James Plaskitt refuses to sign NUS fees pledge

In an interview spanning tuition fees, Warwick’s Chancellor and widening participation in universities, Plaskitt expressed sympathy for the student cause, however failed to guarantee a halt in tuition fees.

The _Boar_ asked James Plaskitt why he has not signed the NUS “Funding Our Future” pledge, which calls for MPs to vote against an increase in fees in the next parliament.

This “Fairer Alternative” is the NUS’s proposed graduate tax system, whereby the current system of loans would be replaced by a tax on the earnings of graduates which has found abundant support amongst current students.

Plaskitt said had strong reservations about the graduate tax scheme, based on interviews with current Year 11 and 12 students in his constituency. While many would argue that 16 and 17 year olds would not be fully aware of the implications of various higher education funding proposals, James said he “had to listen to the views of his constituents on this issue” as “these students are the ones that the proposals will affect”.

He then argued that the higher income tax paid by graduates, thanks to their higher earnings, is already a sufficient contribution to the public purse.

James said he is “against massive fee increases”, although he did not name any specific figures on what would be an acceptable rise. He was also adamant that the Government must match “pound for pound” any increase on the amount paid by students, with payment by the Government into a fund for grants and bursaries.

The MP said he did not want to commit to voting against any possible increase in tuition fees, but will wait until the findings of an independent review of, which aims to determine how much students should pay for university, before making his decision.

The findings of the review will not be published until June, and many commentators have seen the timing as a way to delay any discussion on the issue until after the next general election. Plaskitt contended that the report had been commissioned to coincide with the graduation of the first cohort of students likely to have paid tuition fees in full, and that the timing was “purely coincidental”.

James Plaskitt says he remains “absolutely committed” to equality of opportunity and cited statistics showing that the number of students from low-income backgrounds entering university under Labour had significantly increased.

Asked whether he thought there was a conflict between a “market-based” system for fees and the goal of widening participation getting those from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education, he said “absolutely”.

His opinion is that if a differential fees system were introduced, the goal of widening participation would fall on less prestigious institutions and a “two-tier” system would emerge. Accordingly, only those who could afford it would attend the most prestigious universities.

Plaskitt differs in this view from Warwick’s Chancellor, Richard Lambert, who has recently met controversy with the university over his views on how to fund universities. Plaskitt described their relationship as one of “amiable disagreement”.

He declined to comment on whether he thought Richard Lambert had a conflict of interest in his roles as director-general of the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) and Chancellor of Warwick University.

It was during a discussion about the appropriate relationship between universities and businesses that the MP admitted the tensions within the system. He thought that the relationship between universities and business should be “close but with neither dictating to the other”.

According to Plaskitt, “universities must remain above all autonomous”, with no overt influence from either the Government or the business sector. He argued that this autonomy should extend to the universities choosing themselves whether or not to have business interests represented in various departments.

When quizzed about whether he still believed that the Government’s target of fifty percent of school leavers entering University was feasible, he claimed that the figure had not been a target, but a forecast.

He supports a system whereby students would have the “choice” whether or not to attend institutions with close links to business. Should students who wish to study a subject purely for its academic interest be forced into less prestigious universities? Plaskitt admitted that was an issue about which he was unsure.