Warwickshire Labour councillor's motion to urge government to write off interest on student loans for current academic year is thrown out by county council

Cllr Dave Parsons (Lab, Polesworth), tabled a notice of motion at this week’s [MON] full council meeting after being contacted by students and their parents.

He explained: “Students feel that they haven't received the service or experience that they were expecting. They are being charged a lot of money for essentially having lectures online largely and very often being confined to their student halls.

“A lot of groups have had financial support from the government and that’s important. Students, by and large, haven’t had that support. This suggestion is simple and workable.”

But while some students had complained about their experiences during the pandemic, council leader Cllr Izzi Seccome (Con, Stour and the Vale) suggested it was a different situation locally.

She told the meeting: “I want to talk about what our own university - Warwick University - has done which I think has mitigated the quote that people have had a rubbish time.

“A huge amount of cost and effort has gone into supporting face-to-face learning which has been taking place safely. It is important to say that they have run their own welfare fund for students in need and have already granted £260,000.”

She said that around 3,000 students would not be returning home for Christmas and would remain either in their halls or in their student accommodation around Warwick and Leamington.

Cllr Seccombe added: “Warwick University will be offering a free Christmas dinner to our students who are staying and I think this is the exemplar of good university/student relationships and I think it would be wrong to give the impression that our universities do not care for their students.”

Cllr Clare Golby (Con, Arbury) was also against the motion, adding: “If you are receiving a sub-par service from your university then you need to take it up with the university. Removing the interest charges on loans does nothing to address the issue. That’s why this motion is meaningless.”

The motion was defeated.