Labour’s continued delay in detailing its higher education funding policy in England is causing sector concern as the party stalls over even limited changes to loan repayments it seems to be planning.
More fundamental reform – needed to fix a “broken” status quo as inflation erodes frozen fee income, university leaders say – might have to wait until part-way through any Labour government’s term and rely on universities making a value-for-money case to earn extra investment.
Sector leaders had expected an announcement at Labour’s recent conference that the party would reintroduce maintenance grants for disadvantaged students – but that never materialised.
Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former policy adviser to Conservative universities ministers, said: “With the clock ticking down towards a general election, it is concerning that we are no closer to seeing any concrete policy on higher education funding from the Labour Party.”
Shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson’s June comments on “modelling showing that the government could reduce the monthly repayments for every single new graduate without adding a penny to government borrowing” appeared to refer to modelling by London Economics, commissioned by the University of the Arts London, whose vice-chancellor is former Labour cabinet minister James Purnell. Its analysis suggested a “stepped repayment system” whereby higher-earning graduates paid more – or a graduate tax – could save public money while removing the “regressive features” of government changes that took effect in September.
Jonathan Simons, head of the education practice at political consultancy Public First, which recently published an analysis of public opinion on higher education funding, said: “It’s reasonably clear from the past few months of Labour’s rhetoric that their priority is to lower repayments for graduates – and they seem to be taking inspiration from the work commissioned by James Purnell.”
Across the board, Labour is reluctant to make spending commitments that could provide the Conservatives with election ammunition.
“The implicit judgement…from Labour is that the universities – as opposed to graduates – can cope with the revenue from the funding system as it is. Simply continuing to cry poverty is unlikely to wash,” Mr Simons continued.
“Universities will need to shape a deal – in exchange for more money, what can they do in terms of transparency, efficiency and an improved student experience?”
Vivienne Stern, the Universities UK chief executive, said it would support increased maintenance funding.
“However, we also need Labour to do something about the funding for undergraduate teaching in England, which has been frozen for going on for 10 years,” she added.
Funding problems across all four UK nations “cannot continue indefinitely without damaging national interests”, Ms Stern continued. “We recognise that this is a hard political problem and want to work with Labour on potential solutions.”
Charlie Jeffery, vice-chancellor of the University of York, said looking at making loans fairer for graduates was a “good start”.
However, he added: “The current [funding] system is broken. But fixing it is not – as some seem to imply – a matter of shifting resource into further education and limiting access to university.
“We need to make the case with our colleagues in FE that the future economy will require skills developed through all tertiary qualifications, that we need a long-term funding solution that recognises this.”
Dr Beech said: “What we need urgently is more clarity about the potential options [Labour] are exploring for a new funding and fee structure, and we urge them to look…for input from a broad cross-section of the sector.”
