Browne Review#Subsequent government proposals

According to Lord Mandelson the review would consider "balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers" to university finances.{{cite web|author=UKPA |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gNLslDep3lfQkioBwHw4bfKs3PNg |title=The Press Association: Browne heads student funding review |accessdate=10 November 2009}}{{dead link|date=June 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} The review would consider how much students should be charged for attending university.{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8350051.stm |title=UK | Education | Review of student fees launched |publisher=BBC News |date= 9 November 2009|accessdate=10 November 2009}} The panel was told to take into account the goal of widening participation. The panel would report its findings following the 2010 General Election.{{cite web|last=Gill |first=John |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409011&c=2 |title=Lord Browne to lead fees review |date=9 November 2009 |publisher=Times Higher Education |accessdate=10 November 2009}} The review had been promised in 2004 to try to win over Labour rebels who nearly rejected the Bill which introduced £3,000 a year fees.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/nov/09/tuition-fees-rise-review-universities |title=Former BP head to run tuition fees review | Education |work=The Guardian |location=London |date= 9 November 2009|accessdate=10 November 2009 | first=Polly | last=Curtis}} The review would consider other issues including simplifying the system of student finance and bursary arrangements.

The Browne Review made its first call for evidence in December 2009. Times Higher Education reported that the review's themes were "participation rates, the quality of the higher education system and affordability for students and the state".{{cite web|last=Morgan |first=John |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409427 |title=Lord Browne begins |publisher=Times Higher Education |date=7 December 2009 |accessdate=10 May 2010}}

The Browne Review spent £68,000 on research, from a research budget of £120,000. The majority of the expenditure funded one unpublished opinion survey of students and parents.{{cite web |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414764 |title=Now that's research impact: 'paradigm-shifting' Browne drew on a single opinion survey |publisher=Times Higher Education}}

The survey focussed on how much participants would be willing to pay if fees were restructured. It asked 80 school pupils, 40 parents, 40 early-year University students, and 18 part-time students from various backgrounds for their opinion on university funding. Participants of the survey were posed questions on an upper-limit on fees of £6,000 per-annum.{{cite web|url=http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/browne_review_opinion_survey|title=Review Survey|date=10 March 2011|website=whatdotheyknow.com|accessdate=29 October 2014}}

In March 2010, the review published its initial findings stating that it had found "clear agreement" that the current level of fees had not deterred students but that the system of finance for part-time students was inadequate. The panel also found:

• clear evidence that bursaries are not understood by students early enough to have a substantial impact on their choices{{cite web|last=Attwood |first=Rebecca |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410850 |title=Review finds "clear agreement" that top-up fees have not deterred students |date=15 March 2010 |publisher=Times Higher Education |accessdate=10 May 2010}}
• consensus that potential students need better information, advice and guidance, including information on the teaching experience they can expect on different courses
• some concerns that a minority of students are deterred by top-up fees
• that there has been progress over the past five years in widening participation to higher education, but that this has been less marked at the most selective universities

The Browne Review was set up by Labour in 2009, but did not report until after the 2010 General Election. No party won the election outright, and after negotiations the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties formed a coalition government. The Coalition Agreement gave the Liberal Democrats, who had campaigned against fee increases, the right to abstain from any vote to increase tuition fees. In this case, the effective majority of the Conservatives would fall to 24, meaning that the government could potentially be defeated by a rebellion of 12 of its own MPs.

Image:David_Miliband,_Davos_2010.jpg was the only candidate in the Labour leadership election to reject a graduate tax]]

Lord Mandelson, the former Business Secretary who set up the review into higher education funding, hinted in July 2009 at a tuition fee rise stating that excellence in higher education was "not cheap" and that the country "had to face up to the challenge of paying for excellence".{{cite news|author=Jessica Shepherd |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jul/27/mandelson-hints-tuition-fees-could-rise |title=Mandelson hints tuition fees could rise | Education |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=27 July 2009 |accessdate=21 July 2010 }}

