Labour dumps top-up fees in election ploy

Education secretary David Blunkett ended months of speculation this week when he categorically ruled out top-up fees for the duration of the next Parliament, should Labour win the general election.

Mr Blunkett's statement, given in an answer to a parliamentary question yesterday, dents the hopes of a number of universities which had thought that they might be allowed to raise additional income from undergraduate fees. It will bring relief to the National Union of Students, which is opposed to higher fees.

The announcement also pulls the rug from under the feet of vice-chancellors who, through their organisation Universities UK, are conducting their fundamental review of higher education funding. Options include differential tuition fees.

UUK, formerly the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, only embarked on the review in response to Mr Blunkett's landmark speech at Greenwich University last year.

Mr Blunkett said at the time that he welcomed a full and frank discussion of university funding in the next parliament. He said that he opposed top-up fees but said that he would not be education secretary for ever. This gave rise to widespread speculation that his successor might be minded to allow higher fees.

But as The THES went to press on Wednesday, it learned of Mr Blunkett's expected answer to a question by Liberal Democrat MP David Heath. According to education department sources, Mr Blunkett was to tell Mr Heath: "If this government is re-elected there will be no top-up fees for the lifetime of the next parliament."

He was also expected to say: "I am against top-up fees. I do not want to see tuition fees differentiated by university. We have legislated to prevent it and we have consistently said they are not needed."

The government has announced university funding up to 2004. This would be three years into a new parliament assuming there is a general election this year. Mr Blunkett's announcement yesterday points to a potential deal struck with the Treasury to ensure sufficient funding for 2004 to 2006, when there would have to be another general election. If university funding in 2004-06 is insufficient, the pressure for top-up fees will grow.

Mr Blunkett's announcement also hints at a political deal with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Mr Blunkett is tipped to move to the Home Office, or another senior cabinet post, after the next election which Labour is expected to win. Any pre-empting of policy favoured by a potential successor would have to have the blessing of Mr Blair and Mr Brown.

Yesterday's announcement will have thrown many vice-chancellors. Before Mr Blunkett's Commons' statement, The THES had asked a number of vice-chancellors for their views. The consensus was that top-up fees are inevitable.

Drummond Bone, principal of Royal Holloway, University of London, said: "It seems unlikely that the income tax system can deal with (the expansion of higher education) so we have to find some other source of funding."

Ray Cowell, vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University, said that vice-chancellors were reluctantly beginning to accept the likelihood of differential fees. "I think a university such as ours could cope with that," he said.

Given the changing mood of vice-chancellors and the possibility that the UUK review of funding could recommend top-up fees, Mr Blunkett's announcement could signal a future clash between the sector and the government.

The secretary of state for education and employment has the power to stipulate a maximum amount that universities can charge under provisions in the Teaching and Higher Education Act. The act also gives the secretary of state the power to order the Higher Education Funding Council for England to claw back any income raised by universities charging over the prescribed amount.

But there is nothing in the act or any other legislation to stop universities charging any student what they want for tuition. What remains to be seen is what the government would actually do if a university, or a number of universities, raised their fees.

Clawback of funds could prove awkward for the government if the students attending such universities had been prepared to pay higher fees in return for commensurately improved tuition. Clawback by the government could result in litigation.