Miliband attacks tuition fees rise

Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen 10.42am: Q: Didn’t Labour pave the way for £9,000 fees by introducing top-up fees? Miliband says top-up fees allowed the last government to expand student numbers. Q: Are you in favour of for-profit universities? Thomas says Labour has supported existing private universities. Q: What contribution do you think the “Purple Group” of MPs can make? (This is a reference to group that Rachel Sylvester has written about in the Times today. I’ll post more about this later.) Miliband says he is keen on the colour purple. All contributions to the debate about Labour’s future are welcome. Q: Lord Mandelson said recently that if Labour had won the election, tuition fees would have gone up to £6,000. Were you aware of that plan. And who was to blame for the purpose of the Browne review being “perverted” in the way you mentioned earlier? (See 10.37am) Miliband says that he did not know Mandelson thought before the election tuition fees would have to go up to £6,000. And, as for who told Browne that his plans should assume a student funding cut of 80%, Miliband says it was an assumption “driven by the Treasury”. That’s it from the press conference. I’ll post a summary shortly. 10.37am: Miliband is taking questions now. Q: Should RBS be allowed to give Stephen Hester a £7m bonus? (RBS is due to rubber-stamp Hester’s bonus payment today. ) Miliband says the government has not done enough to curb bonuses. Q: Are you in favour of variable fees? Thomas says variable fees are an example of how ministers are trying to find a solution to this problem “on the hoof”? Q: Labour set up the Browne review. But now you are proposing a graduate tax. Isn’t Labour breaking its promise? Miliband says that Browne’s plans envisaged an 80% cut in student funding. When he first heard about this in government, he asked where that figure came from. He never got a satisfactory explanation. But it suggested that the purpose of the review had been “perverted”. Q: Would Gordon Brown be a good candidate for heading the IMF? Miliband says he would be a “strong candidate”. But there is not a vacancy. 10.35am: Gareth Thomas is speaking now. He says Vince Cable, the business secretary, is on record as saying that if universities charge tuition fees higher than the £7,500 average anticipated by the government, ministers have two ways of responding to the funding shortfall: cutting university grants, or cutting student numbers. 10.30am: Ed Miliband is speaking now. He says that later today he will be going to Leicester, where almost exactly a year ago Nick Clegg promised at De Montfort University not to vote in favour of a tuition fees increase. If universities charge fees at the levels at which they are planning, the government will have to find up to £500m extra to fund the cost of those loans, Miliband says. Filling a hole of £500m by cutting university places could mean over 30,000 fewer young people going to university. Miliband says he is demanding two guarantees from David Cameron. First, David Cameron must tell us if he still believes £9,000 fees are the exception. And, second, he must tell us whether he intends to cut university funding or university places. 10.26am: Labour have done their own survey of university tuition fees. They say that 95% of universities which have released their charges are planning to charge more than £7,500, the figure that the government expected to be the average, and that 70% of universities that have published figures are planning to charge the maximum, £9,000. Labour says that, to fund tuition fees at this level, the government would have to cut the number of student places by around 36,000. 10.20am: I’m at Labour’s HQ where Ed Miliband’s press conference will be starting soon. We’ve been given another dossier. Last week’s was about health. This is entitled “Letting down the next generation” and it’s about how the government is “kicking away the ladders of opportunity for young people”. 9.50am: But David Willetts hasn’t persuaded Gareth Thomas, his Labour opposite numbers. According to PoliticsHome, this is what Thomas told Sky this morning about the government’s tuition fee policy. Whether it’s naivety or just a basic mistake is not clear, but it’s certainly true that the government have got their figures hopelessly wrong. Their belief that fees of above £6,000 would be the exception is quite clearly completely and utterly wrong … Ministers in the run-up to the tuition fees vote back in December were arguing that universities charging more than £6,000 would be the exception, but even at that point independent experts were arguing that fees of £9,000 would very quickly become the norm rather than the exception. We don’t think that the trebling of tuition fees is fair or is necessary and our worry is that it won’t be sustainable. Because so many universities are charging above £6,000, then actually the government will have to introduce further cuts to the university teaching grant or worse cut student numbers. I’m off to the Labour press conference now. I’ll post again before 10.15am. 9.45am: The Labour press conference is going to focus on higher education, it seems. David Willetts, the universities minister, told Sky this morning that the average fee charged by universities would be “signficantly lower” than £9,000, despite media reports to the contrary. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he said: We have to see what happens. Our understanding is that behind the headlines many universities are offering a range of fees, sometimes different fees for different courses, sometimes different fees for students from low income families. For that reason we believe that the average fee is going to be significantly lower than £9,000. Of course nobody will know exactly what it will be until the autumn of next year when students turn up at universities and we know the exact numbers and the exact fees they are facing. Willetts made a similar point yesterday in an article for Comment is free. 8.43am: Despite a brave try (see 8.20am) , Evan Davis never really quite nailed David Cameron on massive contradiction between the government’s localism philosophy and Eric Pickles’s obsession with outlawing bin taxes. But there was plenty of good material in the interview. Here are the highlights. • Cameron signalled that he would not allow Gordon Brown to become head of the International Monetary Fund. Brown had been described as the “clear favourite” for the post, which should become available if, as expected, the current IMF managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, leaves to run for the French presidency. EU countries choose a candidate to run the IMF together, but Cameron almost certainly killed any chances Brown might have by saying he would be unacceptable. It does seem to me that if you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem in the UK, when we self-evidently do have a debt problem, then they might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems … Above all, what matters is that the person running the IMF [is] someone who understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit, and it really must be someone who gets that, rather than someone who says that they don’t see a problem. • Cameron suggested that the IMF should be headed by a non-European. By convention, the World Bank is run by an American and the IMF is run by a European. But Cameron suggested that the top job should perhaps instead go to an Asian. It may well be that, actually, when you think that the IMF has got to be listened to and taken seriously by countries not just in the West, but all over the world, it may well be it’s time actually to have a candidate from another part of the world in order to increase its standing in the world … We’ve got the rise of India and China and south east Asia, a shift in the world’s focus, and it may well be the time for the IMF to start thinking about their shift in focus too. • He suggested that Vince Cable and Kenneth Clarke was safe from the prospect of being sacked. That’s because he named them as “big figure” politicians who were an asset to the government. One of the strengths of this government is that the big figures of British politics have come together into this cabinet. As well as Vince Cable, we’ve got Ken Clarke, we’ve got Iain Duncan Smith, we’ve got William Hague, we’ve got Chris Huhne. It’s a cabinet of talented [people]. • Cameron said that getting net migration down to tens of thousands per year was an “ambition”. This seemed an attempt to placate the Liberal Democrats. Last week, after Vince Cable said that getting migration down to tens of thousands (ie, below 100,000) was not government policy, Tory sources insisted that he was wrong, and that this was policy. The Lib Dems insisted that this was just an aim, which was not the same as a policy. Today Cameron adopted Lib Dem terminology, describing the target as an ambition. (In practice, this is just a pedantic linguistic dispute – because there is no disagreement about what the government is trying to do – but it is important to the Lib Dems. “We all have our own way of explaining things,” Cameron said at one point.) • He said that “in principle” he was in favour of changing the provisions in the Act of Settlement saying that royals who marry a Catholic have to give up their right to the throne and that male heirs take precedence over female ones. But he stressed that this would take time, because other countries would have to change their laws too. • He defended the government’s right to put controls on the extent to which councils can raise council tax or impose bin charges. When it was put to him that these measures contradicted the government’s commitment to localism, he said: “There’s always a balance between wanting to protect people from excessive charging [and localism].” • He confirmed that there would be real changes to the health bill. The problem with the bill was not just a failure to communicate what it was trying to do, he said. He signalled, as he has down before, that when the new two-month consultation on the bill is over, the membership of the GP-led commissioning consortia will be widened. • He said the Lib Dems had been “excellent coalition partners”. 8.30am: I’ll post a full summary in a moment, but the strongest came when David Cameron was asked about Gordon Brown becoming managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Brown has been tipped as the favourite for the job. But Cameron said he would be the wrong candidate. It does seem to me that if you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem in the UK, when we self-evidently do have a debt problem, then they might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems. • Cameron signals that he will stop Gordon Brown taking charge of the IMF. After the interview, Cameron remained in the studio and insisted on doing the racing tips, as he did on the programme at the end of last year. He picked a horse called “Stormin Gordon”. (But not for the IMF.) His other pick was called Red Samantha. (Warning to punters: Cameron’s previous tips both lost.) 8.27am: Q: Would you support Gordon Brown for managing director of the International Monetary Fund? Cameron says he would be concerned about someone who did not understand the dangers of debt taking the post. [That's a pretty clear no.] He also suggests that it might be time for the job to go to someone who is not a European. The last