The Labour Party manifesto for the 2010 general election promised extra university places but made no commitment on how much students would have to pay. During the Labour Party leadership election in 2010 following the resignation of Gordon Brown both Ed Balls{{cite web |url=http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/9907/balls_favours_graduate_tax_rather_than_up_front_tuition_fees.html |title=Balls favours graduate tax rather than up front tuition fees | On Air Today |publisher=PoliticsHome |date=10 June 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716081928/http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/9907/balls_favours_graduate_tax_rather_than_up_front_tuition_fees.html |archivedate=16 July 2011 |df=dmy-all }} and the eventual winner Ed Miliband came out in support of a graduate tax as a method of funding universities in the future.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/25/tuition-fees-lib-dem-betrayal |title=Ed Miliband | Why I'd bin tuition fees |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=25 June 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010 }}{{cite news|author=Allegra Stratton |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/25/ed-miliband-suggests-graduate-tax |title=Ed Miliband suggests taxing graduates to fund universities | Politics |work=The Guardian |location=London |date= 25 June 2010|accessdate=21 July 2010 }} David Miliband was the only candidate in the leadership election not to support a graduate tax.{{cite web|last=Shackle |first=Samira |url=http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/graduate-tax-david-miliband |title=David Miliband becomes Labour's lone star against a graduate tax |work=New Statesman |location=UK |date=30 June 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010}}{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/leading-article-a-graduate-tax-would-not-serve-universities-well-2014818.html |title=Leading Article: A graduate tax would not serve universities well – Higher, Education |work=The Independent |location=London |date=1 July 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010 }}

The Conservatives have said that they will "consider carefully" the outcome of the review. In June 2010, David Willets stated that under the current arrangements students were a "burden on the taxpayer that had to be tackled" although he also stated he did not want to pre-empt the findings of Lord Browne.{{cite news|author=Jessica Shepherd|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/jun/09/david-willetts-students-tuition-fees |title=David Willetts hints that university students will face higher fees | Education |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=9 June 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010 }}

The Liberal Democrats have traditionally supported free higher education but downgraded this pledge because it was seen to be an unaffordable spending commitment.{{cite web |author=Joe Pike |url=http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6236-lib-dems-downgrade-tuition-fees-pledge |title=Lib Dems downgrade tuition fees pledge » The Journal |publisher=Journal-online.co.uk |date=20 January 2010 |accessdate=11 October 2010 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101211105335/http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6236-lib-dems-downgrade-tuition-fees-pledge |archivedate=11 December 2010 |df=dmy-all }}

The Liberal Democrats had promised to abolish tuition fees over 6 years.{{cite news|last=Coughlan |first=Sean |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8645705.stm |title=Students threaten to swing seats over tuition fees |publisher=BBC News |date=27 April 2010 |accessdate=10 May 2010}} All the elected Liberal Democrat MPs,{{cite web|url=http://www.nus.org.uk/Campaigns/Funding-Our-Future/Lib-Dem-MPs-sign-the-pledge/ |title=Lib Dem MPs sign the pledge: Funding Our Future: Campaigns |publisher=NUS.org.uk |accessdate=23 December 2010}} as well as a number of others, also signed the NUS Vote for Students pledge, promising to vote against any proposed increase in fees.

