POLITICIANS are preparing for a historic House of Commons vote on top up fees tomorrow but if they get the go-ahead, how will they affect the average family? We look at the impact on one city family, proud to see their children head off to university but wondering what it all means for their wallet...

WHEN 17-year-old Dan Fitzhenry waves goodbye to his Southampton home and leaves for university, he will be the first from his family ever to go.

Among all the emotions proud parents Jenny and Ray will be feeling, there will also be a sense of relief that he will be getting in ahead of the introduction of the dreaded top-up fees.

A straight-A politics, economics and history student at Barton Peveril College in Eastleigh, as well as Southampton's member of the Youth Parliament, Dan is looking at a bright future in one of the nation's top universities.

But he says his dream of the London School of Economics, where he has applied, might remain just that if he had top-up fees to contend with as well.

The fees, if backed by Parliament, are unlikely to be introduced until 2006, giving him enough time for a gap year.

"I am looking at probably running up debts of about seven or eight thousand pounds, which is possible to pay off and is just about reasonable," he said.

"Because I won't be hitting the new fees, debt isn't a big turn-off, but if I was it would be a significant worry for me.

"There are a lot of people in my year at college who are not going for financial reasons already. They have a dilemma - they fear running up huge debts and not getting the employment they need to pay them off."

The National Union of Students and other commentators have warned the new fees could bump up the average student debt from its current £21,000 after finishing a course to £30,000.

Dan's 16-year-old brother Matthew thinks university is not for him because he doesn't know what he wants to study.

"I know it's expensive and I don't want to get it wrong," he said.

But The Fitzhenry family's youngest, 13-year-old St Anne's Convent School pupil Claire, does harbour university ambitions and says she can't get her mind around the sums involved.

"I would like to go one day but I look at the money involved and wonder how I'll ever be able to afford it. I think everyone should be able to go if they have the brains, otherwise it is just for the rich."

Mum Jenny thinks university can already be a heavy strain on some families. "I am pleased that Dan isn't going to incur the tuition fees but in the back of my mind I am thinking about Claire as well, because it will affect her. I feel like Daniel has escaped the fees but the cost of university will still be a debt that hangs around their neck, like a mortgage.

"It always comes back on the family. That's what happens if the child hasn't got the money. It comes back to the family and puts a strain on your financial affairs because you always want to support your children."

While tuition fees aren't enough to stop Jenny's family from going to university if they want to, she says all families are not as lucky.

"We are fortunate but a lot of families are in positions where they can't afford it and children are not doing what they want to because of the financial implications."

VIEWPOINT: Dr Roger Brown, principal of Southampton Institute

THE government is planning, if Parliament agrees, to introduce top-up fees for university courses from October 2006. This is probably the most controversial issue ever to have arisen in British higher education.

Why has the government made this move? What will top-up fees mean for students and parents, for universities and colleges, and for Southampton and its citizens?

The background to the government's plan is the prolonged under-funding of higher education. The UK spends less than almost any other advanced industrial country on the provision of higher education.

The amount of funding each institution receives for each student has fallen by nearly 40 per cent since the beginning of the 90s. During that time the ratio of students to lecturers has roughly doubled. There is a backlog of capital spending, as visitors to most campuses will recognise, and academic salaries have fallen so far behind general movements in pay that it is not uncommon for newly qualified graduates to be earning more than their lecturers!

The government has acknowledged the problem but it is unwilling to increase public expenditure to the extent needed. There is both a bad and a good reason for this. The bad reason is its unwillingness to increase taxation in a cause which it sees as less vital and politically sensitive than hospitals and schools. The good reason is that the beneficiaries of higher education are still, very largely, from middle class backgrounds. They can or should be able to afford to make some contribution to the costs of tuition to reflect the private returns that accrue to them in the form of higher lifetime earnings. The government has therefore decided students should make a contribution to the costs of tuition in the form of a top-up tuition fee (at present students pay a means tested fee of £1,125 for which interest-free loans are available).

Students will find the cost to them of their course will go up - by £1,875 per year in current terms. But unlike now, they (or their parents) will not have to pay the money up front but only after they graduate, and then only if they earn more than the national average wage. Their living costs will not be affected though some students from poorer families will receive a small maintenance grant. Interest-free loans will continue to be available. Higher education will remain a "good buy"; graduates also get greater job satisfaction and live longer than non-graduates.

