Tuition fees: Clegg’s claim is out by 100,000 students
The claim
“All the part-time students and the demonstrators wouldn’t pay any upfront fees whatsoever.”
Nick Clegg MP, Deputy PM, speaking to broadcasters, Thursday 9 December 2010
Cathy Newman checks it out
Nick Clegg has been playing Santa this week – handing out presents to curry favour with his rebellious MPs. One of his early Christmas presents was more financial help for part-time students.
Today, he said all part-time students would be able to avoid paying upfront fees as part of the coalition government’s “reforms” to higher education. But here at FactCheck we think we’ve spotted a festive fib.
The analysis
There are 300,000 part-time students, studying at institutions ranging from Oxford Brookes to the Open University. Some get government grants to help fund their studies, but many pay for their courses themselves.
The government has said it will start giving part-timers loans to cover the full cost of their tuition fees, just as it does for full-time students.
To benefit, students had to study for at least 50 per cent of their time – so someone who was doing a typical three-year degree course in six years or less wouldn’t have to pay any tuition fees until after graduating.
As part of yesterday’s last-minute concessions, Nick Clegg added a few sweeteners, promising that loans would go to part-time students who spent at least 25 per cent of their time at their books.
However, contrary to what the deputy prime minister said this morning, 100,000 part-time students won’t be eligible for the loans, so they’ll have to pay their fees upfront.
That’s because, according to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, about a third of the 300,000 part-time students are studying for less than 25 per cent of their time.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed to FactCheck that these students wouldn’t be eligible for support, and so would have to pay for their fees upfront.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
Nick Clegg’s had a traumatic few weeks. He’s been forced to break his pre-election promise on tuition fees, and now he’s at the helm of a deeply divided party. And it appears the pressure is beginning to show. In his desperation to shower his MPs with goodies, he’s exaggerated his largesse. Bah humbug.
There are 19 comments on this post
“He’s been forced to break his pre-election promise on tuition fees”
Not o I.m afraid. He has chosen not to honour that promise. Nobody can force an MP how to vote. If that is happening we need a very urgent investigation as such an action would be totally un-constitutional and probably breaking all sorts of rules/laws.
Clegg has chosen to break his vote winning pledge he freely made at the last election. I suspect he chose to break it because he was offered something that he felt was better for him (certainly not better for students and anybody who might want to go to University). Don’t muddle him being “forced” and him making a free choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is not the first time Clegg has not told the truth, he has lied over the deficit, claiming that the situation was worse than expected before the election, Tim Harford a financial times journalist and Radio 4 presenter reported on the 9th of June that these claims were false and he had written email replies before and after the election to prove it. That is that the figures he received from Osbourne were the same after the election as they were before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is worse even than that.
No one doing an Equivalent or Lower Level HE Qualification gets access to loans.
This includes another major chunk of part timers, particularly older ones studying to keep up with progression in industry/technology/economic needs or simply to change jobs or careers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An evil man is trapped by his sinful talk, but a righteous man escapes trouble. This man is a filthy traitor to the electorate hes not abnormal for all politicians are liars. The likes like Blair and cameron are rarely trapped for they dont really say anything significant. The issue about should we have or have no fees is not the real issue.eg Its like if he promised free vouchers for poor people to buy only vegetables then when in power they turn around this decision its sinful and tyrannical. Fact is they apposed fees so they must houner the pledge. Our misleaders are the worst type of human being they condone treachourous lies and fiddled expenses. All lib dems should be put on trial for treason after all we are at war. Tick tock condems. in the words of solomon when the righteous are in authority the people rejoice but when the wicked beareth rule the people mourn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not sure what carbonsgood is saying. I’m afraid it’s put in such a way that is unintelligible.
But crucially nobody pays anything until they have finished their courses and then they only pay once they earn more than £21k, e.g. on £25k they pay £30 per month.
And if you don’t take advantage of higher education, you don’t contribute to the higher taxes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cathy,
The fellow is a liar and a coward. He got found out.
It is that straight forward.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With a 21 year old son who has gone to university this year, I fully understand the struggle that the students will endure. He has been living independently for 3 years and worked since he was 16. He went back to college to have improve his entry to university, he is now having to justify every penny he has spent over 3 years to qualify for a living grant, which he is now convinced he will not get. He has been met with no support from Student Finance England, if anything they seem set to hinder him at every opportunity. Three months into his course and he is living on an overdraft, if he gives up it will probably cost more to keep him on unemployment benefit.
This will only get worse, university will only be a right for the children of conservative voters. I am ashamed to say I voted Lib Dem, yet it is still the tories I blame.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clegg, Cameron and Cable are also the problem, cos they are not taking on the banks, and they are not getting in the tax owed etc; Instead they will sell off all that is left of the public sector in the next 4 years to raise money, so t…hat private companies can continue to make greater profits out of us, run these enterprises at greater cost to the tax payer and take more out of taxes we pay leaving less for supporting our cultures and our citizens, oh and make more people poor, break up lives and develop their millionaire careers. NO to Cuts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is this a great loophole for the elderly? I just completed a part time degree at the age of 64. If I sign up for a new one, can I get it paid for by a loan, knowing there is no chance I will ever earn enough in retirement to pay it back?
