the last sentence. >> mr. speaker, can the prime minister tell the house are there two nick cleggs? >> i have to say the honorable gentleman has the unique qualification of being one of the brothers who was selected on an all-women short list. i think next time he comes in he should dress properly. [laughter] >> thank you -- thank you, mr. speaker. within the next -- within the next couple of years, they will relocate a further 1300 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 he give me the assurance that the mod will work with the homes and

community agency and the local council to ensure that the sites will be used for the houses rather than getting the best hoe of the sale? ? >> i discussed this with my honorable friend this morning ani agree they should work with the home and community agencies try to bring this about. sometimes the wheels can turn quite slowly when it comes to defense states and i know he will work hard and i would ask the ministry of defense to work hard to get this fixed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will be aware that a week is a long time in politics. having had all that time key now update the house on his rethink of the school partnerships? >> i think it's quite a common position actually between -- i read the debate where the shadow sports minister said that clearly we couldn't afford the current level of commitment and also -- he also said that the current way of doing things wasn't particularly efficit. so we are reviewing it and making sure that we do provide money for school sport from a

center but we do it in a better way because frankly today there are too many children in too many schools that don't have access to sport after 13 years of a government that talked an awful lot about it? >> thankou, mr. speaker. the brown report states that only just over 1% of u.k. graduates made gifts to their former universities compared with at least 10% in the u.s. would the prime minister agree with me that those of us who receive free university education and are in a position to do so should be encouraged to do sincerest givings to support current students. >> in other countries they do better at endowing their universities. and making sure they have a wider source of income. i think he makes an important point. if we're going to look for how we're going to fund universities in the future, it cannot be right and we won't get a proper expansion of higher education if we just ask the taxpayer many of whom don't go to the university to fund that expansion. it's right.

but only when they're successful. only when they left university, only when they're earning 21,000 pounds then they should make a contribution and they should do it in the progressive and the fair way that brown and us have set out. >> the prime minister will be aware of the conditions sweeping across cenal scotland. constituents have been trapped in cars and buses overnight, trapped in their own homes and school children forced to spend the nighin temporary accommodation. can the prime minister assure me that the u.k. government is offering all possible assistance to the scottish authorities up to and including the use of military personnel and equipment? >> i can certainly give him that assurance that we stand ready to give any assistance in terms of how we are doing these things. we have ministerial meetings at effectively the cobra level that are going through what actions need to be taken.

>> each week the house of commons is in session, we air prime minister's questions live on c-span2 and again on sunday night at 9 eastern and pacific. you can find a video archive of past prime ministers questions and link to the house of commons and prime ministers websites at c-span.org. debate onarliament's tuition increases. in a forum on u.s.-china relations. after that, a look at the national committee's options in dealing with iran in its nuclear program. monday, soon to be house minority whip steny hoyer talks about the democratic agenda in the 112th congress. that is live from the national press club at 9:30 a.m. eastern

on c-span2. >> find great holiday gift for the c-span fan in your life at our c-span store, from books and the bees to mugs, umbrellas, and more. it is all available online. >> on thursday, members of the british house of commons debated and approved a plan that tripled the cap on university tuition fees, raising it to 9,000 pounds, or about $13,000 a year. during the debate, thousands of students protested outside the parliament building in london. now, a portion of the five-hour debate. the liberal democrats, who are now part of the conservative party's coalition government, originally opposed the tuition fee hike during the general election and now face criticism from members and the public after deciding to support the government's plan.

>> i think he ruled yesterday evening you would like us to entertain debate because of strong feelings inside and outside the house. the instrument we are discussing here is a central part of a policy that is designed to maintain high quality universities in the long term which tackles the fiscal deficit and provides a more progressive system of contributions based on people's ability to pay. let me just briefly go over the sequence of events which has led

to this debate today. i became secretary of state in may when the brown report was being conducted. had been commissioned by the labor government in november of last year. the then government had asked the former chief executive to conduct a report in order to prepare the way for an increase in tuition fees. following the earlier introduction of these by the last government. i have been asked by the speaker that both sides should keep their introductions 3. all will take them when i have developed an argument.

