Source: Getty
A public letter from the Universities UK board warning Labour against a ?6,000 fee policy was needed because the party has ignored the ¡°legitimate concerns of vice-chancellors¡± and the policy would cut support for students¡¯ living costs, according to two of its signatories.
The 19 English board members of Universities UK launched a pre-emptive attack on the possible Labour policy with on 2 February.
The move may increase the chances of Labour opting to pledge that it would hold a wide-ranging Robbins or Dearing-style review of higher education if it wins the election, which could allow it to avoid a detailed policy commitment now. Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said the chances of this were ¡°hardening all the time¡±.
ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ
The letter¡¯s signatories, led by Sir Christopher Snowden, the UUK president and University of Surrey vice-chancellor, say that ¡°at least ?10 billion of additional public funding would need to be found¡± to close the funding gap for universities if fees were lowered to ?6,000. They say it is ¡°implausible¡± that any government would be able to do this, so ¡°cuts to universities¡± would be the result.
Sir David Bell, the University of Reading vice-chancellor and one of the signatories to the letter, said that the move was ¡°necessary as there was increasing speculation that Labour was about to announce its policy, and little sense that it had taken account of the legitimate concerns of vice-chancellors¡±.
ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ
Graham Henderson, the Teesside University vice-chancellor and another signatory, said that simply cutting fees could ¡°result in critical funds being redirected to finance this change that could otherwise be used to facilitate wider access to higher education¡±, such as putting ¡°more money in students¡¯ pockets to assist them¡± with their education costs.
But Gavan Conlon, partner at London Economics, which has carried out research on the resource accounting and budgeting charge (the estimated write-off) on student loans, said that the actual costs of lowering fees to ?6,000 are ¡°nowhere near¡± ?10 billion.
He argued that the RAB charge on the portion of loans between ?6,000 and ?9,000 is high under the current system ¨C meaning that cutting fees could bring a saving on future loan write-offs.
Dr Conlon said that ¡°approximately 60 to 65 per cent of the fee income between ?6,000 and ?9,000¡± is being paid by the taxpayer through loan subsidies, ¡°and a further 15 per cent is being ploughed into access bursaries¡± by institutions.
ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to °Õ±á·¡¡¯²õ university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber? Login