Former education secretary Justine Greening believes that the model she explored in government of funding English universities through a graduate contribution plus a ¡°skills levy¡± on employers could be taken up by the next prime minister,?as it is ¡°inconceivable¡± that?he would adopt the Augar review plans.

Ms Greening, who exited government in January 2018 as Theresa May pushed through the review, told ³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ of her plan, which would abolish the system of tuition fee price tags and loans: ¡°I suspect it¡¯s exactly how we¡¯ll end up reforming the system. In fact, I think it¡¯s probably the only higher education bill that could get through Parliament.¡±

Ms Greening said that she would hold a round table meeting with universities and Conservative colleagues in the coming weeks ¡°to look at the Augar review and to look at some of these other ideas¡­that we think can perhaps be stronger ways to reform the system¡±.

The Augar review¡¯s recommendations on changes to the repayment system were ¡°hugely regressive¡± in increasing the burden on low- and middle-earning graduates, while lowering it for those on higher incomes, Ms Greening said.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°I find it inconceivable that any future Conservative government that cares about¡­progressive funding of higher education and social mobility could take that kind of proposal forward,¡± she added.

Alongside former universities minister Jo Johnson, Ms Greening has been a vocal opponent of the review¡¯s recommendations on higher education funding, which would keep in place the system of fees and loans. The review recommends that the fee cap be lowered from ?9,250 a year to ?7,500, with the Treasury?providing replacement?funding so that the average unit of resource remains unchanged, but with a shift towards high-cost subjects or those with greater ¡°social?and economic value¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

If the next government were to bring the Augar recommendations on tuition fees to Parliament, would Ms Greening rally opposition against the plans among Tory colleagues?

¡°I think many Conservative MPs were unhappy with the Augar review proposals on higher education and felt they [the recommendations] were against promoting social mobility and would vote against seeing them taken through the House of Commons,¡± Ms Greening said.

But she added: ¡°I don¡¯t think it will get to that stage [a Commons vote], because I don¡¯t think the Augar review will be taken forward. Which is the other issue with it: you waste a year and a half, and we haven¡¯t had the government¡¯s response to Augar. I¡¯m afraid politics is moving faster than a review like Augar was able to cope with.¡±

As education secretary she had ¡°recognised there was an inherent fragility to the student finance system¡± supporting fees and loans given the low loan repayment rates, and that the government ¡°couldn¡¯t continue to raise fees year on year as a strategy¡± because there would ¡°come a time when the level of debt young people were taking on¡­would genuinely put them off going¡±, Ms Greening said.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Her plan to create a system that was ¡°more stable for the future¡± was ¡°not per se a graduate tax¡±, but more akin to a ¡°time-limited National Insurance¡± contribution, she said.

This graduate contribution would go into a ¡°higher education fund¡±, she added. ¡°I was interested in looking at whether businesses could contribute to that fund as well.¡± This employer contribution could come from ¡°an overall skills levy that looked at both apprenticeships and degree-level investment,¡± Ms Greening continued.

The proposal, she said, was ¡°my idea that I came up with, rather than one from the officials¡±. She asked Department for Education officials to ¡°come back and tell me why it was a really bad idea ¨C so I asked them to break it, basically¡±. By Christmas 2017, those officials had ¡°come back to [tell] me that fundamentally it could work¡±, while ¡°Treasury had had an initial look at it and was also open to it as a route forward¡±, Ms Greening said.

She argued that although the Augar review was not a deliberate effort by No 10 to kill off her own proposals, it nevertheless meant that ¡°nascent policy reforms that could have been not only progressive, but allowed a better chance to address value for money in the sector and potentially for future millions of graduates lifted a burden of worry on debt¡­were not looked at by No 10 because they were myopically concerned about kicking off this review¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com