can the prime minister -- >> order. the honorable gentleman will have a chance to finish his question without chuntering and shouting from a sedentary position. the last sentence please. >> can the prime minister tell the house this -- are there two nick cleggs? >> i have to say that the honorable gentleman has the unique qualification of being one of the brothers who was selected on an all-women shortlist. [laughter] next time he comes in, he should dress properly. >> don foster. >> within the next couple of years the m.o.d. will relocate a further 1,300 jobs away from bath, allowing two major sites in the city to be redeveloped. given the urgent need for 3,000

additional affordable homes within the city, will the prime minister give me the assurance that the m.o.d. will work with the homes and communities agency and the local council to ensure that the sites can be used for those houses, rather than merely to get the best price in the sale? >> i discussed this with my honorable friend this morning, and i certainly agree that the ministry of defense should work with the agency to try to bring this about. sometimes the wheels can turn quite slowly when it comes to defense estates. i know that he will work hard, and i will ask the m.o.d. to work hard, to get this fixed. >> stella creasy. >> the prime minister will be aware that a week is a long time in politics. having had all that time, could he now update the house on his rethink on the future of school sport partnerships? >> i think that there is quite a common position between both sides. i read the debate where the shadow sports minister said that clearly we could not afford the current level of commitment.

he also said that the current way of doing things was not particularly efficient. so we are reviewing it and making sure that we do provide money for school sport from the center, but that we do so in a better way because, frankly, too many children in too many schools do not have access to sport after 13 years of a government who talked an awful lot about it. >> jeremy lefroy. >> the browne report states that only just over 1% of uk graduates gave gifts to their former universities, compared with at least 10% in the united states. does the prime minister agree that those of us who received free university education and are in a position to do this should be encouraged to do some serious giving to universities to support current students? >> my honorable friend makes an important point, which is that other countries do better at endowing their universities and making sure that they have a wider source of income. but the fundamental issue is this -- if we are going to look at how we are going to fund universities in the future, it cannot be right, and we will

not get a proper expansion of higher education, if we just ask taxpayers, many of whom do not go to university, to fund that expansion. it is right that students -- only when they are successful, only when they have left university and only when they are earning 21,000 pounds -- should make a contribution. they should do so in the progressive and fair way that browne and us have set out. >> gregg mcclymont. >> the prime minister will be aware of the arctic conditions sweeping across central scotland. constituents of mine have been trapped in cars and buses overnight, they have been trapped in their own homes, and schoolchildren have been forced to spend the night in temporary accommodation. can the prime minister assure me that the uk government are offering all possible assistance to the scottish authorities, up to and including the use of military personnel and equipment? >> i can certainly give him the assurance that we stand ready to give any assistance in terms of how we are doing these things. ministerial meetings at, in

effect, the cobra level, are going through what actions need to be taken. there is a bigger strategic supply of grit than there has been in previous years, the military stand ready to help, and i can guarantee him that whatever needs to be done will be done. >> order. >> each week the house of commons is in session, we air prime minister questions live on c-span2 at 7:00 a.m. eastern. then again on c-span. you can find a video archive of past prime minister's questions and leads to the house of commons and prime minister websites. next, parliament's debate on tuition increases, and after that, matthew parris from the times of london.

then david cameron at the british house of commons. monday, steny hoyer talks about the 111th congress. -- 112th congress. >> find great holiday gifts at the c-span store. dvd is, gloves, umbrellas, and more. c-span.org/shop. >> on thursday, members of the british house of commons debated and approved a plan that tripled tuition -- university tuition pounds. during the debate, thousands of students protested outside the parliament building in london. now, a portion of the five hour debate. you'll hear speeches on behalf of the government and opposition party.

the liberal democrats, part of the conservative party's coalition government, originally opposed the tuition fee hike during the general election, and now face criticism after deciding to support the government's plan. >> mr. speaker, with permission, i wish to move a motion. the terms of the motion are, in terms of a budgetary instrument, but i think you ruled the rest of the evening, to like us to entertain debate on the wider issues involved, and it may arouse strong feelings inside and outside the house. the instrument that we're discussing here is a central part of a policy that is designed to maintain high- quality universities in the long term.

it taxes the fiscal deficit and provides a more progressive system based on people's ability to pay. let me just briefly go over the sequence of events that has led to this debate. i became secretary of state in may, when the browne report was being conducted. it had been commissioned by the labour government. they had asked the former executive of bp to conduct a report in order to prepare the way for an increase in tuition fees following the earlier introduction of fees, and then top-up fees, by the last government. i will take interventions later. i have been as the front benchers should keep their introductions brief.

yes, i will -- as honorable members know, i am very happy to take interventions but i will take them when i have developed an argument. >> order, order. order, the secretary should resume his seat for a moment. i apologize for having to interrupt the secretary state. there are strong opinions on this matter, and passions are aroused. that is understood and accepted. what is not accepted by any democrat is that the secretary of state should not receive a fair hearing. the right honorable gentleman will be heard, and if members are making a noise and then expecting to be called, i fear that is a triumph of optimism over reality. secretary of state cable. >> when i became secretary of state, i invited lord browne to make two adaptations to the terms of reference that he had

undertaken under the previous government. the first and ask him to do was to see how we can make the existing system of graduate payments more progressive and more related to the future ability of pay. he undertook to do that and we have done further work to develop the progressivity of the system. as a result, the institute of fiscal studies was able to conclude that the package we produced is more progressive than the existing system and more progressive than the browne report. concrete lead, what that means is that just a little under 25% of all future graduates will pay less than they do under the current system that we inherited from the labour government. in a moment, in a moment. the second request i made of lord browne was to ask him to look thoroughly at the alternatives, and particularly the alternative but graduate

