Scotland's fees anomaly comes under challenge

Does charging English students tuition fees violate human rights law?

In just over a year's time, English students will be charged the highest public university fees in the world. Despite ministers promising that only an "exceptional" number of institutions would charge £9,000, 47 of England's 123 universities plan to levy the maximum fee for all courses.

By contrast, courtesy of Alex Salmond's SNP administration, Scottish students will continue to enjoy free higher education. But while the country's universities are legally obliged to also offer free entrance to EU students, a legal loophole means that they are able to charge students from England fees of £1,820 ( £2,895 for medicine) per year - a sum that will increase to £9,000 from 2012. In other words, under European law, it is permissible to discriminate within states but not between them.

Now, this anamoly is under challenge from human rights lawyers. Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, argues that the system contravenes article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and could also be in breach of the Equality Act. He says that Scottish ministers have "misinterpreted the law" and that "the argument about domicile and nationality doesn't hold water".

It's no surprise that this issue has arisen now. When I interviewed Steve Smith, the recently-departed head of Universities UK, last month, he told me that the status quo was untenable.

"That announcement shocked me," he said. "They [the SNP] had made such principled statements in the past about how iniquitous fees were and then they announced that they were going to allow institutions to charge £9,000." He added: "I suspect the government will do something ... It does seem very odd to me that someone can come from France and get the same terms as someone in Scotland but if they come from England they pay £9,000. That seems to me an anomaly that can't stand in the long-run."

The Scottish fees policy is often wrongly perceived as anti-English (the Daily Mail refers to it as "the fees apartheid") but it's simply aimed at maximising revenue for universities. Students from Wales and Northern Ireland also pay fees and the SNP is attempting to ensure that EU students do likewise. The number of EU students at Scottish universities (widely viewed as "a cheap option") has doubled to 15,930 over the last decade, at an annual cost to the Scottish taxpayer of £75m.

For the left, Scotland should serve as a reminder that tuition fees are a political choice, not an economic necessity. The British government can afford to fund free higher education through general taxation, it merely chooses not to. In public expenditure terms, the UK currently spends 0.7 per cent of its GDP on higher education, a lower level than France (1.2 per cent), Germany (0.9 per cent), Canada (1.5 per cent), Poland (0.9 per cent) and Sweden (1.4 per cent). Even the United States, where students make a considerable private contribution, spends 1 per cent of its GDP on higher education - 0.3 per cent more than the UK does.

Nick Clegg was never more wrong than when he said the "state of the finances" meant the coalition had no choice but to increase fees. In reality, for the reminder of this parliament at least, the reforms will cost the government more, not less. The new fees won't come into effect until 2012, which means repayments won't begin until 2015 for a three-year course. In the intervening period, the government will be forced to pay out huge amounts in maintenance and tuition-fee loans.

If English students win free entry to Scottish universities, while their friends pay £9,000 per year, it will only increase the pressure for an end to fees across the UK.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.