The Liberal Democrats agreed to abstain on a vote to increase fees as part of a Liberal-Conservative coalition government which emerged following the 2010 General Election.{{cite web|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=411600 |title=Lib Dems free to abstain on fees vote |publisher=Times Higher Education |date=12 May 2010 |accessdate=16 May 2010}} This would allow the Conservatives to pass an increase in tuition fees or even the removal of the cap on fees without the Liberal Democrats voting them down. The chief executive of Universities UK, Nicola Dandridge, has stated that senior Liberal Democrats have told them that they consider their election manifesto pledge to be "complete nonsense" and that the "visceral" opposition to fees from the party base was not shared by senior figures.{{cite web|last=Morgan |first=John |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411668&c=1 |title=Lib Dem division on fees abolition |publisher=Times Higher Education |date=20 May 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010}} Former Liberal Democrat leader Ming Campbell has said that he is "likely" to honour the pledge he made to his constituents and rebel against his party by voting against a rise in fees{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10174915.stm |title=Ex-Lib Dem leader Campbell would rebel on tuition fees |publisher=BBC News |date=28 May 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010}} and newly elected Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Simon Hughes has stated that the issue of fees could split the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government{{cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7147338.ece |accessdate=13 June 2010 |title=The Times & the Sunday Times }}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} while reiterating the opposition of the Liberal Democrats to tuition fees.{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hkQElN9Sl3z865D_u3o6AbPoKWng |title=The article requested is no longer available |website=Google News |access-date=26 January 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120731164302/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hkQElN9Sl3z865D_u3o6AbPoKWng |archive-date=31 July 2012 |url-status=dead}} The MP for the student-populated Leeds North West, Greg Mulholland, is considered to be the leader of a backbench rebellion against the review that is indicated to have the support of at least thirty Liberal Democrats.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11519148|title=University tuition fees 'to rise'|publisher=BBC News|date=12 October 2010|accessdate=13 October 2010}}{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/leeds/2010/oct/13/leeds-students-protest-against-tuition-fees|title=Leeds students speak out in tuition fee controversy|date=12 October 2010|accessdate=13 October 2010|work=The Guardian |location=London | first=John | last=Baron}}

In July 2010 it was reported that a graduate tax was seriously being considered by Vince Cable{{citation needed|date=September 2020}} although a senior Conservative anonymously briefed against Mr Cable stating it was "unlikely" that a graduate tax would be adopted.{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/jul/22/government-rejects-cable-graduate-tax |location=London |work=The Guardian | title=Government 'rejects' Vince Cable's graduate tax plan | first=Jessica | last=Shepherd | date=22 July 2010}}{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iYjZKYeiYvkq6az_Z4Kwz0OArvXA |title=The article requested is no longer available |website=Google News |access-date=26 January 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130124180556/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iYjZKYeiYvkq6az_Z4Kwz0OArvXA |archive-date=24 January 2013 |url-status=dead}} Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has also backed a graduate tax.{{cite news| url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/7957345/Nick-Clegg-backs-tax-on-university-graduates.html |location=London |work=The Daily Telegraph | title=Nick Clegg backs tax on university graduates | first1=Mary | last1=Riddell | first2=James | last2=Kirkup | date=20 August 2010}}

The Russell Group's submission to the review stated that graduates should pay real rates of interest on their student loans to prevent a university funding crisis.{{cite news|last=Richardson |first=Hannah |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10115822.stm |title=Universities say students may face earlier loan payback |publisher=BBC News |date= 14 May 2010|accessdate=16 May 2010}} The 1994 Group have stated that there should be an increase in the cap to generate competition between universities.{{cite web|last=Gill |first=John |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411607&c=2 |title=Cap doesn't fit: let's raise it incrementally |date=15 May 2010 |publisher=Times Higher Education |accessdate=16 May 2010}} Wendy Piatt, head of the Russell Group, has stated that current levels of funding are not adequate if Universities are to remain globally competitive.{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8350051.stm |title=UK | Education | Review of student fees launched |publisher=BBC News |date=9 November 2009 |accessdate=16 May 2010}} The 1994 Group have called for the review to ensure that cost does not prevent people from attending university and for a focus on the student experience.

Million+ have stated that students should not be asked to pay more for cuts in public funding and Unions 94 have called for more progressive alternatives to variable tuition fees.

