Home

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism and home of conservative modernisers, has today published a new report, Emission impossible? Air pollution, national governance and the transport sector,  which proposes new legal limits, legal responsibilities and policies to significantly reduce levels of air pollution in the UK after Brexit.

The report focuses on the sources of, impacts of, and attitudes towards air pollution across the whole of the UK. It then goes on to explore the role national Government does and could play in reducing air pollution, particularly from NO2, since this is the one pollutant where this country does not meet current EU-derived legal hourly and annual limits.

The report contains the results of new polling of UK adults on air pollution, showing:

• A clear majority (71%) of UK adults reported that they were concerned about the impact of air pollution on the health of themselves and others.
• A clear majority (69%) of adults agree that the Government should reduce air pollution below current levels.
• When asked whether the UK should have cleaner air then other EU countries, roughly half (49%) of adults thought the UK should have cleaner air, and only 9% thought the UK should not.

William Nicolle, Researcher at Bright Blue and co-author of Emission impossible?, says:

“Stronger evidence has emerged in recent years about the detrimental impact of air pollution to human health, the economy and the environment. Consequently, there is growing public and political pressure for tougher action to reduce levels of air pollution in the UK. The UK’s departure from the EU means that there is an opportunity to raise air pollution standards in the UK.”

“The UK Government needs new, ambitious legal limits, legal responsibilities and policies on air pollution. This country should aspire to be a global leader on yet another environmental issue, and strive to become the country with the cleanest air in urban areas in the developed world.”

Bright Blue’s main policy recommendations for increasing national accountability on air pollution are:

• Adopt the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) guideline limits for concentrations for all health-harming air pollutants as soon as possible after a feasibility study by the OEP or a new Committee on Clean Air. The WHO have their own recommended limits for PM2.5, PM10, NO2 and O3. These are more demanding than the current EU-derived limits. Recently, DEFRA stated they believed the WHO’s recommended PM2.5 limit was “technically feasible”, but further analysis was needed as to its economic and practical feasibility. We recommend the Government adopts all the WHO guideline limits for PM2.5, PM10, NO2 and O3 as soon as possible, but only after a feasibility study conducted by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) or a new Committee on Clean Air.
• Provide the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) or a new Committee on Clean Air with the responsibility to recommend future legal limits for different air pollutants to parliament after conducting appropriate feasibility studies. For the OEP to be able to properly uphold environmental standards, it should be given the power to recommend those standards to parliament. We recommend that the OEP, or a new Committee on Clean Air, be given the power to recommend future legal limits for air pollutants to parliament following appropriate feasibility studies. This will be similar to the role of the Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) role in advising the UK Government on greenhouse gas emission targets, so that the setting of air pollutant targets will be properly evidenced and scrutinised.
• Provide the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), or a new Committee on Clean Air, with the responsibility to recommend future targets for different air pollutants, specifically focussed on additional targets relating to concentrations by population density and deprivation. We recommend the OEP, or a new Committee on Clean Air, should be able to propose new future national targets that take into account two new considerations: first, population density; and, second, deprivation. These targets would be additional to the existing ones the UK has and, therefore, would not detract from any existing targets.
• Legal duties should be placed on all local authorities to achieve compliance with relevant legal air pollution limits within their geographic area of responsibility. Relevant public bodies should have a legal duty to contribute to achieving compliance with legal air pollution limits within their geographic area of responsibility. Local authorities are obliged to monitor, review and if appropriate take action in relation to the air pollution within their boundaries. But local authorities do not have a clear legal responsibility to reduce air pollution below legal limits. Equally, other public authorities that control some sources of air pollution do not face legal obligations to reduce air pollution levels to below legal limits in areas where they have authority. We recommend that all local authorities have a legal requirement placed on them to achieve compliance with legal air pollutant limits in their geographic area of responsibility. We also recommend that relevant public bodies should have a new legal duty placed on them to contribute to achieving compliance with legal air pollution limits within their geographic area of responsibility. The OEP, or a new Committee on Clean Air, should be tasked with identifying the relevant public bodies and putting these recommendations to parliament.

