What the election result means for rises in student fees

Universities have for years been lobbying for a new source of income via radical increases in student fees. Last year, the Labour government with support from the Conservatives set up a review of the issue chaired by Lord Browne. Recommendations from the former chief executive of BP are due later this year. At last, it seemed, the door was opening for a big win for the universities. But how do things stand after the election?

Fundamentally, the Conservatives and Labour agree that expansion of student numbers would be a good thing but that paying for it is a puzzle. Raising student fees might be the answer, but would be deeply problematic for any government. It can only ever be an attempt to drive a train freighted with middle class dynamite through hostile media territory. Last year, David Willetts - then the shadow but now the minister in charge of the universities and responsible for implementing any changes to the fees regime - was savaged in a Daily Mail editorial for comments that entertained a rise in fees. Such savagery is why the issue was hit into the long grass of the Browne review until after the election. But for this coalition government the problems are specially acute.

First, the review comes at a time of a squeeze on public spending. An increase in fees means an increase in student loans, which means an increase in lending by the government’s Student Loans Company. In other words, higher student fees do not reduce state spending on universities; for the first decades, they increase it - which must be unacceptable to a Treasury today fixed on deficit reduction.

Second, radical reform is a major political undertaking. Last time round, Howard Newby, the HEFCE chief executive, practically camped at Number 10 as Tony Blair nursed the legislation through. But the coalition incorporates two sets of policy priorities and already has a huge programme of major reform to push through in the next year or two, amidst the political nightmare of deeper-than-Thatcher cuts. It needs primary legislation increasing student fees like a hole in the head.

Third, within the coalition agreement the Lib Dems have been allowed to maintain their purity on fees with an abstention on any votes. That leaves the Conservatives with 306 votes against 282 for the other parties (Labour 258), after allowing for the Speaker and Sinn Fein absentees. Suddenly, 20 backbench rebels allied with cynical Labour opposition could give Cameron a bloody nose, damaging the impression of a strong and stable government that the coalition is so keen to nurture. With the Daily Mail roaring them on, and the vote already agreed not to be one of confidence, the issue could easily become a focus for the discontent brewing among right-wing Conservative MPs.

Fourth, for similar reasons, even with the abstention deal, Nick Clegg will not welcome a rise in fees. His predecessor Ming Campbell has already promised to break the whip and vote against. And the (Labour) NUS president gave a taste of what is to come when he tweeted recently, “Every Lib Dem in a university seat will be toast if they break their pledge to students and abstain on tuition fees.”

Fifth, the responsible Cabinet minister also feels it is a matter of principle. Vince Cable (Willetts’ boss, at least nominally) may feel unable to abstain, from both vote and debate.

Sixth, the universities continue to misplay their hand. What can you do with vice-chancellors who tell you openly that they will argue for small changes in public, and big changes in private?

Seventh, fees are a minefield for Willetts, a man who is too intellectually honest for his own career. He lost his place in the Shadow Cabinet by being too honest about grammar schools. On fees, his two brains probably recognise the strength of the case for the complete removal of the cap. But if he speaks out on that - and his run in with the Daily Mail shows how hard he will find it not to - he might as well give up now on ever reaching the Cabinet proper.

These factors explain why, despite the Conservatives agreeing to the Browne review in opposition, the coalition’s language on the Browne review has been so cool. The Programme for Government simply says, “We will await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to: increase social mobility; take into account the impact on student debt; ensure a properly funded university sector; improve the quality of teaching; advance scholarship; and attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

The conclusion must be that if there were ever any prospect of a radical increase in student fees, the election result and the emergence of the coalition has killed it. Instead, a small rise in the level of the cap can probably be pushed through Parliament without primary legislation, minimising (though not eliminating) the scope for a damaging defeat.

For the research base, this will be grim news. Cuts are coming, and fees are not coming to the rescue. In other words, for researchers and universities, the election has already proved a major disaster.

LINKS

Coalition programme

David Willetts speech at the University of Birmingham

The Browne Review

This article is an edited extract from a special report assessing the impact of the election on research and universities. Further extracts will appear in Research Fortnight on 2 June, and the full assessment is contained in the larger Research report

Live or let die: Research in tough economic times.

[Updated 16 July 2010]

Evan Harris blames election loss on ‘defamatory’ campaign

Parliament’s most prominent campaigner on science issues, Liberal Democrat Evan Harris, has blamed his election defeat on a smear campaign by right-wing Christians and animal-rights extremists.

