Tomorrow (Wednesday) sees the first meeting of the Council’s Internal Scrutiny committee, which I chair. It’s a meeting with a single agenda item - potential charges to be levied for some non-core Children Centre services. The Cabinet Member responsible for these services has put forward proposals to start charging for them, and this proposal has been “called in” for further scrutiny by the committee tomorrow.

It promises to be an interesting evening because I know the Children’s Centres have been very popular and useful in communities since their introduction, and that up until now all of the services for which charges are proposed have been free.

The meeting is open to the public, at the Town Hall at 7pm, so anyone interested can come down. You can also ask questions should you so wish, so this is your chance to get involved in the debate too.

Rick

It’s now been two weeks since I wrote to Ivan Lewis MP about his opposition to the government’s plans for university funding.

As I’ve previously explained, he wrote to me asking for my views on the matter, and copied the letter to the local press. I told him in reply that I opposed the government and thought that funding should come from general taxation. I asked him what his solution to higher education funding is, since Labour don’t have one.

He was using the issue to have a go at the Lib Dems (and their representatives, e.g. me), which I thought was a bit rich given that I don’t think he has an alternative.

I asked him, just to make sure.

Two weeks later, no reply from him as yet.

As with so much from Labour, they are very quick to criticise, and very slow to provide an alternative. Either a party line or a personal view will do from Mr Lewis, but I’ve not got either yet.

I’ll keep you posted.

Rick

It’s been a week since I wrote to Ivan Lewis MP about tuition fees.

If you recall, he wrote to me asking for my views on the matter, and I told him I opposed the government. I asked him what his solution to higher education funding is, since Labour don’t have one.

Fair enough if people don’t want to vote Lib Dem any more over this issue. I disagree with that stance, but respect it if that’s how people feel. It would seem odd though to leave the Lib Dems for Labour over this, as Ivan seems to want, since Labour have no answer themselves.

So I thought I’d check with Ivan to see if he or the party have anything positive they’d like to share. I know it’s probably not in keeping with conventional political wisdom to keep mentioning tuition fees if you’re a Lib Dem, but I’d rather get an answer from Ivan than sweep this under the carpet.

One week down, no reply from his as yet.

I’ll keep you posted.

Rick

Bury Schools are set to receive up to £430 per pupil a year for each poorer pupil they teach under details announced by the Coalition Government. It means that Bury stands to gain over £1.8m extra cash in the coming year to help towards improving teaching and learning in schools and boosting achievement.

The extra cash will be given according to the number of pupils on free school meals and whose families earn less than £16,000 per year. It means that Bury gains an estimated £1.825m.

It was one of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats main pledges before the election. The Pupil Premium prioritises spending on boosting the chances of younger kids starting out at school, rather than those already at university.

There are over 4,200 pupils in Bury eligible for free school meals, so this will mean a really boost for our schools and make a huge difference to the outcomes and chances for our young people. Children need the best possible start in life, and this much needed extra cash will make a real difference in schools to getting our children a better start in life.

Rick

I have this evening written a letter to Ivan Lewis MP, in response to the one he sent me earlier on about tuition fees. Ivan’s letter and my reply to that letter is below in another post, and I direct him to it in what I’ve written him this evening. This evening’s letter says as follows:

Dear Ivan,

Thank you for your letter. Since a copy of that letter was sent to the Bury Times it is only right that my reply is also public. You can read my reply on my website by visiting http://richardbaum.mycouncillor.org.uk/2010/12/07/labour-letter-watch-3-this-time-its-personal-about-tuition-fees-from-ivan-lewis-mp/.

I have been honest and open about my position on university fees throughout the current debate. My position puts me at odds with the government and my party’s leadership, but I am not ashamed to admit that. I signed the pledge not to raise fees, and if I had the chance to vote in Parliament I would vote against the government on this issue.

I do think that the government’s proposals are fairer than what is in place now, but they do not go far enough and they crucially involve an increase in fees. For that reason I cannot support them.

Having made my position clear, I think it only fair that you are equally open with the people of Prestwich and the rest of Bury South about your position on this issue.

In your letter to me you asked whether I have made any representations to the party’s leadership on the fees issue. I have, and I give details in the reply on my website. What representations have you made to Labour’s leader Ed Miliband on this issue? Do you support his stance on university funding, or that of the shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson? Perhaps you support David Miliband, as you did in the contest for Labour’s leadership.

It is clear that the Labour party have no formal position on this issue. I do. Do you? If so, what is it? What is your preferred model of funding for higher education, and in particular on the issue of student contributions?