The University and Colleges Union have stated that lifting the cap on tuition fees would be 'the most regressive piece of education policy since the war' and suggest replacing fees with a Business Education Tax.{{cite web|url=http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4622 |title=University and College Union – Fees increase will put university 'out of reach for majority', warns |publisher=UCU |date=17 May 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010}}

In their second submission to the Browne Review the Russell Group stated that lifting the cap on tuition fees was the only "viable and fair" way of financing higher education and that the "liberalisation of the fee regime" was a future aim.{{cite web|last=Attwood |first=Rebecca |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=411641 |title=Russell Group: if you want the best, the cap must go |date=18 May 2010 |publisher=Times Higher Education |accessdate=21 July 2010}}

The Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes in its submission that: "Increasing fees without increasing loans and/or grants by the same value or more will result in a negative impact on participation".{{cite web|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410207 |title=Participation would fall if fees rise without extra aid |date=28 January 2010 |publisher=Times Higher Education |accessdate=21 July 2010}}

The British Medical Association has warned that increasing tuition fees could land medical students with debts in excess of £90,000, as medical degrees are longer and give students less time to partake in part-time work.{{cite news|last=Devlin |first=Kate |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7778383/Raising-tuition-fees-could-leave-medical-students-90000-in-debt.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100601081414/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7778383/Raising-tuition-fees-could-leave-medical-students-90000-in-debt.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=1 June 2010 |title=Raising tuition fees 'could leave medical students £90,000 in debt' |work=The Telegraph|date=29 May 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010 | location=London}}

The Browne Review into the future of Higher Education Funding published its report on 12 October 2010 in a document entitled Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education.{{cite web |date=2010-10-12 |title=Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-browne-report-higher-education-funding-and-student-finance |accessdate=2011-02-12 |publisher=Department for Business, Innovation & Skills}} The report based its recommendations on six principles which were:{{cite web |date= |title=Browne report executive summary |url=http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208es-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report-summary.pdf |accessdate=2011-02-12 }}

• More investment should be available for Higher Education
• Student choice should be increased
• Everyone who has the potential should be able to benefit from Higher Education
• No-one should have to pay until they start work
• When payments are made they should be affordable
• Part-time students should be treated the same as full-time students for the costs of learning

The main recommendations of the report were:{{cite web|url=http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf|title=The Browne report: higher education funding and student finance|accessdate=29 October 2014}}

• Removing the current £3,290 per year cap on the tuition fees that universities can charge to students. There would be no cap on the fees that an institution could charge.
• The government would provide upfront loans to cover tuition fees and living costs of students. Means tested grants would be available for students from lower income families.
• Students would repay the loans after graduation, and only when they are earning more than £21,000. Repayments would be made at a rate of 9% on any income above £21,000. Any debt not repaid after 30 years would be written off. For comparison, the system at the time demanded repayments of 9% on income above £15,000, and debt was written off after 25 years.
• Part-time students would no longer have to pay upfront tuition fees, and would instead be eligible for loans.

The review rejects the option of a graduate tax, because there would be a large funding gap in the short term. It estimates that if all new students from 2012 paid 3% graduate tax after graduation, the tax would not provide sufficient revenue to fund higher education until 2041–42. This would weaken the independence of universities, which would become entirely dependent on the government for funding. It argues that its own proposals would force universities to improve standards to compete for students: their relationship with students would become more important to universities than their relationship with government.

On 3 November 2010, David Willetts announced new government proposals following the review.{{cite web|url=http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/topstories/2010/Nov/student-finance |title=student-finance | News & speeches |publisher=BIS |accessdate=23 December 2010}} The proposals incorporate many features of Lord Browne's recommendations: loans would be offered to all students to cover fees, to be repaid only when graduates are earning over £21,000, at a rate of 9%, written off after 30 years; part-time students would be entitled to loans on a similar basis to full-time students; there would be a real interest rate with a progressive taper.

But in a break with the review's proposals, the government proposed an absolute cap on fees of £9,000 per year. Universities charging fees of over £6,000 per year would be required to contribute to a National Scholarships program. There would be a tougher regime of sanctions encouraging these universities to widen access.

There will be further consultation on early repayment systems, to avoid richer graduates gaining an unfair advantage by 'buying themselves out' of the system.

The government intends to implement the changes in time for the 2012/13 academic year.

