Maintenance Grants debate in Parliament, Chloe writes

There’s been a tough debate in Parliament today, looking at a proposed change for future students where maintenance grants would be turned into loans.

 

This is one of the areas of public spending where a difficult choice has to be made, and I have thought about it very carefully.  Here are some of what I think are the most important arguments and evidence.

 

As a country we must stop overspending, and at the General Election people asked this government to do that.  However, we also must make sure that people from all backgrounds can make use of higher education if it is the right thing for them.

 

I have decided to support today’s measures because they do help save money and put higher education on a sustainable financial basis, but they also continue to provide help to the poorest students.

 

I believe everyone with the potential to benefit from a degree should be able to do so, but in order for this to happen funding must be sustainable in the long term. One of the consequences of "free" education was that student numbers had to be capped. This meant people who were perfectly capable of studying for a degree had to be turned away. I believe this is wrong, so I welcome the Government's decision to remove the cap on student numbers this year, thereby allowing thousands more students to benefit from higher education.

 

Participation in higher education has continued to increase since 2010, with record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds also going to university. As chair of a cross-party Parliamentary group on Youth Affairs, this is an area which I take a key interest in.

 

But, you can’t afford to open up higher education in this way without also tackling the cost of providing it.  To continue to run debts in the public finances hurts everyone, the poorest worst of all, and the bill simply ends up with the next generation anyway.  So, as mentioned, higher education must remain financially sustainable so as to meet the needs of there being more students.  In the context of today’s vote, to vote against these proposals would also mean to vote against lifting that cap on numbers – in other words, telling some perfectly capable young people that they can’t go to university for reasons of an imposed limit.

 

A person’s background, on the other hand, should never equate to an imposed limit.

 

The key point for me is that by making student finance into a loan, it means you’re treating students on their own merits rather than their parents’.  It is up to the student to use their education in their own later life, and is about where they want to go rather than where they came from.  This is a really important principle to me. 

 

Graduates generally earn more than people without a degree so it is right they contribute to the costs of studying when they are earning as graduates.  This explains the overall policy of tuition fees and loans.  I should add:  I myself went to university within the last fifteen years, under the fees and loans system, rather than enjoying it for “free”, so I know the issues at first-hand.

 

And, the loans themselves are unusually supportive in the context of adult life.  You will know that there is now a more progressive repayments system for student loans in which graduates only start repaying them when they earn over £21,000.  Repayments cease if earnings fall below this amount so no graduate will ever be in a position where they cannot afford repayments. As financial products go, that is taxpayers’ money being used to retain an advantage for students.

 

Whilst we save public money, we also have to make sure that the poorest get support.  So, maintenance grants are not being abolished, but being replaced by loans for new students – with more upfront money being available.  At the same time the Government is increasing the overall maintenance support available to £8,200 a year for those living away from home and studying outside London. This means all new students, irrespective of income, will have access to more cash-in-hand than before to help meet living costs.  Indeed, the poorest students will have around 10% more – as the minister explained in today’s debate.  So I hope this reduces any prospective student’s concern that their background could stop them from going to university – it does not. Grants for students who are carers, disabled or have dependents will also continue to be available.  Record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds are now going to university and I don’t think this will stop.

 

Finally, once students graduate it is important that they are able to find a job which is both satisfying and rewarding.  This is a big additional topic but I thought you may like to know that alongside my work as your MP I also chair the APPG on Youth Employment which aims to develop and share best practice, create opportunities and promote the place of young people in the economy. Across the country vacancies for graduate level jobs are up 8.1% from last year, with overall graduate recruitment now at its highest level since 2007. In Norwich I helped set up the Norwich for Jobs project, which has succeeded in halving youth unemployment in our city.  Employment prospects for young people both locally and nationally are strong, but can only stay that way if we underpin the jobs market with sound public finances.

 

I hope this helps explain my vote in Parliament.  Do please have a look back at the record of the debate to hear exactly what the minister said.