. Until we get this sorted, we are
putting our research sector at a disadvantage.
Finally, I congratulate the petitioners on bringing the debate to
the House. I know it is difficult just now, because we are living
with covid, but in the coming few years, it would be good to see
some university students observing these debates.
17:13:00
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Lab)
Welcome to the Chair, Ms McVey, and congratulations on your
elevation.
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, and the hon.
Member for Ipswich () for presenting it. I listened to
him with interest. He is right when he talks about the very
interrupted last 18 months that students have endured and the
great challenges they have faced. Many Members across the Chamber
highlighted the deep frustration among students in this country,
which is quite understandable, and perhaps their rising anger
about what they have been through. As my hon. Friend the Member
for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said when voicing concern about graduate
employment, this is a really difficult time for many young people
as they emerge from what should have been an amazingly formative
part of their lives, only to find their prospects so reduced,
despite the difficulty they have faced and the financial
commitment they have made. That is the difficulty that some of us
were in 30-odd or 40 years ago, emerging from university in the
early ’80s when things were so difficult.
My hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse () and for York Central () also spoke about the
issues facing students in the past 18 months. My hon. Friend the
Member for Poplar and Limehouse specifically spoke about
disadvantaged students and cited the survey about Muslim students
and the difficulty they face in financing their higher education.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central talked about how we
should fund this in the future and about progressive taxation.
Back in my day, that is how a university education was funded. I
do not think any of us back in those days saw education as
transactional; it was not individualised in the way that it is
today. We have to disconnect the current view of education—that
it is all about the individual—and make it about what the
individual can gain from it, how they can realise their potential
and how that potential can benefit not only them but those around
them: society, their communities and others. That is what higher
education should do.
I accept that higher education should not be for all, but it
should be an aspiration and an opportunity for those who have the
ability to benefit from it, with society benefiting in turn. My
hon. Friend the Member for York Central and the hon. Member for
Glasgow North West () mentioned how higher
education is viewed in Germany, which has a population 60% larger
than the UK’s and where a great many go on to higher education,
with nominal admission fees, because there education is seen as
being for the greater good.
We also have to bear in mind that higher education is part of our
global reputation. We should celebrate and build upon it, rather
than seek to reduce it. I say that not only for the institutions
themselves. With such a great resource on our doorstep, why would
we not use it? We do not want only international students to come
to the UK; we want all those in the UK who have the ability to
benefit from it.
Almost 600,000 students across the country signing the petition
is significant. I have to say to those students who did not sign
the petition, why not? They should think about it next time. It
is a really important demonstration of the frustration and of the
demand for change. The last 18 months have instilled a culture of
precarity, uncertainty and instability among students. They have
been some of the toughest months that any student in any
generation has faced.
I remember what was going on in my community during the
Government’s mismanagement of the return to campus in September
2020, when we did not have testing facilities available in towns
and cities across the country. The great migration was not
anticipated. The uncertainty created by poor guidance affected
not just students, but teachers and lecturers. Sadly, this led to
regrettable scenes of students being locked up in student
accommodation. Demands from the student body were woefully
neglected in the road map out of the January lockdown, and we saw
unjustified intervention by Ministers in what I regard as campus
matters. Among student cohorts and the sector, there is an
indelible impression that the Government have failed to support
them.
Given that education is devolved and we have heard from the hon.
Member for Glasgow North West, we do not have to look far to see
how supportive and hands-on the Welsh, Scottish and Northern
Irish Governments have been. No wonder the tenor of students has
risen; it is more than understandable why such a large proportion
of the student body want fees to be cut to the level that was
introduced in 2006.
Although I empathise with these calls, I want us go further. As
the hon. Member for Glasgow North West said, higher education
should be about people’s ability to learn, not their ability to
pay. In my opinion, reducing the maximum rate of student fees
merely tinkers with the fees’ structure without offering
root-and-branch reform. The trebling of student fees by
successive Conservative Governments, including when in coalition
with the Liberal Democrats, established a funding model that has
contributed to the marketisation of the higher education sector,
whilst at the same time increasing the casualisation of the
workforce and risking the student experience. The fee system in
its current guise is holding young people back—we have heard
about a great many of them in Slough—and at the same time failing
to provide the stable funding that our universities need. It is
not even delivering what was promised for the taxpayer.