>> what is not accepted by many democrats is that the secretary of state should not receive a fair hearing. the right hon. gentleman will be heard and of members are making a noise and then expecting to be called, i fear that is a triumph of optimism over reality. >> when i became secretary of state, i invited the lord to make to reject the first thing i asked him to do was to see if we could make the existing system of payments more progressive, more related to the ability to pay a future graduates, and he undertook to do that, and we

have done further work to develop a system. as a result, the irs was able to conclude that the package we have produced is more progressive than the existing system and more rigid more progressive than the brown report. briefly, what that means is just as important are the 25% of all future graduates will pay less than they do under the current system that we inherited from the labor government. the second request i made of lord brown was to ask him to look thoroughly at the alternatives and particularly at the alternative of your regular cuts. like many people coming fresh to this issue, i thought the graduate's tax was a potentially good an interesting idea and i wanted it to be properly explored. the conclusion he reached with

the same conclusion that the report reached under the labour government with the same conclusion that the current shadow chancellor reach when he had responsibilities and the conclusion was that the graduate tax had many disadvantages. it undermines the independence of universities but most seriously of all, in the words of lord brown, it is simply unworkable. i am therefore surprised that the leader of the labor party, after all this experience and all this independent analysis has chosen to drive his party down the path of this political -- i will take the minister's intervention after just reading him a comment from what i would

have thought would have been one of his political allies. the education editor commented on the current position. labor, he said, has been seduced. it is a sentimental slob rethinking that offends the interest of the affluent. to describe students as facing a lifelong bird and a crippling debt is simply bizarre, particularly for a labor leader who wants to replace the debt with a tax that the rich would avoid. >> on the issue of sloppy thinking, crucial to the government's case has been its advocacy of the national scholarship fund. isn't it the case that his plans are unraveling rather fast? the vice chancellor is

criticizing left, right, and center and the institute of fiscal studies is telling us to revise the financial incentive for universities to turn away students. how is he going to fix it? >> the national scholarship scheme is still open to interpretation from vice- chancellor's and others. in order to achieve an objective, which i hope he shares, which is to ensure that people from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve access to higher education, something that have miserably failed to do under a labour government. as it happens, the i f s will look at a series of options and that were not taking account of the fact that those universities that wish to progress beyond the 6,000 pound cat will be obliged to introduce the scholarship scheme without the detriments

that he described. >> i am very grateful to the secretary of state. it is a faq that the teaching grant is to be cut by 80%, and the burden that has been transferred to students. it is justified by the government's assessment of the scale of the deficit. theerday's in evidence chancellor of the exchequer admitted that there were tens of billions of receipts from privatization not included in the spending review, which is now anticipating. to what extent did those receipts get taken into account in his calculations about the scale of the deficit? >> i think given his history in the cabinet -- his intervention

is helpful in directing us to what is the heart of this debate, which is how do we find universities and where does the money come from? i now intend to move on to that. the brown report -- i will move on to the financing later. >> what lord brown recommended in terms of funding universities, and this was the report that came from a labor party in government, endorsed in their manifesto, was a recommendation that there should be no cap on fees at university and a specific proposal for a clawback mechanism which gave universities and incentive to introduce fees up to a level of 15,000 pounds a year. that was the report that was given to the government, and we

have rejected those recommendations. and we have proposed instead that we proceed as the statutory instruments describe, the introduction of a fee cap of 6,000 pounds in exceptional circumstances, rising to 9000. i will not explain the basic economics of that problem in the light of the intervention that has just been made by the former minister -- i will now explain the basic economics. i will not give way. i will get away later when i have finished this particular point. the right hon. gentleman, the opposition spokesman on this matter, i think rather helpfully center around a circular letter and sketched out the basic economic framework within which these decisions have been made. he said have been asked to vote