tax. like many people coming fresh, i thought the graduate tax was a potentially good and interesting idea, and i thought it should be properly explored. the conclusions he reached was the same conclusion that the dearing report leach -- reached under the labour government, the same conclusion that the shadow chancellor reached when he had responsibility for this policy. the conclusion was that the graduate tax has many disadvantages the pure graduate tax has many disadvantages. it undermines the independence of universities and most seriously of all, it is, in the words of lord browne, simply unworkable. i am therefore surprised -- i will and the moment -- i am therefore surprised that the leader of the labour party after all this experience and

independent analysis has chosen to drive his party down the cul- de-sac of this policy. >> went hypocrisy. >> halted the intervention after reading him a comment from what i thought would of been one of his political allies. the education editor, normally very favorably disposed to the labour party, commented on the current position and that will take the intervention. labour labour has been seduced into sentimental, sloppy thinking that this -- that in the interest of the affluent, not the poor. to describe students as facing lifelong burden of crippling debt is simply bizarre, particularly for a labour leader who lost to replace the debt with a graduate tax that the rich would avoid." >> on the issue of sloppy

thinking, crucial to the government's case has been their advocacy of the national scholarship fund, but since the weekend when he announced further detail, it is in that the case that his plans are unraveling fast? vice-chancellors are criticizing a lot, right, and center, and yesterday be you have -- the institute for fiscal studies told us that provides a financial incentive for universities to turn away students from poorer backgrounds. how is he going to fix it? >> the national scholarship scheme consultation is still open for representation from the honorable gentleman. in order to achieve an objective that i hope he shares, which i hope he shares, which is to ensure that people from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve access to higher education. it is something they've miserably failed to do under re labour in the russell group universities. .f.s. lookens, the i

at the world series of options, but did not take account the the garage scheme, the universities that wish to progress beyond the 6,000 pound cap would be obliged to introduce the scholarship scheme without the detrimental and to describe. >> the central issue is the fact that teaching grant is to be cut by 80%, the burden of which is to be transferred to students. it is justified by the government's assessment of the scale of the deficit. yesterday in evidence to the treasury select committee, the chancellor of the exchequer admitted that there were tens of billions of receipts from privatizations not included in the comprehensive spending review, which he had now anticipated. what estimate does he put on those receipts, and to what extent have they taken into

account his calculations of the scale of that deficit and the cut in the grant? >> i am glad of the intervention from the right honorable gentleman, who given his history in the cabinet, a co-author of the package of measures we inherited, and which lacked progress of the -- it is true -- it is helpful in directing us to the heart of this debate, which is the question of how we fund universities and where the money comes from. that is what i now wish to deal with. i will move on to that. hot ticket of agents letter. the browne report -- i will move on to the financing. >> he is not giving way for the moment. >> for the funding of universities, lord browne recommended in a report that came from the labour government endorsed in their manifesto, that there should be no cap on university fees and a specific proposal for a clawback

mechanism which gave universities an incentive to introduce fees up to level of 15,000 pounds a year. that was the report that was given to the government. we have rejected those recommendations and we have proposed instead that we proceed as the statutory instrument describes. the introduction of a fee cap of 6,000 pounds, in exceptional circumstances rising to 9,000 pounds. i will now explain the basic economics of that problem in the light of the intervention which has just been made by the former minister. no, i will not give way. i will give way later when i have finished this particular point. the right honorable gentleman, the opposition spokesman on this matter, rather helpfully sent around a circular level

yesterday when he sketched out the basic economic framework within which these decisions have been made. he said they have been asked to vote on increasing the fee cap to 9,000 pounds, he did not mention the 6,000 pounds, because the government is choosing to make a disproportionate cut to university teaching budget in a spending review with an average cut of 11%. now -- no, i will finish this point. has the right honorable member knows, this government like the last government is not making average, across-the-board cuts of 11% in every government department. no, absolutely. we have chosen as the last government did to have some protected government departments, health, schools, pensions, and aid. the consequences -- the logical consequences of which is that

there are much higher cuts in unprotected departments. i am sure the right honorable member remembers the analysis of the institute of fiscal studies that told us in the wake of the march budget, that a labour government was planning to cut unprotected departments by 25.4%. >> i am grateful to the right honorable gentleman who has been good enough to refer to my letter. he knows full well that that analysis done after the budget does not stand up to scrutiny, and reflects neither the decisions taken by the chancellor in his comprehensive spending review nor the speech made by my right honorable friend setting out our approach. could the secretary of state help the house by identifying

which other major spending programs have been cut by 80%? >> the 80% fact, and it is the fact, derives from the following. most major departments as it would have done under reagan labour -- under a labour government was at the take spending reductions of about 25%. i'll take you through what that is meant for the teaching grant to universities and university funding in general. were the options for a department facing 25% cuts of the kind that he himself was going to introduce? 70% of all spending in this apartment is on universities. he could -- and i could -- have chosen to make the cuts elsewhere. the logical category is further

education. we could have made the choice to cut apprenticeships s and skill- level training at a modest level, to try to deal with the problem which we have inherited of 6 million adults in this country, who do not have the basic literacy of a 12-year-old. we could have cut that, but we chose not to cut that. we did not cut that. so we're left with the decision of how to make cuts in the university budget of approximately 25%. there were various options. i will finish this section and then i will take an intervention. there were various operas -- options for doing it. because of reduced radically the number of university students to 200,000, but all that evidence suggests that increasing university participation is the best avenue to social mobility.

