................................................................................ ON THE RECORD DAVID BLUNKETT INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 28.9.97
................................................................................ HUW EDWARDS: And, the Secretary of State is with me. Mr Blunkett, you've heard the case there, the case the Principal made against in the first place, tuition fees. What is your answer in principle to the case made against you? DAVID BLUNKETT MP: Well, firstly, let's make it absolutely clear there are two million adult students in Further Education, with much fewer prospects of high earners who are actually already contributing towards their fees. There are a half a million students who are part time in Higher Education and that's a third of the total who are already contributing towards their fees. What we're suggesting is that we should have a progressive contribution repayment scheme, which allows us to raise the money for quality, for access and for opportunity for the future. And, those who are against this programme, have to answer who else it is that should be paying for the privilege of those youngsters going to University. EDWARDS: Well, you need the money. You made the case very clearly. You need the money, the system needs the money, at this stage. I'm saying the system needs the money very precisely simply because what offends so many people is that you're not, it seems - unless you can correct me - giving a guarantee that all the money you will raise will be ploughed back exclusively into Higher Education and that's the case, isn't it? BLUNKETT: Well, we've allocated a hundred and sixty-five million specifically for the Universities next year that didn't exist under the Conservatives - that's to save the quality, it's to double the access funds. It's to ensure that we can, actually, ensure that students, like Amy, get a chance next year; and, my own middle son, Hugh, who hopes to go to University next year, would have a chance of actually going there. So, we're all in the same boat together here. We have to find the money and to answer your question, specifically, we've said that there will be very large sums of money raised from this in future years, to secure our system. And, that for lifelong learning, for Further and Higher Education, that money should be earmarked. EDWARDS: But, do you understand why people say: OK, if we accept for one second that we are going to raise this amount by fees, surely, the one justification for that would be that you're going to plough every penny of that back into Higher Education - you're not doing that. You don't plan to do that. BLUNKETT: Well, we're putting more in next year than next year will be raised in fees. So, we've made a start. We are, as you know, having a fundamental spending review and I hope that that review will enable us to invest some money in Further Education because I think the question I'd like to ask those viewing today is where should our priorities lie - from normal Treasury revenues, from tax, we've committed ourselves to spending more of our National Income on Education. And, that has to be nursery schools. It has to be lower class size, it has to be standards and quality in our schools. As we raise those standards, and more young people wish to go into University and have the wherewithall to do so, then, we have to raise the funds in order to invest in that quality and that access. And, that's why we are introducing a progressive contribution scheme, which will result in Amy or Jessica paying only half when they reach seventeen thousand pounds earnings that they pay under the existing loan scheme - in other words, it's linked directly to the ability to pay. That's got to be fair, hasn't it? EDWARDS: I will come to that. I promise you I will come to that but before we move on to that, I just want to clarify that point. There is no suggestion, at this stage, from you that you can give a guarantee in future years, that you will spend every penny of the tuition fees raised in the field of Higher Education - exclusively. They will in effect lose some money. BLUNKETT: Well, I've said life-long learning and the reason for that is that there are more courses being taken now in Further Education which are part of the Higher Education profile. EDWARDS: Right. BLUNKETT; There are, actually, a lot of part-time students that we wish to help and so it's a combination of access and investment in the institutions - it's both together. EDWARDS: Right. You've talked a lot about access - increasing access. BLUNKETT: Right. Yes. EDWARDS: Increasing the number of students who, actually, turn up at colleges and at Higher Education institutions. BLUNKETT: The reason for that, Huw, is because there is a cap of thirty per cent, at the moment, of students going into Higher Education. So, we'd have to lift that restriction - that cap. EDWARDS: Right, well on that point, how do you square then,that aim of increasing access with abolishing the Maintenance Grant - the two don't seem to add up? BLUNKETT: Well, firstly, we have this in our Manifesto and those who weren't aware of it, I'm very sorry that they didn't know that we'd said that the present mess of parental contributions, of loans which involve a massive repayment over five years and residual grants - a very small number of students actually are receiving grants, at the moment. But, that was a mess. So, we put in our Manifesto that we wanted a progressive way,
linked to ability to pay over a very large number of years, enabling people to only have to pay for future prosperity - not for their present income. We then had the Dearing Inquiry Report. We had to make a decision as to whether we floundered about over the summer, as the previous Government would have done. Actually, with no direction, no leadership, with everybody opposed to each element of the possible options that were available, or whether we took a decision on Dearing. And, so, what we said was: No, we won't accept the recommmendation of the Dearing Inquiry that every student, whatever their background and income should have to pay a thousand pounds. We protect the worst off, we'd ameliorate it for the middle income group and we'd ask the better off to pay the full thousand pounds. So, what's happening this week at our Conference and what's being debated outside is protecting the better off from paying the thousand pounds. EDWARDS: I still don't see where piling up debts for students helps greater access. Why should somebody from- BLUNKETT: It's not piling it up. EDWARDS: Well, it is. It's literally that. BLUNKETT: It's not piling it up. It's asking at a future date, when their income reaches that appropriate level to be able to pay and students up to twenty-seven thousand a year income will pay less than they pay under the present loans scheme in terms of monthly repayments. EDWARDS: Well, the fact it..well okay that's one figure. Let's talk about another figure which has been offered by several authoritative sources: that students could end up up to ten thousand pounds in debt after these courses in the system that you are proposing to introduce. Now, that is hard. I fail to see how that's going to increase access. People will run away horrified at that prospect. BLUNKETT: Well, I doubt it because they'll know that, on average, a student gains twenty per cent on their income throughout their lives. EDWARDS: Why should they be- BLUNKETT: Throughout their lives, in terms of having taken a Higher Education degree. In other words, they're the best off and not-Just to finish the point. EDWARDS: Yes. BLUNKETT: Leave aside maintenance for food, and for accommodation. If you take that out, we still spend eighteen thousand pounds more on a student that gets a first degree, having gone through a post-sixteen education than a youngster that leaves at sixteen. No, let's not shed tears for those who are going to earn a great deal more because of the degree they get. Because if they don't get those higher earnings, they won't pay under our programme, which is a quite different to the present loan scheme. And, if they do, why shouldn't they be the ones? Why should it be the woman getting up at five o'clock in the morning to go and do a cleaning job who pays for the privilege of them earning a higher income and they make no contribution towards it. EDWARDS: Well, you mentioned shedding tears. Shouldn't we be shedding tears for that student with the prospect of earning as little as ten thousand pounds a year who will be making these full repayments. It's a very low starting point. BLUNKETT: Yes, the amount they'll pay will be very low. We're talking about three pounds a week for somebody on eleven thousand pounds. We're not talking about a massive burden on those on low incomes, and again I ask those who are against this programme, where have they been in defending the two million further education adults students, where have they been in arguing for part-timers? This is not the abolition of free education at all, it's equity between the better off and the much worse off, who frankly, have had a rotten deal. EDWARDS: A final point. David Drew, your parliamentary colleague there saying it's time to have another look at this. It seems to me Mr Blunkett that you're saying: push off. BLUNKETT: I'm not saying anything of the sort to you. I'm saying I've got to win him over and to understand that if his youngster and my youngster are going to get the chance of the future we have to find the money, and we can't do that without this progressive and radical programme to do so. EDWARDS: Mr Blunkett, thank you very much for talking to us. ...oooOooo...