The Parliamentary vote on increasing the maximum tuition fees was held on 9 December 2010, following a week of protests. The Labour Party opposed the fee increase and Conservatives mostly agreed. Liberal Democrats MPs voted both ways, with 28 voting for, 21 against and 8 not voting.{{cite web |url=http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2010-12-09&number=150 |title=University Tuition Fee Cap – Raise Upper Limit to £9,000 Per Year |date=9 December 2010 |publisher=The Public Whip |accessdate=10 December 2010 }} Liberal Democrat ministers voted for the change; Jenny Willott and Mike Crockart resigned as PPS to vote against the increase.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/09/tuition-fees-higher-education |title=Tuition fees: all the votes all the MPs |series=Datablog |work=The Guardian |location=London |accessdate=10 December 2010 |first1=Lisa |last1=Evans |first2=D J |last2=Taylor |date=9 December 2010}} Deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes abstained.

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement states that "If the response of the Government to Lord Browne's report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote".{{cite web |url=http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/universities-and-further-education/ |archiveurl=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100526084809/http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/universities-and-further-education/ |archivedate=26 May 2010 |title=The Coalition: our programme for government: Universities and further education |publisher=UK Government }} and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg considered a mass abstention of the Liberal Democrat party on the issue in order to prevent a three-way split within the party.{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8181410/How-Nick-Clegg-and-Vince-Cable-clashed-over-tuition-fees.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101206080616/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8181410/How-Nick-Clegg-and-Vince-Cable-clashed-over-tuition-fees.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 December 2010 |title=How Nick Clegg and Vince Cable clashed over tuition fees |first=Melissa |last=Kite |date=4 December 2010 |accessdate=10 December 2010 |location=London |work=The Daily Telegraph }}

The minister responsible for the proposals was Business Secretary and Liberal Democrat Vince Cable.{{cite web |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hm5aHVcZ78T05aRqNGl_twIIyP2w?docId=N0440201291491853322A |title=MPs urge tuition fee vote delay |publisher=Press Association |date=6 December 2010 |accessdate=10 December 2010 }}{{dead link|date=June 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} Cable gave a number of contradictory accounts of whether he would vote in favour or abstain from voting.{{cite news |url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2010/12/05/labour-slam-vince-cable-over-tuition-fees-farce-as-he-performs-another-u-turn-86908-22763366/ |title=Labour slam Vince Cable over tuition fees 'farce' as he performs another U-turn |date=5 December 2010 |first=Mark |last=Aitken |newspaper=Sunday Mail |location=Scotland |accessdate=10 December 2010 }}

{{Main|2010 UK student protests}}

File:Student_protest_march_past_Houses_of_Parliament.jpg

On 10 November 2010, students staged the first in a series of marches to demonstrate against the proposed increase in the rise in tuition fees. The demonstrations in London received negative publicity after a group of protesters attacked the Conservative party headquarters. The National Union of Students, who had staged the protests, condemned the violence as "despicable" with union president Aaron Porter saying "this was not part of our plan".{{cite news |last=Harrison |first=Angela |date=2010-11-10 |title=Violence at Tory HQ overshadows student fees protest |publisher=Bbc.co.uk |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822 |accessdate=2011-02-12}} Protests continued on 24 November 2010 with the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) organising a mass national walk out of education and protest.{{Cite news |last1=Gabbatt |first1=Adam |last2=Batty |first2=David |date=25 November 2010 |title=Second day of student protests - how the demonstrations happened |publisher=The Guardian Online |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/nov/24/student-school-pupils-protests-walkout |accessdate=25 November 2010}} On 30 November 2010 further protests were held in London with demonstrators congregating in Trafalgar Square as well as in other cities around the UK.{{cite news |last=Coughlan |first=Sean |date=2010-12-01 |title=Student tuition fee protest ends with 153 arrests |publisher=Bbc.co.uk |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11877034 |accessdate=2011-02-12}} The protests in London resulted in 153 arrests and with the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts accusing the police of pre-emptively "blocking" the protest route and so keeping them in the square. The police replied that they never had "any intention to contain the protesters." On 9 December 2010, the day of the House of Commons vote on whether to approve measures which could see the rise in tuition fees, further demonstrations were held in London. The protests, this time policed by 2800 officers, saw tensions running high and angry scenes as the debate on the proposals was discussed in the Commons.