The Animal Protection Party and local Christians led by Anglican vicar Lynda Rose, distributed around 10,000 leaflets each, attacking Harris for his support for animal research and supposed anti-religious views.

Harris lost by 176 votes to Conservative newcomer Nicola Blackwood in Oxford West and Abingdon. He previously held the seat with a 7,683-vote majority. But boundary changes added villages from David Cameron’s Witney constituency and switched some university areas to Oxford East, says Reg Little of The Oxford Times.

“We always treat the seat as marginal, it was made more so by boundary changes,” Harris told Research Fortnight. “Was the whole swing due to these leaflets? Probably not. Was the fraction of swing that represented the margin of defeat accounted for with those attacks? Yes, certainly.”

Harris calls the leaflet from the Animal Protection Party “inflammatory and defamatory”. Both groups produced election leaflets in which he is called “Dr Death”for supporting abortion and voluntary euthanasia. The animal rights group also highlighted Harris’ advocacy of “‘Frankenstein’ hybrid human/animal embryos for research”; his support for “Oxford University’s secret animal research programmes” and criticism of homeopathy. The religious group said Harris was anti life and had tabled amendments that would restrict religious liberty.Neither group produced leaflets in the 2005 campaign.

Harris fears that their success could encourage the groups to use the same tactics again. “I worry that some MPs will feel they ought not speak out on those sorts of issues, for fear of this stuff being directed their way.”

Harris says he plans to stand in the next election and has support from people in science and research. He also plans to meet Julian Huppert, a scientist and Lib Dem MP for Cambridge, to discuss ways to continue his campaigns.

However, a letter to The Oxford Times from former Oxford Mail editor Eddie Duller puts Harris’ defeat down to protests over his expenses and “that he was not a good constituency MP”.

Westminster’s new scientist

Biophysicist Julian Huppert, the newly elected Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge, talks to Research Fortnight about being hailed as Evan Harris’ successor.

What’s life like as a new MP?

It’s been an amazing experience, I’m still trying to understand how the House of Commons works—it is very much a maze, there are lots of rules no one tells you about until they break them.

Now that Evan Harris is out of the Commons, you have been hailed as science’s next champion. How does that feel?

[Evan’s defeat] was very sad. Tragic. It’s very flattering to be considered his successor. It’s also a bit nerve-wracking and I will just have to do the best I can for science. There are other MPs with science backgrounds but I guess I’m the most involved.

What have you done so far?

The House of Commons hasn’t really started yet and we can’t really do much before we’re sworn in this week. But I’ve talked with the Royal Society of Chemistry and some other learned societies have been in touch. Obviously we haven’t arranged committee places yet, so I don’t know exactly what role I’ll have. One of my priorities will be on a campaign promise to look at civil liberty and human rights issues.

You have previously told us you are torn between focusing on science policy and bringing scientific thinking to other government areas. Is that still the case?

It is still very much a tie. I don’t want the message to be that scientists can only do science. But equally I think it’s important to do science! I hope there will be time to get involved in more than one area because I have never been a politician who’s only cared about one thing.

How will Liberal Democrat and Conservative science policies fit together within the coalition?

I think a lot of our science policies are not areas where the Conservatives have any fundamental objection—it’s more than they haven’t engaged with them yet. So I would be hopeful that for some we can make the case. For example, on getting more women into science, I’d be astonished if they object.

Meet the press with David Willetts

David Willetts came face to face with London’s science press corps today at the Science Media Centre. Compared to his predecessor Paul Drayson, he comes across as less energetic and enthusiastic, more considered and cerebral. You can see where he got his nickname “Two Brains”.

Willetts seems interested in how the scientific method can be applied to policy across government. The scientific mindset, he said, was one of the most important shared ways of thinking that we have. Using scientific evidence, he said, was one of the best ways to reach out to the public across ideological, religious and cultural lines. I wonder if he’s tried telling that to David Nutt.

Of course, with the government’s first £6 billion in cuts to be announced next Monday, what we really wanted him to talk about was money. Will he fight to protect science funding from cuts? The short answer to that: no.

"The problem is that the state of the public finances is particularly vulnerable," he said. "Even in the boom years, too much of public spending was based on borrowing. The country is facing a very severe fiscal problem, so we can't exempt science from scrutiny. The boom is at an end, now we have to figure out how to manage through a very painful process."

