Breakfast with Frost

On 25 January 2004, Sir David Frost interviewed Charles Clarke MP.

Please note "BBC Breakfast with Frost" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

Charles Clarke MP

DAVID FROST: Well, he knew the job of education secretary was a tough one when he took it on, but Charles Clarke has got probably the toughest job of his political life over the next couple of days, when he has to persuade enough members of his own party to vote for the introduction of tuition fees.

If he doesn't and the government loses, the Prime Minister will almost certainly face a vote of confidence - all this 24 hours before Lord Hutton reports on the events leading to the death of Dr David Kelly. Well, Charles Clarke joins me right now from out studios in Norwich - who are of course top of the First Division.

Good morning Charles.

CHARLES CLARKE: Good morning David. And you're quite right, there we are.

DAVID FROST: Absolutely. Now as you woke up this morning, were you thinking you're on the winning side, or were you thinking there's another hill to climb today?

CHARLES CLARKE: I was thinking both. I think that we will win the vote on Tuesday but there's certainly a hill to climb. A lot of my colleagues went back to their constituencies last Thursday and Friday intending to talk to both universities, schools and their own local Labour parties in their constituencies before deciding finally what they did.

Quite a reasonable thing to do and they've been doing it, and so that's why the uncertainty is there which is reflected in your discussions with Amanda and Michael just now.

DAVID FROST: And in fact the papers yesterday, quoting you from Friday, said that you were looking closely to see if you could find a copper-bottomed way of guaranteeing that that £3000 won't go rocketing up in short order. To reassure those people whose fears are based on that. Have you managed to find that copper-bottomed way this weekend?

CHARLES CLARKE: Well we, what we were talking about David was firstly our pledge that we wouldn't increase the top up fee level until the parliament after this. Secondly, ensuring that it was only done on the basis of a full three year inquiry based on how variable fees had actually operated.

Thirdly that every Member of Parliament would have a vote. Now beyond that, we're prepared to go to the situation of saying we'll put on the face of the bill the fact that no order to increase fees could be introduced until after two general elections from now - that is to say in the parliament the year after this.

I think that gives the kind of assurance people are looking for, who've been worried whether there was going to be some secret plan - which there never has been of course - to increase fees earlier than that.

DAVID FROST: So that will go on the face of the bill?

CHARLES CLARKE: That will, yes.

DAVID FROST: And that is very, very important for the rebels who are trying to decide their story today. Because in fact, Barbara Roche said, today, she's quoted as saying that if the government could indicate some movement on variability, then she'd be prepared to reconsider that aspect.

CHARLES CLARKE: Well I haven't spoken to Barbara today, or indeed in the last few days David, but the point she's always made is could she be sure that a girl like her from a Hackney working class estate, where she was born, would be able to get to the top universities like Oxford and Cambridge, where she in fact did. Our proposals ensure that that can happen and I'm certain that that kind of development is important for people like Barbara.

DAVID FROST: Yes, but the variability, I mean you've made concessions on a lot of fronts and so on but the variability is the one thing you can't change, you feel, yes?

CHARLES CLARKE: Absolutely not, and it's at the core of the bill, and it's absolutely right that it should be at the core of the bill. The fact that universities will be able to charge a range of fees between nought and £3000 is very important indeed and it reflects just the logic of what university life is today, with the wide variety of different courses, different subjects, different lengths, different institutions, and it's perfectly right that there should be variability and that's an aspect of the bill which we think is very important and can't make any concessions.

But the worry that perhaps some colleagues had that we have some secret agenda to raise fees in the next couple of years beyond that £3000 level up to 5000, 10,000 or whatever - which is a fear many colleagues have put to us - is, as we've made clear from the outset, not what we have in mind and I'm very happy to make that as firmly clear as I possibly can.

DAVID FROST: And in terms, ironically enough on variability Charles, I mean a number of people are predicting, who've done surveys, that in fact everyone is going to be likely to charge the full 3000 so, although theoretically there will be variability, in practice there won't.

DAVID FROST: I don't think that will actually be the case. I think almost all universities will have fees they're charging at less than 3000 and that all universities will have some courses they do charge at 3000.