To those who say that reducing the maximum student loan rate is
preferable to not reducing it, I reply that I am not prepared to
advocate for a partially effective solution. On the basis of
independent analysis by bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal
Studies, a policy of reducing fees to £3,000 would have
disproportionate impacts on different sections of society. For
example, the IFS’s student finance calculator reveals that if a
cap of £3,000 is put in place, the top 10% of earners would see
their repayments fall by around 40%, while lower earning
graduates would see little or no change. Looking at this policy
from a gender perspective, we see that for men repayments would
reduce by an average of 30%, compared to a reduction of just 20%
for women. I am sure you are also outraged by that, Ms McVey. We
also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and
Limehouse that this disproportionately impacts Muslim students.
Although the maximum cap on tuition fees is not an inherently
sexist or classist policy, in reality it affects many and it has
the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities in our society.
That is not something that I am prepared to put up with.
I am also not prepared to put up with a fee structure that
aggravates precarious student living, does nothing to alleviate
the mental health concerns of thousands of students, and
alienates working-class young people from advancing to higher
education. Faced with fees of £9,250 a year, how could anyone
expect a working-class student on free school meals to be
instilled with the confidence to go to university? The figures
bear this out: last week, the Department for Education’s own
figures demonstrated that the gap in progression rates between
pupils who receive free school meals and those who do not has
increased to 19.1%, up 0.3% since last year and the largest gap
since 2005-2006. Again, although the policy of student fees is
not necessarily a causal factor in this damning record, it
certainly is a correlative factor. I repeat that the gap is the
largest since the introduction of tuition fees in 2006.
The effects of the current fees system have also decimated the
part-time study model so often relied on by working parents and
mature students. Since 2008 the number of part-time entrants has
plummeted by 50%.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow
North West () that the key thing for
those low-income young people should be educational outcomes, and
not necessarily whether or not more of them are going to
university?
The current vogue term is outcomes. I often ask, “What was the
key outcome of Keith Richards going to art school?” I do not
think he actually finished the course, so it was not a terrific
outcome. Outcomes can be measured in all sorts of ways, but my
fear is that the Government—I am not sure whether the hon.
Gentleman supports them—are looking to monetise that and equate
it with some sort of financial value for what is being produced.
However, as we have heard, we cannot equate that with a monetary
figure. I know of many people who were on super-low incomes in
their first couple of years post-university but who turned out to
be fine entrepreneurs and set up their own businesses. How would
we measure that?
I like the word outcomes; I think it is a good way of describing
the position we get to. However, I do not distinguish between
those from a disadvantaged background and those from a more
privileged or affluent background. We will have parity of esteem
when the same number of youngsters from different backgrounds are
going to the same types of places—so, whatever percentage going
to university from that lot, and whatever percentage going to
college from this lot. The problem is that those from a more
affluent background are more likely to go to university, even
though it might not be the most appropriate place for them.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Going to university is seen as
a rite of passage for quite a few people. It is seen as the
obvious next stage of their education. That is fine, to an
extent, but what we as a society should be doing is giving
encouragement and opportunity to the many who do not aspire to or
imagine that they could go to university. I felt that myself back
in the day, wondering what was and was not possible for me. I
never imagined that that was something I could consider. I am
sure that a lot of young people must feel that too, and we have
to change that. Other societies do, as we have heard.
We should be much more ambitious about the sort of education
system we want. I look at nations such as South Korea, that have
a higher proportion going into higher education than the UK. I
believe that we can achieve that by changing how we approach our
schooling and how we give that opportunity to students, both
through civic universities and through programmes such as Uni
Connect, which sadly has had its budget cut by a third, but which
was doing a terrific job in reaching those hard-to-reach young
people who did not think that university was necessarily for
them. Those sorts of programmes, along with foundation courses
and foundation years, could do so much to help students coming
through further education and realising that, maybe, the next
step should be higher education. We need to invest more in those
sorts of things.
