The Dearing report : some funding issues : third report / Education and Employment Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Education and Employment Committee.
Date:
1997
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: The Dearing report : some funding issues : third report / Education and Employment Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    10/28 page 8
    however, rejected the NICS for the purpose as it would “introduce an unnecessary layer of administrative activity”.'’ 13. The Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords], published on 26 November, makes provision for the loans to be recovered with the assistance of the Inland Revenue, via the PAYE scheme.'* We welcome this decision of the Government. We recommend that the Government accept the recommendation in the Dearing Report that the Inland Revenue be used as the principal route for the collection of loan repayments. The level of the tuition fee contribution 14. The Dearing Report suggested that all students make a flat-rate contribution to their tuition fees of “around 25 per cent of the average cost of higher education tuition”. The Report also noted concerns that “it would be open to any government to increase unilaterally the proportion of tuition costs to be paid by graduates”, as has happened in respect of similar schemes in Australia and New Zealand. With this in mind, the Report proposed the establishment of an independent committee to review any proposal to increase the proportion of tuition costs paid by students, and that any such increase be subject to a debate on an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.'? The Government decided to set the fee at £1,000 per year, which is “roughly 25 per cent of the average cost of a course” .”? 15. Evidence echoed the concern about the future level of the fee expressed in the Dearing Report. For instance, the President of the National Union of Students told us: “We believe the breaching of the principle of free tuition opens the door to charges of a much higher level in future years. The evidence is very clear internationally with Australia, where a system of fee contribution was introduced which was abused by a successor government... Our opposition to fees, the reason we are so viciously opposed, is because it is the thin end of the wedge to other charges. ”?! 16. The Secretary of State told us that: “I believe that for the longer term there is a debate to be had about ... whether an affirmative order of the House is sufficient to safeguard the interests of students in future. There is a balance between the responsibility of the individual and the responsibility of the nation. I am sure that the Committee will want to deliberate and make recommendations upon that. I am open to persuasion as to whether additional safeguards can be built in.”” The Teaching and Higher Education Bill provides that any increase above inflation should be subject to affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament. The measure of inflation used is defined as “such index of prices as may be specified” by regulations.» We are aware of the importance of creating safeguards to stop inappropriate increases in tuition fee contributions, and the need to balance these with the spending priorities of governments in the future. We support the recommendation in the Dearing Report that an independent committee review any proposal to increase the proportion of tuition costs paid by students. However, we believe it should also review any increase in the actual amount of the fee, with the exception of uprating in line with inflation. Any increase in the proportion of tuition costs, or the amount of the fee, should be subject to a debate on an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament, on the lines proposed in the Dearing Report. We would also expect the Secretary of State of the day to be prepared to appear before this Committee (or its successor) to defend any such proposal. Paragraph 21.43. 'SHL Bill 47, Clause 16(4)(e). Paragraphs 20.75 and Recommendation 79. Higher Education for the 21st Century, DfEE, July 1997. 21 Q.119. 2Q.231. HL Bill 47, Clause 16(5) and (6).
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3