Bright Blue’s main policy recommendations for reducing air pollution from the transport sector are:

• Lift the freeze on the value of Fuel Duty and apply a surcharge on Fuel Duty for diesel fuel (a ‘Diesel Duty’). The current Government committed to freezing the value of fuel duty yet again last year, meaning it has been frozen since 2010. We recommend ending the freeze on the value of fuel duty from the next tax year. In addition, diesel fuel should attract a surcharge of fuel duty in its sale. This could be badged as a ‘Diesel Duty’.
• Introduce an ongoing surcharge for Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on new diesel cars in the UK (‘Diesel Excise Duty’ (DED)). At present, there is a higher charge faced by drivers of diesel vehicles only on their first VED payment. After the first year of VED payment, petrol and diesel cars are subject to the same ongoing VED payments, and electric cars are fully exempt. We recommend that a diesel surcharge on ongoing VED payments be introduced in the next tax year. Together with the tiered initial payment, this would create a separate ‘Diesel Excise Duty (DED), for all new diesel vehicles registered.
• Exempt the purchase of ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) from VAT. Ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) are defined as vehicles that emit less than 75 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometre travelled (g/km). Recently, it was forecast that EVs will only be 75% of new vehicle sales by 2040 based on current incentives – falling short of the Government’s target of phasing out fossil fuel car purchases by 2040. We recommend that VAT should be scrapped on the purchase of all categories of ULEVs in the UK.
• Enable local and combined authorities to strive for ‘reasonable profits’ from their charging Clean Air Zones (CAZs) to fund further local air pollution abatement policies. Local authorities cannot set charges in CAZs to raise revenue. Any additional revenue raised from CAZs must be reinvested to “facilitate the achievement of local transport policies”. We recommend the Government allows local and combined authorities to pursue ‘reasonable profits’ from their CAZs, as long as they are reinvested to pursue policies that will tackle roadside air pollution. We suggest the following criteria areas for these reasonable profits to be spent on: charging infrastructure for EVs; local scrappage schemes for diesel and petrol cars; and, local transport objectives, as currently defined. We propose that the reasonable profits raised need be first allocated to investment in EV infrastructure and local scrappage schemes for both diesel and petrol cars, prior to being used for the pursuit of local transport objectives.
• Mandate introducing charging or banning Clean Air Zones (CAZs) for non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) alongside the establishment of all charging CAZs in England. There are CAZs for vehicles being introduced over in different cities across the UK in the years ahead. Local authorities are expected to follow DEFRA’s statutory guidance on establishing CAZs, which suggests they should, if appropriate, seek to implement minimum emissions standards for NRMM to be used within their Clean Air Zones. Nonetheless, there are no CAZs for NRMM in the UK at present, only London’s ULEZ for NRMMs. We recommend, alongside future charging CAZs for vehicles, it should be mandatory for any new charging or banning CAZ to be established. As with the London ULEZ, exemptions should apply to NRMM in a banning CAZ that is not otherwise available, or where comprehensive retrofitting is not feasible.
• Make it a requirement for local authorities with a charging CAZ to introduce a citizen-based reporting system to increase the enforceability of anti-idling measures. In the City of New York in the US, there is a system in place to allow citizens to report commercial trucks and buses that are idling for longer than the legal three minutes – or for longer than one minute if outside schools – through taking photographs and videos and filling out an online form run by the City of New York government. Citizens who report polluters get a 25% share of the income from the fine imposed. Alongside proposed new powers to enable local authority traffic officers to instantly apply fines for stationary idling, we recommend local authorities with a charging CAZ should be required to introduce such citizen-based reporting of stationary idling. If a fine is imposed, citizens could receive a portion of the fine, with the remainder going to the local authority to be spent on other local air pollution abatement policies. We further recommend the government consult on expanding this citizen-based reporting system from the City of New York to passenger vehicles.
• Replace the current 30mph default speed limit on all ‘restricted roads’ in England and Wales with a 20mph default speed limit. In urban areas, speed limits are automatically set on ‘restricted roads’ at 30mph, unless specified as not. Local authorities do have the power to lower speed limits below the national speed limit. Evidence shows that 20mph speed limits are beneficial in terms of lowered amounts of pollutants being emitted by vehicles, particularly for NOx and PM. Generally, arguments for the lowering of speed limits to 20mph are framed in terms of public safety, but there is now also a solid evidence base to be made for it lowering air pollution from vehicles. We recommend that the default national speed limit on all ‘restricted roads’ in England and Wales be lowered from 30mph to 20mph.
• Require the installation, checking and cleaning of particulate matter filters on all petrol cars through the annual Ministry of Transport (MOT) test. Some petrol cars, specifically those that use direct injection engines, can emit more PM than conventional diesel cars. This is because modern diesel cars are normally fitted with diesel particulate filters (DPFs), meaning the PM they generate is filtered out of the exhaust fumes. Petrol cars, however, largely lack these filters. Recent regulation means it is likely that most new petrol cars sold will have gasoline particulate filters (GPFs) fitted. But the existing stock of petrol cars in the UK continue to emit PM into the air unabated. We recommend that, as part of the annual MOT tests, any petrol car without a GPF be required to have one installed. GPF filters are relatively cheap, on average costing £25. As part of the annual MOT test, the checking and, if appropriate, cleaning of the GPF should also be a requirement, as is currently required for Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs).
  