While I understand the many concerns of the thousands of students
up and down the country, and sympathise with their calls for a
higher education system that is suitably funded while delivering
on students’ expectations, I believe that the answer lies in a
multi-step approach. First, as I have alluded to, I am committed
to abolishing the fee regime in its current guise. That means
that debates regarding repayment rates, characterised by as regressive and a “breach
of natural justice”, would be consigned to history. Graduates
would no longer be burdened with as much as £57,000 in graduate
debt and would start their working lives free from the stress and
financial pressures of repayment.
We have only to look at what is happening on campuses across the
country and the immense mental health pressures faced by so many
young people, due not only to the pandemic, but to the issue of
graduate employment opportunity and having that debt hanging over
them. Those of us who have ever been in serious debt at any stage
of our lives know that it is an awful place to be. Those of us
who have ever been in serious debt at any stage of our lives know
that it is an awful place to be. The hon. Member for Ipswich
described the prospect of having the debt hanging over him and
the difficulty it posed when getting a mortgage or other loans.
It can make life incredibly difficult, so it is far easier not to
consider it. The Government need to rethink their approach to the
availability of maintenance grants. That might finally tilt the
balance in favour of the thousands of working-class men and women
on free school meals, who have been denied the belief that they
can progress to higher education due to a burdensome funding
model.
I want a culture change to complement a fee system change, such
as adequate student mental health provision and funding, and
tackling those rogue student landlords in private student
accommodation who give the sector a bad name. There is much to
address to improve the lives of our students. I want more
teachers and lecturers on full-time secure employment contracts,
to reverse the drift towards casualisation that we have witnessed
in the past decade.
Following the events of the past 18 months, it is critical that
the Government work collaboratively with the sector to address
the many issues it faces. Through the co-operation of the
National Union of Students, individual student unions, the
University and College Union and the institutions themselves, so
much positive work has been done on our campuses to get through
the worst difficulties of the pandemic. We have seen some
interesting initiatives, such as the Welsh Government’s support
for institutions to improve ventilation in lecture theatres.
Those sorts of ways that the Government can help have the effect
of shoring up the entire student experience.
I believe the petition is a great call for change. While
replacing the student funding model will naturally bring about an
improvement in the student experience, it can be fully
revolutionised only through a plethora of other initiatives that
directly seek to ease the burdens on students. If any generation
deserved to have their call for change heard, it is this
generation. No wonder almost 600,000 students signed the
petition. I add my congratulations to the petitioners on
achieving this debate, and I thank the House authorities for
allowing it to proceed. I look forward to working with the
sector, the students and all stakeholders in the coming months,
to address some of the cries for change. I very much see this
debate as the first step in that process.
17:32:00
The Minister for Further and Higher Education ()
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich () for opening the debate, which I
am very pleased to participate in. The petition, as we have
heard, considers a wide range of topics, from tuition fee levels,
representation of students in Parliament and accommodation costs
to the impact of covid-19 on the prospects of future graduate
careers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich passionately spoke about
the importance of the Government’s skills agenda and investment
in alternative and vocational options, as well as higher
education, which I will come back to. It has been a privilege to
work so closely with the higher education sector; it has enabled
me to see at first hand the extraordinary way in which students
have dealt with the challenges they have faced over the last 20
months. Many Members spoke about those challenges, from the
restrictions placed on face-to-face teaching to being in lockdown
away from family. All that is on top of students’ fears and
concerns for their own health and that of their family and
friends, which will be familiar to us all.
I want to put on the record that the resilience that students
displayed has been nothing short of extraordinary. Being their
voice in Government during this difficult time has been a
privilege. I want to sincerely thank staff across the higher
education sector, who have faced unprecedented challenges and
have shown that they are resilient, resourceful and innovative
while maintaining the delivery of teaching and learning at the
quality expected by the Government and the Office for Students. I
have visited numerous universities and have spoken with many
staff over the past 20 months, and I have heard incredible
stories of how staff worked to move content online and adapt
their teaching almost overnight. To staff and students, I say a
heartfelt thank you.
