May 2011 14.38 BST

Universities minister issues statement to clarify intentions as critics say proposal to let rich students pay premium fees to get places at top universities will 'entrench privilege'

David Willetts, who wants to let the wealthiest students pay premium fees to get places at top universities. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

David Willetts, the universities minister, has insisted there is "no question" of wealthy students being able to buy a university place after facing criticism over proposals to allow teenagers from the wealthiest families to be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities.

Willetts had earlier sought to stress that the move would free up more publicly subsidised places for undergraduates from poorer homes and improve social mobility.

But critics said the move would entrench privilege and turn back the clock to a time when "breeding not brains" mattered, with the Liberal Democrat MP and party president, Tim Farron, warning that he would oppose any measure that gave the appearance of increasing university access for the rich.

Downing Street swiftly distanced itself from any suggestion that it was backing plans for students with rich parents be given priority access to university as a way of expanding the overall number of university places and university income.

No 10 did not rule out a limited version of the idea appearing in the university white paper, due this summer, but stressed that no proposal would be backed if it reduced social mobility.

"We are listening to proposals about what we would do in the white paper to ensure we improve access to higher education," a No 10 spokesman said.

The business secretary, Vince Cable, said he was willing to look at how to expand off-quota places through company sponsorships, but stressed that he did not support the children of the rich being given priority access to university.

By lunchtime, Willetts had issued a statement to insist there was "no question" of wealthy students being able to buy a place at university. "Access to a university must be based on ability to learn not ability to pay," the universities minister said.

Under current government plans, annual student numbers are capped to keep costs down, with English universities allowed to charge UK students a maximum annual fee of £9,000 from 2012, which graduates do not have to start paying until they are earning £21,000 a year.

Willetts sparked controversy when he suggested in an interview with the Guardian that universities could increase the numbers of British students by charging some the full annual fees of up to £28,000 a year for the most expensive courses, payable up front, who would not then require the support of the taxpayer.

The changes would give more students the chance to attend their first choice university, a suggestion that many see as enabling the children of the wealthiest parents to buy their way in.

The move is being considered at a time when the government is cutting 10,000 publicly funded university places.

Employers and charities will also be encouraged to sponsor off-quota places under the plans to be outlined in the white paper.

Earlier in the day, Willetts had told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "People are coming to us with innovative ideas about how you could liberalise the system so it was possible for extra people to get to university.

"These are people who we wish to go to university and who, sadly, are being turned away at the moment just because there aren't enough places.

"We would need to have a set of criteria, if this went ahead, that absolutely passed muster as improving social mobility.

"I start from the view that, by and large, more people going to university is a good thing for social mobility. Anything that we did if this does go forward would have to pass the test of improving social mobility, not reversing it."

In a sign of the Liberal Democrats' determination to assert more directly their differences with the Conservatives following the elections debacle, Farron, the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, said higher education should be "free at the point of use" for everyone who can benefit from university.

The MP – whose party took a hit at the polls last Thursday for the party's U-turn on tuition fee rises – told BBC News any proposal that looked like increasing university access for the rich would not get his backing.

"If that is the case, then that would be completely wrong and I would be against such a move," he said. "If it's about making sure we increase places for people of poorer backgrounds, that's something that's worth looking at.

"The real difficulty – one of the reasons why I voted against the fee rise last year – is not so much the unfairness of the package but how it appears to people out there."

Farron added: "Higher education should be free at the point of use and that people who are able to benefit from a university education should be able to do so.

"I hugely regret there are tuition fees at all, never mind the higher ones we currently have. It's right that we should explore ways that people from less well-off backgrounds [can] have the best possible access to higher education."

The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: "Far from increasing social mobility, it is hard to see how this is anything other than the government entrenching privilege for the wealthy in response to its failing university fees policy.

"We risk turning the clock back to a time when breeding rather than brains were required to get on in life. The news is particularly embarrassing for the Liberal Democrats as all their MPs pledged to vote, and campaign, against higher fees."

 

Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students (NUS), said the move would create a "two-tier system" in university education.

"The government is yet again tossing out a poorly conceived policy idea in an attempt to disguise the chaos it has created in university funding and the shortfall in finances that has created," he said.

"This creates a two-tier system that allows the richest, less able applicants a second bite at the university cherry and denies low- and middle-income students the same opportunity."

John Denham, the shadow business secretary, who has raised the issue in an urgent question in the Commons this afternoon, said low-income teenagers would have no chance of getting the extra university places created by Willetts's latest plan.

Willetts denied suggestions that the scheme would allow less qualified applicants to get to a good university by the backdoor.

"I don't think that would be fair," he told Today. "That's why one of the crucial criteria would be that people have to have the same high academic standards."

Willetts later issued a clarifying statement, saying: "We will only consider allowing off-quota places where it contributes to the coalition commitment to improve social mobility and increase fair access.

"There is no question of wealthy students being able to buy a place at university. Access to a university must be based on ability to learn not ability to pay."

He added: "We have been discussing the idea of charitable donors and employers endowing additional places on a needs-blind basis which will be a subject for consultation in the higher education white paper."