so rejected that option and did not cut large numbers of university students. we couldn't made the decision which had been easier and less visible and less provocative in the short run, we could make the discussion -- the decision radically to reduce student maintenance. the effect of that would have been to reduce the support which low-income students receive when they are university now. and we rejected that option. we could have taken -- please. we could have taken what i will call the scottish thompson. we could have cut funding to universities without giving them the means -- i will take an intervention shortly -- without giving them the means to raise additional income. the certain consequence of that

would have been that in five to 10 years' time, the great english universities -- manchester, birmingham, bristol, and the rest -- would still be great, world-class universities, whereas universities such as moscow where i used to teach at and edinburgh would be in a state of decline. we rejected all those unacceptable options. i will take a scottish out -- i will take a scottish intervention. >> i am grateful to the secretary. does he even begin to understand the potential disastrous impact that trebling tuition fees in england will have on scottish universities? will lead due to mitigate this? >> i most emphatically will not be following the advice of this nationalist government who are starving scottish universities of resources and reallocating priorities to cut -- to cut schools. that is what has happened in scotland.

>> i thank my honorable friend for giving way. i am sure we can all agree that all students who would benefit from a university education should be entitled to decide, regardless of their financial situation. my particular concern is that by increasing the tuition cap, participation levels among lower and middle-income students will fall away. what assurance can the government give that the situation will be monitored very closely, ed going forward, and that corrective action will be taken should participation levels seemed to be falling away? >> yes, of course i can give that assurance. of course the policy will be monitored and it will reflect the evidence that emerges from the policy. we have put in place a series of measures, not merely to protect low-income graduates which we have done through the threshold, but also put in place a series of measures designed to

help children from low-income families go to university, notably by increasing the maintenance grant the level that was under the previous government, giving access to an extra 500,000 pupils. >> i am extremely grateful to my right honorable friend, and i was wondering if it could say about how he sees the future position of english students relative to scottish and welsh students. shouldn't we be looking to secure a degree of fairness between families of similar economic circumstances across the united kingdom in years to come? >> i believe, as the government as a whole believes, in devolution. we believe that the devolved administration in scotland, wales, and northern ireland have got to make their own decisions. but the inevitable consequences of the tightening of public finance, which is happening under this government or any

government, and was bound to be a system of graduate contributions, which was -- which is what will happen throughout the uk. will take one more intervention. >> i thank the honorable member giving way. but at this point of that despite this talk of supporting people on low incomes, like what -- i find it quite hard to stomach what i'm hearing. in my constituency, the vast majority of young people come from low-income backgrounds, and will be losing the support, and across england 88% of bangladeshi children benefit from this. if you take this one ethnic minority group, along with white working-class children, they will be prevented from going on to higher litigation. the cuts in the future jobs fund, 1 billion pounds, and

we're still waiting to hear -- please think again. to in order, just before the reply, an enormous number of members wish to speak in this debate. i want to accommodate as many as possible. interventions from now on must be brief. the secretary of state. >> i hear what the honorable member says about the education maintenance allowance. but the existing system that we inherited was enormously wasteful. large numbers of pupils received the e.m.a. who did not needed to stay on at school. she is quite right in stressing the fact that there are large pockets of deprivation in britain is, and her constituency is one of them. we do understand that. the purpose of the pupil premium, which has been introduced into the school system, is precisely to address the problem of giving support to schools and pupils in areas of high deprivation.

i intend to press on. i will take an intervention later if you do not mind. we have eliminated, i think, most of the other alternatives to raising funding for universities. i hope that nobody opposite is seriously arguing that she -- we should drastically reduce the number of students, that we should drastically reduce maintenance, or which is simply withdraw funding from universities. the only practical alternative was to retrieve income for universities from high-earning graduates once they have left. that is the policy that we are pursuing. today, 50 university vice- chancellors have come forward and endorsed this approach to the strengthening of university funding in the long term. now the members opposite who are

following these arguments closely have often argued, we knowledge that universities will continue to have high levels of income, but they say you are replacing public funding with private funding and this is in some sense in theological. let me just -- it is a debating point, and i'm happy to take it on. at present, roughly 60% of the income of universities in difference funding streams comes from the public sector. the rest comes from private sources. something the last government was trying to encourage. it will be reversed in future. in future, a 40% roughly of university funding will come from the public sector and 60% from the private sector. i am keen to encourage more private funding for

universities. which is why i have spoken to the director general at the cbi. he is approaching all its members to ensure that we have a significantly higher level of employer support for apprenticeships for sandwich courses and other sources. >> quarter. there is still far too much noise in the chamber. secondly, when the secretary of state has indicated that he is not giving way, members must not continue standing. that is the situation. the secretary of state. >> i hope they're not too many people opposite who would regard additional funding from employers as somehow ideological -- ideologically contaminated, because we need more resources going into universities, not less. my colleague. >> under the fees scheme

introduced by the labour party, all universities ended up charging at the highest rates. one of the worries out there is that all universities might end up being allowed to charge the 9,000 pound rate. what assurance, what rules, what guarantees can my friend give that exceptional will mean exceptional, and 6,000 pounds will be the limit for most universities in the country? >> yes, that is a highly pertinent question in the light of the experience of the last government, which had a two-tier system. there was a migration of all universities to the top of the range.