However, I am not here just to thank the sector. Members will be
aware that I pledged at the very start of the pandemic to
prioritise getting students the support that they need, and
students and staff have been given unprecedented financial
support as a result. I thank all Members who supported those
important interventions. We made an additional £85 million of
student hardship funding available for higher education providers
to distribute to students in the academic year 2020-21, in
addition to the sizeable £256 million of student premium funding
already available for providers to draw on to support students
experiencing hardship, or to provide mental health support. We
also worked with the Office for Students to create a new mental
health support platform with £3 million of funding.
Last week, I announced that the maximum under-graduate loans for
living costs will be increased by a forecasted inflation of 2.3%
for loans issued in the 2022-23 academic year. The same increase
will apply to the maximum disabled students’ allowance, to the
grants for students with child and adult dependants who are also
attending full-time undergraduate courses, and to the
non-means-tested loans that the Government provide for students
undertaking masters and doctoral degree courses. Such statistics
are easy to overlook when they are fired off in debates, but
those with students in their constituencies, as we all have, will
know the very human and personal stories that make those
financial interventions so important.
The first point raised in the petition is the important and
complex issue that we have heard about regarding the rate of
tuition fees. The petition asks for the maximum cap to be reduced
drastically from £9,250 to £3,000. I understand the importance
of, and the motivation behind, that view. Like those supporting
the petition, the Government want a fair system that offers value
for money; is sustainable; and provides enough funding to support
high-quality teaching that leads to good outcomes, meets the
skills needs of our country and maintains the world-class
reputation of our higher education providers. Tuition fee levels
play an important part in all those goals, but when we boil it
down we cannot get around the fact that tuition fees must be at a
sufficient level to achieve those aims. That leads me to the most
obvious point: the funding implications of reducing tuition fees
by so much.
Higher education providers in England gain, on average,
approximately half their income from student fees. Therefore,
reducing fees by more than two thirds to £3,000 for domestic
students would create an estimated funding loss of a staggering
£6.5 billion per year. Total funding for university courses would
cover less than 40% of their cost of delivery in that scenario.
Positive motivations aside, the consequences would therefore be
disastrous for the higher education sector. We would force many
providers out of the market overnight, and remaining courses
would not have the funds required to deliver the high-quality
tuition and experience that students deserve.
The only other option would be to force the taxpayer to pay the
difference. To me, that prospect seems incredibly unfair, given
that graduates will go on to earn, on average, £100,000 to
£130,000 extra during their working lives than non-graduates—a
point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made. That
brings me to my next concern: many of those who would benefit
would be the higher earners, and it is likely to make university
harder to access and to excel at for the lowest earners. Rarely
do I agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington
(), but I do on that point.
Our student loans system, on which the vast majority of students
rely, is rightly based on the principle that those who gain the
most will make the greatest contribution. That is why the size of
an individual graduate’s loan repayments depends on their
earnings—if they earn a lot, they pay more; if they earn less,
they pay less. In many cases, people do not finish paying off the
debt. A reduction in the amount that graduates need to pay back
through a tuition fee cut would therefore benefit higher earners
by thousands of pounds, while lower earners would see little to
no change on their repayments. In fact, the very lowest earners
would see no financial benefit from this at all.
Worse still, those thousands of pounds, now in the pockets of
already high earners, would have come at the expense of
universities, who would no longer be able to give such generous
financial support and bursaries to students. People who know me
well will know that I fought tooth and nail for better access and
support for disadvantaged students, so the idea that we would do
anything that would take away from their ability to go to
university if they desire to do so is completely contrary to my
views and those of the Government.
I also remind the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse () that, actually, we have
record numbers of disadvantaged students who have gone to
university this year, and we had record numbers of disadvantaged
students going to university last year. In fact, a disadvantaged
student in 2020 was 80% more likely to go to university than they
were 10 years ago. That staggering statistic shows that the
impact of tuition fees is certainly not the one being painted by
Opposition Members.
