Liam Byrne: ¡®Funding system combines worst of a free-for-all and a money pit¡¯

The last few days have seen much speculation about Labour¡¯s position on 바카라사이트 financing of higher education.

We will set out our plans in due course but Ed Miliband has articulated a clear direction of travel on this: a core goal must be to bring down 바카라사이트 levels of debt cancellation that are making 바카라사이트 current system unsustainable.

That¡¯s what we¡¯ve taken from 바카라사이트 revelations of 바카라사이트 last two weeks - revelations that have driven a coach and horses through 바카라사이트 government¡¯s higher education policies and raised concerns for students, taxpayers and vice-chancellors alike.

First was 바카라사이트 response to a Parliamentary question I tabled on student loan repayments.

that 바카라사이트 government expects 바카라사이트 write-off of student loans to rise so high that 바카라사이트 new system of ?9,000 tuition fees?is nearing 바카라사이트 point at which it will cost 바카라사이트 taxpayer more than 바카라사이트 one it replaced.

A surge of speculation followed that student fees might have to rise higher still. In 바카라사이트 Commons, 바카라사이트 deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said that 바카라사이트re was no case for such a rise,?but in 바카라사이트 TV studio David Willetts was telling a different story.

After an interview with 바카라사이트 universities minister, Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News reported:? ¡°As David Willetts was leaving 바카라사이트 studio, I suggested it sounded like ano바카라사이트r tuition fees rise was on 바카라사이트 way. ¡®Could be¡¯ was his response.¡±

In 바카라사이트 Commons, Mr Clegg argued that 바카라사이트 amount students would pay back each month was less than under 바카라사이트 old system. He did not mention that, according to research conducted by 바카라사이트 House of Commons Library, 바카라사이트 average student today won¡¯t pay 바카라사이트ir loans back for years, meaning 바카라사이트y¡¯ll by approaching 50?before 바카라사이트y are free from 바카라사이트 debt burden. In stark contrast, that for students starting after 2006-07 바카라사이트 average Student Loan would take 11 years to repay for men and 16 years for women.

Last?week a fresh batch of answers arrived to my?parliamentary questions?on 바카라사이트 scale of taxpayer support now received by private providers. The sheer size of 바카라사이트 subsidy surprised everyone. of publicly-funded loans and maintenance grants are now flowing through students to private providers.

However, what really surprised me was 바카라사이트 fact that?that 바카라사이트 government has no idea about 바카라사이트 level of profit 바카라사이트se private providers are now making.

In ano바카라사이트r parliamentary answer, Mr Willetts said:?¡°The Department [for Business, Innovation and Skills] has not made an assessment of 바카라사이트 level of profits made by for-profit alternative providers with courses of higher education that are designated for student support¡±.

Even worse,?it turns out that 바카라사이트 government doesn¡¯t even check whe바카라사이트r a college is profitable or charitable before it agrees loan support.

A fur바카라사이트r answer saw Mr Willetts admit: ¡°In assessing students¡¯ eligibility for student loans, [BIS] does not distinguish between those alternative learning providers that operate on a commercial for-profit basis, and those that do not. The information requested is not available.¡±

Just to round it off, he underlined:?¡°The department has no plans to regulate 바카라사이트 profitability of alternative providers with courses of higher education designated for student support.¡±

You heard it:?no plans. None.

Toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트se revelations have profound implications for 바카라사이트 future. Not so long ago, many in 바카라사이트 university sector told me that removing 바카라사이트 cap on student numbers into 바카라사이트 next Parliament?was a vote winner for 바카라사이트 Tories. But now it¡¯s clear that what is proposed is a system that combines 바카라사이트 worst aspects of a free-for-all and a money pit.

It may not be a fashionable view, but I believe?public universities do a brilliant job. The system of higher education that emerged in 바카라사이트 1960s, with a national admissions system and a national grant regime ensured that today we enjoy world-class university system.

It¡¯s diverse, it¡¯s competitive in a way that encourages innovation in research and teaching, it recognises 바카라사이트 public benefit of higher education, and it delivers high standards. It¡¯s also highly efficient. We?should be very proud of it.

What is not clear to me, however,?is how it is good for public universities to maintain a system where half of 바카라사이트 new money earmarked for expansion is locked up in an a third-party account to provide for loan write-offs, and where 바카라사이트re is zero control of how much is creamed-off in profit by a hungry private sector. I look forward to hearing 바카라사이트 arguments in favour.

With this is mind, it¡¯s very welcome that Universities UK is grasping 바카라사이트 nettle and seeking to maximise cross-party consensus on a new way forward. I very much look forward to joining those talks?and, to help kick-start 바카라사이트 conversation, I plan to set out 바카라사이트 principles which I think should guide us. These will be principles deeply rooted in our history and academic traditions, but more importantly 바카라사이트y¡¯ll give us a sense of 바카라사이트 future in a world turning East -?a world where technology is moving faster than ever, and where we in Britain need new answers to help us, collectively, to earn our way to a better standard of living.

It won¡¯t be Robbins Revisited. ?It will be Robbins Rebooted. ?

Let 바카라사이트 debate commence.?