But the one criticism that cannot be levelled at the government's proposals is that it will make university unaffordable for future students. The system of financing for the teaching of higher education which is proposed by the government will be free for everyone during their studies. Payment will only be made after a graduate has finished their studies and only if they can afford to pay once they have a decent income. If they cannot afford it, the government picks up the bill. In the future, the income level which graduates have to cross before they are required to make a contribution will for the first time be increased in line with earnings so that graduates will no be dragged into repayments at lower earnings. And of course the government rejected Lord Browne's proposals for no upper limit on fees, and fixed both the regular future limit, and an exceptional one for exceptional cases, with additional conditions imposed.

This is materially different from the tuition fees regime introduced by Labour. Labour's system brought in fees which had to be paid by the student up front before they could go to university, which did put in place a real financial barrier to higher education. Labour's second fees scheme, top-up fees, was an improvement because it provided for extra loans to pay the higher fees, but still excluded part-time students who make up nearly one in three of the undergraduate student body. And Labour's fees system, which started repayments at an income level of £15,000, also never took account of inflation - meaning that graduates on lower incomes paid an ever higher proportion of their monthly income in student loans.

Of course it is not true to say that fees no longer present any issues affecting access to higher education. There is definitely still a belief or a feeling amongst many that fear of debt will put off many young people from applying to university. A quick scan of blogs and newspaper quotes as well as some of the comments or correspondence I have received as an MP reveals that some and possibly many people including parents and future students mistakenly believe that families will have to pay university fees for the children, which they cannot or may not be able to afford now to do.

This is why it is now more important than ever to make sure that young people and all other students are fully equipped with all the facts, and no fiction, about the costs, payment methods and advantages of higher education so that they are not put off from applying to university from fear of it being unaffordable. My own personal experience of conversations in recent weeks with teenagers in my ethnically diverse inner-city constituency and elsewhere showed that once young people were fully informed about the repayment plans they were much less worried that the new regime would still discourage people like them from applying to university. This is one of the encouraging reasons why I felt able and willing to take up the challenge of being the national advocate in England for access to higher education. But why I also do not underestimate the urgency and importance of the task.

This job is not helped by the vast amount of careless or intentional misinformation circulated about the government's plans, including from many people in the Labour party who voted to introduce fees in the first place and did not take any of the steps which this government has announced to remove financial barriers created by fees. Their hypocrisy is illogical and, worse, irresponsible - all the more so as the system proposed by the government is closer to the graduate tax that Ed Miliband says he now supports than anything his government achieved in 13 years in power.

But access to post 16 education is about more than making sure people are fully informed about the financial consequences of going to college or university. As well as this role, I will make recommendations to government for breaking down other barriers to further and higher education - and there are many.

The former Labour higher education minister David Lammy MP made clear just a few weeks ago that some of our best universities have a dreadful record on access for bright and talented students from local authority comprehensive schools and non-traditional backgrounds, this despite the legacy of free or heavily subsidised education. Serious action needs to be taken in this country to deal with the fact that private universities like Harvard or Yale in the United States which charge fees many times higher than the maximum level proposed for English universities manage to do much better in recruiting students and staffroom poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and minority communities than Oxford and Cambridge. Scholarships which pay for tuition fees need to be effectively targeted. As this government has already shown it understands by already announcing an increase in the maintenance loan, better systems are needed to prevent students racking up commercial debts to pay for their living costs. And those going into further education colleges need to be assured in advance that the inescapable costs of travel, equipment or a midday meal can be met.

I am clear that this government can and must succeed in creating further and higher education systems, and apprenticeships and training, where every person of talent and ability will know that they have the opportunity to have the best education or training available. If we do this we will have taken significant steps towards building the society aspired to by every Liberal Democrat, which is enshrined as a goal in our constitution and printed on our every membership card: "a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."