Professor Andrew Deeks:

I will try to confine myself to reflecting on the Australian experience. I cannot remember exactly where the economy was at the time but my recollection is it was in a recovery mode after a recession, not unlike where we are now. That is my recollection. However, it was a good 30 years ago and my recollection may not be sound. One of the elements underpinning the system was a very good grant and bursary system for people from lower socioeconomic groups, meaning they could afford to live on that grant and attend university. That helped to ensure there was not an impact on that socioeconomic group.

As Deputy Cannon pointed out, the Australian system went through a banding exercise and it determined two matters, namely, the cost of delivering each type of programme and the benefit to the students graduating from programmes. A very structured matrix was used to work out how much of the cost would be borne by the state for the programme and how much would be taken up by the student. The Australians are very careful to have systems that are seen to be fair and this was seen as such. The issue is that over the 30 years since, the cost of delivery of the programmes has varied and the economic return for the people graduating from the programmes has similarly varied. When the system was set up, it appeared to be perfectly fair but over the years, disparities quickly appeared. That is probably why when our colleagues in the UK moved to a system, they went for a flat rate, and it is probably why the Cassells report has gone for the simpler flat-rate solution.

I emphasise that although the introduction of the system caused much concern when first mooted, particularly among the student body, when it rolled, out the concern dissipated. There was no impact and in fact there was an increase in participation from lower socioeconomic groups. As the system bedded in, it was felt throughout the country to be fair. It also had these positive impacts on retention rates.