Perhaps Nick Clegg has opened up a whole new retirement activity for pensioners
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m with you Sam!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t understand why anyone is at all surprised – after all a synonym for politician is consumate_liar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The big issue is the jump from 3000 to 9000 the rest is noise.
I agree with what i read earlier…..this is about privatising public services, its about reversing what has been put in place by previous governments, ideological and helped along by the banking crisis and bad goverment handlimg of the finances.
This has been rushed through with very little analysis and it shows.
The coalition agreement is not something the elctorate voted for and so the coalition do not have a mandate to do any of this.
The students should continue to apply pressure, the trade unions should support with the students and the parents should show more active support. THIS IS NO TIME TO WAIVER.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How can it be “reversing what has been put in place by previous governments”? It was the previous government that commissioned Lord Browne to do the report that is now being partly put into effect. And Browne was working on it for a year, since September 2009. So “rushed through with little analysis” is not true.
It was New Labour who brought in tuition fees, and later, in 2004, raised them to their current levels. But this revised system will be fairer to everyone, including people who aren’t able to benefit from it. (See my comments elsewhere in this blog, detailing amongst other things how the repayments work)
Privatising the universities? They’ll still be the same ones, with the same academic qualities.
Our constitutional history determines that individuals are voted for, not parties. The government is then formed from those who command the majority, normally but not necessarily a single party. The coalition is comprised of MPs who were voted in by the electorate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Long gone are the days when people only became politicians after living in the real world for some years. Being an MP is now seen as a career and the majority go straight from University into politics. Politics itself is becoming the preserve of the rich, and they have the power and the means to preserve their own status, maintain and promote class distinction. Nick Clegg and his party are traitors to those who voted for them based on their pre-election pledges but are only like every other MP in protecting their own interests.
Potential students are going to be put off both by the fees, and the probability of debt lessening their life chances and prospects in later life. Only the well off will attend university reinforcing the class divide. This has been nothing more than an exercise to remind the less well off of their place in society. It keeps the media and public attention focussed on them whilst masking the crimes and miscarriages of social justice amongst the ruling classes.
No change, the rich get richer the poor get down trodden. Progress, equality of opportunity for all? Not in this country it’s all rhetoric!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
These changes actually make higher education more easily available to people from less-well-off backgrounds. In fact it’s good for everyone, even those who can’t use the higher education system, because you only pay for it if you use it AND you get paid loads..
The repayments start only when you get paid £21k, and you pay 9% of what you earn over £21k. If you have the maximum loan of £27,000 and you earn £25k,for example, you will pay back something like £30 per month. It is a brilliant opportunity to make something of your life. But you have to raise your eyes from looking at the garbage on the ground and see the possibilities!
Oh, and if it isn’t paid back in 30 years, that’s it – nothing further to pay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Saltaire Sam
Nope, afraid not. If it would be an ELQ, no funding for you. The only difference – your unsubsidised OU fees will cost probably twice what they currently do, maybe 1200 for the cheapest sixty-point courses, maybe more.
As we all know, we ELQers are terribly selfish and unethical people and ought to be barred from university entirely.
As for whether you could get a student loan at the age of 64, I doubt that they will leave this option open for long, if it is made available at all. We shall see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s the deal: we will give you a loan of say £27,000. Once you start earning more than £21,000, you will pay 9% of whatever you earn over £21k. So, on £25,000, you will pay back £30pm; at £40,000 this goes up to a wopping £105pm (leaving only £3,000pm net!) If it’s not all paid back after 30 years, we’ll forget it! All you have to do is go to Uni!
Read the Facts, don’t go along with the Myths: http://www.factsonfees.com/new-system.php
Do your homework, don’t just churn over what such uninformed people have said here. This system will be fair to all pockets – nobody pays anything until after the course, then the higher-paid pay more, and it will be fairer to those who can’t participate too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s still a debt. If they had wanted to, they could have done exactly the same with a graduate tax. Not doing so clearly shows that they like the idea of a debt better.
I have to pay back my mortgage over 30 years, and if I die, I don’t have to pay it back any more! Wonderful. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a debt.
And there’s absolutely no reason that a future government can’t change the 30 year rule. Once you have the debt, you will be at the whim of future governments as to what the interest rate charged will be, the rate of repay of the debt, and any of the minor rules on repayal. Once they realise it is not producing enough funding (because with the current plans, it clearly won’t) they will change the rules.
The bottom line is – it’s still a debt, and the government will be your creditor. Is anyone completely comfortable with that proposition?
Sort of how they changed state pensions whenever they have felt like it over the years.
They set the laws, and they can always change them if they feel like it. Then it would mean students having to mount a legal challenge to prevent unfair rates of interest, or unfair repayal rates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Loan, debt, tax… whatever the solution, it still means high tuition fees (extremely high, in comparison to other EU countries). UK students should keep up the pressure, but could also see this as an opportunity: “when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping”
Start exploring other options for higher education abroad. Germany offers an increasing number of high quality degree programs in English.
For some examples, see http://www.my-university.com OR for a more generic overview, see http://www.daad.org
All in all, students need to reflect the changes happening in higher education – if there is truly now an education market, students need to become smarter shoppers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0