Institutions that charge top-up fees - almost certainly most of them - will gain additional revenues. However, these benefits are likely to tail off over time. It is hard to see the government resisting the temptation to offset the increase in private contributions from students (paid via the tax system) by reducing the contribution from the taxpayer: even after top-up fees, UK higher education will still be substantially publicly funded. Even before that, the government appears to be thinking of requiring institutions charging top-up fees to return a significant proportion of the revenue to students in the form of bursaries: this will of course reduce the revenues accruing to institutions. Finally, there are real concerns that students from the working class will be put off higher education by the increased costs to them of tuition on top of living costs, and that institutions that do not charge top-up fees (which tend to cater for such students) will become relatively poorer compared to their competitors.

The higher education system could begin to look like the English secondary school system with variations in resourcing and standards that are quite indefensible in a modern industrial society. If they pass the House of Commons, top-up fees will present all institutions with a huge dilemma. While many people will have reservations of the kind I have voiced, there can be no doubt that as the head of an institution my duty is to secure the most resources I can for my institution. Other vice-chancellors and principals face a similar dilemma. So I suspect that most institutions will go along with top-up fees. What will be the impact on Southampton? Southampton is fortunate to have, in the University and the Institute, two large, successful and complementary higher education institutions. While top-up fees should, if charged, assist both institutions in the short run, in the medium to longer term neither institution will be able to fulfil its full potential because of the years of underfunding to which top-up fees are only a partial response. If the taxpayer is not to provide the necessary funds then the amounts invested by individuals will have to increase, but it will take many years for this to be achieved.

VIEWPOINT: Southampton University Vice- Chancellor Bill Wakeham

Over the last 20 years universities in the UK have seen a reduction of about one-third in the funding they receive for each student, while the number of students attending university has almost doubled. It is now accepted that the savings imposed by these changes cannot be sustained without affecting the quality of research and teaching.

Universities are supported through a balance between public contributions, from general taxation - and private contributions - raised through fees.

This reflects the fact that universities work for the public good through raising the educational and economic level of the country as a whole, while providing a private benefit to students through enhanced earning potential. The three political parties, in their policies on higher education, now offer different balances between those public and private contributions, with the government's proposals in favour of shifting the balance towards contributions from individuals who have had the benefit of a university education.

I believe that the government's proposals for variable tuition fees paid after graduation and according to income represent the fairest way to implement the change.

Poorer students are eligible for a £1,500 maintenance grant, a reduction in fees of £1,200, and a university bursary of at least £300. This adds up to £3,000 which is the same as the maximum fee that universities will charge. Even students who are not eligible for the full amount of these awards pay nothing up front, unlike the present system which requires an annual fixed fee of £1,125.

TOP-UP FEES: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

What are top-up fees?

At the moment, almost all universities charge £1,125 a year up-front to students - the rate set by the government. If top-up fees are introduced, universities would charge fees of up to £3,000 a year. Students would not actually pay the money until they had graduated and started earning £15,000 per year. But the maximum figure universities are allowed to charge is widely expected to rise in the next few years - some forecast as high as £15,000 or £20,000 a year.

Why introduce top-up fees?

Universities say they are seriously under-funded, with nearly £10bn needed to get them back on track. At the same time, the government wants to see 50 per cent of young people going to university and needs to fund the expansion.

Why are people against fees?

Opponents of the fees warn they will create an elitist system, where it is wealth rather than ability which determines who goes to university. Students warn the scheme will create a two-tier education system and saddle them with crushing debts.

What help will there be for poorer students?

The government has just announced a complex support package to ensure students from poorer backgrounds do not lose out. The poorest 30 per cent will, from this year, get grants of £1,500 a year and bursaries of at least £300 if their university charges the top-rate tuition fee.

Universities will only be able to charge the full £3,000 once they have agreed a plan to take higher numbers of poorer students with a new body called the Office for Fair Access.

What are the alternatives?

There is no clear agreement on the best alternative. Southampton MP Alan Whitehead has won support for his proposal, which suggests fees are capped at a fixed rate of £2,500 and that all universities charge the same amount.

Some politicians favour a graduate tax, which students pay back once they start earning a set amount following completion of their course. The treasury says it could take as long as two decades to see any return on the investment.

Others still want to see the university funding gap rectified through general taxes.

When will they be introduced?

If the bill is approved by Parliament, tuition fees will be introduced for the 2006/7 academic year.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Tell us your views on the proposed university top-up fees.

Write to: The Southern Daily Echo, Newspaper House, Test Lane, Redbridge, Southampton SO16 9JX.

Fax: 023 8042 4770

E-mail: letters@soton-echo.co.uk