because the government is using to make a disproportionate cut to the university teaching budget in the spending review with an average cost of 11%. i will finish this point. the whole point here is that this government, like the last government, is not making average across-the-board cut of 11%. absolutely, we have chosen as the last government did to have some protective government departments, hell, schools, pensions, aid, the consequence of which, the logical consequence of which is that there are much higher costs in an unprotected departments. should the right hon. gentleman remember the announcements of the institutes of fiscal studies which totaled in the wake of the large budget that a labour government was planning to cut

and protected departments by 25.4%. >> i am grateful for the right hon. gentleman who has been good enough to refer to my letter, and he knows full well that i have had analysis done in the budget does not stand up to scrutiny and neither reflect the decisions taken by the chancellor or in the speech made by my friend. could the secretary of state help the house identifying which other major spending programs have been cut by 80%? >> it is a fact that it derives from the following. most major government

departments, as they would have done under a labour government, have had to take spending reductions of something on the order of 25%. i wish to take him and his colleagues opposite through with that is meant for the teaching ies.ts of the university' let me just develop this point and i will take an intervention. what are the options for the apartment facing 25% cuts, a the kind that he himself was going to introduce? 7% of all spending in this department is on university. i could have chosen to make the cuts elsewhere, the largest category is further education. we could have made the choice to cut apprentice's ships, to cut skill level training at a modest level, to try and deal with the problem which we have inherited

a 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. we were left with the decision of how to make cuts in the university budgets of approximately 25%. there were various options. i will finish this section and then i will take an intervention. there were various options for doing it. we could have reduced radically the number of university students, but all the evidence suggests and the last government used to argue that increasing university participation is the best avenue to social mobility, so we rejected that option. we could have made a decision which would have been easier and less visible and less provocative in the short run. we could have made the decision

radically to reduce student maintenance. we could have done that. the effects of that would have been to reduce the support which low income students received when they are at universities now, and we rejected that option. we could have taken -- we could have taken what i would call the scottish option. we could have cut funding to universities without giving them the means to raise additional income. the certain consequence of that would have been that in 5-10 years time, the great english universities would still be great, a world-class universities, and universities like glasgow would be in as that

of decline. so we rejected consciously of those unacceptable options. >> does he began to understand and appreciate the impact on scottish universities by setting be an england? what is he going to do to mitigate this potentially disastrous impact for scotland? >> i would not be following the advice of that -- by reallocating priorities to cut schools, because that is what has happened in scotland. >> i thank my friend for giving way. i am sure we can all agree that all those students who would benefit from a university education should be entitled to do so, regardless of their financial situation. my particular concern is that by

increasing the tuition now, participation levels for lower- income and middle-income students will fall away. what assurance can the government give that this situation will be monitored very closely going forward and that corrective action will be taken should participation levels continue to be falling away. >> of course i can give him that assurance. of course the policy will be monitored, and it will reflect what the evidence that emerges that we put in place a series of measures not merely to protect low-income graduates, which we have done, but we have also put in place a series of measures designed to help children from low-income families go to university, not simply by increasing it from the level that was under the previous .overnment'

i will take one more. >> i wonder if he could say something about how he sees the future position of english students relative to scottish and welsh students in the future. should we be looking to a degree of fairness between families of similar income and circumstances across the united kingdom in years to come? we believe that the devolved administrations in scotland, wales, and northern ireland have got to make their own decisions. i think the inevitable consequences of the tightening of public finance which is happening under this government would happen under any government. it is bound to be that a system of graduate contributions will happen throughout the uk.