I'm absolutely sure there will be variability, and if you talk candidly to most vice chancellors they would acknowledge they haven't done a business plan for their university courses yet and would only set the level of fee once they've made a proper assessment, which is of course the right way to go about it. There's been a bit of sabre rattling on this but I myself am certain there will be a wide range of variation in fees.

DAVID FROST: And what about the situation in terms of the people who are saying the - the employers said this week that the system is already producing too many graduates.

A Cambridge don said two-thirds of the students shouldn't be there and the New Statesman said this would all mean lower salaries and graduates in jobs previously employing non-graduates. In other words, the suggestion would seem to be that with 43% of young people going to universities, we shouldn't have any more because we're going to have a glut of graduates. Is that possible?

CHARLES CLARKE: I think it's nonsense. Ever since you were at Cambridge, David, there have been Cambridge dons saying the only person at Cambridge should be that Cambridge don. The fact is the Confederation of British Industry strongly supports our proposals. Digby Jones has said so quite explicitly. And the reason is because they acknowledge that their businesses need highly qualified and highly skilled people in order to compete in a very sharp world economy.

That's why we think that it's right to expand the number of graduates rather than to contract them. But we also say the types of degrees have to change, and that's why we're proposing these two year foundation degrees, very closely linked to business, bringing together business and university, providing good opportunities for people going into university to get jobs afterwards. I'm sure that's the right way to go.

DAVID FROST: A lot of people are saying that, you know, if this doesn't go through, or even if it does, depending on exactly how much money will be received by the universities, that in fact the great universities will accept more and more foreign students TO whom they can charge whatever they want - do you think you may have to put a cap on the number of or percentage of foreign students that a university can take?

CHARLES CLARKE: I don't think we can do that - there are already universities which take a significant number of overseas students onto their under graduate courses.

But I think the fear you raise is real and that's one of the reasons I'm determined to get this bill through, because I want it to be clear that we can finance our great universities properly, from British students becoming under graduates at those universities and ensuring they work in the proper way and our proposals do that.

If our proposals are defeated, that effectively means that those universities have nowhere to look for extra resources other than to overseas students and I think that would be a very sad state of affairs. Ironic really that the effect of the Conservative vote against the proposals would be to ensure that fewer British students went to our great British universities.

DAVID FROST: And what about the situation in terms of financing this whole operation? The Tories in one of their things said that in fact all of this effort was going to result in a deficit on the project of £200m.

But those who don't go that far say in the end, by the time you've taken account of all the bursaries and the fact that not all of the students, indeed one third of the students won't have to pay and so on and so forth, that in fact the benefit to the system of higher education will only be half a billion. Do you accept that?

CHARLES CLARKE: I don't actually. I think that the, there are two big changes here, the first is that universities themselves will get at least a billion pounds in extra income for themselves, which they need, and which will, for example, allow them to increase the amount of money they spend on teaching resources by about 30%.

But secondly, we're restructuring the student finance side of it so that in place of the up front fees we've got the grant system that we're establishing, the higher rate of threshold and the new system of finance altogether, which we think is much fairer. So there's two twin things, both of which are beneficial, that universities themselves will get over a billion pounds of extra cash.

DAVID FROST: What about your situation Charles, in the situation, you said on Friday, quoted on Saturday that you wouldn't, whatever happens in the vote, you wouldn't resign because you haven't been guilty of dishonourable conduct, or indeed inefficiency - you wouldn't resign and nor would the Prime Minister.

CHARLES CLARKE: Well certainly, as I said before, I think the grounds for resignation for any government minister are firstly dishonour and secondly clear incompetence at carrying out the job, or losing the confidence of your colleagues or indeed losing the confidence of the Prime Minister.

I don't think any of those arises in my case and I don't think as far as the Prime Minister is concerned any of those arise in his case either, and I therefore don't think resignation is the issue. What is the important issue is the future of our universities in this country and how they're going to strengthen our economy in the future.

And the point I shall make in the debate on Tuesday is that it is a point of choice, people do have to chose at that point whether they want to have a well-financed university system or not, whether they want to get rid of up front fees or not, and so on. And that's the choice that's there, it's not an issue of political personalities, it's an issue of policy substance.

