University Governors withdraw opposition to Higher Education Bill

Governors at the University of Teesside have withdrawn their all-out opposition to ‘top-up’ fees following Government concessions designed to help poorer students in higher education.

The University, based in Middlesbrough, is one of the most successful at recruiting students from low participation neighbourhoods and socially disadvantaged backgrounds.

It expressed serious misgivings when the White Paper on the Future of Higher Education was published last year - fearing poorer students could be put off from going to university and saying the original £1,000 grant proposed was inadequate.

Now that the Government has trebled the maximum financial package on offer to £3,000 and agreed to put a ‘cap’ on the maximum fee chargeable until the end of the next Parliament, the Board of Governors has met to discuss whether the concessions warrant a review of the University’s position.

Today, Mr John Hackney, Chair of the Board, said: “We are pleased that the Government has listened to our concerns, and those of others, and now believe that the changes incorporated in the Higher Education Bill represent a reasonable way forward for universities.

“We are continuing to press for further concessions, such as converting the £1,200 fee waiver into cash and increasing financial support for part-time students. But we reached the point at our Friday (16 January, 2004) night meeting where - whilst continuing to press for further concessions - the Board believes the University of Teesside should support the Bill.”

The University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Graham Henderson, said: “Whilst not reflecting our preferred position that higher education should be properly funded from general taxation, the Board resolved that action had been taken in response to our fundamental concerns.

“The Bill now represents a more reasonable and workable way forward for the sector and we are withdrawing our opposition.

“It has been repeatedly stressed to us that the Government does not feel that it would be possible, or appropriate, to invest further public money from taxation in higher education; and that if they were to increase general taxation, other areas of expenditure, such as health and nursery-pre-school education, would be seen as being of much greater priority.”

---