>> will drive down the hall -- the cost of high-quality, basic teaching. if necessary, universities that the crime rate the principle, we may well have introduced additional measures to observe -- >> order, order. i must ask you to address the house. i want the whole house to hear what he has to say. >> simply saying that there are potentially other mechanisms by which universities will be required -- would still exceed the 6,000 lb level will not be allowed to behave in the way they have behaved under the last government.

let me just proceed. increasing the graduate contribution is bound to have an impact in additional cost to graduates. i just want to summarize the steps we are taking to make sure that this happens in a fair and equitable way. unlike under the last government, for the first time, will have an opportunity under the arrangements of the student loan scheme. yesterday i made a further announcement that after discussing with the university,

from students who were originally -- those spending a quarter of their time. this will widen enormously the number of students to have access to supporting finance in order to pursue their education. thirdly, will introduce a threshold for graduate repayment, 21,000, a significantly higher level than before. it will be upgraded annually in line with earnings. it is important to recognize that. i wish to communicate what i said yesterday that in future, students under the current arrangement, the labor government's arrangement who are

at the 15,000 threshold will in future revenue or upgrading. the existing students, the last government did absolutely nothing to protect. furthermore, we are introducing variable interest rates so that those on high incomes pay relatively more to ensure this gingrey as a result of this, a 30,000 pound salary will carry a monthly payment of approximately 68 pounds, which incidentally is far lower than would exist undergraduate tax system. undergraduate tax system, people would start paying much earlier and at much lower levels.

>> he must be allowed to continue. >> in terms of the measures that we have taken to improve access to low-income families, there is a second problem of low income redwoods. we have made it very clear there will be additional grant provisions, and in addition, they are for the requirement of universities to move to a higher threshold will have demanding test with respect to access. it is worth recalling this situation that we have inherited. there is a lot of crocodile tears opposite about low income families, but let me just remind you, social mobility from disadvantaged backgrounds, trying to get into russell good university has deteriorated over

the last decade. we have at the moment 80,000 free school meal pupils, of which only 40 mated to oxbridge -- made it to oxbridge. that is less than in some of the leading independent schools. that is a shameful inheritance from people who claim to be concerned about the disadvantaged backgrounds, and we intend to rectify it. i will conclude in this way. none of us pretend that this is an easy subject. of course it is not. we have had to make very difficult choices. we could have taken easier options, but we are insisted that at the end of this, we

would be making a substantial -- >> point of order >> did the secretary not said that he was going to give away? why is he not? >> i understand what the hon. gentleman is saying, but that is not a point of order, it is a point of frustration. >> i have given way to several of his colleagues in several of mine, and i am now going to summarize where we are. there have been very difficult choices to make. we could have made a decision to drastically cut the number of university students. we could have cut stated maintenance, we could have cut the funding to universities without replacing it.

instead, we have opted for a set of policies that provide a strong base for university funding, which makes a major contribution to reducing the deficit and introducing is significantly more progressive system of graduate payments that we inherited. i am proud to put forward that measure to this house. >> order. order. order. i understand the passion. the more noise, the greater the delay and the fewer you all have a chance to contribute. i want backbenchers to have the

chance to contribute and i appeal to the right hon. members to help me to help them. >> on monday i tabled three named day questions relating to the evidence underpining government policy about high fees nonparticipation, laura courses such as languages, medicine, law, and architecture and postgraduate teaching courses. those were due today but answer has come their none. what can the house do to ensure that the government inform us with all information so that we can properly have debates like this on subjects like this which are of interest to the whole nation? >> the hon. gentleman is an

experienced hand in this house and must pursue these matters through the table office and in other ways. we cannot be detained now by what he has just said. >> i note that the prime minister and the deputy prime minister have already walked out on this debate. it is a shame that as the two architects of this policy, they don't have the courtesy to stay and listen to both sides of the debate. mr. speaker, i fear i may have to lower the expectations of my colleagues on the opposition benches today. those of my colleagues who have come here expecting some good party political year terms, broken promises and fees policies described by the deputy prime minister as a disaster that he now plans to believe in,

i am not going to do that speech. so much of the media coverage of this issue has been dominated by the liberal democrat splits that we could be forgiven for thinking in that today's vote is about the future of the liberal democrats. it is not about the future of the liberal democrats. it is about something much more important than that. there are millions of parents and millions of current and future students who don't care about the liberal democrats, but they do care about the huge feet increases we are being asked to decide today. today's decision must be taken on the facts and on its merits. we do know that if this tory measure goes through with the support or extension of liberal

democrats, that party will forfeit the right to call themselves a progressive political party. but we also know, mr. speaker, that this house can stop this decision today. the deputy leader of the liberal democrats says he cannot support the government's, as well he might, because his local university will get its funding cut from 38 million pounds to 3 million pounds a year, and has already said that it wishes to charge the full 9,000 pounds tuition fee. the leader of the liberal democrats says he may vote against the government. if he and every member of the house, not just liberal democrats, but within the conservatives, labour party and other parties, it voted against today, it will fall. let me set out why did they should vote against or vote for a delay at a rethink, and not to abstain. >> the secretary of state said

-- i have a petition from the university of warwick were 240 leading academics in this country object to the increases in charges and more importantly, call for a public inquiry into the future of education. what does my hon. friend think about that? >> not only is the widespread it is quite in the academic community. it was very significant that the secretary of state referred to the letter from universities uk but did not read it out. and the reason he did not read it out is it makes it absolutely clear that universities uk oppose the cuts in higher education funding upon which the fee increase is based. the fact that he persuaded vice- chancellor's with a gun to their head that the money is going hardly speaks of him persuading

the university community of the policy. as you said last night, today's vote is on a narrow issue, the fee cap. it is an untried and untested market for students. english enjoys a world-class university system, world-class and research, a disproportionate number of the best universities, richness and diversity of higher education to compare with the best. the risks are so high, the consequence is so unclear, that no sane person would rush it through without proper debate or discussion. today, we don't even have the promised higher education white paper that tells us how it is meant to work.