>> i thank the hon. member for giving way. despite this talk of supporting people on low income. the education made this grant, the vast majority of lump it -- young people come from low- income backgrounds and will be losing that support. >> we are still waiting to hear. >> 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. secretary of state. >> i hear what the hon. member says, but what i would say is that the existing system that we inherited is enormously wasteful. large numbers of people received aide who did not needed to stay on in school. she is right in stressing that there are large pockets of -- the purpose of the people premium which has been introduced into the school system is precisely to address that problem of giving the poor people's in areas of high deprivation. we have eliminated most of the other alternatives to raising

funding for universities. i hope that nobody opposite is seriously arguing that we should drastically reduce the number of students, that we should drastically reduce maintenance, or that we should simply withdraw funding from universities. the only practical alternative was to retrieve universities from hiring graduates once they have left. that is the policy we are pursuing. today, 50 university vice- chancellor's have come forward and endorsed this approach to a strengthening of university funding in the long term. the members opposite who are following these arguments thatly say we'd knowledge universities will continue to have high levels of income, but they say we are replacing public

funding with private funding, and this is in some sense theological. -- in some sense ideological. at present, roughly 60% of universities in different 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 the future. roughly 40% of university funding will come from the public sector, and 60% from the private sector. i am keen to encourage more private funding of universities, which is why i have spoken to the directorate general, and he is approaching call the members in order to ensure that we have a significantly higher level of employer support for

apprenticeships, force and which courses. 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. secretary of state. >> i hope that not too many people opposite would regard to additional funding from implores as somehow ideologically contaminated, because we need more resources going into universities, not less. >> under the fee scheme introduced by the labor party, all universities ended up charging the highest rates. one of the worries out there is that all universities might end up being allowed to charge [unintelligible]

what assurance, what rules, what guarantees will my friend give that 6000 will be the limit for most universities? >> that is a highly pertinent question in light of the experience of the last government, which had a two- tier system. it operated like a cartel, and that must be stopped and not let happen again. any university that wants to go beyond 6000 will have to have access to low-income families. u.s. institutions providing -- newer institutions providing --

if universities defy the principle of operating in competitive spaces, they will have to introduce additional measures. >> order. order. i must ask him to address the house. >> there are potentially and other mechanisms by which other universities, which do exceed the 6,000 ton level will not be allowed to behave the way they behave under the last government. i just want to summarize the

steps we're taking to make sure that this happens in a fair and equitable way. 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.

it will be upgraded in annually with earnings. it is important to emphasize that point because, under the labour government, there was a threshold of 15,000 pounds. it was never operated on any basis ever. in the future, students under the current arrangements, the labor government's arrangement, 15,000 threshold, will in future have annual upgrading with inflation. these existing since, through

the u.s. government, did not do anything to protect from inflation. we are furthermore at introducing variable interest rates. as a result of this, a 30,000 pounds salary will carry a monthly payment of approximately 68 pounds, which is incidently far lower than what the -- tax system was. under the graduate system, people would pay much earlier. >> would you say that not giving way must be allowed. order! >> in terms of the measures we have taken to improve access to low-income families, we have

made it very clear that there will be additional provisions. in addition, they offer requirement of universities which will have demanding tests in respect of access. it is worth recalling the situation that we have inherited. there is a lot of crocodile tears opposite about low-income families. let me just remind you. social mobility from disadvantaged backgrounds trying to get into russell group university has deteriorated over the last decade. we have a position -- only 40

out of 80,000 made it to oxbridge schools. that is a terrible inheritance. we intend to rectify that. i will conclude in this way. i do not pretend that this is an easy subject. of course, it is not. we have had to make very difficult choices. we could have taken these zero options. but we were insistent that, at the end of this, we would be making -- >> point of order. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. >> order.

