Our ultimate aim in any non-payment campaign is to force the government to reconsider its plans as a direct response to student pressure. However, we should not simply rely on the intrinsic value of our case as a means to winning us our demands. Oxford University is in a key position to influence the government and we should never let them forget it. The list of Oxford academics employed by the government is huge, the list of government ministers who have received an Oxbridge education even more so. Our Vice-Chancellor has not, however, used his position in a way that represents students, staying ominously silent throughout the Bill's consultation period. Our demands to the university (or colleges on a smaller scale should the university abandon current plans to centralise collection) should, therefore, be:

(a) a public endorsement of the demand for grants not fees

(b) a refusal to collect fees- why did our university consent to being the governments tax-man?

(c) a commitment to SUPPORTING not PUNISHING thosewho take the brave and entirely justified decision to withhold payment.

Our university management are here to educate us, not implement the will of a government who has not made any commitment to putting more money into higher education. This is as much a welfare issue as it is a political one.

This is the ideal to which we should aspire. Running alongside these demands should be less ambitious requests for the following:

(a) a RIGHT to payment in instalments. The ability to organise your finances in conjunction with arrival of student loan-cheques and LEA rebates should NOT be dependent on the discretion of you bursar. Students should not be made to feel ostracised or that they are creating a nuisance when they demand the installation of an instalments scheme- this is a right recommended by the NUS and, indeed, the government.

(b) transparent and accessible accounting. When money is collected several months in advance of government deadlines, as was the case in Oxford this year, students have a right to have the interest accrued on their money accounted for. The interest should be given as a rebate to those from whom the initial sum was taken or, at the very least, ploughed back into student hardship funds.

(c) a commitment to avoiding "hidden charges" or top-up fees by the back-door. Increasing the cost of things like battles, photocopying and utility levies are all attempts by universities to make up the short-fall in their earnings caused by a decrease in the block grant. We should be vigilant to ensure that when universities find themselves short of money they lobby for government for a cash injection instead of attempting to gain money from students- those least in a position to provide it.

It is vital to remember, however, that none of these demands are ends in themselves. Free Education is a valuable and achievable goal and our fall-back positions should be seen as stepping stones along the way to our ultimate destination.