Why I still oppose my Government over top-up fees

AS somebody who has spent 40 years in higher education and as much time committed to politics, I find myself this week at one of the most critical, if not perplexing, stages of my career. The chance to correct the terrible damage inflicted on our education system in the Eighties has finally arrived and there is no doubt that this is the government to do it. So many of us have waited so long for this and we have understandably met the moment with inspirational zeal.

The debate within the Parliamentary Labour Party over the proposals set forward in the Higher Education Bill, which will be voted on in the House of Commons tomorrow, has been vigorous to say the least. But the reason it has been so, and let's get this straight, is because many Labour MPs feel passionate about this issue and recognise the necessity of getting things right.

Education lies at the core of Labour politics and is key to any agenda that seeks to promote social justice. I and many of my colleagues were the first in our families to go to university - a choice which did not please my father who would have preferred me to pursue a career in professional football - and have reaped its benefits.

Though some may be sceptical about this, we have also given something back to society as a result of our education, as every graduate does.

For many people of my generation, university was not an option and it has yet to shake off its deeply entrenched image as a preserve of the elite.

Everything Labour has done to challenge such attitudes, extend opportunity and raise aspirations, is to be applauded. To offer people a choice and new possibilities is an achievement to be proud of, but to put a price on those choices strikes at the very heart of this endeavour.

This is why the prospect of variable top-up fees has proved so emotive an issue. Despite the concessions the Government has made, which are all welcome, unease over this central, unchanged proposal has not waned.

The reasons for this have been expressed by numerous MPs on several occasions: it will further the marketisation of higher education, the already rising burden of debt for students will increase significantly, certain institutions will benefit more than others which are likely to suffer, the Pounds 3,000 cap on fees may well be raised after a few years - and it is on that horizon that the prospect of an unregulated market, with privilege once again begetting privilege, looms.

ONE should add that deferred repayments do not apply to part-time students, and students aged over 54 will continue to be denied access to student loans.

The last point inadvertently underlines that older students, with a shorter working life, will find it more difficult to pay back the debt and thus feel its burden more.

Those of us who remain unconvinced that this is the way forward for our world renowned higher education system may come across to many as unreasonable. After all, the Government has been more than attentive in listening and responding to its critics within the Party. But the principle remains unchanged, and nothing causes as much fervour (or heartache) in politics as principle. That is what keeps it alive. And it is right that this debate should have occurred because it has forced us to address what our principles are, how they have evolved and where they are taking us.

This is something every political party must constantly do if it is to remain credible and accountable to its electorate.

This is not simply a case of Old versus New Labour, or an anti- Blairite camp conspiring against its leader. To present it as so cheapens the very concept of debate. Many MPs who have voiced their doubts over this policy are far removed from anyone's notion of the "usual suspects" and this is a point worth noting, if only because it underlines the depth of sentiment over the issue at stake.

I have found this episode far from enjoyable, particularly in the recent weeks where I have felt my loyalty to the Government being questioned. We did not fight for so long to come to power only to bring our own Government down.

And it is infuriating that genuine disagreement over policy should be turned into such an all or nothing scenario. This is not and needn't be turned into a government-wrecking or even leadership- challenging issue.

Nobody enjoys voting against their party, nor do they wish to be seen as voting for something they (and a great many of their constituents) do not believe in - both niggle equally at the individual conscience and in the end, the choice rests with the individual.

This is not to say that personal rivalries and grievances do not exist. In that sense, Parliament is no different to any other workplace. But when such a broad-based opposition to an issue has manifested itself then we have to look at this from a perspective other than that of petty feuds.

The fact that the Secretary of State for Education and I both represent Norwich could well have been used to beef up the headlines and trivialise the debate. Thankfully, it did not come to this. Indeed, the fact that we are friends, that we share an office in Norwich, as well as a website, and above all both actively support Norwich City FC, has made it all the more difficult to take opposing positions on this.

IFOR one have been particularly proud to serve as an MP in these two Parliaments. I have been able to contribute to important advances in my specialist areas of science and cancer care, for which I have constantly campaigned and which I know this government is committed to.

I have also taken every opportunity to further the cause of higher and other areas of education and cannot afford to abandon it now. This issue has been a long time coming on the political agenda, so let's think it through for the long term. If that takes longer than we might have wished, then so be it.

There is talk of the Government offering further concessions before tomorrow's vote, but they won't be enough to win my support. Of course the universities need money. I am the first to recognise that and have been going on about it for years. But under the current proposals, I am not convinced that the end justifies the means. Indeed, the means may spell a very different end to that we desire.

by Ian Gibson Labour MP for Norwich North

(c)2004. Associated Newspapers Ltd.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.