i am understand what the hon. gentleman has said. that is not a point of order. that is a point of frustration. [laughter] >> i have given away into several of his college and several of mine. it but to just go back to what i was saying, there have been difficult chores to make. we could have netted decision to drastically in reduced the number of students, cut manus, cut funding to universities without replacing it. -- cut means, cut funding to universities without replacing it. instead, we have a major contribution in reducing the

deficit. i am proud to put forward that the measure to this house. >> order! order! order. please. the more noise, of the greater the delay, the fewer people will have a chance to contribute. order. order. i do appeal to hon. and right hon. members to help me to help them. the question is motion 3 on the order paper, mr. john denham. >> relating to the evidence

under government policy, in particular regarding to the setting is the government commission potentially had on part of the patience, on longer courses, which is language, madison kamal law, architecture, and -- medicine, law, architecture, and a more. what can the house do to ensure that the government informs so that we can have properly have debates like this? >> i am in favor of timely replies to the parliamentary questions. we must pursue these matters through the table office and in other ways. but we cannot be detained and 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 do not 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 political knockabouts about you turns, broken promises, about fees policies -- i am not going to do that speech. so much of the media coverage in this issue has been dominated by the liberal democrats. we could be forgiven for thinking that today's future is about the future of the democrats. it is not about the future of

the liberal democrats. it is about something much more important than that. mr. speaker, there are millions of parents and millions of current and future students to do not care about the liberal democrats. but they do care about the huge fee increase we have been 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 fiscal 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. as well he might because his local university will get his funding cut to 3 million pounds a year.

it has already said that it wishes to charge the full 9,000 pounds tuition fee. the deputy leader of the liberal democrats says he may vote against the government. i say to him and others that, if he and every member of this house, not just in the liberal democrats, but in the conservatives, the labor party, and other parties, too, vote today, it will fall. let me set out why they should or vote for afo delay. >> i have a petition from the university for 240 objecting to the measure being in pieces and chapters and the public inquiry

for the future of education. what does he think about that? >> not only, mr. speaker, is there widespread disquiet in the academic community. it is significant of thathat the secretary did not read the letter. it makes it absolutely clear that universities u.k. oppose the cuts in higher education funding upon which we have set this debate. mr. speaker, you said last night that votes technically today is on a narrow issue. but behind it is the most profound change. it is the ending of funding for

most university degrees. it is a huge debt on graduates. is an untried, untested, and an unstable market for students. england enjoys a world-class university system. world-class in research. a richness in higher education to compare with the best. the risks are so high and the consequences are so unclear that no one would rushed through without proper debate or discussion. today, we do not have the white paper to tell us how. >> will be broached the

principle of free education. will he apologize? >> nouri insure the that policy did not come into for another ad been the general for the reelection. -- until there had we ensured that that policy did not come in to fork until another general election had been held. he did not say they were world- class. he did not praise what they had achieved. he could only knock them.

the second most popular destination for overseas students in the world, the prime minister tells the world they are not competitive. that does a great deal of help for our universities. there are interesting thoughts about overseas students. when he was in china, he said we will not go -- he said two chinese students, we will not go on increasing fees to overseas students. but he has been pushing the fees on overseas students and that was a way to keep them down on domestic students. so we have done the difficult thing in our government, which is to put a contributions from british students. we should be able to keep that growth under control. now we know when the prime minister wants to push these contributions up -- to keep the enterprise for chinese students. extraordinary. the prime minister said yesterday that the current model

of higher education funding is not providing enough money. he quotes the brand review that funding for students is lower in real terms than 20 years ago. how the hell did that happen? it did not happen under labour. between 1989 and 1997, under the last conservative government, public funding for students fell by 36% in real terms. and who was the special adviser to the conservative chancellor? the prime minister was. the prime minister wants to know whose fault it was. he needs to look more carefully in the mirror in the morning. now he is at it again. he was cutting university funding then. he is cutting university funding now. this is tory policy on cutting higher education. i'm fortunate, this time, they

have liberal democrats to -- unfortunately, this time, they have liberal democrats to push it through. >> what do you think that this government is so intent on pushing the humanity space? they are withdrawing public funding. what do you think they have against it? >> it is hardly for me to get myself inside the heads of the parties ousted. but if you read what they say, the reality is facing that these things have no value unless they have a value in the marketplace. it is purely and simply that. >> the last figures available was in government, 80,000 children on school menus and only 40 went on to oxford and cambridge. does he not except that his

