Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies for higher education funding in the 2010
general election campaign offered voters a stark choice – with one party willing to
consider raising the cap on undergraduate fees, while the other publicly committed
to removing any student contribution.
It is not surprising therefore that this was an area in which they found it impossible
to agree a firm position as part of their coalition agreement (Cabinet Office, 2010).
When parliament later voted on higher education funding, the view of the larger party
prevailed and the cap on fees
almost trebled to £9,000. The Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister took responsibility
for launching a National Scholarship Programme (NSP), providing financial support
to undergraduates from lower-income backgrounds, to be introduced at the same time
as the increase in fees. While
this may have offered limited political credibility to his party, the structure of
the scheme was criticized from the outset, and it ceased to operate after just three
cohorts of students. This paper identifies the political and policy drivers behind
the NSP. It explores the need for compromise
in the context of the Coalition Government and the drive to embed a dimension of 'fairness'
into policy change. From an analysis of the NSP's implementation, evolution, and ultimate
closure, we consider the extent to which fairness can, and cannot, successfully be
promoted through the design
of undergraduate fees and financial support, an objective that was espoused by politicians
responsible for the introduction of £1,000, £3,000 and, ultimately, £9,000 fees.