You have made it quite clear that you are against the Browne reports proposals, despite being a minister in the government which commissioned his report. You have also made it quite clear that you are against raising tuition fees, despite being a minister in the government which trebled them by introducing top-up fees, and despite being a Labour MP when your party introduced fees in the first place.

It is quite clear what you are against. What is it that you are for?

Do you agree with me that we should be looking to reduce and eventually abolish the fees that you and your government introduced, or do you continue to support tuition fees as you have done consistently for the last thirteen years?

I look forward to hearing how you would fund higher education.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Richard Baum

The students protesting in London today have my support (apart from the ones burning and smashing things, who should calm down). We shouldn’t be asking them to pay up to three times the tuition fees they currently do. It’s no wonder they’re angry, and I share their anger.

As Lib Dems we offered them hope of an alternative in our manifesto, and if we vote to raise fees we’ve not only taken that alternative away but broken a promise which might take a long time to make good.

The government’s proposals are wrong, in my view. They are especially wrong for Lib Dems who campaigned against this. I am pleased to see that at the grass roots in the party there is a growing body of people publicly voicing opposition to the government’s plans.

Nick Clegg’s assertions that they’re “progressive” might be true (who knows what “progressive” even means really?) but this misses two massive points. First, that some complex formula about progressiveness won’t out-do the looming spectre of massive debt for poor students. And second, that the government’s policy is the direct opposite of our election promise.

Labour are seeking to make gains from all of this, as well they might. There was an angry exchange in Parliament today between Clegg and Harriet Harman. But the politics of the fees debate are different to the issue and to its potential resolution. Students shouldn’t be fooled by Harman and others into thinking that Labour offer them something different. The truth is that they don’t. They have form in betraying students, and they offer nothing new now.

Remember, Labour were against fees in 1997 only to introduce them having been elected. They then explicitly promised not to introduce top-up fees in their election manifesto in 2001, only to do just that in 2003. Prior to leaving office it was Labour which commissioned the Browne review which recently recommended the latest big fee increase. And today, although Labour oppose the coalition’s policy, their own luke-warm support for a graduate tax is neither costed nor workable. They have no alternative policy. They have no funding plan for higher education, no idea what to prioritise and what to cut, and nothing to offer students except a despatch box to moan from.

The students are rightly angry at the government. But they shouldn’t think that Labour offer them a better way. Right now, no party does, which makes any Lib Dem supoort for the Browne review all the more depressing to me.

Rick

The meeting of the Internal Scrutiny Committee last night was well attended and, I think, sucessful. The two topics debated – home to school transport and the Council’s homelessness strategy – were discussed in quite some depth and with passionate and knowledgeable contributions from members of the public, and we made some good progress I think.

The issue of home to school transport is a controversial one. The Council proposes consulting on whether or not to stop paying the transport costs for all children who go to far-away faith schools, and instead to restrict payments to only poorer children, in line with the policy for non-denominational schools.

I am in favour of the plans. I recongise the impact that this will have on some families who choose to send their children to faith schools, but the Council’s plans maintain support for those who can’t afford it themselves, and will bring faith and non-faith schools into line. For both financial and equalities reasons I think it’s the right move.

However, there were some very strong feelings to the contrary at the meeting last night, and I think their arguments are perfectly valid. There was a good debate, at the end of which a vote was taken which split the committee down the middle. As Chair I had the casting vote. My choice was either to allow the consultation to proceed, or to send the issue to full Council for further debate prior to any wider consultation.

My personal view is that it’s fine and should proceed, but since it’s obviously controversial I voted to send it back to Council for a fuller discussion. I thought it more appropriate for all members to have their say on this issue, rather than just a few of us, given that it obviously generates a lot of feeling on both sides. I don’t think it was my job to restrict debate, so I voted for more debate even though I agree with the policy as proposed. Who knows, when it’s debated at full council I might hear something that will change my mind.

On Homelessness the issue was a lot more clear cut. There was general unease that the homelessness strategy presented to us didn’t answer a number of important questions about the future of temporary housing, or give assurances that future provision will meet need. We agreed to set up an urgent working group to advise on improvements before the strategy is signed off.

Rick

I find the government’s response to the Browne Report on student fees incredibly disappointing and short sighted.

The Lib Dem pledge-smashing makes a mockery of my party’s campaign and everyone who voted for us, and if we abstain to allow this through then it makes a liar out of me and everyone else who signed the pledge not to raise tuition fees. We promised, and we shouldn’t break that promise. Coalition politics is about compromise, not doing the exact opposite of what we said we’d do.

