LABOUR MPs opposed to university top-up fees kept their powder dry yesterday for a future battle as prospects of a rebellion against the Government’s policy fizzled out.

Ten Labour backbenchers joined the Liberal Democrats and Tories to revolt over higher education policy and a substantial number abstained after pressure from whips. But others who oppose the policy decided to support an alternative government motion that did not contain any mention of top-up fees.

Alan Johnson, the new Minister for Higher Education, used the opposition debate to defend plans to allow universities to charge top-up fees of up to £3,000 a year. He said that manual workers would continue to subsidise university students even after the fees were introduced in 2006.

He was challenged by the Labour MP George Mudie, a former Education Minister, to justify the policy during a Commons debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats. Mr Mudie asked him: “Is he really telling this House that working-class kids will be encouraged to go to university, when they are not encouraged by debts of £8,000 to £9,000 and we are now projecting a debt of £21,000? “Does he think they will be queueing up on working-class council estates, with this sort of policy, to go to university?” Mr Johnson replied: “I would not be in this post or proposing this policy if I did not feel that the proposal we are putting forward would damage the ability of working-class kids to go to university.”

Despite the introduction of tuition fees of £1,100 a year in 1997, he said, the proportion of working-class students was similar to the pattern that had persisted over 30 years.

Earlier he said that government funding for higher education was being raised by 6 per cent a year and “the labourer will continue to subsidise the lawyer, the postman to subsidise the philosopher”.

Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, who opened the debate, appealed to Labour MPs unhappy with the policy to rebel and vote for his motion: “This House calls on the Government not to allow universities to introduce top-up fees.” Although the Conservatives supported the motion, it was defeated with 193 for and 267 against, cutting the Government’s majority to 74.

Mr Willis said there was no guarantee that revenue from top-up fees would represent extra funds for higher education or be matched by lower government funding, which he claimed was the case with tuition fees. The prospect of higher debts would deter potential students from poorer families and not enough was being done to alter low numbers of working-class children at university.

Paul Farrelley, one of Labour’s leading opponents of top-up fees, said that many backbenchers were willing to support the Government’s amendment in last night’s debate as its motion had been crafted to make no mention of top-up fees. But he said: “I cannot support an amendment that sidesteps the issue at the heart of the debate.”

The Government’s amendment emphasised plans to abolish up-front tuition fees, raise the salary threshold for repayment of loans to £15,000 from £10,000, widen access to higher education by appointing a regulator and keep universities competitive.

Peers inflict defeat on Blair’s plan for media regulation Correction

The Government suffered an embarrassing defeat in the House of Lords yesterday over the Communications Bill (Raymond Snoddy writes).

Lord Puttnam, the former film producer, led an all-party rebellion over a clause about the nature of Ofcom, the media regulatory body being created by the Bill. An amendment designed to ensure that the interests of “citizens” were at the heart of the duties of Ofcom was backed by 179 to 74 and was supported by Lord Currie, the crossbench peer who chairs the new body.

The vote was the first defeat of the report stage in the Lords. The Government was defeated a second time when peers voted by 113 to 111 to give Ofcom a duty to encourage the take-up of broadband internet technology.

Lord Puttnam and other Labour peers such as the broadcaster and author Lord Bragg and the independent producer Lord Alli are opposed to two central measures in the Bill designed to liberalise media ownership rules in Britain. The rebel peers fear that allowing non-EU companies to own ITV, as the Bill proposes, will open the way for an American takeover. They also plan to oppose provisions in the Bill that would allow large newspaper groups such as News Corporation, parent group of The Times and The Sun, and Trinity Mirror, publishers of the Daily Mirror, to own (channel) Five. At the moment such groups can hold no more than a 20 per cent stake in commercial broadcasters.

The Culture, Media and Sport Department said that it had listened to the concerns of peers and that changes to the Content Board, which is part of Ofcom, could result.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Milk: do we need a dairy godmother?
• DIY: the women doing it for themselves
• First double portrait of Princes unveiled