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today published a report, Distant neighbours? Understanding and measuring social integration in England, which proposes and studies a new measure of social integration based on levels of neighbourhood trust in ethnically diverse areas.

The report is based on independent statistical analysis of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 Citizenship Survey, the 2011 Census and the 2015 Indices of Deprivation, as well as further analysis of the Index of Dissimilarity and the Index of Ethnic Diversity.

This report is unique in three key ways. First, the report predicts levels of neighbourhood trust for every local authority (LA) in England. Second, the report identifies the individual-level and local-level factors which explain why neighbourhood trust levels vary across England. Finally, it identifies the most socially integrated local authorities of England, drawing on our proposed new measure of social integration.

The results show significant variation in predicted levels of neighbourhood trust among LAs across England. The results show the proportion of individuals that are predicted to trust most of their neighbours in each LA. The top ten local authorities with the lowest levels of neighbourhood trust in England are all in London.

The individual-level results from the independent statistical analysis showed seven main findings:

• Women are less likely to trust most of their neighbours compared to men. 37% of women across England are predicted to trust most of their neighbours compared to a predicted 42% of men.
• The likelihood of trusting most of your neighbours increases as people become older. The proportion of people predicted to trust most of their neighbours is lowest at the age of 22: 22% across England. This proportion doubles by the time people reach the age of 48, with 44% predicted to trust most of their neighbours. A similarly sized increase happens by the age of 83, with 66% predicted to trust the majority of their neighbours.
• Individuals from different ethnic minority groups across England are much less likely to express trust in most of their neighbours when compared to white individuals. White individuals have a notably higher predicted probability of 53% to trust most of their neighbours. It is black individuals who are predicted to be the ethnic group that is least likely to trust most of their neighbours, with 18% predicted to trust most of their neighbours.
• Those with higher socioeconomic status have a significantly higher likelihood of trusting the majority of their neighbours. Those in management positions are much more likely to have higher levels of predicted neighbourhood trust, with 52% predicted to trust most of their neighbours across England, while those who have never worked or are long-term unemployed are the least likely, with only 25% of them predicted to trust most of their neighbours across England.
• Higher individual income is associated with increases in neighbourhood trust. Individuals who do not have any individual income are predicted to trust most of their neighbours only 27% of the time, whilst those who earn more than £100,000 annually are predicted to trust most of their neighbours at the rate of 65% across England.

The local-level results from the independent statistical analysis show six key findings:

• In areas with a greater proportion of married households with children, levels of neighbourhood trust are predicted to be higher.
• Individuals living in areas with higher levels of deprivation in terms of income are less likely to be predicted to trust most of their neighbours.
• Individuals living in areas with higher levels of deprivation in terms of crime are also less likely to be predicted to trust most of their neighbours.
• Levels of neighbourhood trust are higher in areas with a greater proportion of population being over 65 years old.
• Those living in rural areas are predicted to be more likely to trust most of their neighbours.
• People in areas with a greater than 5% decrease in White British population change in the ten years between 2001 and 2011 were less likely to be predicted to trust most of their neighbours.
• There is an association between high levels of ethnic diversity in a local area and lower levels of neighbourhood trust in England. Nevertheless, there are important nuances. Intriguingly, in local areas where more than 30% of migrants cannot speak English well, the analysis, in fact, finds that an increase in ethnic diversity is actually associated with a predicted increase in levels of neighbourhood trust. This might be due to frequent interactions that occur between ethnically homogenous groups, rather than between ethnically heterogeneous groups. An alternative potential explanation is that in ethnically diverse areas where a significant number of migrants do not have English proficiency, there might be lower barriers to interaction, as residents in those areas are more used to people from different backgrounds and those who cannot speak English well.

