51Թ

Levy criticism ‘makes me want to run screaming’, says Smith

No one has come up with a better way of convincing the Treasury to bring back maintenance grants, skills minister tells social mobility event

Published on
November 19, 2025
Last updated
November 19, 2025
Source: UK Parliament / CC by 3.0

It was “not easy” to convince the Treasury to bring back maintenance grants, according to Jacqui Smith, who said she would “run screaming” if people continued to criticise England’s proposed international student levy without offering an alternative way of funding widening access.

Maintenance grants are set to return for the first time in a decade under plans announced by Labour in September, funded via the levy on fees.

The skills minister told a conference hosted by social mobility charity The Sutton Trust on 19 November that the government’s decision to limit the grants to priority courses “will by definition leave out some people” but it was “an important step forward”, hinting that eligibility could be expanded further in future.

Universities have welcomed the return of grants but said any benefits for widening access could be wiped out by the levy, which would force them to cut domestic places for students as a result of being unable to use overseas fees as a cross-subsidy.

51Թ

ADVERTISEMENT

However, Smith rebuffed the criticisms. “Let’s not forget this is a decision made at the time of considerable fiscal challenge for the government,” she said.

“The fact that [education secretary] Bridget Phillipson, who felt passionately about the need to reintroduce maintenance grants, was able to find a route and to convince the Treasury of the need to do this as an important start to the reintroduction of maintenance grants is to her credit in my view. But don’t anybody in this room think it was an easy thing to win.”

51Թ

ADVERTISEMENT

More details on the levy are expected in next week’s budget, with some universities lobbying the government to introduce a flat fee rather than the percentage tax first envisaged.

Smith said she was tired of people welcoming the return of grants on the one hand, but criticising the levy on the other.

“If I hear one more person, say to me, ‘Given the financial challenges that we face as department, we’re really keen on the maintenance response, but we’re really not that happy about the international student levy’, without providing any solution to where they think the money should come from, I will probably run screaming.”

When asked how the government intends to encourage greater collaboration between higher education and further education to improve social mobility, as set out in its recent skills White Paper, Smith said it was the responsibility of universities to put the White Paper into action.

51Թ

ADVERTISEMENT

“A lot of the response to the White Paper has been, ‘So how are you going to make this happen?’ Not all of this can be driven by or directed by government, nor should it be,” she told the event, organised in partnership with the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

“Institutional autonomy” in the higher education sector means it is “the responsibility of government to set in place the objectives and vision for the sector” but she added: “Having set out that vision, I’m afraid there is an element of saying to the sector, ‘What are you going to do now to deliver that?’”

Smith continued: “There’s a responsibility on government here, and we will continue to take that responsibility, but there also needs to be some ownership from the sector.”

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (4)

It does strike me that we are all in favor of this policy when we think someone else is going to pay for it and until we realize it will actually cost us something to implement. If this is a good thing then let's do it and take the hit. And of course if we are so worried about financial restraint, then why are senior managers paid so much?
What a fine tradition of shooting yourself in the foot to run faster. A Tariff on your own export is a fine thing. Successive governments have abandoned service to the country and the economy for service to short term populist solutions that has not been thought through.
Strictly speaking, a Tariff by definition is a tax imposed on an imported good, once they call it a levy win covers anything. But your point still stands. It's more usual to impose a subsidy on exports to make them more competitive.
new
The Minister is right that it is not enough to say what you don't want. We need to engage and offer better ideas and, as I support of the reintroduction of grants and oppose the levy and I'd like to offer three alternatives. Creating the link between the levy and the grants may have worked to convince the Treasury, but in reality it's a tenuous trade-off that will inevitably carry unintended consequences. So, for the first alternative, I suggest using a lever that does genuinely connect revenue-raising and the need for grants: a national Fair Access Fund. The OfS should be able to claw back money from HE institutions that fail to meet benchmarked access targets. Those funds can be used to support a grants system and/or distributed to institutions that exceed their targets. This would not only provide funding for grants from those institutions that do not pull their weight in supporting the students who would be eligible for them, but it would also encourage them to widen their access and reward those institutions that already do. A second less-targeted and more radical alternative would be to introduce a mechanism for funding the sector and its students that would save the Exchequer billions of pounds a year: namely a graduate employer contribution scheme. I outlined just such a proposal last year (https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/04/11/graduate-employer-levy-a-practical-and-political-solution/) and London Economics judged it would save over £8Bn a year for taxpayers. That's an over-estimate, but if it is even half that, it would raise more than five times the amount that an International Student Levy would. Meanwhile, it would also better balance student ambitions with skills needs and the Government's growth mission. Contrary to some misapprehension (based on other models of employer contributions), It would not cost employer more in the short or medium term unless individual businesses made that choice to address skills shortages. A third alternative would be to change the loan repayment terms to be more progressive (with means-tested bands) so that graduates that benefit most financially from their education support those who can least afford is and have most to gain. I'd be interested to hear even a single argument why any of these alternatives would not be better than an International Student Levy.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT