Over 300 students travelled to Stormont this afternoon to pressurise local politicians into keeping the cap on tuition fees. Despite pouring rain, students from Queen’s, University of Ulster, St. Mary’s and Stranmillis College turned out to make their voice heard. A petition with 10,000 signatures was presented to the local Assembly this afternoon by SDLP MLA Pat Ramsey and motion calling for the rejection of the Browne report is to be debated at 4.30pm.
BY BEN FINCH
Speaking to the crowd, SU President Gareth McGreevy dismissed claims of a poor turnout. He pointed out that 1,600 students had protested at Queen’s on Tuesday 19 October, the biggest student protest in over 15 years. He went on to say that “They (politicians) are not going to increase fees in our name” which was met with a resounding cheer.
Ciaran Helferty, NUS-USI President, led most of the chants before making a short speech denouncing the proposal of higher fees. He said that the petition presented this afternoon demonstrates a clear rejection of “What Browne stands for and what Browne is.”
Adrian Kelly, Student President of the University of Ulster, echoed McGreevy, saying that students were united together in opposing Browne. The University and College Union (UCU) also showed their support for the student protest. Julie Williams-Nash of the UCU called on students not only to take to the streets but to also use social networking to raise the protest’s profile.
The DUP has added an amendment to the SDLP’s motion where a cap will be put in place, but will not be limited to £3,290.
This morning, student leaders met with the recently appointed Minister for Employment and Learning, Danny Kennedy. McGreevy said this meeting was quite encouraging, saying Kennedy has an appreciation of the wider issues involved, including the high rate of graduate unemployment.
Hours later, however, a majority of the local Assembly voted in favour of an amended motion on the Browne review. The initial SDLP motion was rejected by 44 votes to 29 while the DUP’s amended motion was carried by the same numbers.
Proposing the initial motion to reject the recent Browne review, SDLP’s Pat Ramsey stressed the deep concern among parents and students caused by the recommendations. An increase to tuition fees would leave students “Coming out of college with no assets, and debts of £40,000 and above.”
Ramsey said universities are seeking to compete in an international market but continued that this market is for research and not for teaching. “Students only benefit marginally from research,” adding that the quality of teaching is more important than research for those paying fees at undergraduate level. Ramsey congratulated the hundreds of students who had protested outside Stormont earlier in the afternoon despite horrendous weather conditions.
The DUP’s Jonathan Bell began the debate by stating that the Assembly “Would have to look at the options” concerning higher education funding, claiming that if fees were not increased “We will break Northern Ireland’s position as leader in the world” of education. He said that NI is second only to the United States; this is despite Queen’s University currently languishing in at 56th position in the Guardian’s most recent University Guide published in June of this year. In voting on the motion, he said, the Assembly faced the choice between “world class universities or dumbing down.”
Sue Ramsey of Sinn Féin commended the student protest, citing the effect such protests have had in the history of Northern Ireland. She outlined Sinn Féin’s total opposition to fees of any sort, a position which the final vote discredits, while the UUP’s David McClarty questioned whether the current fees in place benefit students.
SDLP’s Conall McDevitt said that today’s petition with 10,000 signatures sent “a very clear message” and made clear politicians should not turn the clock back to a time when thousands missed out on the chance to third level education. He pointed out the difference between funding for teaching and funding for research, saying “Undergraduates are not there to fund research.” McDevitt also discussed how the funding of universities gives the Assembly a chance to unite against the cuts from Westminster.
New Minister for Employment and Learning, Danny Kennedy outlined his support for raising tuition fees, managing to draw an audible reaction from SU President Gareth McGreevy when he claimed on record that today’s meeting with student representatives had been on Kennedy’s request.
After an hour of debate, two votes took place among MLAs present: one on the initial SDLP motion and the other on the DUP’s amended version. Student representatives watched from the gallery as the latter passed by 44 votes to 29.
The Student Union, A Queens run and funded body is leading the charge against something that would be highly profitable to Queens University.
I think some other, independent group should be leading this, when time comes for serious protest and action, the SU won’t be able to advocate it.
Independent like who, the Socialist groups? They cant organise anything more complex than plastering posters everywhere for talks attended by no more than a dozen people.
They should stop trying to hijack these protests for their own ends, these events are about the welfare of students and students alone not any larger socio-economic buthurts they might have.