Bright Blue performed additional statistical analysis to identify the most socially integrated local authorities in England. Based on our proposed measure of social integration, this would be local authorities with relatively high levels of neighbourhood trust and relatively high levels of ethnic diversity. LAs were chosen by selecting those from the independent statistical analysis that were in the top two deciles of ethnic diversity alongside being in the top five deciles of predicted levels of neighbourhood trust. In other words, they were local authorities that were among the most ethnically diverse in England, but also had above average levels of neighbourhood trust.

There were four local authorities in England that met this criteria. They are the most socially integrated local authorities in England. They are:

• The City of London
• Cambridge
• Richmond upon Thames
• Milton Keynes

The four local authorities we have identified as being examples of high social integration also have low levels of residential segregation. All are in the bottom five deciles of dissimilarity, meaning that they are less residentially segregated than the average local authority. Thus, we are confident in our thesis that these local authorities are likely to be among the most socially integrated in England.

The report proposes nine original policy recommendations to boost social integration in England. These policies have two broad aims. First, to better equip individuals with the tools they need to integrate more, such as English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision. Second, to reform institutions to enable people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to better mix with one another, such as school linking.

Commenting Ryan Shorthouse, Director at Bright Blue and co-author of the report, says:

“Neighbourhood trust in ethnically diverse areas should be at the heart of our understanding and measurement of social integration. The UK government, as well as local and combined authorities and public bodies, should utilise this new measure in the context of assessing and funding any project or policy development that focuses on social integration.”

“The factors driving neighbourhood trust, and therefore social integration, are numerous and complex. There is no simple, straightforward solution to strengthen social integration. But politicians should focus on better supporting individuals, to give them the tools they need to integrate, and reforming public institutions such as schools, so they are better able to provide a platform for people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to mix.”

“We have to recognise that it is people, not policies, that will improve social integration. It is both right and obvious that people themselves will determine whether they want to form relationships with people, including those from different backgrounds. And, ultimately, social integration is a two-way street. It is not enough to say migrants and their children must do more to integrate. Native Brits must also make an effort to welcome and involve newcomers.”

Bright Blue’s main recommendations in Distant neighbours? are:

• The UK Government should introduce and use a new definition and measure of social integration, based primarily on neighbourhood trust in ethnically diverse areas

We propose a new definition of social integration: meaningful, positive and sustained interactions between individuals of different ethnic and religious backgrounds. On the basis of our new definition, we propose a new measure of social integration that includes levels of neighbourhood trust in ethnically diverse areas. However, since it is also possible for people in residentially segregated communities to trust their neighbours on the basis of them being in the same ethnic group, high levels of neighbourhood trust in ethnically diverse communities only indicate high levels of social integration when the local area is not residentially segregated. This is an important qualification that needs to be included when measuring levels of social integration.

We recommend that the UK government, as well as local and combined authorities and public bodies, utilise this new definition and measure of social integration in the context of assessing and funding any project or policy development that focuses on social integration.  This proposed new measure of social integration could consider incorporating, or sitting alongside, other measures, such as levels of deprivation.

• The Government should publish a Social Integration Index score for each local authority every ten years

Our proposed measure of social integration requires data on ethnic diversity (from the Ethnic Diversity Index), residential segregation (from the Index of Dissimilarity), and levels of neighbourhood trust in each local authority. The data for the first two is already publicly available from sources such as the ten-yearly Census. Data on levels of neighbourhood trust is collected for the Community Life Survey. However, the current sample size only allows to calculate neighbourhood trust at the level of regions at best, rather than local authorities. This should change: the Community Life Survey should have a bigger sample size.

Then, using all this data, the Government should produce a ten-yearly Social Integration Index, measuring levels of social integration across all different local authorities in the country. This Social Integration Index could consider incorporating other measures, such as levels of deprivation, which can also be identified through the Census.

• The Government should continue the Controlling Migration Fund beyond 2020 and should dedicate a minimum proportion of the Controlling Migration Fund to fund English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision only

Plans for the Controlling Migration Fund beyond 2020 are supposed to be considered during the next Spending Review. Considering the importance of English language skills for social integration in this country, we recommend that the Government continues the Controlling Migration Fund and dedicates a minimum and significant proportion of it for funding ESOL projects.

• After an initial trial, the government should look to introduce a legal duty on all state secondary schools in England to ensure all pupils participate in at least one week of National Citizen Service (NCS) during term time in Year 9 or Year 10

We recommend that the UK Government trials delivering at least one week of NCS to all Year 9 or Year 10 students in all state secondary schools in England during term time. This trial should examine the practical considerations of implementing NCS at a larger scale and whether the benefits of NCS are retained even if the scheme is effectively made compulsory and aimed at a younger cohort than previously.

If the trial is successful, the Government should introduce a legal duty for all state secondary schools in England to provide at least one week of NCS to either all Year 9 or Year 10 pupils, depending on which cohort is found to be responding best to the scheme. The optimal length of time of the NCS during term time, ranging from one week to one month, should also be discovered through the trial and introduced during national rollout. No pupil will have to pay to participate in this model of NCS.

• The Government should trial shorter summer holidays to examine whether it improves social integration

We recommend that the Government trial shorter summer holidays in some areas and examine its effect, particularly that on social mixing and integration, between children from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Should the results suggest a positive improvement, we recommend that the Government roll out shorter summer holidays across England.

• Part of Pupil Premium payments should be contingent upon primary and secondary schools taking part in, or establishing, a school linking programme

The Pupil Premium is additional funding for state-funded primary and secondary schools designed to help disadvantaged pupils, such as those receiving free school meals and looked-after children, perform better. It is awarded for every eligible pupil in school and schools have significant freedom in how to spend it. Making part of this funding conditional on participating in the National Linking Network (NLN), or a similar school linking scheme, could incentivise participation in such programmes.

• The charitable status of independent schools should be contingent on them taking part in, or establishing, a school linking programme

As independent schools are not eligible to receive Pupil Premium payments, their participation in school linking programme must be incentivised through a separate mechanism. We recommend making the charitable status of such schools contingent on participation in NLN, or a similar school linking programme.

• The government should publish separate league tables based on secondary school data for levels of both ethnic and religious diversity relative to the population of the local authority

Currently, the Government collects a significant amount of data, including for ethnicity of pupils, through a mandatory annual school census. The Government should utilise this data to calculate ethnic diversity levels in secondary schools. The Ethnic Diversity Index should be utilised for comparing the school population with the population of the local authority.

However, the Government currently does not gather statistics on the religion of secondary school pupils. To be able to calculate a separate Religious Diversity Index, the Government should expand the mandatory school census to include collection of this data.

The Government should calculate the ethnic and religious diversity of each secondary school in the country in the context of its local authority population, to illustrate how diverse a school’s intake is in comparison to its area. Then, a score should be granted for both ethnic and religious diversity, and it should be presented in new league tables by the Department for Education.

• The Department for Education should provide annual financial prizes for primary and secondary schools with the most effective policies to encourage social integration

We propose that the Government encourages innovative ideas by providing annual financial prizes for primary and secondary schools who have the most impactful reforms in their social integration policies. The presence of a financial award should incentivise more schools to create such initiatives, while the process of award assessment should inform the Government and other schools on what are effective social integration policies so that they can be adopted more widely.

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism and home of conservative modernisers, and Opinium have today published analysis of polling providing a snapshot of the attitudes of young adults towards public policy, political philosophy, the Conservative Party and the state of Britain.

Tomorrow (Monday 8^th July, 2019), Bright Blue is hosting a conference entitled Fixing the future, exploring how to better support young adults in six key areas affecting them: living, learning, earning, thinking, conserving and relating. The conference includes a keynote speech from the Education Secretary, the Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP.

Bright Blue and Opinium’s polling shows:

• Making housing more affordable is the one policy that young adults think would help them most today, with a majority (55%) of 18-34 year olds reporting this policy would help them most. This is followed by improving mental healthcare provision, which 40% of 18-34 year olds reported as being among the top three policies to help them most. These responses are more commonly reported among young adults than staying in or leaving the EU.
• However, the wider population (36%) and young adults (24%) are most likely to think that the UK Government should prioritise ‘resolving Brexit’ above everything else, including ‘reducing poverty’, ‘Building more houses’ and ‘Tackling climate change’
• A majority of the UK adults generally (59%) and young adults in particular (53%) report that the best description of Britain today is ‘divided’, followed by ‘unequal’ and ‘struggling.’
• Our politicians are seen as the worst thing about Britain by both UK adults generally (28%) and young adults (22%). This ranks higher than ‘the crime levels’, ‘inequality’ and ‘the cost of living.’
• The NHS is seen as the best thing about Britain by both UK adults generally (36%) and young adults (31%). In fact, those who voted Conservative in the last General Election (24%) also are most likely to report the ‘the NHS’ as the best thing about Britain than anything else.
• The whole adult population UK adults more generally and young adults specifically share a similar perception of the Conservative Party, with both (37% each) believing that the best description of the Conservative Party is ‘A party for the rich’. Even those who voted Conservative in the last General Election (21%) were most likely to report that the best description of the Conservative Party is ‘A party for the rich’.
• Young adults aged 18-34 are most likely to describe their political outlook as ‘liberal’ (25%), whereas older adults (aged 55+) are most likely to describe their political outlook as ‘conservative’ (27%). Across the whole adult population, people are most likely to describe their political outlook as ‘moderate (24%).