a giveaway to representative of one of those leading research universities. >> that policy did not come into force until there had been a further general election. that is not what is being proposed by the coalition today. i am sorry that the prime minister has left.

they are the second most popular destination for overseas students in the world, but the prime minister tells the world that they are uncompetitive. that is a great deal of help for our universities. the prime minister, however, has some interesting thoughts about overseas students. when he was in china, he told chinese students that we won't go on increasing so fast the fees on overseas students, because in the past we have been pushing up the fees on overseas students and using that as a way of keeping them down on our domestic students. so we have done the difficult thing in our government which is to put up contributions from british students. for foreign students, he said, we should be able to keep that growth under control." now we know why the prime minister wants to push up

contributions-to keep down the price for chinese students. extraordinary! yesterday, the prime minister said that the current model of higher education funding is not providing enough money. quoting the browne review, he said that public funding per student is lower in real terms than 20 years ago. we are bound to ask, "how the hell did that happen?" it did not happen under labor. i can tell the prime minister how it happened. between 1989 and 1997, under the previous conservative government, public funding per student fell by 36% in real terms. who was the special adviser to the conservative chancellor at that time? it was the prime minister. if he wants to know whose fault it was, he ought to look more carefully in the mirror in the morning. now, the prime minister is at it again. he was cutting university

funding then; he is cutting university funding now. this is a tory policy of cutting higher education; unfortunately, this time they have liberal democrats to take it through with them. >> why does my right honorable friend think that the government are so intent on destroying the humanities base in this country? humanities is one of the leading areas of research and excellence, and they are withdrawing public funding. what do they have against it? >> it is hardly for me to try to get inside the heads of government members. if we read what they say, however, we see that they think, purely and simply, that subjects have no value unless they have a value in the marketplace. >> according to the last figures available, when the

shadow minister was in government, of the 80,000 children on free school meals, only 40 went on to oxford and cambridge. does he not accept that his proposals for a graduate tax would mean less social mobility and people repaying a higher amount at an earlier stage? >> no, i do not. if the honorable lady will forgive me, i will come to that point in a moment. as a result of these tory policies, this country will stand alone with romania as the only oecd countries cutting investment in higher education. the prime minister's speech yesterday, which was meant to be a defence of this policy, shows that he does not understand the most basic features of his policy. the fee increases are not designed to raise extra money for universities. that was labor's scheme-we took

the difficult decision to introduce top-up fees, to add to record university income, and to enable more students to go to better-funded universities. the prime minister's plan, put forward by the business secretary, is totally different. fees are being trebled simply to reduce the 80% cut in the funding of university teaching, not to raise extra money. most graduates will be asked not to pay something towards their university education, but to pay the entire cost of their university education. universities will have to charge £7,000 to 8,000 simply to replace the money they lose, and many universities will lose 90% of their public funding. that is what is at stake today . if the house passes the fee increase, english students and graduates will face the highest fees of any public university

system anywhere in the developed world: higher than france, higher than germany, and higher-yes-than the united states of america. >> will the right honorable gentleman welcome the fact that the repayments threshold is being increased to £21,000, and the fact that anyone earning less than £25,000 a year will pay less than £1 a day for university education? >> i will come to that in a moment. it is on the standard handout. let me say first, however, that the honorable gentleman may not realize that the increase to £21,000 will happen in 2016, when it will be worth, in real terms, precisely what our threshold was worth when we introduced it. >> i must make some progress. most graduates will be paying off their debts for 30 years. under the current scheme, the average is 11 years.

the children of those graduates will have started university before they have paid their own fees. as i will show, the payment system is not fair. >> does my right honorable friend accept that reducing access and increasing relative price to our competitors will reduce the productivity and tax receipts of future generations and undermine economic growth? what we should be doing is making the bankers pay the levy rather than giving it back in corporation tax, and investing that money in higher education and the future productivity and economic growth of this country. >> we certainly need to sustain investment in higher education, but as-again-i will show in a moment, it is not necessary to adopt our macro-economic policies to know that the government could have made a different choice. no other country in the world is taking the step we are

taking, and no other country in the world can understand why we are taking it. as always, rather than defending their position, the government give the pathetic answer, "we had no choice." but they did have a choice. everyone knows they had a choice. we in the labor party would take a more measured and responsible approach to deficit reduction, but even on its own terms, if the coalition had cut higher education in line with the rest of public services, we would have been looking at fee increases of a few hundred pounds. the business secretary has told us that the figure should be not 10%, but 20%. that would mean fee increases of not much over £4,000, rather than the £6,000 to 9,000 for which the house is being asked to vote today.