While the SU is owned by Queens, a unique status amongst students unions, it does put the needs of students above the profits of the University.
For example the Union voted to oppose the University’s application to join the Russell group on the grounds that it would ultimately be bad for students. This has indeed been the case as Queens is very much a profit driven business now rather than an institution of learning.
So when the time comes for further protest and action it will be the SU leading the charge, putting the welfare of students above the profits of the University.
They wont need any independent hangers on trying to grab themselves a bit of the spotlight.
It’s quite disingenuous to describe queens as a “profit driven business”. There are other activities, such as research and post-graduate education, that have to be prioritised alongside undergraduate education. The university shouldn’t be viewed as just a factory to spawn out graduates onto the job market who go on to make no contribution to the intellectual exercise…
Danny, you are some idiot. The Union is funded part by a grant from the university, like every other Union in the UK. Most of the money comes from student’s money reinvested. are you suggesting no student union should campaign on student issues? catch yourself on.
to be honest, it doesnt sound like the SU has been hindered in any way so far.
Sure each Students’ Union has to be funded by their University as part of the Higher Education Act 2004. I heard that our Union gets the least funding per head/per student even though they are the only Union part of a University Directorate. I think the sabbs are doing a great job this year though – keep it up!
The Students’ Union is not a “Queen’s run” or “University owned” entity. The Union’s right to organise its own affairs in enshrined within the University’s Charter and Statutes.
The Education Act prohibits the type of ownership referred to by the first two contributors to this thread.
The Students’ Union exists to campaign for the benefit of its membership, not the benefit of the University. Sometimes a development will happen that is to the benefit of both. It could be argued that this is not the case with regard to the removal of the fees cap – the University is benefitting significantly, the benefit to many students will be questionable or nil.
SU In-cider, earlier this year there was trouble with the SU locking the gown out of their own office becuase they wouldn’t allow the University to review each publication before they went to print.
How is that independence.
Completely wrong again Daniel! the problem was the SU not seeing every issue before it was printed as reported in The Gown at the time.. although that was retarded, the university had nothing to do with it. think before you speak.
Aye…but it was the university that got Gown back into their office.
Take from that what you may.
ie. the university calls the shots.
I think your getting the University and the Union miked up here.
The Gown were locked out of their office at the behest of the Union general manager Andrew Dodge and several of last years sabbatical officers, Lilly, Duffy, Courtney and Brogan were names that were banded about.
This was not The University acting to censor The Gown, this was elements within the Union there is a clear distinction.
I still question the version of events concerning censorship of The Gown as told by this publication, I think we got a very one sided view of the affair from The Gown and feel that there was much we were not told, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Such as?
Gown threatening to rub carrot soup round Dodge’s face and the like?
That could be a RAG event.
It wasn’t that they wouldn’t have the university pre read,it was the union who wanted to veto.
If you look at the committee structure of Queen’s, you can clearly see that Union practices are controlled by a Queen’s University sub-committee.
SU has no meaningful voice because Queen’s doesn’t let it.
I’d like to see your evidence of this.
From experience I can tell you than when the University says “jump” the Union does not reply “how high”.
Oh Gareth…stop posting comments anonymously.
Union is QUB’s puppet.
As long as the SU is operating within its budget, is conducting its activities within the law and adheres to health and safety legislation, it can do whatever it wants.
The only thing that HAS to be ratified by the University Senate is any change to the Constitution or its Rules (as these are governed by the University’s Charter and Statutes).
F**k the independence of the gown from the union, or the union from queen’s, is it not more concerning that the assembly essentially just voted to raise the cap on fees?
The photo on this piece makes the protest look pitifully small.What happened guys? Why not a repeat of the last protest?
This debate shouldn`t be side tracked by unsubstantiated innuendo and speculation….facts are facts…the Assembly voted, should I say the Unionist Assembly members voted to raise Fees….
These measures will apply across the religious divide but these middle class, clearly out of touch dinosaurs vote to penalize the less off, some of whom they likely represent!
It`ll be interesting to see if the QUB Dup & Uup and this includes those who claim to be Tories, come out against their parties stance?
Education is being fully privatized and and a few years down the line QUB will again become the preserve of the middle classes, those who can afford it.
Wine and cheese anyone…