DAVID FROST: Talking of personalities, there was a prediction you saw today that you will be moving, after your events of this week, you will be moving to defence, it says. Have you heard any rumours about that Charles?

CHARLES CLARKE: I've never heard that and I think it doesn't arise in any respect whatsoever. I very much hope I can continue doing this job, which I enjoy very much.

But David, you're an even older hand than I am and you will know the papers are full of scribblers writing little speculations to try and fill their columns based on just about no substance at all, and I suspect this little reshuffle story that you're quoting today is just one of those things.

DAVID FROST: And, I mean if this bill doesn't go through now, then it won't come back for some time, will it?

CHARLES CLARKE: No, there's no plan B in this sense, that's why it's such an important vote. If you vote against the bill on Tuesday, you're voting to keep top up front fees, you're voting not to have grants, you're voting to keep the threshold of repayment at 10,000 rather than 15,000, you're voting not to put up the maintenance loan, you're voting for no more money to go to universities. If you vote for the bill, you're voting for all those good things to happen.

Now that's the choice and if we didn't get this bill through, there isn't another bill in the wings ready to come - and to be quite candid David, as I'm sure you'd agree, to see another secretary of state for education, or myself, come back with another bill in the next four or five years with all the difficulty we've gone through on this one, I would have thought was pretty unlikely.

DAVID FROST: Well we'll see what happens. Do you think, however, that the new point you've made, the new concession you've announced this morning, that could be, could just tip the balance and give you victory on Tuesday?

CHARLES CLARKE: Well I've discussed the particular idea of putting it on the face of the bill with a number of colleagues at the end of last week and many people seem to think it was, did give the kind of assurance that they were worried about.

The fact is that people are worried there's some secret plot to raise fees above and beyond the 3000 cap that we've said. That's never been true, there's no substance in it whatsoever. But the fact is that some people do believe it. And I hope that if we say that you would have to have primary legislation in order to do that in the next parliament, that would give some people who had those concerns some level of reassurance.

DAVID FROST: And just in conclusion, what did you make of the conflicting stories - David Kay saying there were never any, never in the Nineties any weapons of mass destruction - and then being quoted today as saying there were some weapons of mass destruction that were moved to Syria - what did you make of all that?

CHARLES CLARKE: Well all I think that shows is that anybody looking at the situation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was quite right to conclude that it was likely that there were such weapons.

That was the reason why Saddam refused to allow people to look for the situation properly, that was the reason why all the UN at the time believed that such weapons did exist. I think it was entirely reasonable to believe that such weapons exist and I think that's actually the implication of what David Kay has had to say on the subject.

DAVID FROST: Yes, at the same time in terms of him warning he had weapons of mass destruction, he could have not had them since 1991 - and as somebody said, just because you put in the garden a sign saying "beware of the dog" it doesn't mean that you've got a dog.

CHARLES CLARKE: Quite so. But the question is whether people believe the dog exists. And in the case of this particular dog of weapons of mass destruction, everybody believed they did exist, they'd been used, the United Nations believed it, Saddam was refusing to allow people to look at the situation, David Kay said maybe they were sent over the border. So if you believe the dog exists, then you believe it's an aggressive and dangerous dog then is it right to try and take some means to control that dog and I think the answer was and is yes.

DAVID FROST: That's a special answer for dog lovers all over the country. Well it's going to be a hairy, tough week for you - yes?

CHARLES CLARKE: Well it is but I, one of the things I've been pleased about on the tuition fees side is the debate has been conducted in very temperate terms. Colleagues have had their views, of course, they have their disagreements and we've been discussing them, but I haven't felt some of those poison passions which sometimes have taken place in political debates in my lifetime.

I felt that it's been a perfectly reasonable discussion with people trying to understand what was the best thing to do for the future of our universities.

And in that sense, though it will be a difficult week, as you rightly say David, I don't think it will have some of that anger which I recall from previous inner party debates in the past, and I think it's a much more respectful discussion than that and I think that's a very good thing too.

---