It seems that science, despite its vital importance to the rebalancing of the economy, can expect no special favours.

As he has only been in the job a few days, Willetts had little to say about specific policies. He did say he understood the “crucial importance” of blue-skies research, and repeated his scepticism of the plan to measure the impact of research in the Research Excellence Framework, so that is likely to be heavily diluted, or dropped altogether. He wants to reduce the amount of time academics have to devote to things like the REF, which is commendable, but the last time someone tried that we ended up with a revolt over bibliometrics.

Saying that the last thing Whitehall needed was another reorganisation, Willetts hinted that the research councils would be left largely untouched in any quango cull, though the ones dealing with skills should watch out.

All in all, it seems we have an interesting science minister for interesting times.

Willetts named as universities and science minister

David Willetts, previously the Conservative shadow higher education minister, has been named as minister for universities and science.

He will work within the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, under Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary.

Willetts has been given the rank of Minister of State. He is not a Cabinet minister but the Cabinet Office says he will attend Cabinet meetings. Former science minister, Paul Drayson, also attended in this capacity, but held an additional place on Privy Council, which Willetts will not.

Willetts has previously said he would like to delay the Research Assessment Exercise by up to two years and look again at the importance attached by the Labour government to assessing the impact of research in the exercise.

Research in department limbo as new government forms

Vince Cable, the former Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor, has been named as business, innovation and skills secretary in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed on 12 May. However it remains unclear whether science and higher education will remain under the business banner in the new administration.

Prime minister David Cameron also confirmed Conservative MP and former shadow schools secretary Michael Gove as education secretary. This is a change from the previous government’s portfolio of children, schools and families, which suggests higher education could be moved out of BIS to the education department.

At the time of going to press, no science minister has been announced.* The BBC reports that ministerial positions will likely be announced tomorrow.

Whether a science minister would remain at the cabinet level is the critical issue for science, Hilary Leevers, assistant director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, told Research Fortnight. “We’re really hoping that the science minister will have a place at cabinet,” says Leevers. “Because science is so important across government and it affects every department and having a science minister in cabinet, as we did with Paul Drayson, has proved to be very beneficial.”

Under the coalition agreement, the Liberal Democrats will have five cabinet members, including Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister, out of 20 positions across government. Media reports say Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne will get the job of secretary of state for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

A coalition agreement, released today, laid out how the parties will work together. Under the agreement Liberal Democrats would be able to abstain over the government response to the Browne review of higher education funding and fees.

Leevers adds that CaSE is eager to see agreement on science and engineering policies between the two parties. “We’ve certainly identified lots of areas in which the parties agree, these include being positive on the future of science funding, reviewing the way in which impact is used to allocate that funding, and introducing new measures to get more qualified science teachers into the classrooms, as well as making sure all children can study separate biology, physics and chemistry.”

Funding for science will be an important issue, she adds. The Liberal Democrats made a commitment to not cut science in the first year, she says, while Cameron said in the last leaders’ debate that investing in the science base was essential in rebuilding the manufacturing base.

University Alliance, which represents smaller universities, said it hoped smaller institutions wouldn’t suffer under research funding pressures facing the new government. “We are facing difficult economic times and there will inevitably be pressures on public funding under a Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government,” said director, Libby Aston. “That is why, more than ever, it is critical to maintain a consistent, evidence-based approach to selectively funding research based on excellence alone,” she said in a statement.

The rest of the cabinet includes George Osborne as chancellor of the exchequer, Liam Fox as the new defence secretary and Thersa May as home secretary. Andrew Lansley is health secretary while former shadow business secretary Ken Clarke becomes justice secretary. Liberal Democrats David Laws and Danny Alexander have been confirmed as chief secretary to the Treasury and Scottish secretary respectively.

*UPDATE: Conservative MP David WIlletts has been named minister for science and universities, and will attend cabinet. It appears that he will be in BIS, working under Vince Cable.

Lords reform – would it be bad for science?

The BBC is reporting that one of the concessions the Liberal Democrats have extracted from the Conservatives as the price for their participation in the coalition government is an immediate reform of the House of Lords.