proposal to graduate tax, which would rid -- which would mean less social mobility -- would amount back? >> no. i will come to that very point in a few moments. the cause of the prime minister's policies, these tory policies, we come in this country, will stand alone with rumania as the only country in the oecd cutting our investment in hire education. what yesterday's speech by the prime minister, which was meant to be a defense of this policy, shows is that he does not understand the basics of the policy he is putting forward. they are not designed to raise extra money for university. that was labor's scheme. that was our scheme. it came on top of record university in town. it enabled more students to go

to better funded universities. the prime minister's plan is totally different. most graduates will be asked not to pay something towards their education, but to pay the entire cost of their university education. universities will have to charge seven to 8,000 pounds 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 this increase goes through, 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, higher, yes, then the united states of america. i give way.

>> will he welcome the fact that the repayment threshold has been increased to 21,000 pounds and that anyone earning less than 25,000 tons will be paying less than a candidate for their university education? -- 25,000 pounds will be paying less than a pound for their university education? >> he may not realize that 21,000 pounds is in 2016, when it will be worth exactly what the threshold is worth when we brought it in. most graduates will be paying off their debt for 30 years. the average is 11 years under the current scheme. the children of these graduates will have started university before they have paid off their own fees. as i will show, the payments system is not fair.

>> will my hon. friend except that increasing relative price to our competitors will reduce the you product and tax overseas for future generations who undermine economic growth? what we should be doing is made the bankers' pay the levy rather than paying it back in corporation taxes and put that money in higher education for the economic growth of this country? >> we certainly need to sustain investment in higher education. but we do not actually need to adopt our macroeconomic policies to know that this government has made different choices even now. there is -- there is no other country in the world taking the steps that we are taking. no other country in the world can understand why we're doing it. as always, rather than defend their decision, we get the

bathetic answer, "we have no choice." but, mr. speaker, they did have a choice. everyone knows they had a choice. we would take a measure for responsible reduction. but even on their own terms, if the coalition has 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 right hon. gentleman can back away from the fact that most independent experts agree that the graduate tax, which seems to be the past policy of the party opposite, they will

have more debt and pay back earlier. why does he not address the fundamental point? simple aboutuite it. there are two stages to this process. the first is to decide how much money will be publicly funded and how much money needs to come from graduates. the second stage is how you get the graduates to make the contribution. the first stage is the critical one here today because it is the 80% cut in university education that is forcing the grandeur contributions so high.

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 the activities provided through aimhigher was associated with higher than predicted attainment at gcse and greater confidence among learners that they were able to achieve. i repeat, reater confidence among learners that they were able to achieve. so what is the minister doing? he is closing it down. >> figures from the library show that the labor government put £230 million into widening participation. aimhigher has gone and the rest of that money has not yet been confirmed by the new government. if it goes, will it not mean that the £150 million made available is in fact a cut in terms of widening participation? >> my honorable friend is

absolutely right. the scheme that was trumpeted at the weekend-and which i will talk about shortly-is dwarfed by the scale of the cuts and the uncertainty in the higher education budget. it is a loan that is dwarfed by the cut through the stopping, in about four weeks from now, of education maintenance allowance awards, which will stop for young people going to further education college this january. emas have, of course, never been just about getting young people to university. many young people have been enabled to succeed in getting other qualifications, and in going into better jobs or into the vastly increased number of apprenticeships that we created. emas make a difference to those aiming for university, yet the government are shutting them down. the whole house knows about the

work of sir peter lampl of the sutton trust. no one outside the education establishment has done more-or, indeed, been prepared to invest more of their own money-to campaign for fair access for students from low-income homes. he supported labor's fees policy in 2004, but he says about the current proposals that there is no doubt that such a significant increase in tuition costs would be a serious deterrent for those from non- privileged backgrounds. the double whammy of major cuts to state funding of universities and higher fees is inequitable and is sure to freeze social mobility. that is a bitter legacy for any politician. i hope members will think about that, especially those final words. >> my constituency is in the fifth most deprived local authority area in london and the 19th most deprived in england. participation rates among