question is about Nick Clegg. Cameron says the Lib Dems have been good coalition partners. That’s it. The interview is over. 8.20am: Q: If you are committed to localism, why are you banning councils from doing things like imposing bin charges. Cameron says he is committed to localism. But there is always a “balance”. Q: But you should councils be banned from imposing charges for a recycling centre? Cameron accuses Davis of missing the bigger picture. He is introducing a general power of competence, that will give councils more power. He hopes this will encourage better people to become councillors. Q: Why are you penalising councils that want to put up their council tax? Cameron says the government is rewarding councils that freeze the tax. Q: But that amounts to penalising those what want to raise council tax. To suggest otherwise is “disingenuous”. Cameron says that if councils want to raise council tax by a certain amount, they will be able to hold a referendum on this. But he does not meet a lot of people who want to pay more tax, he says. Q: Do you agree with changing the rules saying an heir to the throne cannot marry a Catholic? Cameron says that “in principle” he is in favour of changing the rules about male heirs taking precedence and about anyone marrying a Catholic having to give up their right to the throne. But other countries would have to change their rules too. This will take time. 8.17am: On health, Cameron says the government was right to see if it could improve the health bill. He wants to see if he could get more “full-throated support” from those in the NHS. Q: The NHS chief executive has said that the NHS needs to press ahead with change on the ground. Why? Cameron says there is no mystery. There are elements of reform that everyone believes need to go ahead. Q: That sounds as if nothing is changing. Can you identify a substantive change you will make? Cameron says hospital doctors are worried that there will be no place for them in “GP commissioning”. They want a role too. Q: And will councillors be involved? Cameron says one of the aims of the bill is to heal the divide between medical care and social care. Q: So it was not just a failure of communication? The reforms had to change too. Cameron says that’s right. The plans did need to change. Cameron says he has a “very strong personal commitment” to what the NHS means. It’s a “precious thing”. 8.14am: Q: Is it policy to cut net migration down to tens of thousands? Cameron says that is the ambition. Q: If you fail to get migration down to tens of thousands, will that mean the policy has failed? Cameron says there are a series of policies in place. If those policies work, then immigration will come down. Q: Will it be a failure of policy if net migration comes down to 150,000, not 80,000? Cameron says he wants to get net migration down to the level it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Q: But what is policy? Cameron says there are a series of policies. “If we put those in place, we will achieve the ambition,” he says. 8.10am: Davis says there will be another interview about AV. But he will talk about the local elections. Q: Are we in coalition phase two? Is more dissent now allowed? Cameron says there are two parties in the coalition. But the need for the coalition is as strong as it was a year ago. The two parties have to sort out the economy. There is a lot further to go. Between them they have come up with a series of good and “decisive” policies. It’s not a “lower common denominator” government. Q: Are you comfortable with Lib Dems like Vince Cable expressing dissent? Cameron says what matters is that there is agreement over policy. And there is. Of course coalitions have their own tensions and difficulties and noises off, and you have to be relaxed about that. Q: Did you ever consider sacking Cable? Cameron says one of the strengths of the government is that the “big figures” of politics have come together. He mentions Ken Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith, William Hague and Chris Huhne. The government is dealing with problems that have foxed other governments, he says. 8.10am: Evan Davis is interviewing Cameron. He’s starting now. 8.01am: We’re hearing from David Cameron and Ed Miliband this morning. Cameron is doing an interview on the Today programme at 8.10am. The transcript of his most recent interview, on Sky at the weekend, is here . I expect he’ll be asked about subjects like Libyan and the health bill. But he won’t be asked about the alternative vote, Evan Davis revealed on Twitter this morning. That’s because of broadcasting rules about interviews with one side on the AV campaign having to be matched by an interview with someone from the other side. And Miliband will be holding a press conference at 10.15am. He will be discussing education and opportunities for young people alongside Gareth Thomas, the shadow universities minister. Today is the deadline for universities wanting to charge tuition fees of more than £6,000 to have to submit their plans to widen access to the government’s access watchdog, the Office for Fair Access (Offa). Otherwise, it’s a mixed day. Cameron and Andrew Lansley are holding an NHS “listening” event. Harriet Harman is on the campaign trail for Labour in Bristol. And members of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers will debate an urgent motion at their conference in Liverpool instructing its executive committee to consider whether a ballot for strike action is justified. As usual, I’ll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm, and an afternoon one at about 4pm. David Cameron Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Posted by on April 19, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.