>> the right honorable gentleman cannot get away from the fact that most independent experts agree that the graduate tax, which seems to be the policy of the labor party, will make students worse off because they will have to pay back more debt and pay it back earlier. why does he not address that fundamental point? >> let me explain in a straightforward way to the honorable gentleman and others who may be confused. there are two stages in this process. the first is deciding how much public funding there will be and how much money needs to come from graduates. the second is deciding how the graduates are to make their contributions. the first stage is the critical one to consider today, because it is the 80% cut in university education that is forcing the graduate contributions so high. as for the second, if the honorable gentleman will bear with me, as did the honorable member for thirsk and malton, i

will set out the case in a few moments. >> i need to make some progress, because i am coming to an issue that concerns many members. the business secretary pleads that he has no money in his budget. i do not see why future generations should pay through the nose for his incompetence in allowing his budget to be cut by more than that of almost anyone else in whitehall. the government did not have to do that, and the truth is that in the long run it will almost certainly cost the taxpayer more. what is the government's plan? i will tell the house. every year they will borrow £10 billion to fund student loans, and every year they will write off £3 billion of the 10 billion that they have just borrowed because they cannot collect the loans. that is as much money as they are cutting from university teaching, but as the institute for fiscal studies, the higher education policy institute and london economics have said, the

government have almost certainly underestimated how much debt they will have to write off because students are borrowing more and borrowing it for longer. students, saddled with debt, will be worse off. the universities, cut, will be worse off. the taxpayer will be worse off. if it were not so serious, it would be comic. let us look at the government's central claim for their proposals. >> i will give way to the honorable gentleman because he was a higher education spokesman for his party. >> perhaps the shadow secretary of state will enlighten us. when he was in the cabinet- until may last year-and his successor peter mandelson proposed £1 billion of cuts from the higher education budget, did he support him or speak against the proposal?

>> being at the dispatch box is an interesting experience. i am going to answer the question. half the time we are told, "you never had a plan for dealing with the deficit", and half the time we are told, "this is what you were going to do to deal with the deficit." the government cannot have it both ways. as i have said on many occasions since the publication of the browne review, the higher education budget would not have been unscathed under our deficit reduction program, but it would not have been cut by 80%, and we would not have forced the fees up to £6,000 or £9,000. >> i want to make some progress on the issue of fairness, because i believe that it lies at the heart of many of the government's arguments and of questions raised by members in all parts of the house. the government say that their proposal is fairer, and that it is better for low-income graduates. the deputy prime minister has

said the bottom 25% of earners will pay much less in their contributions to their university education than they do at the moment. the prime minister said yesterday, with our new system, the poorest quarter of graduates will pay back less overall than they do currently. he also said, the poorest will pay less, the richest will pay more." over the last 24 hours, we have seen a parade of conscience- stricken ministers saying that they just have to hang on to ministerial office-they just have to keep their red boxes and their cars-because this is really such a good deal for low-income graduates. they will all be better off, they say. when i heard the prime minister say yesterday that trebling fees would leave everyone better off, i thought, "i've heard that voice before somewhere." i could not place it at first, but last night i remembered. he is the bloke who does those advertisements on day-time television. you know the ones: "have you got bad debts, credit card bills, county court judgments against you?

let us wrap them all into one simple payment and reduce your monthly payments." we all know what is wrong with those advertisements. people are charged higher rates of interest, and end up paying much more. that is exactly what the prime minister is proposing today. we all know what is wrong with the prime minister's claims. let us now have a look at the government's claims. labor members do not accept the government's comparisons between their scheme and ours- i mean their comparisons between their scheme and the current scheme. we think that they have chosen their assumptions to produce the figures that they want. many people do not realize that the £15,000 threshold set in 2006 is the same in real terms as the £21,000 threshold that will start in 2016. let us look at the government's figures none the less. they say that a graduate in the

bottom 10% will pay less, but how much less? what is the change that has led the deputy prime minister, the prime minister and many other ministers to say that the new system is so fair and so wonderful? according to the government's own dodgy figures, the poorest 10% of graduates will pay an average of just £88 a year less-£1.60 a week. as the advertisement says, every little helps; but to see members of parliament, including ministers, sell their consciences for just £88 a year is a tragedy. if the government's real aim were to ease the pressure on the lowest-paid graduates, i would support it.

the government would have needed to make only minor changes to the current scheme to achieve that aim. however, nothing about the tiny benefit for the lowest-income graduates justifies doubling or trebling the debt of the vast majority of graduates. the ifs yesterday said that graduates from the 30% of poorest households would pay more. the heaviest burden will fall on graduates on average earnings; they will be the hardest hit in terms of how much of their earnings they will have to pay over the coming years. they will be hit harder than the graduates who go into the highest paid jobs. that is what the house of commons library says. that is what london economics says. that is also what somebody to whom the house might wish to listen has said. many members will remember david rendel, who for many years was the member for newbury and the higher education spokesman of the liberal democrats. in an e-mail i have received,

he says the following to a number of his colleagues. there are those who are claiming that the current proposals are progressive. but this is only the case if by "progressive" you mean that in any one year richer graduates will pay more than poorer graduates. for all the middle- and higher- earning graduates, over their lifetimes the more they earn the less they pay. since a very large part of the justification of charging tuition fees is the higher lifetime earnings of graduates...a scheme in which graduates with large lifetime earnings pay less than graduates with comparatively small lifetime earnings cannot be regarded as either progressive or fair. says the former higher education spokesman for the liberal democrats the new proposals, because they include a real-terms interest charge, are in fact more regressive than labor's labor's>> i pay tribute to the right honorable gentleman for his honesty and candour in making a substantial

spending commitment. will he tell the house how much? >> the honorable gentleman has clearly not been listening. i have been talking about the changes that were open to his party to make. it is because the average graduates going into typical jobs will get hit hardest compared with the highest- earning graduates, that we will need a fairer system of graduate contribution in the years to come. >> the right honorable gentleman will not accept comparisons between the existing scheme and the government's proposals, but will he accept the analysis by the institute for fiscal studies showing that the proposed system is more

