BERKSHIRE LABOUR MPs "PLAY FAST AND LOOSE" WITH THEIR MANIFESTO (David Rendel)

BERKSHIRE LABOUR MPs "PLAY FAST AND LOOSE" WITH THEIR MANIFESTO

January 28, 2004 12:00 AM

David Rendel MP kept his long-standing pledge to local people yesterday by voting against the Government's plan for university top-up fees.

The House of Commons was considering the Higher Education Bill. There was a 100% turnout of the 54 Liberal Democrat MPs, all of whom voted "no" to fees.

However, 3 Conservative MPs failed to vote against the Government, and the 3 Labour MPs in Berkshire - Martin Salter, Jane Griffiths and Fiona McTaggart - voted with the Government.

Mr Salter did so despite his statement in the House of Commons on 8 January that the Secretary of State "is asking an awful lot in asking us to play fast and loose with our own manifesto, on which he, I and every other Labour MP was elected".

The Government won the vote by just 5. If these three MPs had voted against fees, the Government would have lost by 1 vote.

Commenting, Mr Rendel - who is also the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Higher Education - said:

"It is deeply disappointing that the three Labour MPs in our county allowed the Government to scrape home by supporting university top-up fees.

"I am determined to continue the fight against these unfair plans for a poll tax on learning. I have written to each of Berkshire's three Labour MPs to ask them to think again about their position before the 3rd and final reading of the Bill."

ENDS

Notes to editors: Mr Rendel's letter to the three Labour MPs in Berkshire is copied below.

Letter from David Rendel MP to Martin Salter, Jane Griffiths and Fiona McTaggart

Dear Fiona, Jane and Martin

As you know, if the three of you had voted against top-up fees yesterday, the Bill would have fallen and your students and their parents would have been saved from the prospect of huge debts.

You are doubtless also aware that the Liberal Democrats share Labour's objectives of

• More money for universities

• Increased numbers of graduates

• Wider participation in HE from disadvantaged groups

• A larger contribution towards the costs of HE from those graduates who gain the greatest financial benefit from their degrees.

We are, however, convinced that our own proposals achieve each of these aims more quickly, more effectively and more efficiently. Up to now - and this was very obvious in the debate yesterday - the Government has been unable to give any reason for believing we are wrong.

I therefore appeal to you all to take a good look at our proposals, since your three votes could still save the Government on third reading from what will be a deeply unpopular policy at the next election if they continue to insist on it.

Yours sincerely

David