The reforms would reportedly create a fully elected upper chamber, elected by a system of proportional representation. This would, of course, be a step forward for democracy in the mother of all parliaments. It seems bizarre, to say the least, that in 2010 there are still a few peers who owe their position to the circumstances of their birth or the fact that they are a Bishop in the Church of England.

But could this proposed reform have a sting in the tail for science and research?

Just before the election, I commented on the retirement of so many science advocates in the House of Commons. With the defeat of Liberal Democrat science spokesman Evan Harris, the picture is even grimmer. A few of the new faces look promising, but science will never be a major issue in the Commons.

Would an elected House of Lords do any better? As it stands now, there are several eminent scientists who are peers, including zoologist John Krebs, Royal Society president Martin Rees, and neuroscientist Susan Greenfield, who make important contributions to debates on science issues. Would any of them be interested in standing for election?

Losing the ability to appoint peers could also hamper the government’s ability to fill gaps in important, but sometimes-technical policy areas such as science. Over the past 13 years, the two most effective science ministers, David Sainsbury and Paul Drayson, have both been Lords. And Peter Mandelson’s return as business secretary was smoothed by his peerage.

It would be a shame to lose this ability to appoint competent technocrats to roles such as science minister. Few ambitious MPs see the role as a useful stepping-stone to higher office, but it was a perfect fit for someone like Drayson, who had a genuine passion for the issues but little interest in party politics.

We will have to wait and see what the coalition government has in mind, but if the reforms do come into force, the science community will just have to hope that enough competent and interested people choose to run for election in both houses to ensure a healthy level of scientific debate in parliament.

The last scientist

by Ehsan Masood

 

The defeat of science stalwart Evan Harris is the big news so far for the research community from the 2010 UK general election.

 

In a cliff-hanger of a count, it emerged that Evan lost by just 176 votes to Conservative rival Nicola Blackwood in the Abingdon and Oxford West constituency.  Along with the retirement of fellow Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, whatever happens in the next few hours, science in the new parliament will have lost two of its biggest champions.

 

Speaking to the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, Evan said that the result did come as a surprise. “A week ago, I did not expect to lose.”

 

Elsewhere, it was a better night for environmentalists. Caroline Lucas becomes Britain’s first Green Party member of Parliament, capping Green party representation in the Scottish Parliament and the London assembly. Millionaire Zac Goldsmith, former editor of The Ecologist magazine defeated Liberal Democrat incumbent Susan Kramer with a 4,000 majority.

 

Lucas said she would be more likely to support a left-wing coalition, but on a “case by case” basis, with green issues and social justice top of the party’s list of concerns. Goldsmith told the BBC he was “slightly taken aback” by the result, suggesting he did not expect to defeat  a popular sitting MP. Zac Goldsmith has turned out rather differently to his late father James Goldsmith who set up an anti-Europe political party and funded candidates to fight Tory seats in the 1992 general election.

 

David Lammy, minister for higher education, held onto his Tottenham seat; David Willetts, his Conservative shadow held onto Havant on the south coast. Ian Cawsey, Labour member of the S&T committee, was also re-elected. Labour social policy researcher Rachel Reeves was elected from Leeds, replacing the veteran John Battle.

 

Other big names who will not be returning to the Commons include the Lib Dems’ Lembit Opik. In a surprise exit, Charles Clarke, former Labour minister for education and at the Home Office, also lost his Norwich South seat. Clarke was part of the 1997 intake of MPs and was a close colleague of the biologist Ian Gibson, former chair of the Commons S&T committee. Gibson also joined in 97 and represented Norwich North before being forced out following the expenses debacle.  Also retiring is Patricia Hewitt, former trade secretary, and before that head of research at what is now Accenture. Clarke and Hewitt both began their careers in the private office of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock.

 

Where in the world is Drayson?

Labour’s claims to hold science at the heart of government have been somewhat undermined by the disappearance of the science minister in the run up to the election. Not only did business minister Pat McFadden stand in to respond to the Guardian’s queries on science but Drayson wasn’t around to speak to Research Fortnight, nor anyone else, about the science manifesto that he himself wrote. Nor did he answer questions posted via Twitter, on which the minister is usually quite prolific.

Meanwhile, the party’s press office wasn’t able to help because the document was “too specialist”. Is the game already up? Is Drayson looking forward to spending more time on the racetrack? Perhaps it should serve as a hint that, at the time of going to press, Drayson’s last known whereabouts were at a motorsport conference in California two weeks ago.