progressive than both the current scheme and the measures put forward in the browne review? >> no, the ifs said graduates from the poorest 30% of households will pay more, and clearly at all other levels people will pay more than under the current scheme. >> i must make some progress. the "fairest" can be judged only by how much graduates pay. it must also be measured by the chance of becoming a graduate at all. over the past few years the proportion of students from poorer backgrounds has steadily increased. there is much more to be done, and even more to be done on access to the most selective universities, as my right honorable friend the member for tottenham has brilliantly shown this week. the progress we have made was not an accident, however; it took great efforts by the majority of universities, and we constructed the support, the

routes and the ladders of opportunity for more and more of those bright, talented young people. all that has been kicked away. i wanted to make the point the shadow secretary of state he has just made when i tried to intervene on the secretary of state's opening speech. participation has been widening, but there is evidence that the poorest children are not going to the best universities, and that remains a problem. the concern for many of us on the government benches-or some of us, certainly-is that increasing fees even further will mean they will be even less likely to go to the best universities. >> i am very sorry that the secretary of state did not give way to the honorable gentleman, because i think anybody who is showing the integrity and courage he is displaying in standing out and being critical of his party's policies deserves a hearing from his own side of the house.

in what he says, the honorable gentleman is in some very good company, as i will show in a moment. we created ladders of opportunity for young people from low-income backgrounds, but they are now being knocked over. the minister for universities and science was recently asked a parliamentary question about the impact of aimhigher. he said that evidence from colleges, schools and academies showed that involvement in

>> a free school meals are generally only available to those where no one works. i look forward to the next election. his parents have always worked and paid their taxes get no help at all.

he should have a word with his colleagues about having to support the idea that work should pay. mr. speaker, it will punish the very university that has done the most to widen participation. one use the verset -- 1 university would have had to find at least three-quarters of a million pounds in matched funding. cambridge, which took just 20, would only have to find 120,000. where is the sense in punishing success and rewarding failure? it does not make sense. but all the signs are of government policy in disarray. no white paper, every day trying to respond to the latest criticism. last week we showed that two- thirds of part-timers would not benefit from their schemes so

they had to rush out a minor change yesterday. the business secretary said -- giving guidance about fair access. it is an empty document. the higher education secretary said in this house that it would be in exceptional circumstances that universities might charge 9,000 pounds. nowhere in the guidance documents being issued does the term exceptional circumstances appear. he does not tell the director to limit the higher fees to exceptional circumstances. he does not define exceptional circumstances himself. the truth is that it came to the house making a fine promise

that 9,000 pounds would be exceptional circumstances. he has done nothing to bring that about in practice because he knows he is not going to be able to enforce it. if i had more time, i would speak about the objections of the british medical association, the teaching organizations and the fact that the universities that train teachers have no idea how they will be funded. let me end by saying a few words to those ministers and back benchers who are struggling, even now, to reconcile party loyalty with a desire to do the right thing and support future students and our universities. >> they are not laughing in the public gallery.

>> millions of parents, students and future students will be watching the debate and they will wonder why it is such a laughing matter for right honorable and honorable members. let me say a few words to those who are wrestling with this issue. it would be crass to compare the two issues, but i once resigned on a point of principle when i was a minister. i say to ministers and back benchers who are considering their positions today, "i know what you are going through. it is hard to stand aside from friends and colleagues with whom you've shared many a battle, but after you've done it, you realize it wasn't half as bad as you thought it would be. the self respect you gain far outweighs any temporary loss of position, power or income." the truth is that in any generous

political party-mine is not the only generous political party in the house-there is usually a way back. this decision matters so much to so many people that i say to honorable members, "if you don't believe in it, vote against it. >> i have imposed a six-minute limit on back-bench contributions with immediate effect. it is only seven months since the general elections and the government was formed. it is less than two months since we saw the brown report for the first time. a month since the government

announced its proposal on higher education, and yet today we are being forced to make this significant vote without considering the other proposals with a mere five-hour debate. mr. speaker, i made clear that i am a government backbencher, and i support what this government is doing. i also support expect that there will be compromised. let me tell you, being asked to vote to increase fees of up to 9,000 pounds is not a compromise and it is not something that liberal democrat backbenchers are conservative backbenchers should have been asked to consider. i table the amendment that was not successful today in my name and the name of the hon. member

for art new forests east and those members from all parts of the house. that was a last attempt to get the government to listen. the simple reality is that even if their proposals are the best way forward for higher education, and i personally do not believe that they are, but they have to accept that they simply have not convinced people, not only on these benches but for more importantly in the wider public and crucially, future students and their families. >> would he like to tell the house what he thinks is a reasonable percentage of time spent on this debate relative to the amount of time given by the previous government's on the debate as to whether this country should go to will war with iraq? >> sometimes governments are wrong and you need to have the courage to say so, and i am doing that today.

>> he does not know for certain that he is right. >> my hon. friend is entirely right. we simply have not had an evaluation to allay those very real concerns that are out there. i am going to talk about that pledge. i did not sign just one pledge. i actually signed to pledges. i signed the pledge in this very house and i signed the leeds university union pledged at the university. i do not regret signing either of those pledges.