Image:SRWBrightstowe.jpg criticised the lack of Parliamentary scrutiny of the review panel]]

The Browne Review has been the subject of several criticisms related to its perceived lack of independence, lack of Parliamentary scrutiny and lack of representativeness.

The independence of the review has been questioned. Lord Browne has been described by The Telegraph as "one of New Labour's favourite businessmen". Two Vice-Chancellors and a civil servant who advised the government on the introduction of the current fee regime also form part of the team conducting the review.{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6532862/Tuition-fees-review-lacks-independence.html |title=Tuition fees review 'lacks independence' |work=The Telegraph|date=9 November 2009 |accessdate=16 May 2010 | location=London | first=Graeme | last=Paton}}

Following the 2010 General Election Lord Browne accepted a role as the Government's lead non-executive director to advise on the appointment of business leaders to reformed departmental boards.{{cite news |url=http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2010/100630-browne.aspx |title=Lord Browne appointed to key Whitehall role |publisher=Cabinet Office |date=30 June 2010 |accessdate=15 September 2010 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101110124905/http%3A//www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2010/100630%2Dbrowne.aspx |archivedate=10 November 2010 |df=dmy-all }}

There is no student representation on the Browne Review.

In November 2009, Liberal Democrat Universities Spokesperson Stephen Williams stated: "The lack of student representatives is particularly concerning as it is these people who will really suffer if fees are raised. It is disgraceful that there hasn't been an opportunity to scrutinise the make-up of the review's panel or its remit in Parliament".{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6532862/Tuition-fees-review-lacks-independence.html |title=Tuition fees review 'lacks independence' |work=The Telegraph|date= 9 November 2009|accessdate=10 November 2009 | location=London | first=Graeme | last=Paton}}

Sally Hunt, of the University and College Union, criticised the lack of employee representation on the panel, suggesting that, by contrast, business and employer interests had a lot of representation.

The Liberal Democrats criticised the fact that the panel would not report its findings until following the General Election. BBC education journalist Mike Baker suggested that the Browne Review which had been expected to report in the summer would be delayed until the Autumn so as to avoid opponents causing trouble over fees during the party conference season.{{cite news|last=Baker |first=Mike |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10238788.stm |title=Nightmare scenario for universities |publisher=BBC News |date=5 June 2010 |accessdate=21 July 2010}}

The National Union of Students warned the review could create a market based system of higher education.{{cite web|url=http://www.nus.org.uk/en/News/News/NUS-to-voice-public-horror-over-plans-to-hike-fees/ |title=NUS to voice public horror over plans to hike fees: News Archive: News And Events |publisher=NUS.org.uk |accessdate=10 November 2009}} In 2009, then NUS President Wes Streeting stated: "There is a real danger that this review will pave the way for higher fees and a market in prices that would see poorer students priced out of more prestigious universities and other students and universities consigned to the 'bargain basement'".

In July 2010, Labour MP Pat McFadden criticised anonymous briefings from the Conservative Party against the possibility of a graduate tax, a policy which had been mooted by Liberal Democrat Vince Cable. He stated: "It is completely shambolic for the Lib Dem secretary of state to make a speech advocating one policy one week then for a Tory briefing to point in a different direction a week late....Discussion of higher education finance within the coalition is now being governed more by managing the internal politics of the government than the interests of students, universities or the wider taxpayer."{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10714585 |title=BBC News – Rejection of graduate tax plans labelled 'shambolic' |publisher=BBC |date= 21 July 2010|accessdate=21 July 2010}}

Oxford University Student Union criticised the fact that the Russell Group's submission the Browne review was confidential with a freedom of information request being rejected.{{cite news|last=Coughlan |first=Sean |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10088448.stm |title=Oxford students challenge tuition fees review 'secrecy' |publisher=BBC News |date=27 April 2010 |accessdate=10 May 2010}}{{cite news|last=Coughlan |first=Sean |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10102574.stm |title=Top universities in Russell Group fees review protest |publisher=BBC News |date= 10 May 2010|accessdate=10 May 2010}}

The UK Youth Parliament, an affiliate of the British Youth Council also responded to the Browne Review. Their criticism centred around both the way in which the review was conducted and the conclusion it reached. The UK Youth Parliament believed that lifting the cap on university tuition fees would force young people to make "financially driven choices when it comes to choosing where and what to study".