people going into higher education increased by over 80% between 1997 and last year. how can these proposals do other than bring that figure down and deter people from poor backgrounds from going to university? i have not had a single communication from a constituent telling me these proposals will make it more likely that they will go to university, but i have had many representations saying they will put them off going to university. is that also the experience of my right honorable friend? >> well, it is the view of an organization that has done more work on this issue than any other, and i think we should respect it. >> i will not take any further interventions. i have been speaking longer than i had intended, and i still have a couple of substantive points that i wish to make. at the weekend we got a bit of a breakthrough. the government finally admitted that high fees will put off low- income students. they announced the national scholarship scheme and fee

waivers for students on free school meals. the government like this idea: it saves them money, because they do not have to make loans. it costs universities money instead, because they have to match funds. it is also a limited plan covering 18,000 out of the 2 million students in higher education. in case members do not know this, i will point out that free school meals are generally available only to those families where no one works. what about the millions of working families who earn just a little above benefit levels, however? i look forward to the next election when tory and lib dem mps will have to explain why john smith, whose parents do not work, will get £18,000 knocked off their fees, while susan jones in the same street, whose parents have always worked and paid their taxes, gets no help at all. i am glad the secretary of state for work and pensions is present on the front bench, because he should have a word with his colleagues about how this supports the idea that work should pay. this system will punish the very universities that have done the most to widen participation. the university of bedfordshire, which took 120 students from

free-school meal backgrounds in 2006-07, would have had to find £750,000 in match funding, whereas cambridge, which took just 20, would have had to find only £120,000. where is the sense in punishing success and rewarding failure? the ifs says that it provides a financial incentive for universities...to turn away students from poorer backgrounds. it does not make sense. all the signs suggest a government policy in disarray. there is no white paper, and every day the government try to respond to the latest criticism. last week, we showed that two thirds of part timers would not benefit from their scheme, so they had to rush out a minor change yesterday. last week, under pressure from me, the business secretary said he would write to the office for fair access to give guidance about fair access and he has, but it was an empty document. let me address one point: the house has been told that universities might charge £9,000 in "exceptional

circumstances", but nowhere in the guidance document that has been issued does the term "exceptional circumstances" appear. the business secretary does not tell the director of offa to limit the highest fees to exceptional circumstances or ask him to tell us what exceptional circumstances are. the truth is that he came to the house making a fine promise about the £9,000 and the exceptional circumstances but he has done nothing to bring that about in practice because he knows he will not be able to enforce it. that is not the right way to handle the house. 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.

>> i rise to speak in a debate in which i do not want to speak. i do not believe that this debate should be happening today, and i do not believe that it should be happening in the way that it is. it is only seven months since the general election and the government were formed; it is less than two months since we saw the browne report for the first time, and it is a month-a month-since the government announced their proposals on higher education. yet, today, we are being forced to hold the significant vote, without considering the other proposals, with a mere five-hour debate. i make it clear that i am a government back bencher. i support the coalition government and i support what they are doing. i also support, understand and accept that both parties and mps in the coalition have to compromise, but let me tell you, mr. speaker, being asked to vote to increase fees up to £9,000 is not a compromise. it is not something that liberal democrat back benchers or even many conservative back benchers should have been asked to consider. as you and the house will know, mr. speaker, i tabled an amendment, which unfortunately was not successful. it was tabled in my name, that of the honorable member for new forest east and those of members from all parts of the house. that was the final attempt to get the government to listen, because the simple reality is that, even if their proposals are the best way forward for

higher education, and i do not believe that they are, the government have to accept that they simply have not convinced people of that, not only on the liberal democrat benches, but far more importantly among the wider public and, crucially, future students and their families. >> what does my honorable friend consider to be a reasonable percentage of time to spend on this debate relative to the amount of time given by the previous government to the debate about whether this country should go to war with iraq? >> all i say to the honorable gentleman is that sometimes governments are wrong, and sometimes one needs to have the courage to say so. i am doing that today. >> summarizing this debate so far, one has to accept that the secretary of state for business, innovation and skills, my right honorable friend the member for twickenham, though very wise, does not know for certain that he is right, and that the right honorable member for southampton, itchen, though equally wise, does not know for certain that he is right.

