All new governments bite off more than they can chew. Freshly-elected, eager and chomping at the bit the coalition has, thus far, embarked on an ambitious programme of reform in the public sector, part-inspired by the need to be creative with public money during a time of austerity, part-motivated by a desire to complete reforms that Tony Blair embarked on a decade ago and which are now opposed by the party he led.

Some reforms are better than others, however, both in their concept and their handling. Virtually everyone agrees that reforms to schooling and the welfare state are desirable. Other initiatives, like reform to the health service are more contentious and less adeptly managed, and some, like higher education, have provoked a hostile reaction in virtually all quarters.

Given the student riots and pummelling in the polls the Liberal Democrats – and Nick Clegg in particular – have taken on the issue of higher education I can well imagine ministers wincing at the thought of a renewed outbreak of hostilities that a HE Bill – if it is ever presented – will inevitably cause, but with the Telegraph reporting it has been dropped altogether, confusion reigns for one simple reason. It was meant to mitigate against the fee rise.

In 2010 the House of Commons voted to raise university fees by statutory instrument. In plain English this means Parliament gave permission to ministers to amend the 2004 Higher Education Act specifically to raise fees.

Meanwhile, the white paper, ‘Students at the Heart of the System’ – which appears to have been dropped – was to be the framework document for a new higher education bill to make the system fairer, which is already some six months late.  

The white paper contains measures to improve social mobility by enforcing access agreements and beefing up the Office of Fair Access, control course costs by increasing places for low charging universities, a ‘core and margin’ model to increase competition for places, support for new institutions to enter the system, toughen regulation to drive up standards and make course and university information easier to obtain to increase transparency.

During the fees vote ministers told the Commons and the public that an increase in fees needed to be agreed urgently, before any white paper could be published, so universities could amend their pricing structures for 2012 and avoid real-term cuts in income caused by the removal of the block grant in the spending review.

MPs were promised a full debate on measures, in a HE bill, which would ‘make the overall system fairer’. If it is true that the bill is being dropped then those Lib Dem, and some Conservative MPs, who voted with the government to raise fees on that promise will have been duped.

Of course it might be possible that ministers have the power and prerogative to amend the 2004 Act by statutory instrument or delegated legislation without taking the matter to Parliament for approval or seeking new primary legislation, which could not now come in time for the next academic year.

Reform by the back door, however, would be far more toxic than having the debate out in the open and the proper arena for such large scale reforms is the floor of Parliament. The reforms need to be scrutinized and aired in public not hidden behind opaque Whitehall procedure. If they are not the backlash will be enormous.

By launching on a campaign of piecemeal reform ministers have allowed confusion to reign and uncertainty to stalk academics and students already befuzzled by government acrobatics. If the Telegraph is accurate, David Willetts isn’t just performing another famous screeching U-turn but he is full on donuting his policy in circles. It's time he came clean and cleared things up.

Tags: David Willetts, Higher education, Office of Fair Access, Tuition fees, Universities