Commenting, Education Secretary, Damian Hinds MP, said: 

 “Brexit is the immediate imperative but we shouldn’t let it define our generation.”

“Conservatives in Government since 2010 have seen more people in work than ever before, cut income tax for hardworking people, introduced the National Living Wage, reformed welfare, invested in the NHS, improved educational outcomes, and been a world leader in action on climate change. We have a record to be proud of and we need to get out there and sell it.

“Family, Nation, Enterprise, Opportunity – this is what we are about. Conservatives need to keep bringing those four words to life, to connect with people right across our society, from old to young.”

Commenting, Ryan Shorthouse, Director at Bright Blue, says:

“Sadly, young adults today are somewhat gloomy about the state of Britain. They are most likely to believe it is divided and that politicians are the worst thing about this country.”

“Although they are most likely to report that the Government should prioritise resolving Brexit, an overwhelming majority of young adults believe that the policy that would help them most is making the cost of housing more affordable.”

“Young adults are a generation that are most likely to regard themselves as liberal and believe that the best thing about Britain is the NHS. The Conservative Party has a long way to go in appealing to young adults and ridding itself of a common perception that it is a party for the rich.”

Commenting, James Crouch, research manager at Opinium, says:

“Young people are struggling to engage positively with politics as it currently stands. Despite wide agreement about the type of policies that would benefit them, in particular making housing more affordable, there is also a resigned feeling that Brexit needs to be resolved and prioritised above everything else.”

“Ultimately, it appears the only way to respond to the concerns of the younger generation is to get back to talking about the day-to-day changes that could improve their lives, in spite of the bandwidth that Brexit takes up.”

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, responds to the publication of the Augar Review.

Commenting Ryan Shorthouse, Director of Bright Blue, said:

“The Augar Review is Theresa May’s final mistake. Notwithstanding some sensible suggestions, the headline reforms to student loans are expensive, regressive and pointless. The next Prime Minister should reject this final legacy of the current Prime Minister”

“Reducing the tuition fee cap, and the interest rate on student loans, sound good, but basically amount to a tax cut for the wealthy, running counter to the whole purpose of the Augar Review, which was to do more for those who don’t do well out of university, or indeed don’t go at all.”

“Worse, it proposes extending the total repayment period, thereby making low-and middle-income graduates who have their loans written off pay more overall. Even on a monthly basis, the Augar Review is asking those on modest incomes to contribute more, with its proposal to lower the salary threshold for student loan repayments. And, to compensate universities for the loss of income from the tuition fee cut, it proposes increasing direct state funding for those offering high-cost, high-value subjects.”

“Put another way, all these changes would mean the most successful graduates paying less for higher education and everyone else – including non-graduate taxpayers – paying more for it. This is absurd.”

“Restoring maintenance grants for students from low-income backgrounds to replace part of the maintenance loan they current receive is a well-intentioned but ill-judged policy: the only financial beneficiaries would, again, be older, affluent graduates, albeit originally from low-income backgrounds. Since the maintenance loan is junior to the tuition fee loan, most low- and middle-income graduates presently will not even get round to paying it. The Government should instead focus on extending the amount of maintenance loans available to students, including enabling apprentices to access them.”

“Encouragingly, the Augar Review does seek to increase funding for – and widen access to the student finance system for those enrolling in – further education. It suggests that both further and higher education students access tuition fee loans for any course they wish to take throughout their lives, including dropping the restrictions on eligibility for those taking equivalent or lower qualifications. But the amount of loans available needs to be much higher than the maximum cost of a four-year undergraduate degree. A more generous lifetime loan account should be offered to all adults.”

In 2015, Bright Blue published a report, entitled Going part-time, recommending the introduction of a lifetime loan account for all adults to participate in any type of post-18 higher or further education course.