Should we charge students higher fees? No

John McDonnell MP puts the case against fees

Education Guardian, Tuesday 4th March, 2008

When New Labour came to power in 1997, students had means-tested maintenance grants and no fees. Within a year, the grant was gone and a means-tested fee regime of up to £1,000 a year was introduced. In 2004, the higher education bill brought in top-up fees of up to £3,000 from 2006. That bill only guaranteed the £3,000 limit until 2010 - and the government is to review the cap on fees next year.

The pro-market lobby is advocating £5,000 to £10,000 in fees. I am categorically opposed to any fees for education - and I have voted and campaigned against their introduction at every stage.

Many argue that graduates earn a “premium” because of their education, and should have to pay their way. I agree, and that's why I've always advocated a progressive taxation system - so if people do receive large salaries, they pay more income tax.

But this debate is about more than university funding. It is about the nature of the society in which we want to live. To me, education is not a commodity. It is a public good, essential to any society with a claim to being civilised.

Going to university is, and should be, so much more than a mechanical process of grinding out a degree qualification for a pre-determined career path. What a brutal, philistine society we have in prospect if the barbarians of the market are allowed to further break down the gates of our higher education institutions.

University is an important rite of passage - an opportunity to establish independence, to study an area of interest, and hopefully to do so in a vibrant, stimulating environment - meeting new people, and considering new ideas.

So what happens when we start commodifying university education? It is too early to tell with any certainty what effect the fees introduced in 2006 have had on deterring poorer students from going to university, but there are worrying indications. A report published this year by the Sutton Trust shows that two-thirds of those who did not go to university cited the fear of debt as the main reason.

Fees have meant a sharp sociological shift for young people, from independence to increasing dependence well into their 20s. This situation is even worse for poorer students, who now combine ever-increasing levels of paid work with their university studies. Research published late last year by the Royal Bank of Scotland revealed 37% more students were combining studying with work than in 2004. For many, full-time education no longer exists in practice.

The pressure under which we now place young people is reflected in the statistics that show students suffer an increasing incidence of mental illness.

Students, meanwhile, are graduating from university (before the first cohort paying £3,000 fees has come through the system) with an average debt of £15,000, which takes an average of 13 years to pay off. Last year, graduates paid 4.8% interest on this average debt: £720, so a graduate would have had to have a job paying at least £23,000 just to stop the interest mounting up. What incentive is this for a graduate to work in the public or charity sector?

In the 13 years from graduation, or until the age of 35, young people are saddled with a marginal tax rate of 42% on what is likely to be an average wage - and that is before we consider the impact of £3,000 of fees, let alone even higher fees.

What the last 10 years have meant for students is a massive shift of the debt burden from the state to the individual. So the alarm bells are ringing. We must demand an evaluation of the social consequences of this market system before we embrace it further.

Of course, the releasing of the talent of so many more young people through higher education has a cost. It is clear, though, that as the fifth richest country in the world, Britain is perfectly capable of meeting this cost if the government addresses its own spending and taxation priorities, rather than forcing upon us any further the creation of a potentially dysfunctional educational market.

Visit the Education Guardian website