The proposal is most likely to be taken up by highly selective institutions, which turn away thousands of qualified candidates a year. Oxford accepted slightly more than 3,000 British and EU undergraduates out of about 17,000 who applied for the current academic year.

That demand is due to intensify as the latest application figures show the number of candidates for this autumn has risen by 2.1% to about 633,000 – another record high.

The places may not be covered by access agreements, under which universities are required to outline how they will improve their proportion of students from state schools and deprived backgrounds.

Under one version of the scheme, universities might operate a "needs-blind" admissions process, which assesses all candidates regardless of their ability to pay, but then offers places off-quota to candidates from the most privileged homes.

The expansion of places will put greater pressure on less popular universities. Ministers have warned that undersubscribed institutions could have government-funded places withdrawn.

10 May 2011 17.00 BST

Repressive regimes have long exploited sectarian tensions. For democracy to flourish, pluraTuesday

Syrian women living in Jordan painted with the Syrian flag protest against Bashar al-Assad at their embassy in Amman. Photograph: Muhammad Hamed/Reuters

Revolutions alone do not bring about democratic secular societies and, unless this is recognised, Arab states will continue to be trapped by a cycle of internal tension that politicians are only too willing to exploit.

So long as sectarian tensions are bubbling beneath the surface of Arab society, the threat of civil conflict will always be a possibility – one frightening enough to paralyse any opposition to the ruling elite. It is through the manipulation of these sentiments that certain Arab leaders have managed to cling on for so long. Now, Arab societies must invest in education to prevent such tensions being passed to future generations.

On Saturday, Syrian tanks loyal to President Bashar al-Assad surrounded the predominantly Sunni coastal city of Banias. There are also claims by activists that the Syrian army is mainly targeting Sunni districts in a bid by the Syrian government to ignite sectarian tensions and divide the opposition against it.

There is no denying that as the protests have developed since the beginning of March the rhetoric of the Syrian government has turned more and more sectarian. Syrian state media has continuously accused protesters of a sectarian plot led by Salafist extremists (an ultra-conservative branch of Sunni Islam) intent on gaining control of the secular Syrian society.

This narrative is designed to incite the sectarian sentiments of the Sunnis and bring fear to the Alawite minority, which the president himself is part of, as well as the Christians and the Druze. The same narrative is also likely to have gained strength in post-revolutionary Egypt on Sunday, as a group of Salafists clashed with Coptic Christians. The relative success of this narrative in inciting fear and tension within Syrian society – the homogeneity of which is often praised and held as an example in the region – is extremely alarming.

The Syrian example is not unique. The protests in Bahrain, which began as a relatively unified defiance of the ruling Sunni monarchy, were soon rephrased by the state and its media as an isolated Shia conspiracy, backed by Iran. Similarly in Iraq, now categorised as a "democracy", the recent protests against corruption were labelled as Ba'athist by a government willing to play on a history of fear to paralyse a largely nationalist opposition composed of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds.

The sad case of Iraq demonstrates too well the dangers of sectarian tensions, as Iraqi society has been involved in a vicious cycle of political manipulation before and after the 2003 invasion, with sectarian resentments peaking during the civil conflict in 2006. The invasion of Iraq also ushered in a political institutionalisation of sectarian identity that risked rephrasing politics in terms of sectarian concerns rather than national interests.

Similarly, in Lebanon, the structure of the political system encourages sectarianism in wider society.

These examples show that in any post-revolutionary (or indeed post-conflict) society, democracy can only flourish if deep-seated attitudes concerning sectarianism and identity are addressed.

If we look at the history of racism, slavery and antisemitism in the west, it becomes evident that education played an important role in developing tolerance and understanding of "differences" as well as promoting human rights. With the rise of multiculturalism in Europe, education in primary schools has played an essential role in teaching children about equality and discouraging prejudice. While it is important not to overstate the level of tolerance or lack of tension in multicultural communities in Europe, the significant development of social attitudes in the last 52 years is undeniable, with education playing a key role.

A promising start to addressing sectarianism at an early stage in life is the Play It Fair educational programme, launched last week in Lebanon by various NGOs. The programme aims to promote human rights and tolerance to encourage children to "peacefully coexist".

The significance of a programme such as this is that it is developed and taught by grassroots organisations and volunteers, rather than by a state-controlled education system. What's more, whereas previous attempts to control sectarian sentiments have involved the suppression of certain identities by the state – for instance in pre-2003 Iraq – programmes such as this aim instead to provide the skills necessary to live in a pluralistic society where different identities and beliefs do exist.

It is true that such educational programmes do not address the sectarian structures in political systems such as those in Iraq and Lebanon, and therefore cannot exist as an isolated tool for reform. However, they can play an important role in altering the attitudes of future generations, likely to be scarred by the sectarian conflicts of today.

Whether or not this programme will have a significant effect in breaking the cycle of sectarianism, it is a step – one that has yet to be tested in the Middle East and one that is certainly worth a shot in the current climate of the region.