Richard Garner: University top-up fees are offensive but necessary

Many parents are prepared to fork out £15,000 a year to send their children to independent schools

It was Sir Keith Joseph, that right-wing guru of monetarism, who first had his collar felt by daring to suggest that students should contribute towards the cost of their university education. He was merely suggesting loans – but had to withdraw his plan in the early 1980s because of a backlash by Conservative MPs representing the shire counties. (It was the revolt of the middle-class parents that provoked the U-turn, rather than the countless hordes of students who brought traffic to a standstill on Westminster Bridge.)

It is ironic, therefore, that 20 years down the line Charles Clarke, a president of the National Union of Students not long before Sir Keith made his retreat, may be the Secretary of State for Education who goes one stage further and allows universities to charge top-up fees for the first time.

No decision yet has been made. It is all up in the air, Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Higher Education, told us for the umpteenth time yesterday. In fact, extra fees cannot be introduced until after the next election because of a manifesto commitment by Labour last year not to introduce them in them in the lifetime of this Parliament.

However, Mrs Hodge gave us the clearest steer yet yesterday that a massive hike in contributions towards their education would be expected from some students – possibly as much as £15,000 for their three-year courses.

Like Charles Clarke in his candid first comments on taking over from Estelle Morris, I start as "generally anti" the concept of top-up fees. This is a gut feeling. I can remember my own mother, first-generation middle class, baulking at paying the parental contribution towards my journalism training course on the grounds that it would get her into debt (it wouldn't have done) and that it would be far better if I went out to work – immediately.

Then I look at the facts of the situation in a little more detail. Yes, we do pay more in subsidies per student at universities than any other Western country. We do have a system whereby it is difficult for our top research establishments (or élite universities, you might say) to compete internationally and ensure that the brightest and most innovative academics are retained in this country.

It is also rather strange that many parents are quite prepared to fork out for their children at the rate of £15,000 a year to send them to independent schools but then scream with horror at the thought of having to continue paying for them once they embark on a university course.

It is true as well, though, that our universities are still predominantly an enclave for the middle classes. According to Mrs Hodge yesterday, the gap between the proportion of students from the top three socio-economic groups and those from the bottom three has not narrowed in the past 40 years. In fact, she said, it has widened from 23 per cent to 30 per cent.

Professor Roderick Floud – the chairman of Universities UK, the umbrella group that represents vice-chancellors – put a different gloss on these statistics yesterday. The percentage from the bottom three groups has risen from 4 per cent to 18 per cent – while those from the middle classes have risen from 27per cent to 48 per cent – which means the number of working-class students has quadrupled whereas the number from the middle class is less than double. But either way, there is a great disparity between the two figures.

The big question that must be addressed is this: what system of financing will bring in enough money for our élite universities to ensure that they can continue to offer world-class research and tuition, but still offer the chance to any youngster from any background to take advantage of their world-class facilities?

The answer could be a graduate tax, a massive hike in the tuition fees charged by the government (although that in itself would not bring in the extra revenue for research or to attract top academics that our leading universities are seeking) or some kind of top-up fees system.

I rather like the suggestion floated yesterday by Stephen Byers (yes, he has returned to the political world in the guise of an education guru – a guise he is perhaps suited to as a former leader of the country's education authorities before he became an MP). He proposes that there should be a cap of £3,000 on tuition fees (ie any institution can charge anywhere between a government minimum and that figure); that no one with a parental income of less than £25,000 a year should have to pay any tuition fees; and that means-tested grants of around £2,000 a year should be brought back to help students from poorer backgrounds with accommodation costs.

This may not be the perfect answer, but at least it gives us something to debate in the run-up to the publication of the Government's higher education strategy, which, we are promised, will definitely be published in January.

Returning to square one: yes, my gut feeling may still be anti top-up fees but – if this argument does not defy formal logic – I would far rather have a top-up fees system that was introduced by someone with that kind of gut feeling (ie Charles Clarke) than a right-wing monetarist such as Sir Keith Joseph whose supporters may not have quite as much sympathy for those who cannot afford to pay top-up fees.

r.garner@independent.co.uk