does not the house need an opportunity to assess the results of whatever policy we adopt today, and not do something that is purely irreversible? >> my honorable friend is entirely right. there simply has not been an adequate evaluation to allay the very real concerns out there. i am going to talk about the pledge. i did not sign just one pledge, i actually signed two: the national union of students pledge in this very house, and the leeds university union pledge at the university. i do not regret signing either, but that is not the sole or, even, most important reason why i shall vote against the government today. i shall vote against the government today, because i simply cannot accept that fees of up to £9,000 are the fairest and most sustainable way of funding higher education. before i became a member, i opposed the labor government introducing fees in the first place, and i opposed the labor government introducing top-up

fees. i said at the time, as did many honorable members including courageous labor back benchers, "this will lead one day to huge increases in fees and become a 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.

retaining the fees, albeit in the higher levels, is an improvement on lord bryce report. raising the threshold from 15,000 pounds to the 20,000 pounds is an improvement on the system.

i did not believe it would be fair, come 2015, for today's students to have to make a payment from the substantially lower threshold of 15,000 pounds while the measures in graduates will be able to earn 21,000 pounds before beginning their contributions i truly appreciate the movement that the government chose yesterday in announcing the annual operating of the threshold to existing students and graduates, not just those starting their studies in 2012. this measure should not be underestimated. it calls for repayment of 100,000 graduates on moderate sellers i would wish that, when the new system is in place, the existing payment threshold and

the 21,000 pounds level could be closed entirely. at the very least, current and recent graduates under the existing system should be able to afford the option of transferring to the new system with whatever outstanding contributions that have left. in this way, they could benefit from the increase threshold. >> who they voted for two tuition fees increase. >> what amazes me is that there 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 happened since the opposition introduced tuition fees, which like now to address.

for 13 years, -- back in 1997, the report concluded that higher education should be shared with those who benefit from it, the students, the state, and the employer. for the past 13 years, the government has ignored the inclusion that employers should share in the education contribution. i would like to invite the government and industry to develop broader proposals to facilitate and even encourage direct employer contributions to graduate higher education. such contributions will effectively reduce what is being asked of graduates themselves. this could be proven to be more tax efficient. in the weeks since the brown review was published, i have consistently -- the government

has responded constructively and listen while others have set out hon. alternative. i am confident the ministers will continue to engage those issues. that is why i will join them. mr. speaker, i told my constituents that i would work toward higher education funding. that is what i have done and that is what i will continue to do. >> middle and high school students, as you work on your documentary's for the c-span documentary competition, here are some tips. one of the things i look forward while watching your videos is you, the student. i want to see you and your

personality. that helps your video stand out from all the rest. >> what i like to see most in the videos israel investment in care of the topic you will be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you're telling us. if you are not interested in what you are presenting, chances are we will not be there. >> the requirement on using c- span video, i am looking for it is where people have looked at the c-span content and said what elements of c-span video make the most sense for telling the compelling story that i am trying to tell? >> for all of the rules, including deadlines, prize information, and have to applaud your view, the to suspend or. -- go to. -- go to c-span.org. we go live t the phone.

week.walk through the what do you expect in the senate? there are a number of key issues that could potentially, if they reach the senate floor. guest: on monday, you will have a vote on the tax-cut package that was unveiled last week which is controversial. it is controversial on the democratic side. there are possibly a few deck -- republicans who might vote against it. once that vote happens on monday, that is a test of both of you have a final vote later in the week, probably on tuesday, sending it to the house. what happens with the rest of the we could very well depend on how that tax cut bill is perceived by the house. will the house ultimately cave or willy