As I mentioned, I think we all have very similar motivations for
being here today. My focus, when looking ahead, is on how we can
get the best value for students and support the most
disadvantaged while maintaining the highest quality and standards
that we are internationally renowned for. Although a cut in
tuition fees would not help, it is also clear that raising fees
would be equally wrong, so last week I was pleased to confirm
that tuition fees will be frozen for the fifth year in a row.
Compared with a situation where tuition fees had risen in line
with inflation each year, that freeze means that a student on a
three-year degree course has saved over £3,400—a real-terms
reduction that I am sure supporters of the petition would
welcome.
May I ask the Minister when we are likely to see the
recommendations of the Augar review implemented, including
significantly reducing the student fees that are being paid?
We are considering the remaining recommendations made by the
independent panel chaired by Philip Augar, including on fees,
funding and student finance, and we plan to set out our full
conclusion on that shortly. I urge colleagues not to refer
constantly to media speculation, because we have not yet made an
announcement, but it will be coming shortly.
Following on from that, as part of our consideration of the
recommendations made by Augar, I and my ministerial colleagues
are still in the process of building a post-18 education system
that massively improves the value and quality of learning and
equips learners with the skills they need to get those high-wage,
high-skills job opportunities. The way we drive up quality in our
higher education system is not by diverting money from
universities to high earners, but by investing in a system that
focuses on high-value skills. That is the way to promote genuine
social mobility. We have already delivered on several of the
recommendations made by Augar in our first response to that,
including investment in the further education estate, increasing
funding to 16 to 19-year-olds, a commitment to introduce a
lifelong earning entitlement and the Prime Minister’s lifetime
skills guarantee.
This is not a difficult question, but I want to pick up on the
point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (). When the response to the
Augar review is made—I think it is now two years, or two and a
half years; I have lost track—will the Minister commit today to
making that in the Chamber to us and not through the media?
I look forward to when we announce our response to Augar shortly,
and I am confident that there will be several opportunities for
hon. Members to question either me or the Secretary of State for
Education in the Chamber. I will pledge to ensure that that
happens.
Moving on to the next element of the petition, I am very pleased
to see the issue of student representation raised here today and
I agree with the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on just how
important that and listening to students really is. I know that
Members present here today are no doubt excellent campaigners. I
am sure we would all agree that no one holds us and higher
education providers to account on these issues better than
students. The view that has driven our work —from the National
Union of Students, the Office for Students, Universities UK and
the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—is
to ensure that students know their rights with regard to higher
education and can feel confident in exercising them.
For those less familiar with this, I recommend the excellent work
done by the Office for Students’ student panel, which I have met
several times since I have been in post. I am meeting it again
next week. Over the past two years, the panel has made some
really important points, pushing me and other Ministers, and it
has certainly been a positive influence in the Office for
Students. I am passionate about giving students more of a voice
and more direct influence over student life than ever before, so
seeing the panel directly inform the policies and decision making
of the Office for Students is really inspiring. I know that the
panel has played a fundamental role in informing the early
development of the Office for Students’ next strategy—on which it
will be shortly consulting—in shaping its statement of
expectation on harassment and sexual misconduct, and in informing
how student hardship funds can best be utilised.
I remind hon. Members that there is a process in place for
students who feel that they have not had the expected quality or
quantity of lessons, and they can complain to their university.
If they are still not satisfied, they can go to the Office of the
Independent Adjudicator, which is helping students to reclaim
thousands of pounds where the quality of learning has fallen
below standards. In fact, the OIA has already made
recommendations for financial compensation totalling
£450,000—again, showing just how important it is that the student
voice is not only heard, but listened to and acted on. I
encourage any student with a particular issue or concern to speak
up and engage with the process.
The petition also raises the important issue of accommodation
costs for students, which was raised by hon. Members. Again, it
is an important factor in our mission to achieve genuine social
mobility in the wake of covid. Higher education providers and
private accommodation providers are of course autonomous and
responsible for setting their rent agreements, but that should
not stop the Government being there to advocate for and, where
necessary, directly support students, which is why I ensured that
providers were able to use the additional £85 million of student
hardship funding to support students who were struggling with
accommodation costs last year. I have also worked hard to ensure
that providers’ rental policies have students’ best interests at
heart, and that providers are listening to those interests that
are being advocated strongly. If students have concerns about any
issues relating to university-provided accommodation, they can of
course complain to their university and then go to the Office of
the Independent Adjudicator.
