Question: Is what's on the table not better than the current system? Given that you have little realistic prospect of winning the next election, shouldn't you at least support the bill on these grounds?

Phil Willis: No, we oppose the bill on principles, rather than on either popularism or opportunity.

There is no doubt that moving the upfront fees to post-graduation fees is a positive move. But we argued that when the government introduced upfront fees back in 1998.

So we are consistent in saying that that shouldn't have happened.

But in terms of the overall bill itself, it is a thoroughly poorly thought out bill, giving little to universities, putting students in significant debt and doing nothing to address the overall problems within the higher education sector.

Question: What parts of the bill do you like?

Phil Willis: I like the first part which is setting up a humanities research council. I think that is long overdue, bringing that into line with the science research councils. That is very positive.

Secondly, if you actually look at the issue of moving the responsibility for higher education in Wales to the Welsh assembly, is something that the party very much supports in terms of devolution.

But the two core principles, which are about the introduction of differential fees in our universities and creating a market and then off expecting students to pay for that are two things which we fundamentally oppose.

Question: What evidence do you cite to say that poorer students will be put off more expensive courses?

Phil Willis: A number of pieces. First of all if you look at the MORI/Unite student survey which was published this week, there is clear evidence there that the fear of debt is putting students off and that is home based piece of research.

If you look at the work which was done by Professor Callendar and South Bank University for the Department for Education and Skills itself, it again concluded that the introduction of top-up fees would in fact deter students from entering university.

And I think the third piece of research which in fact we have done ourselves is actually looking at the trend of students to stay local rather than seek courses away from home.

There is a growing emphasis that students are staying at home and studying and that therefore the traditional university life is something which is totally different.

If in fact that is then translated into choosing the cheapest course then what we are going to see is not simply a market in higher education but higher education being valued on what people earn rather than what they are going to learn.

Question: Is staying at home not something that you have said before you support in terms of saving money?

Phil Willis: No I said that in terms of the new foundation degree I agree with the government that much of the expansion over the period up to 2010 is going to be in a rapid expansion of the two year foundation degree.

Most of those students by definition are going to stay at home.

Secondly, we have seen over the last 10 years an acceleration of students studying part time. And again by definition they are going to stay at home.

We have now got a third phenomenon coming in which basically says that students are staying at home because they can't afford to go away.

They are actually choosing courses which are not necessarily the best course for them but they are the best that is on offer locally.

That is something which we don't support.

Question: What's wrong with the Scottish solution that Lib Dems have signed up to in government? They haven't had to put up taxes or charge fees?

Phil Willis: I applaud the Scottish Executive for the stance it took in abolishing tuition fees and what it did in terms of the student grant which we very much support.

It in fact ring-fenced the £2,000 per student bursary into a bursary and that, to be fair, is working well.

The only variation we have to that south of the border is that we would not have the bursary system simply because the government is putting in money for £1,500 worth of fees and we would up that to £2,000 because the cost of collecting what would be £500 from students just does not warrant the bureaucratic infrastructure.

So it is a simple case of pragmatism there rather than any philosophical divide between ourselves and our colleagues in Scotland.

Question: But why do they do prefer a graduate repayment scheme when you are calling for the money to come from the top-rate of tax?

Phil Willis: Only because it is more efficient. They have got a system in place now. They have actually invested in a bursary system and what the Scottish Executive are doing is actually using their resources to support universities rather than charging students fees.

And that is their choice. If in fact the Lib Dem proposals were produced, the Barnett formula additional costs for Scotland they could use either to remove the bursary if they wanted or indeed to invest that money somewhere else.

I suspect that having set the system up they will retain their bursary system, either make it more generous or indeed invest more in the universities. That is a devolved choice.

Question: Was the prime minister right to say that your projections for a new top rate of tax would be undermined by creative accounting and international competition?

Phil Willis: I think he is fundamentally wrong on both those counts.

If you actually look at the top rates of tax across Europe then even at 50 pence in the pound for a top rate of tax then Britain is still very competitively placed.

In fact 17 out of 23 of the OECD's leading economies have tax rates approaching 50 pence. So I don't think that that is an issue in that sense.

And indeed there is a contradiction in terms of what the prime minister is saying, because graduates who are earning £36,000 per year under the government's new scheme will in fact be paying a marginal rate of 50 pence in the pound when you include the additional one per cent for national insurance plus of course the nine per cent repayment on the graduate tax.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it is all right to pay 50 pence tax on middle incomes but it is not right to pay it on multi-millionaires.

Question: And how do you respond to his charge that it would be wrong to devote any new resources for education exclusively to the university sector at the expense of under-fives, primary, secondary and further education?

Phil Willis: We are certainly not doing that. Charles Kennedy has made it absolutely clear that the 50 pence rate on incomes over £100,000 per year brings in roughly £4.5 billion of which £2 billion would be devoted to higher education.

The remainder of that would be on our other two priorities, the change to local income tax from council tax and the other is free care of the elderly.

Question: But are you not still putting higher education in front of other areas of education in the queue for new money?

Phil Willis: Every political party has got to have priorities. For instance, in terms of early years we are incredibly supportive of what the government is trying to do with early years.

That is why we are saying we would not use the child trust fund money which the chancellor has put in.

We would use that, some £350 million at its peak, straight into early years. They are hard choices which the party is making.

We are also saying that we would have rapid changes within government departments, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry.

We would actually like to see that department removed in its entirety and that some of the grant funding which goes on in the DTI actually transferred for instance into the whole skills agenda of actually skilling the nations workforce.

These are hard choices, but we have to make them within existing resources, rather than believe that everything can come out of a higher rate of tax.

Question: There seems to have been a lot of momentum back towards the government on the fees issue in recent weeks. Do you think it has done enough to win the vote?

Phil Willis: I think it is going to be very, very close and I believe it will not be what the rebels will do or indeed what the Liberal Democrats will do but what the Conservatives will do.

I think it is the Conservatives who are wobbling badly on their position and indeed if Michael Howard doesn't get the whole of the Conservative Party into the lobby on the day then it will in fact be a defeat for Michael Howard's leadership just as much as it would be a defeat for Tony Blair if the bill was lost.

Question: Do you think the government has been helped by the timing of the Hutton report coming a day after the vote on fees in the sense that Labour MPs won't want to rock the boat on the eve of another big event?

Phil Willis: Yes I do. I think that that is all quite deliberate and it does worry me that when a government is talking about getting its policy through on the basis of McCarthyite tactics and blackmailing its MPs then I think democracy is really seriously under threat.

Question: So you think that the government has had a say in the timing of the Hutton report?

Phil Willis: I think it is too coincidental but parliament is all about conspiracy theories.

Question: Is that not quite a serious charge and do you not think Lord Hutton would reject that?

Phil Willis: I'm pretty sure Lord Hutton would reject that. But the government has total control over when it introduces the Higher Education Bill.

Question: But was that announcement not made before Lord Hutton announced the date of his report being released.

Phil Willis: Lord Hutton had announced that he was going to make his report towards the end of January. He always made that clear and then deferred it.

There was no problem at all of moving the Higher Education Bill either before Christmas, which was when it was originally scheduled, or indeed into February, they could have avoided that.