Ben Wallace's tuition fees pledge
Ahead of a Commons vote tomorrow on the government's controversial plans to increase tuition fees, and following my blog yesterday with photographs of the Tory MP Ben Wallace which appear to show him holding a copy of the NUS pledge on tuition fees, I have been sent this better picture of Ben Wallace holding the pledge which does indeed suggest that he amended it, as he says:
I've also been sent the following email exchange between Robbie Pickles, Union President of Lancaster University Students' Union and Ben Wallace.
From: LUSU President
Sent: 06 December 2010 12:29
To: WALLACE, Ben
Subject: NUS Pledge
Dear Ben,
The NUS have been in touch with me to confirm that you signed the NUS pledge to oppose "any rise in fees under the current system". I wanted to let you know that we have confirmed that you did indeed sign this pledge, with the caveat above, and that as far as we at Lancaster are concerned this pledge still stands.
This pledge was not connected with Conservative party policy, with any particular constituency or with any specific agenda. It was a personal pledge from you that you would oppose this.
As the tuition fees vote comes ahead of any proposed changes to Higher Education this is indeed a rise under the current system. There is no possible counter argument to this and should you attempt to pretend this is not so we will be certain to hold you to account. I am sure the local/national press would be very eager to hear why you feel that this pledge no longer applies...
I look forward to seeing you voting against a rise in fees on Thursday as promised.
Robb
- - - - - - - - -
Robbie Pickles
LUSU President
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WALLACE, Ben
Sent: 08 December 2010 11:43
To: 'LUSU President'
Subject: NUS Pledge - reply Ben Wallace MP
Dear Robbie,
Thank you for your email and thank you for confirming I did not sign the NUS pledge. I did indeed pledge to oppose the fee rises under the current system but Lord Browne's report proposes many of the changes I campaigned for, - more support for students from poorer backgrounds, a proper Graduate starting salary before paying money back, and a duty on universities to provide much more information to students about what they get for their money and the likelihood of graduate employment in their chosen sectors. I also see that the Coalition Government has added a new £150 million national scholarships program which could offer a free first year for students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
As you will know the regulations being put to the House on Thursday are not for now but for the future year 2012/2013. The Government by then will have implemented the legislative changes Browne proposes. So when the fees come in to force the new system will be in place. It matters not which order the two legislative instruments come to the House.
I met with the NUS leadership on the day of publication of the Browne report and they were fully aware of my position. Perhaps it does not suit the NUS agenda to let facts get in the way of a campaign? Labour started the tuition fees policy and whatever we may wish for that massive expansion of HE, often at expense of quality, means we have to try and reform the current system. Work still needs to be done but Lord Browne's new system goes some way,
I spoke with predecessor this morning who was present at the signing it may be worth you speaking to him,
Ben Wallace MP
Member for Wyre & Preston North
Comment number 1.
At 9th Dec 2010, JunkkMale wrote:In this day and age words do matter, especially in writing.
But when we are also in an era of cameras capturing 8pt type in briefing documents poking out of minsters' oddly transparent, outward-facing files, to be chewed over by obsessive hacks for weeks, the facts of this story still seem oddly 'vague' between what is, what is claimed, and what is reported...
'...which appear to show him holding a copy of the NUS pledge on tuition fees, I have been sent this better picture of Ben Wallace holding the pledge which does indeed suggest that he amended it...
There are two qualifiers in there that pretty clearly still raise doubts. On what basis please? As it has warranted considerable negative coverage, it would be good to separate what is known and verified from opinion and allusion.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)