i said at the time, as did many honorable members including courageous labor back benchers, "this will lead one day to huge acreases in fees and beco never-ending path." sadly, that has been shown to be absolutely correct. >> will the honorable gentleman give way? >> i will not give way, i am afraid, because i have taken my two interventions and the honorable lady will have the chance to intervene on other people. i do apologize we do need to look at higher education funding, but we must look at it as a whole, within the education system and with apprenticeships and further education. rushing through this single vote today will do none of that. on the current proposals, i

have said all along, and look to the minister for universities and science, my right honorable friend the member for havant as i say it now, that there are indeed many progressive things in the proposals. the levels at which graduates will have to make a contribution, the measures for part-time students and the £21,000 threshold are very welcome. i fully acknowledge all those things, but we need to debunk a myth. all those positive things, which are in the proposals and are progressive in terms of the graduate contribution, do not need to be tied to a huge increase in fees. that is simply a non sequitur. it is simply not true to say, "you cannot have one without the other," and that is the crucial flaw in the government's argument today. the secretary of state knows,

and we all know, that there is much confusion about the proposals, but is that not another reason to have more time for the government to try to convince people? he and all ministers who support the proposals today have to accept that they have not won the argument, and rushing things through, given the concern and anxiety about how it has been done without proper parliamentary scrutiny, is simply a recipe for bad policy. the idea is that, when we finally get to the proposals in the white paper, they will deal with the deficit, but that is questionable. in the proposals to be put before the house in the white paper in the new year, huge amounts of money will go from the treasury to the

universities, but the difference is that those figures will have been moved from expenditure and put into a different column. that is the reality. the higher education policy institute report states that the proposals will increase public expenditure through this parliament and into the next and that it is as likely that in the long term the government's proposals will cost more than they will save." it is smoke and mirrors, so i am afraid that the argument to increase fees to £9,000, albeit backed by progressive elements, is certainly not enough to persuade me. it is not enough to persuade many of my liberal democrat colleagues or, indeed,

colleagues and friends from our coalition partner. so, i say one last time, having done so over the past week, that it is not too late. there needs to be a re-think and a proper review of how we come up with the best system for higher and, indeed, all post-18 education. that should be done properly. it should not be rushed through; it should be done with proper parliamentary scrutiny. to liberal democrat colleagues who are listening to the argument and say that we need to get this issue out of the way and get the pain over with, i say, this will not finish with today's vote, because there will be amendments to reverse the proposal when we do reach the white paper. i say to this house and i say to colleagues, for the sake of the liberal democrats, for the sake of this government, for the sake of parliament, please vote against these proposals tonight.

i stand here with some trepidation in the sense that, in 2004, i made a speech in a similar debate and many of my colleagues howled at me and did not agree with much that i said. in those days, my committee-the select committee on education- had carried out an inquiry into top-up fees and had come out in favor of them. of course, the majority was only five. i think that select committee report did have some influence. i find much in the government's proposals to welcome. a particularly welcome the 40 percent of students who study part-time. retaining the fees is an

improvement on lord brown's report. directing your payment threshold from 15 to 21,000 pounds is also an improvement on the current system. however, i did not believe that it would be fair for today's students to have to make payments from this essentially lower threshold of 15,000 pounds while the most recent graduates will be able to earn up to 21,000 pounds before beginning their contribution. i have made this very point to the universities minister on the floor of this house. i truly appreciate the move the government showed yesterday in announcing the annual repayments threshold to existing students and graduates, not just those starting their studies in 2012. this measure should not be underestimated. it cuts the contributions of 2.5

million graduates by hundreds of pounds each of the course of this parliament. i would wish that when the new system is in place, the gap between existing repayment threshold and the 21,000 pelch level could be closed entirely. at the very least, current and recent graduates under the existing system should be afforded the option of transferring on to the new system with whatever outstanding contribution that have left at the time. in this way, they could indeed benefit from the increased threshold. >> isn't it incredible that the party opposite was able to drum up support for the issue this afternoon? >> what amazes me is that they were not prepared to raise that

threshold to 15,000 pounds in any of the last six years, but there is another failure of what has happened since the opposition introduced the recent these. has been inadequately dressed for two long, for 13 years, in fact. back in 1997, the report concluded that the cost of higher education should be shared among those to benefit from it. the students, the state, and the employer. the government has ignored the conclusion that employers should also contribute to the cost of higher education. not only are employers not required to make a direct contribution, there has been a message to facilitate this even on a discretionary basis. i like to invite the government and industry to develop broader proposals to facilitate and even encourage direct employer contributions to graduates higher education. such contributions will

effectively reduce what is being asked of graduates themselves. this could even prove to be more tax efficient to such enlightened employers to chose to make it. mr. speaker, in the weeks since the brown robbie was published, i have consistently sought to persuade government to amend its proposal to make them fairer. the government has responded constructively and this is what others have failed to set out a fair and affordable alternative. in this way we are making things fairer, and although there is more to do, i am confident the ministers will continue to engage with those issues. that is why i will join them -- mr. speaker, i promised my constituents that i will work toward a fairer system of higher education funding. that is indeed what i have done and what i will continue to do.

>> next, q&a with matthew paris from the times of london. then prime minister david cameron at the british house of commons. after that, another chance to see parliament's debate on tuition increases. >> monday, a discussion on campaign spending and political advertising during the 2010 midterm elections and how the citizens united supreme court ruling impacted the races. you'll hear from democratic and republican political directors and consultants who created some of the largest independent spending campaigns. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> middle and high school students, as you work on your documentary's for the student camp competition, here are a few tips from our judges. >> one thing i look for is you, this didn't. i want to see you and your personality. that helps make your video stand out from all the rest. >> what i like to see most are a

real investment in care in the topic that you will be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you are telling us. if you are not interested in what you are presenting, chances are we probably will not be either. >> 1 tie-breaker for me last year was the requirement on using c-span video. i look for videos where viewers have looked at the c-span content and said what elements make most sense for telling the compelling story i am trying to tell. >> for all the rules, including deadlines and how to of load your video, go >> this month, q&a expands to two programs each weekend for a series of interviews and london looking at the british coalition government, its program of planned cuts and to compare