THIRTY years ago if you had managed to get an offer of a place at university lack of cash wasn't likely to stop you actually going.

The percentage of the population being educated to degree level was smaller and the grant system wasn't great but people managed to survive.

Since then higher education numbers have rocketed (the government has set itself a target of getting 50 per cent of our youngsters on to degree courses) and that means a huge increase in the costs of providing many more universities and funding students through them.

To pay for all this MPs today face a critical vote on government plans to impose variable top up fees of up to £3000 a year on students.

Those against the plans say that variable fees will inevitably mean that the best universities become the most expensive universities and teenagers from poor backgrounds will be effectively barred from them by lack of cash.

Such a system will give students from wealthy backgrounds access to a wider range of universities and that, it is argued, goes against the principle of education being provided on the basis of academic excellence and not means.

As students already leave universities thousands of pounds in debt because of loans taken out to pay for living costs the extra burden of finding tuition fees is likely to make many and their families have a good hard look at whether it is really worth continuing their education.

There is some logic in the argument that such a close look is worthwhile as more and more people plan to study subjects that would never have been considered academic enough for degree level ten years ago - and don't equip them anyway for the world of work.

But if we are to continue to develop as a nation it is vital that education should be attainable on the basis of academic ability and not the means of your parents.

Tony Blair has worked hard in the past few weeks to offer concessions aimed at persuading MPs not to rebel. But these proposals look to be fatally flawed.