When Labour did exactly the same thing over top-up fees we rightly took to the streets and made it our business to let everyone know that the government had let students down. Now we let the very same people down in the very same way, and with signed pledge cards to make it all that much worse.

I’ve written on here before about why I think tuition fees are bad news, so I won’t do it again. I think the same things I thought about the issue three weeks ago. Unfortunately, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable think the same now as they did three weeks ago too, and I think they’re both wrong. Despite suggesting that in between the report’s publication and the government’s response there would be more “progressive” things added to the proposals, I can’t really see any and we are still left with students facing debts up to three times higher than they were before we started. And they were too high then!

We’ve tinkered round the edges of Browne’s suggestions, but the cap proposed is not at a meaningful level. To a poor student, a debt of £25k may as well be a debt of £35k. It’s still a massive, unfeasable amount.

We’ve not had a debate on the principle of who should pay for university, what it’s for, and whether the British model of three year full time residential courses is sensible in the modern world. We’ve just decided that since the current system is unaffordable (I don’t dispute that) then students need to pay lots to keep it going.

We should stop these plans, because we promised to, and because they’re wrong.

Rick

Lib Dem Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg this morning announced that the Coalition Government will spend an extra £7bn on giving the poorest children a better start in life.

The “fairness premium” will come in three parts:

First, all disadvantaged two year-olds will have an entitlement to 15 hours a week of pre-school education, in addition to the 15 hours already available to them at three and four years of age. By offering more help at an earlier age to the most disadvantaged children, the policy will directly tackle the gaps in attainment that open up in the critical early years of life. This additional early years investment will amount to £300 million a year by 2014-15.

Second, a Pupil Premium to help poorer pupils wherever they live in the country. Schools will receive additional funds to offer targeted help to every pupil eligible for free school meals and reduce educational inequalities. By the end of the Spending Review period, this pupil premium will grow to an additional £2.5 billion of investment each year.

Third, there will be a form of “student premium” for the least advantaged students, representing a commitment of at least £150 million a year by the end of the spending review period.

I welcome the plan, the first two bits of which were at the front and centre of the Lib Dem election manifesto. It shows that we’ve prioritised what we said was important and allocated extra funds, even though that means less funds elsewhere because of the need to cut overall.

Unfortunately the timing of the third announcement (student premium) couldn’t have been worse, as the fall out over tuition fees continues. Quite how it will work isn’t clear, but its aim is to “tear down the barriers” preventing poorer people from going to university. In the same week that the government has announced the construction of the biggest ever such barrier, that seems an odd goal to say the least.

But still, that aside I think this is a good day. The pupil premium was proposed by both us and the Tories and has the potential to make a massively positive difference. The same is true of free child care for 2 year olds. Bravo to the government for seeing this through.

They could though have come up with a better title than “fairness premium,” because honestly if I hear the word “fairness” being crow-barred into one more political announcement I think I might scream. “Fair,” “Unfair,” “Progressive,” and “Regressive” are becoming the most over-used words in the country!

Rick

Rick

The Federal Policy Committee of the Liberal Democrats held their regular meeting last night, which unfortunately I couldn’t be at because I was washing my hair (and also, more importantly, because I am not on the FPC).

During the meeting they held a special session to discuss the “latest announcements following the Browne Review” which is a nice way of saying that they talked about how the Browne Reivew, which the coalition supports, advocates a policy which is completely opposite to the party’s own.

In a statement following the meeting, the committee spokesperson said: “FPC confirms the Liberal Democrat party policy remains to phase out tuition fees.

“We are now in a coalition government and we will continue during the period of discussion and consultation to work with our coalition partners towards achieving a policy that meets our key concerns and is progressive.”

That’s good news, but again the word “progressive” comes in at the end there as if that might be a get-out from the fees promise. The line that is being used to justify adopting the Browne Report is that because it is “progressive” (and the IFS suggest that it is) it is therefore OK.

To me this misses the point. My own objection to fees was never based primarily on whether the fee payback model was more or less progressive. It was about the principle of who should pay to educate people to make an enhanced contribution to the future economy. Browne’s view is undergraduates, my view is general taxation and businesses.

Altering the payback system to make it more progressive is one thing, but the entire system of university education becomes an awful lot less progressive if all but the richest are put off going at all because it costs £12k a year.

I am glad that the FPC are sticking to their guns, but they should remember the fundamentals of the policy.

Rick