Former Member of UK Youth Parliament and UKYP National Spokesperson Harrison Carter commented on behalf of the organisation saying:

"Fees themselves are unfair and act as a barrier to education, widening the rich-poor divide which exists in this country. I and many other members of the UK Youth Parliament seriously condemn this action. The news that fees are set to go up, and that the graduate tax is to be dropped is truly worrying for young people.

"We are deeply concerned that young people under the age of 18, those whom increased fees will actually hit, haven't been adequately consulted about the proposed changes to university funding.

"Young people up and down the country, starting secondary school, studying for their GCSEs, or thinking about A-levels – those are the ones who will be making life changing choices, based on this review and decisions made behind closed doors. It is essential that the Government demonstrates they are in tune with young people's views, by widely consulting under 18-year-olds and establishing the impact upon this group, before any legislative change to university funding is introduced."{{cite web|url=https://harrymyp.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response-to-the-review-of-higher-education-and-student-finance-in-england-october-2010.pdf|title=Response to the Review of Higher Education and Student Finance in England 12 October 2010|website=harrymyp|access-date=17 February 2024}}

The Government made the decision to increase university tuition fees to a maximum of £9,000 with a view that higher education institutions should invest some of the extra income from fees above £6,000 in promoting fair access.[http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/higher-education/docs/g/11-1046-government-response-to-browne-review Government response to Browne Review] bis.gov.uk {{dead link|date=February 2024}}

Analysis by the Chartered Institute for Taxation found most graduates will pay off their debt for the rest of their lives if they repay at the lowest possible rate due to the way the debt will increase by RPI inflation plus 3% over the years that the graduates repay it. Someone starting on £21,000 and seeing their salary increase by 5% a year would end up paying £64,239 over 30 years, with an unpaid debt of £26,406 at the end of their working lives.{{cite web|author=Iain Macwhirter |url=http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/students-prepare-for-battle-in-a-looming-new-class-war-1.1067479 |title=Students prepare for battle in a looming new class war |publisher=Herald Scotland |date=11 November 2010 |accessdate=23 December 2010}} This also suggests that the national debt may increase rather than fall as a result of the new system.

In 2014, Nick Hillman of the Higher Education Policy Institute stated that the government had "got its maths wrong" by overestimating the amount of money students would repay with a £21,000 threshold.{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/21/tuition-fees-former-tory-adviser-government-maths-wrong|title=Tuition fees: former Tory adviser says government got its maths wrong|author=Rowena Mason|work=The Guardian|date=21 March 2014|accessdate=29 October 2014}} The Guardian have revealed that based on 2014 estimates 45% of student loan debt will never be repaid. If this figure reaches the threshold of 48% then more money would have been collected under the "old" system of £3,000 fees with a lower repayment threshold.

• Lord Browne of Madingley – Former BP Chief. It is Browne's most high-profile appointment since being forced to quit BP after being found to have lied in court.{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6909645.ece|title=Lord Browne of Madingley heads team to look at raising tuition fees|work=The Times |location=London |date=10 November 2009|accessdate=10 November 2009 | first=Greg | last=Hurst}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
• Sir Michael Barber – Advisor to former Labour Education Minister David Blunkett
• Diane Coyle – Former Treasury economist
• David Eastwood – Vice Chancellor of the University of Birmingham
• Julia King – Vice Chancellor of Aston University
• Rajay Naik – Board Member of the Big Lottery Fund
• Peter Sands – CEO of Standard Chartered Bank

• Dearing Report
• Student loans in the United Kingdom

{{reflist|30em}}

{{Browne Review}}

Category:2009 establishments in England

Category:2010 disestablishments in England

Category:Education finance in the United Kingdom

Category:Higher education in England

Category:Public finance of England

Category:Student financial aid