Editorial: Graduate tax not the way forward for higher education

These are disconcerting times for the generation of young people emerging from Scotland's schools looking to secure a place at university. Even those with impressive qualifications are finding securing a place at a good higher education institution is harder than ever.

The problem has arisen partly because universities cut the number of places they are offering and because demand for places has increased as people young and old see higher education as a more attractive option than searching for a job in troubled economic times.

It is to be hoped the universities are as flexible as they can be as young people will rightly feel discriminated against if they are denied entry when they have qualifications as good, or even better than, their predecessors.

However, the desperate search for places is only one aspect of the growing pressure on the undergraduates of tomorrow who also face the prospect of paying more for going to university in the future, as the debate rages over how to student funding.

South of the Border, David Willetts, the minister for universities, has argued students should make a bigger contribution towards their education, comments interpreted as a hint he favours a graduate tax over increasing tuition fees, currently 3,000. A graduate tax has the political advantage of being supported by coalition partners the Liberal Democats, who are vehemently opposed to increasing tuition fees.

In Scotland, where higher education is devolved, the position is further complicated by the position of the SNP education secretary, Michael Russell, who has on the one hand called for "all sensible ideas, no matter how radical" but declared his opposition to tuition fees.

And although no final decisions have been taken, and the independent review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, chaired by Lord Browne, has yet to report south of the Border, the momentum appears to be in favour of a graduate tax.

Before we go down this road, we should stop to consider what it really means. University vice-chancellors in England have warned it could mean successful individuals paying far more back to the state, potentially millions, than their education cost.

This is not only a disincentive to graduates to make the most of their talents, but is also iniquitous. Why should a graduate who makes a success of his or her life pay more than someone who contributes little or nothing to society after taking a degree?

Politicians north and south of the Border know, as do university leaders, that students will have to contribute more to their education. The question is how they do it.

The answer is not immediately obvious and will not be simple but the principle that should be followed is clear: people should not be paying taxes over a lifetime that amount to more than the cost of their education and governments should move away from taxation to a system of charging. Judged on these criteria, the deeply flawed graduate tax is a problem not the solution.