The Social Market Foundation summarises its latest piece of research:
In our latest publication, Funding Undergraduates, we outline a new funding model which takes the best of two existing proposals – tuition fees and a graduate tax – to build a system that creates a fair market for students and universities alike.
Under the current system, students are charged tuition fees upfront and are offered loans at zero real interest rates to cover their cost. Loan repayment is made at the rate of 9% of graduates’ income above an income threshold of £15,000 per year. Any outstanding debts are written off after 25 years. Since tuition fees were raised significantly under this system in 2006, universities have generated additional revenue. But participation among students from lower socio-economic groups has also increased.
However, this model is now unsustainable. The subsidy on the loans costs the taxpayer £1.38 billion, on top of the £5.31 billion it gives to universities for Teaching via the HEFCE Grant. The subsidy has capped the number of loans Government can give out, despite growing demand. The cap on tuition fees has also prevented the emergence of a market with variable fees, desperately needed if we are to reward universities and courses that deliver good returns for their students and the wider economy.
Increasing tuition fees under current arrangements would cost Government disproportionately more. This is because the total amount of loans distributed would increase, graduates would hold the subsidised debt for longer, and more debt would be written off at the 25 year point.
Other think tanks have proposed the following to get round this problem:
Another idea floated is variable interest rates on student loans, with those on higher incomes facing higher interest rates. This was first suggested in our Axing and Taxing paper. However, such an approach would still provide some incentive for students from wealthier backgrounds to opt out of the system or pay their loan off earlier, resulting in the problems outlined above. This is less than ideal.
Instead, SMF proposes a radical new student finance model. We propose that:
Students would still be able to access maintenance loans at zero real interest rates, but this would be more tightly means-tested, producing further savings for the exchequer.
Authors of the report Ian Mulheirn and Ryan Shorthouse said:
“Universities should be able to charge graduates what they like. But they must take on the risk, rather than expecting Government to subsidise their graduates who do not meet the costs of their education. Asking universities rather than students to borrow money to pay tuition costs ensures university remains affordable to all but also creates a market as those universities who deliver better returns for their students will be able to charge a higher GCL. So universities will effectively be paid by the results they achieve.
"SMF has devised a model which ensures access to university remains affordable for all, reduction in public expenditure on the HE sector, greater revenue for universities who deliver good returns for their graduates, a progressive system where higher-earning graduates pay more than lower-earning graduates and a market that rewards institutions that deliver benefits for graduates and employers”.
The Social Market Foundation (SMF) hosted its first keynote address with Oliver Letwin MP, Danny Alexander MP and Brendan Barber - General Secretary of the TUC - at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference last night.
SMF brought together key decision-makers that will determine the shape of our economic recovery over the coming years - the Government and the Unions. Our event was the first time a Conservative Cabinet Minister has spoken at a Liberal Democrat Party Conference. Letwin was warmly received by Liberal activists, which will no doubt confirm - Letwin chuckled - what his critics in the Tory party have always thought: he's a soggy liberal.
It was a constructive and civilised but straight-talking debate, reinforcing our position as the leading think tank where ostensibly opposing ideologies and actors can come together, with the belief that credible solutions can be found. SMF believes that it is vital in these difficult times that the Coalition listens to and adopts the recommendations of others to ultimately ensure our troubling budget deficit is tackled and recovery ensured in the most effective way.
So with that strong belief in co-operation and cross-party working, we will host this same discussion with Letwin, Alexander and Barber at the Conservative Party Conference on Sunday 3rd October 2010, 7:30-9:00pm (DETAILS).
Alexander did not stray once from the Government line, special advisers watching closely from the back of the room. TINA, There is No Alternative, reared her head again: cutting the public deficit must happen now, and rigorously, or we will witness rising interest rates and taxes that will make economic recovery less likely.
But the cutting will be fair, echoing Clegg's assertion that this won't be a re-run of the 1980s. Regions more reliant on public services will be able to access growth funds. And the long-cherished Lib Dem principle of decentralisation will ensure there will be positives for public sector workers: they will have more control over the services they deliver. At least for those still in jobs.
Strangely, Letwin was more popular, winning the crowd with his courtesy towards other speakers and his self-deprecating humour. Alexander was a pleasure to work with, he said. And these Lib Dems have policies they push strongly in Government; they're not just propping up the Tories.
As expected, Letwin intellectualised the Coalition Government agenda:
But Brendan Barber from the TUC warned that the economy was heading towards bad times and we could get "less for less" from our public services. He accepted the deficit had to be tackled, but there was still opportunity to debate the timing of when services are cut and the extent spending cuts should contribute to the reduction plan as opposed to higher taxes.
We at the SMF, in our Axing and Taxing paper, have argued for an alternative to the Coalition Government model: the deficit should be reduced by 60% public spending cuts and 40% tax rises, rather than the 80%/20% split currently proposed. Among numerous other policies, we argue for tough decisions: middle-class benefits should be reduced, road pricing introduced and better-off patients charged for visiting their GP.
We hope the Government will keep listening and adapting to the changing economic climate. So we look forward to the continuation of this discussion between Coalition partners and the TUC in Birmingham next month.