On accommodation costs, the Minister will be aware that there are
many campuses across the country where there is no accommodation
owned by the university itself—it is all in private hands. Will
she provide the data that show the rate of increase in cost and
how that has tracked over the past five years, relative to
inflation? My understanding is that it is exceeding
inflation.
I will take that away and write to the hon. Member with the
specific data that he has requested.
I will bring my speech to a close by picking up on the final
point raised in the petition, which is particularly dear to my
heart as a result of speaking to many hundreds of students about
the uncertainty of their future careers. We have talked a lot
today about universities, but job security and our economy also
depend on the skills revolution going on in the whole of the
further and higher education system. Apprenticeships, higher
technical qualifications and T-levels are just some of the
skills-focused offerings that will allow thousands of people to
gain the skills and experience that they need to secure a
high-wage, high-skilled job in future. New skills really are the
fuel of social mobility, and universities are just one way to
acquire those skills. I am proud to advocate for limitless
ambition in what we can achieve through higher education, and I
will continue to work to give students the best chance to succeed
in the post-covid world.
17:48:00
I thank the Minister for her very detailed response to the
debate, and I also thank the shadow Minister, the spokesperson
for the Scottish National party and the other Back Benchers
present. I feel confident that this issue has been debated
thoroughly and that many different views have been shared.
Clearly, this is a huge issue, and we await the Government’s
response to the matter.
It seems to me that a key point here is that there are different
views about the £9,250 level and whether it is too high or about
right. The reality is that for many people who go to university,
it is still a good investment, because students come out of
university with a qualification that enables them to earn a good
salary and have a very fulfilling career. Sadly, for some that is
not case. Some people who go to university might have been
pressured into it. I do not underestimate how transformative
university can be in a positive way, but it is not for everyone.
For many people, going to university might not have been the
right decision.
The hon. Gentleman talks about an investment as a personal
investment, which is the crux of the issue. It is not just the
cost to the individual, because there is a cost to us as
taxpayers. Should it be a socialised cost, which is a cost to all
of society as an investment in our future generations who might
pay our pensions, look after us or teach our children? Or should
the cost be paid by the individual?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the first case,
many taxpayers would want more of a view on the courses that
people were studying at university. They would question some of
the courses being studied and whether they offer value to the
taxpayer. The system might look very different from what it does
at the moment.
I agreed with a lot of what the hon. Member for Glasgow North
West () said about technical
education and parity of esteem. She is absolutely right. My right
hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (), who chairs the Education
Committee, has talked about the dinner party test. He says that
people might talk about how good apprenticeships are, but when it
comes to their own kids they advise them to go to university. If
someone at a dinner says, “Charlie has gone to Oxford
University”, and someone else says, “Bella got an apprenticeship
with Jaguar Land Rover”, most of the excitement will be about
Charlie, not Bella. Ultimately, we need to change that
perception.
Higher education is important, but it is just part of the story
and part of the debate when it comes to the future of our young
people. The FE White Paper and the skills improvement boards are
a real step forward. Giving local business more of a role in
shaping the FE curriculum is important. It is about an ecosystem
approach and linking together schools, FE colleges and
universities, if there is one in the area, and local business. I
see it as trying to link up young people with opportunities in
the country and specifically in their area, because we do see
opportunities in different sectors and young people without the
skills to take advantage of those opportunities.
A lot of people still look down on technical education. They do
not see it having the same inherent value as an academic pathway.
It is not about saying to people from lower income backgrounds,
“The academic pathway is not for you, so here is the technical
route.” It is absolutely about a whole-society approach, as the
hon. Member for Glasgow North West said, and taking away
snobbishness about technical education. And it is not about
downgrading or devaluing a university education; it is just
admitting that we must have multiple pathways. That is crucial
for the levelling-up agenda that the Prime Minister has made
clear time and again. Thank you, Ms McVey, for chairing today’s
debate; you have done so superbly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 550344, relating to
university tuition fees.
|
