黑洞社区

As we know, graduates will probably move from university to industry carrying a significant debt burden. And as we also know, too few 鈥渢op brains鈥� are entering the our industry. I want to encourage more people to join, but I don鈥檛 think much can be done about the government鈥檚 view that students have to pay their own way. It is what happens after that I think could be improved.

Let us assume that an average student graduates with a debt of 拢15,000. They will then be planning to earn enough, quickly, to repay that 鈥� or at least I hope they would. The problem is that this puts them at a disadvantage because they potentially need to earn more than they are 鈥渨orth鈥� in those early years. As soon as they do reach their worth, they look to move on and capitalise on it. The employer then has a dilemma. Pay more or lose their investment. It creates a potentially unstable dynamic.

My proposal is that employers get a tax break that would allow them to pay the graduate a tax-free payment over, say, five years without it hurting the business (that is, the cost is neutral). It could be capped at, say, 拢15,000 to prevent abuse of the system.

The arrangement has certain rules of engagement:the former student must stay for the five years and the employer must commit itself to employing them over that period. There should also be a cap on the amount of tax-free wages paid per person.

The debt stays with the graduate until they complete the five years. If they leave, they forfeit the right to any payment against the debt, and if the employer breaks the contract, it would lose the tax break.

Employment law would need to be brought into the equation. Details of this can be worked through at a later stage (for example dismissal for gross misconduct; arrangements for maternity and paternity leave and so on).

The effect of this change would be to make both parties take even more care in the selection process. Business will want to attract the best students and will therefore offer good training programmes and interesting work. In return, they will be looking for the best students.

Some may view this proposal as a return to apprenticeships. It may be, but is that wrong?

The government may argue that they are giving back something they have only just got. However, my contention is that by doing this, the business becomes more efficient and therefore earns more profit, on which it gets taxed. Also, the graduate is guaranteed to pay income tax for five years, and they are likely to pay more tax after as a result of the investment in training this process will encourage.

The student will have a proper start to their career 鈥� almost an apprenticeship 鈥� and the employer has the chance to mould someone who is committed for a period of time. At the end of the period, both parties can evaluate the relationship. Maybe that is just deferring the 鈥減ay more or lose the investment鈥� argument but I think the dynamics have changed by then. Employee and employer know the value of each other.

The essence of the proposal is that we are asking students to take some responsibility for their education. Thereafter it is up to business to create more value with the students, helped by some measured encouragement from government. I would accept that the government might wish to impose minimum requirements on employers in respect of training investment to ensure the system works well. It may alter the government鈥檚 income profile a little, but my expectation is that they will benefit many times over.

Some may view this as a return to apprenticeships. It may be, but is that wrong? I should state that I see this applying equally to full-time and part-time tertiary education.

I am keen to stimulate a debate about how we encourage schoolchildren who are considering their future careers, to take advantage of further education without fear of bankruptcy. It is a challenge to the government and industry to create a platform for tomorrow鈥檚 leaders to work from.

Andrew Williams is managing director of Franklin + Andrews